Confederate Yankee
April 08, 2010
NSFW: No Shame For WikiLeaks, Part 2
The founder of WikiLeaks admits he is an activist first and a journalist second in interviews. That label applies equally well to WikiLeaks, a group that attempts to turn video if combat deaths into a fundraising vehicle.
Read
Shame on WikiLeaks: Framing Lawful Engagement as Anti-American Propaganda (Part Two), and you'll never feel the same about them again.
(For those who missed it yesterday, I suggest first reading
Part One) and the excellent work done by the Jawa Report
here and
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:03 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Fox News appears to be on the case today - Kelly has a segment coming up shortly.
Posted by: Russ at April 08, 2010 12:31 PM (7r11k)
2
FYI, 'Exposing the WikiLeaks/Communist/Media Alliance'.
Posted by: Americaneocon at April 08, 2010 05:26 PM (VdX+H)
3
I watched the entire video released by Wiki Leak people. What I saw was the U.S. Military going to extreme lengths to verify the identity of the terrorists before opening fire.
I can think of NO other country, now, or in the past that would have taken such care to avoid civilian deaths.
Seeing what I saw and knowing what I know about warfare, I would have made the same call.
It also occurs to me that if these 2 reporters wanted to accompany the terrorists and film their side of the war, they are responsible for their own demise.
I also cannot remember any war where non-uniformed fighters were treated as prisoners of war.
Paul in Texas
Posted by: Paul Kanesky at April 08, 2010 08:33 PM (u93Jb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 07, 2010
NSFW: No Shame For WikiLeaks, Part 1
The WikiLeaks videos calling American helicopter pilots responsible for "collateral murder" hit the mainstream earlier this week, and now the backlash against the group's dishonest propaganda is beginning to explode.
Fox News is currently covering the controversy in its
lead story, and does present a decent overview of some of the issues.
If you want a true understanding of just how deceptive WikiLeaks was, however, you need to read
these posts by the investigative team at the Jawa Report, and a pair of articles I've written for Pajamas Media that tell the true story of what happened, starting with
Part 1.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:17 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
President Who Has "Known Islam on Three Continents" Removes References to Islamic Extremism From National Security Strategy Document
It appears that the White House is once again putting political correctness above all:
President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
As for the quote i cited in the headline, take it up
with the author, who we presume in this instance is
not Bill Ayers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:08 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Denying that Islamic extremism exists won't make it go away. It's there, woven into the very "instruction manual" [the Koran] on which the religion is based.
Obama is once again not acting as the real President of the United States, but trying to impose his fantasy dreams on the country and citizens he was elected to represent.
What an expensive and misguided experiment in political correctness he has been. And is.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at April 07, 2010 10:39 AM (Aaj8s)
2
Two points-by removing the term "Islamic Extremism" from the lexicon, he eliminates the implicit challenge to peaceful Muslims to confront and challenge those who misuse their religion. Second- I assume the WH and its messengers will no longer use the terms "Christian extremists" "Christian militants" or similar terms. Nor will we hear "right-wing extremists" used by Gibbs or Axelrod or Plouffe...right? Or is it just the Muslims who fly planes into buildings who get an "extremist" pass?
Posted by: kyle at April 07, 2010 12:28 PM (z5512)
3
Kyle ... I see you are buying into the misconception that there are 'peaceful Muslims' or 'moderate Muslims'. Even a superficial study of their instruction manual, the Koran, should disabuse you of this notion, which is mere politically correct pandering. To a practicing Muslim there are two kinds of people in the world, Muslims and infidels. If you are not a practicing Muslim, you are an infidel, and fair game for enslaving in one way or another or for killing. The Koran specifically tells you this, repeatedly. In the West, we have such people as 'lapsed Catholics,' and 'non-practicing Jews.' For one reason or another, they may have withdrawn, or fallen away from their original faith. But nothing in the Jewish or Christian faiths tells you, in their 'instruction manual' [the Holy Bible or the Torah] that such folks should be mistreated or killed. Judeo-Christian philosophy is a non-violent philosophy, which urges us to be our best selves, and to love the neighbor and the stranger. There is nothing in the Koran which urges this.
I've been waiting since 2004 to see some "moderate" Muslims come forward and condemn their fellow religionists for honor killings, genital mutilation and brutalization of the women in their families for the smallest of misbehaviors or errors, beheadings of strangers, etc. So far, not one "moderate" Muslim has surfaced.
My advice is ... don't hold your breath. Use your head instead -- if you want to keep it.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at April 07, 2010 01:31 PM (Aaj8s)
4
"I learned everything I needed to know about muslims on 9/11."
Posted by: bman at April 07, 2010 02:40 PM (xPqkd)
5
@ Marianne Matthews
My advice: If you aren't a troll, just stop talking. Your remarks are bigoted and misguided. I'm sure you believe that all priests molest children as well.
Or is it just those who look and speak differently than you whom you tar with the same brush as the worst in their religion?
Posted by: MAModerate at April 07, 2010 08:42 PM (knhh6)
6
MAModerate ... That's a silly name. What is your real name? Are you afraid to sign your anonymous insults? Or don't you, can't you define terms and enter into a logical discussion of your point of view?
I signed my post. When you get the guts to sign yours with your real name, we'll talk.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at April 07, 2010 10:20 PM (Aaj8s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Knocking Down Another NY Times Smear
The ideologues at the increasingly partisan Times managed to slip in another attack against the Tea Party Movement several days ago, comparing them to the domestic terrorists of the Weather Underground.
Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the Weathermen and helped stop one of their attempts at mass murder, is understandably
disgusted with the comparison of today's patriots with the left-wing terrorists the
Times has all but embraced.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:31 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dave,
I think McVey wanted limited government, the tea party wants limited govenment along with other issues that would increase our freedom. So you are saying that we all are McVey. Well, possibly, as we have been disenfranchised and our elected representatives do not listen to us, even though we constitute a majority opinion, then the outcome could be similar to McVey's actions. But note that the liberal opinions the CY has reported only constitute about 20% or less of the population. Obama was elected as a centrist and immediately moved far left. This was not the mandate given by the US. Many liberals are moving to the repulican party agenda as a consequence and his popularity numbers are falling drastically. If the eledtions in November don't reflect the will of the majority, then expect more McVey's. But it is not the same as the SDS or other radicals.
Posted by: David at April 07, 2010 11:13 AM (dccG2)
2
David:
Want to know why politicians don't implement more limited government? Because people don't vote for politicians who cut government.
Look at the following poll below that just came out. People don't like taxes, but they do like services.
Until the tea party specifically focuses on certain areas to cut, and gets their own conservative politicians to follow through in these areas, they aren't really serious. Get a candidate to say I'm going to cut A, B, C, D, and E, and then we're talking. That candidate will likely become very unpopular, but at least the tea party will have demonstrated it is serious.
http://washingtonindependent.com/81684/the-futility-of-budget-cuts
Posted by: Nate at April 08, 2010 12:53 PM (rMDl5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 05, 2010
Tangos Down: WikiLeaks Misrepresents Apache Assault on Medhi Army Militia
WikiLeaks has posted video of what they decided to frame as "collateral murder."
Anyone with a passing knowledge of the strict rules of engagment our soldiers and aviators follow, and who took the time to pay attention to the audio and video, cannot be swayed by the deceptive rhetoric offered up by WikiLeaks. While the video below confirms the deaths of two Reuters employees and the wounding of two children, it also confirms the presence of weapons within the first few seconds of the video playing.
Two Reuters employees made the mistake of joining a ragtag group of Muqtada al Sadr's Medhi Army militia, some of which were still clearly armed, with at least one folding stock AK-pattern assault rifle (3:41, top left) and an RPG-7 (3:44, second from top left) antitank rocket carried by men at the rear of the group (the Reuters employees were near the front) in the video that WikiLeaks chose to show us.
As for the father who made the tragic mistake of trying to intercede in a hot combat zone with dust still rising and blood flowing... I admire his courage, but question his intelligence. He put his children in harm's way, and broke laws of war that civilians in their fifth year of war should have known by rote.
People die in war, and those who die aren't always combatants. It sucks.
But it isn't a crime.
We would all be better off if some of those who decided to opine about things they don't understand would withold their
ignorant commentary so that those who
do understand can cut through
the deception offered by WikiLeaks' editorializing.
Update: Dan Froomkin, fired from the Washington
Post for too-liberal bias, captures the idiocy we're seeing from terrorist defenders in just
two short paragraphs:
Two crewmen share a laugh when a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the corpses...
[snip]
...The helicopter crew, which was patrolling an area that had been the scene of fierce fighting that morning, said they spotted weapons on members of the first group -- although the video shows one gun, at most. The crew also mistook a telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade.
The vehicle than ran over what appears to be human remains in a vacant lot filled with trash and rubble was decidedly not a 27-ton Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), a tracked personnel carrier similar to a tank, but was instead a much smaller 4-wheeled Humvee, as is obvious in the video.
Froomkin, who can't tell a tank from a truck, wants us to believe he has the discernment to tell a telephoto lens from a grenade launcher carried by a different individual at the rear of the group in the opening of the video (3:44, top of frame, second man from left).
Update: Got a call from BBC Radio, and may be on
World Have Your Say between 1:00-2:00PM ET to discuss
this story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The really sad part about this is there were only TWO Reuters propagan--I mean "journalists" involved. A decent start though.
Posted by: Earl T at April 05, 2010 11:37 PM (Or/bw)
2
Two questions. Is that an RPG or a camera lens? How do you know the guy carrying the AK-47 is in Sadr's militia as opposed to a civilian carrying a rifle? There were lot's of armed body guards in Iraq circa 2007.
I don't think there's murder in that video, but I'm not at all convinced there were any bad guys in the video either. I see a bunch of guys milling around. As you say after 5 years of war you'd think guys engaging, or planning to engage US troops would pay at least nominal attention to the gunship circling them, these guys look bored until all hell breaks loose.
The unarmed guys trying to help a wounded man paid the ultimate price for showing tremendous decency. I'm not sure what rule you think they were supposed to know -- leave people to die because someone with a 30mm might lobby to kill you for showing courage and humanity? With extreme power comes extreme responsibility, when you're in a helicopter 1000m+ from some unarmed men carrying a wounded man it seems to me you have the responsibility to exercise more restraint, but then again I wasn't there.
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2010 01:40 AM (TNxYU)
3
Nice comment Earl, maybe you could tell that one to the journalists families.
"I question his intelligence"
Of course you do.
Posted by: angryflower at April 06, 2010 02:29 AM (lo51T)
4
Propagand--er, I mean "journalists have families?
Who knew? Since thay always suck up and leech off the emotions of real families in distress.....
Posted by: Earl T at April 06, 2010 08:37 AM (Or/bw)
5
its a war zone.
I saw nothing outside the rules of war.
armed men in a war zone were targeted and destroyed.
war is ugly business people who question and want to sanitize war of all collateral damage, or want to armchair quarterback after the fact are clueless fools. the only thing layering rules that make it impossible to fight a war as a war accomplish is to create more misery in the end and more deaths of american service men and women. it allows the enemies to use non combatants as shields and rewards them for that behavior.
the above seems to need to be said over and over and over through every episode and every conflict
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 06, 2010 10:18 AM (60WiD)
6
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 06, 2010 10:26 AM (60WiD)
7
The video clearly shows a man leaning around a corner and confronting the Apache. When a military aircraft is circling you, your response is to do nothing and disperse. Otherwise, you see the result.
As to the laughing, big deal. Have you ever killed somone or been is a very dangerous situation? When it is over you have a huge hormone rush. You laugh. It is part of human nature. If you haven't done this, go out and get some life experience.
Posted by: David at April 06, 2010 11:13 AM (dccG2)
8
Dan Froomkin, fired from the Washington Post for too liberal bias
I guess CNN was not hiring at the time.
Posted by: flenser at April 06, 2010 11:46 AM (JemlK)
9
"Nice comment Earl, maybe you could tell that one to the journalists families.
"I question his intelligence"
Of course you do.
Posted by angryflower at April 6, 2010 02:29 AM"
Angryflower,
While you are up on you high horse, consider this about "reporters" in a war zone:
"Reporters" do not wander randomly about looking for news.
"Reporters" attach (or "embed") themselves to groups likely to make news.
These "Reporters" were embedded.
The group the "Reporters" were embedded in were not on the side of US.
The group the "Reporters" were embedded with are notorious for hiding in and amongst the civilian population.
Do you also feel the same sense of outrage about the deaths of the following "Reporters":
Paul Moran
Michael Kelly
Julio Anguita Parrado
Christian Liebig
Jeremy Little
Rupert Hamer
Michelle Lang
Or does the fact that they were with US, British or Canadian Troops change something?
Posted by: Wildman7316 at April 06, 2010 03:19 PM (mBogJ)
10
The unarmed guys trying to help a wounded man paid the ultimate price for showing tremendous decency. I'm not sure what rule you think they were supposed to know -- leave people to die because someone with a 30mm might lobby to kill you for showing courage and humanity?
They drove into a hot zone in an unmarked van. I cannot speak to their decency (and neither can you), but we can definitely speak to their stupidity. This was a live fire war zone populated by non-uniformed combatants. No one in their right mind would expect anything different. And doing it with children in the vehicle demonstrates a callous lack of regard for their own safety.
So, don't demonstrate obvious threatening behavior in a war zone or soldiers will consider you a combatant and kill you.
Figure it out yet?
Posted by: iconoclast at April 06, 2010 03:56 PM (zKViF)
11
Or does the fact that they were with US, British or Canadian Troops change something?
Posted by Wildman7316 at April 6, 2010 03:19 PM
ya think?
Some of this reminds me of this old James Fallows article about reporters and their loyalties. Mike Wallace stated in this discussion that he would just "roll tape" while Americans were being gunned down. Clearly these two Reuters employees were willing to do the same--which puts them on the same footing as the enemy--or even worse, since their footage would be used as propaganda to encourage even more ambushes.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 06, 2010 04:06 PM (zKViF)
12
It never occurred to me that someone could characterize carrying a wounded person as 'obvious threatening behavior'.
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2010 10:40 PM (TNxYU)
13
well jim thats because you live a sheltered normal life in which you can afford to be generous.
but existance in war is quite different and combatants allowed to leave the field of battle alive will come back to kill you or your best friends later.
let me put this bluntly, the only acceptable outcome where you allow the enemy to live is where they surrender. cease hostilities in place.
did you get that? that means that an enemy fleeing the battlefield is a threat who is escaping and will carry the battle back to you at a latter date.
that means they are STILL COMBATANTS UNDER THE RULES OF WAR AND ARE STILL CONSIDERED TARGETS.
look man no offense but you have to open your eyes to the fact that war is about survival for your side, not equality of outcome and not fairness.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 06, 2010 11:49 PM (60WiD)
14
There's a spot in that video where a guy is by a corner, he's carrying a RPG, he lays it down and is looking around the corner on his knees. That is the direction a squad of US Marines are coming from. IF you look a little longer in the film, the guys are all huddled by that corner, not out in the open where anyone coming down that street would see them. The pilots knew what they were up to, and they were in charge of monitoring the squad on the grounds path. They did their job well. WELL DONE Crew.
Sorry for the kids being in the way, but oh well, you brought your kid to the scene of a battle WTF were you thinking? Sucks but better them than one of our guys. NEUTERS could stand to lose about 100 more as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Robert at April 07, 2010 12:31 AM (Cpkks)
15
"Two questions. Is that an RPG or a camera lens? How do you know the guy carrying the AK-47 is in Sadr's militia as opposed to a civilian carrying a rifle? There were lot's of armed body guards in Iraq circa 2007.(snip)
(snip)when you're in a helicopter 1000m+ from some unarmed men carrying a wounded man it seems to me you have the responsibility to exercise more restraint, but then again I wasn't there.
Posted by Jim at April 6, 2010 01:40 AM"
Jim,
The short answer to both of your questions is, you don't know and you can't know. Now the question is, do you risk the lives of your comrades by not assuming the worst case scenario is the correct one?
Especially when just before and very nearby there had been an attack on US Troops using among other things, Rocket Propelled Grenades. Funny that WikiLeaks didn't mention that fact, AOLNews does only grudgingly, it takes them eight paragraphs before they mention it.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/pentagon-video-of-slain-journalists-released-by-leak-group-wikileaks/19426876
Both of these sites answer this "debate" better than I can:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/04/the-wikileaks-video.html
And Jim, as to your last question, that was answered a long time ago by a Roman:
"He that fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again." -- Tacitus
At that point in time you have a binary solution set; throw your weapons away and lie face down spreadeagled until taken into custody or try to run and die.
Posted by: Wildman7316 at April 07, 2010 04:00 AM (mBogJ)
16
there was at least one rifle, at least one RPG (3:45),
BUT the guy with the RPG disapearing behind the building is NOT the same guy holding something behind the corner of the same building seconds later. Look at 4.12, that IS a photographer with a SLR and a large lens, no doubt.
I don't blame the crew to mix the two up, but I think that was the trigger to the attack.
I still don't see why they shot the family van though.
Posted by: Daniel Apostol at April 07, 2010 09:20 AM (c30R5)
17
"I still don't see why they shot the family van though.
Posted by Daniel Apostol at April 7, 2010 09:20 AM"
Daniel,
The "Opposition" had a habit of having vans and/or trucks staged nearby with which to make a quick getaway. Knowing this, the US and British Troops made it a practice to disable vans and trucks in the area to prevent said fast getaway. Yes, the Coalition Forces ending up replacing quite a few vehicles when claims were turned in. (What? You're surprised that the "Opposition" used vehicles that didn't belong to them?)
Posted by: Wildman7316 at April 07, 2010 10:46 AM (+OSRr)
18
Fact is, the pilots lied in order to gain authorization to shoot by claiming that an RPG was launched. That never happened. In fact there was never any danger to any US personnel during the entire 38 minutes until US soldiers came within range of the obviously trigger-happy apache pilots who are earlier heard begging to be given an opportunity to shoot an unarmed, injured man.
The claim that any of these people were "insurgents" is preposterous. At no time on the video are any of the people murdered showing any posture at all that could be considered threatening.
Posted by: Rick Fisk at April 07, 2010 11:08 AM (nAfco)
19
you just keep living in your fantasy world.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at April 07, 2010 11:56 AM (60WiD)
20
I gotta say, that was brutal. Gunning down those guys who were trying to help him...
But think about who those reporters were hanging out with. They had RPGs. RPGs are not used to defend your home against intruders/hunting/target shooting, they are used for offensive purposes. They were obviously up to no good, even if they seemed relaxed.
I could possibly, maybe, sorta kinda see the need to show more restraint if it was just a rifle... but not an RPG.
The fact that the rescuers who were trying to help got shot really sucks. They obviously had no idea what the hell just happened and were just trying to save a wounded man's life. Too bad the freaking terrorists use similar methods of evacuating after an ambush. It sucks and it's not fair, but that's the nature of collateral damage.
Let that be a lesson to everyone: If there are skirmishes going on in your neighborhood that you don't want to be involved in, DO NOT GO OUTSIDE WITH A WEAPON. Especially if the skirmishers dress in plain street clothes!
Trying to help the wounded when you are dressed like them will get you shot!
In fact, if you don't want to be involved, you'd do best to just stay inside and lock all the doors until you haven't heard any shots for a few hours.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 07, 2010 12:00 PM (2oOmn)
21
OK: Now what they DIDN'T Show was the continued footage of our guys adminstering IMMEADIATE first aid to 1st) The kids. and then 2nd) The 'other injured.' I've seen the whole footage (buddy of mine has it) and what they also don't mention is the "family truckster" was filled with MORE weapons.
As to the children being there IT IS A FACT that the "bad guys" bring the kids with them to provide plausible deniability as the majority of to Western minds (i.e. American troops and Coalition Forces) could never fathom bringing an innocent into a free fire zone. Unfortunately, almost ALL of Baghdad was/is becoming a free fire zone again, but in particular, the Islamics rely on the concept of "Insh'Allah" as "It's all God's Will" which means that if the children are to die/get injured/ectectect. its NOT the fault of the deranged parent, but the "Will of God" that what happens, happens.
This embodies the problem with Islam, and the strict adherents to a warped mindset that absolves ANY and ALL personal responsibility. I've been "In Theater/In Country" now going on 6 Years, 2 Months, and 2 days and a few hours (but whos @#$%ing counting?) and I've seen the tragic results of it. Just go to Kuwait and drive on the highways... car wrecks galore, and small corpses of infants and 2-3 yr olds tossed about, because they don't believe in using car seats... I'm haunted more by that than some of the cringe inducing stuff I've lived through here... Didn't you hear? "It's all God's Will!"
We as Americans weren't even allowed to stop and render aid, for if we were to save someone, we could be sued (and subsequently lose in a Sharia Court) for having interfered with the "Will of God"
A lack of empathy toward fellow man, a lack of caring as "its never their fault"... that it's all "Insh'Allah" allows them to perpatrate unbelievable acts of barbarity without having a conscience, as the Almighty (their perverse version) is the only truly responsible party.
To those who cry over this, and rend and beat their chest demanding Mea Culpas, I'm sure they haven't got the Testicular Fortitude to come over here and see what THE REAL DEAL IS.
Hell... call this an open invite. Any pressfest who wants a tour of the Greater Baghdad Area, email me and I'll tell you how to get in, and I'll pick you up at BIAP, and show you around... If you can hack it that is.
Somehow, I don't think my invite will be taken up on, as it'd ruin some great pre-ordained assumptions....
Posted by: Big Country at April 07, 2010 12:23 PM (H/RUP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So Easily Drawn In
This is just the latest example of stupid politics from a thin-skinned lightweight of a President:
Obama's shot at Limbaugh and Beck demonstrates that a long-running White House effort to undermine influential elements of the Republican coalition remains in effect.
Asked generally about the "level of enmity that crosses the airwaves," Obama slammed Limbaugh and Beck by name.
"Well, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, and it's troublesome, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out," Obama said. "It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling like there is a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country."
Anyone—and I do mean
anyone—knows that you never address your critics directly if they hold a lesser status than you do, because doing so diminishes your status while acknowledging them and their credibility as a critic. Obama's been blasted on this before and has to know better... he just can't seem to help himself.
In response, Limbaugh and Beck have the chance to cast themselves as the victims of a vindictive and petty White House.
This is dumb politics. No wonder the rest of the world recognizes our President as a rube.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:45 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think that Obama didn't address them as much as dismiss them. He didn't suggest their arguments had any merit but rather suggested their popularity is a natural outgrowth of rough times. I actually think its smart politics. BHO suggests the arguments have no credence, but are rather just another thing thoughtful Americans have to put up with. I think it works, it is what he has always done, co-opted his opponents by simply defusing their most powerful arguments. in fact, he can point to the lack of fireworks during this round of town hall meetings as proof that as the economy improves, anger declines and Beck and Limbaugh lose what little influence they have.
Posted by: KGE at April 05, 2010 12:03 PM (YwNA8)
2
Suggesting arguments have no credence by tossing out some names and saying speaking in generalities is hardly "dismissing" an argument. It's a typical President Obama use of language - a low idea to word ratio.
Posted by: notsomsm at April 05, 2010 01:38 PM (5q/vg)
3
If Obama were any more thin skinned, his head would have a reservoir tip.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2010 02:32 PM (yTndK)
4
KGE,
As CY indicates, if you hold a superior position, you never, ever acknowledge the opposition. By doing so, even dismissing them, you empower them. As to the lack of Firworks, try the fact that he only talks to audiences that are screened. Yet even with this, he was stabed with a question he could not answer and is critical to our future.
The reason that Americans are feeling anxious about the economy is not that we are in one of the worse depressions in our nation's history. It is because we have a president who doesn't even know what an economy is much less how to read the play book on getting the country out. Americans are not that stupid and do realize that the actions this nut is taking will worsen the finicial pain and reduce our wealth and prosperity. In fact, the major leaders in the Democratic party have readily acknowledged the desire to take our wealth and give it to less productive people, here and around the world. That is not the government we signed up with. If the elections don't change things, then other methods will be used.
Posted by: David at April 05, 2010 03:09 PM (jHK8i)
5
KGE - What Democrat Congress people have been brave enough to hold town hall meetings over the Easter recess? Can you provide any examples?
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 05, 2010 06:18 PM (3O5/e)
6
Well, there's Phil Hare. More please.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2010 06:31 PM (yTndK)
7
Every day reveals more clearly that P.Obama believes himself to be a ruler, above criticism, not above crushing private citizen opposition with the power and position of the office of President of the United States of America. P.Obama attacking Limbaugh, Beck, or any individual American is like the parent who runs onto the Little League field and attacks the 11 year old pitcher who just struck out his son. Remember the Chicago treatment Joe the Plumber got for his innocent question? Obama's behaviour belittles his office, shames the nation, and demonstrates, again, the stupidity of the people who elected this affirmative action strutting thug president. Hail, Barry! In the famous words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon, what an ignoranimus!".
Posted by: twolaneflash at April 05, 2010 09:16 PM (svkhS)
8
"Well, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ...
When do you suppose he ever did that ?
Posted by: Neo at April 06, 2010 03:40 PM (tE8FB)
9
Those guys have huge bully pulpits and use them to spread foolish, vitriolic misinformation to millions of people. Their core message is always the same - Obama's a traitor who wants to destroy America - and it's incorrect. Why shouldn't the Prez point that out? I like it.
Posted by: beetroot at April 06, 2010 03:44 PM (aklb4)
10
PS No one needs to give Beck and Limbaugh the "chance" to portray themselves as victims of the Great and Treasonous Liberal Conspiracy. They do that no matter what's going on. That's what they are - professional victims - constantly, unstoppably whining.
Posted by: beetroot at April 06, 2010 03:48 PM (aklb4)
11
Not at all like the whining pos who is presently inhabiting the white house. Or the rest of the whinig socialists he has surrounded himself with, no, not at all. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: emdfl at April 06, 2010 06:33 PM (vwRFo)
12
KGE: Well said. It's very refreshing to read a thoughtful and factual response to a "vindictive and petty White House" critic.
Neo: I rather doubt that President Obama wastes much of his valuable time listening to drama queens like Limbaugh and Beck.
They are, as someone else pointed out, professional victims. They're making a very good living selling their snake oil. The fact that they enjoy such popularity adds no credibility to their message. The fact that nearly 2/3 of American citizens can't name the three branches of the Federal Government should tell us that we're not dealing with a bright electorate.
twolaneflash: You referring to the people who "elected" President Obama as stupid, reminds me of the old saying: "The pot calling the kettle black".
The President wasn't attacking Limbaugh and Beck. Rather, he was simply pointing out the fact that they are what they are; hate mongers (my words, not his).
Posted by: Dude at April 09, 2010 01:11 PM (5gxhz)
13
Dude should rename himself as "rube."
Let us restate that principal again: Never punch down, and never mention the name of an opponent. Barry failed on both counts.
Me, I think Rush is a loudmouth, and Beck is a shock-jock who's jockeying (heh) for a lead spot in the conservative radio market. Not impressed with the latter at all.
Either way, President Barry is a fool to accord them respect by mentioning them by name. In fact, when one objectively examines Rush's political influence (look up his pathetic attempt Operation Chaos), Obama seems to be reacting to a gerbil as if it were a wolverine. No offense intended to Mr. Limbaugh in this case.
The real calculus is this: far more people listen to Rush, and (God help us) Beck than to the President of the United States. Check the ratings. Let us leave the wisdom of that choice to a later date. Right now the fact is that the President of the most powerful nation on earth is dancing to the tune of a couple of fracking radio entertainers, while complaining about their comments. My apologies to my conservative friends out there.
And Rube (er, sorry, Dude): hand me a six-pack, and I can spend all sorts of time bit**ing about Rush and Beck (the latter more so). Sue me, I'm an independent. Point is that I am no fan of either man, but there is no sane, objective way you can call either one a "hate monger," unless your standards are hideously twisted. In fact, one would have trouble taking the charge seriously.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, has been dealing the race & hatred cards from day one, up to and including the incessant "you're just saying that because I'm black" knee-jerk defense. Try Google or Nexus for terms such as "tea bagger," "racist," or "bitter clinger." Not to mention "fly-over country."
Posted by: Casey at April 10, 2010 01:14 AM (k/2dm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2010
He's the One The Call Dr. Feelgood Bullsh*t
Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a "wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package.
"We are overtaxed as it is," Doris said bluntly.
In response, the Great Manipulator rambled for 17 minutes and 12 seconds... and to the best anyone can tell, still didn't provide an answer.
A simple "I have to raise your taxes to cover the trillions I'm forcing you to spend," would have been enough.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:21 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He had to. Couldn't allow any more questions like that to be asked. Only way was to run out the clock.
Amazing the WaPo ran a story on it, and though they seemed a little gentle, they weren't all that kind.
He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer -- more than 2,500 words long -- wandered from topic to topic....
Posted by: SouthernRoots at April 03, 2010 12:35 PM (FJRFk)
2
Alternately he could have said, "Nobody wanted to pay taxes for the last eight years so now it's time to pay the tab. The fact that health care is so astronomically expensive now is the result of not addressing the problem realistically 20 years ago."
Posted by: Steve Schwab at April 03, 2010 06:59 PM (mQ/+d)
3
Or, the failure to address the failing Social Security system 6 years ago, will result in our requiring to vandalize the health care system so that more old people die. . . .
Priorities - changing a system that works for the majority of the citizens, or fixing a real life, measurable failure . . . he chose poorly.
regards,
Posted by: Mike at April 03, 2010 08:34 PM (Exyh+)
4
My taxes are also too high, why not stop the waste, fraud and abuse before another tax hike?
Why not a drug test before we pass out welfare checks? I pay so much in taxes that I have thought about quitting real work and living off of the system, my pride has so far stopped me, so far but I work hard for my wages and resent the government taking my money and giving it to folks who will not work but can buy drugs.
Posted by: duncan at April 03, 2010 09:15 PM (8F8eU)
5
The fact that health care is so astronomically expensive now is the result of not addressing the problem realistically 20 years ago."
So costs are rising because we should have put people to death 20 years ago? Sounds like the kind of final solution you neo-fascist scumbags just love.
Posted by: iconoclast at April 04, 2010 01:16 AM (tOTvC)
6
IIRC "final solutions" are the exclusive property of the socialist/communist vision thing .
Posted by: emdfl at April 04, 2010 08:39 AM (vwRFo)
7
Why is health care so expensive?
Because the demographic group most in need of care - really old people - have a lifetime of savings to buy just a few more months of life.
Given the chance the elderly will dump that $100K+ RV and sink their life's savings into prolonging life by a few more years or months.
The fact that Barry does not think that is cost effective (take a pill), that Barry thinks these are typical old white people (like his own grandma), that Barry wants to take their money and give it to younger people of poorer demographic groups (reparations do not go far enough), was all well known before the election.
Hope and Change means different things to different people - Peggy knew these things before the election and knew that if she helped Barry, Barry is going to help her.
So, taxes? The One cannot come right out and say his plan is to take grandmas money, give it Peggy, and let grandma die, can he?
Posted by: Druid at April 04, 2010 09:51 AM (Gct7d)
8
It's quite simple. If your basic philosophy, your default position, is that government is the solution to every problem, real or imagined, you have no choice but to raise taxes, continually, without end, and on everything imaginable. Of course, for socialists, it's not even a matter of choice. Not only do they have no regret, it is as natural as breathing air. There is no thought process involved.
But they are just smart enough to know that most Americans, for the moment anyway, don't buy into their ideals or methods, so they must resort to the second facet of socialist philosophy: lying.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 04, 2010 01:54 PM (qjRSd)
9
Steve,
The reason for high health care cost is that th government has interfered in the system for the last 40 years. Currently, you pay more because the government pays less, less than the actual cost of care. So what you are paying is a tax. Now, you will not only pay that tax but additional ones that don't benefit you at all.
Wait, I just realized, you are likely a liberal and haven't paid tax and don't anticipte doing so as you likely are non-productive. Anyone who works is sick of this government and what it is doing. Likely you are a student, good luck getting a job if you decide to actually do something with your life.
Posted by: David at April 04, 2010 04:52 PM (jHK8i)
10
Just wait... the V.A.T. tax is next, and they're going to push it on us as a "soak the people who can afford nice things" i.e. "Da EEEEEvil Stinkin' Rich."
The word floated around here in Iraq (and Affy) was that during the last vist by him in Affy and Slow Joe here in Iraq was they asked about how us contractors would react to our tax free status being lifted (along with the G.I.s.) Word is that the Higher Higher asked back if they really wanted to spark an open rebellion and have the war end, b/c almost every single one of us here (civilians) are here so we can earn our hard cash w/out the FedGov soaking the living hell out of us. My first year here was all about patriotism and supporting the troops... until I got blown up the first time... then it was all 'about the benjamins' and troop support being a secondary... I KNOW that if they started to tax us at 'normal rates' (what with the average salary being over 100K to start... being unarmed in a war zone tends to make the cost a bit higher) that me and about the other 200,000 of us contractors would walk. As in "Deuces! Been fun but not so much now!"
Considering that the whole 'contracting out' the war support infrastructure has been around for a long time (and no... not under Bush 1st or Bush 2... it was Clinton and Bosnia, despite the liberals screaming about Halliburton/Cheney and such... KBR and Halliburton first got their REAL start under Clinton... THAT was the REAL start of it) But the fact is, they CAN'T have a war w/out us. We do TOO much that the military is incapable of doing these days, for wont of a lack of trained people. Contractors do all the cooking, feeding, supplying... hell... just about everything... if they start repealing the Expat Tax free status,, quite literally, this war would end for a lack of support. Nevermind we'd all qualify for unemployment, and add HUGE numbers to the jobless rate...
Anywhoo... VAT tax: We seem to be headed down the "British Model" of "Government by Nanny State" i.e. healthcare, rights for the oppressed and all the other bullshtien that the Brits have been innudated with so why not a VAT tax? Next they can also start taxing the TVs like they do in England... I'm telling you... do NOT be surprised when it happens.
Posted by: Big Country at April 05, 2010 11:38 AM (H/RUP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 02, 2010
Racist Black Congressman Runs Away From Spitting Lie; Constituents Shrug Shoulders and Do Nothing
Let the record show that the Congressional Black Caucus members who attempted to goad Tea Party protestors into making racial slurs in advance of the Obamacare vote failed in that tawdry enterprise, and when they failed, they then lied. They claimed they were spat upon, or heard cries of "n*gger."
The congressman who heard the slur now claims that
he never heard anyone utter the slur (an anonymous staffer gets the blame), and now his fellow race-baiter Emanuel Cleaver is trying to
blot out the lie that he was intentionally spat upon.
I am getting tired of Democrats attempting to use false cries of racism as an excuse or cover for their behavior, and I'm even more disgusted with the constituents that continue to allow their representatives to continue to act this way.
Do these voters have any sense of community or personal pride? Why do they allow continual racist demagoguery on their behalf? Are they never embarrassed by the
blinding ignorance or transparent stunts of those they elect?
True equality means wanting to be judged based upon the merits of your intellect and strength of your character. Instead, we see whoring politicians attempting to provoke reactions to their skin color instead of their inept championing of flawed ideology.
Blacks in America have claimed for years that they want equality.
Until they start electing representatives from their communities that can rise above their most base and vile instincts, take that claim with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:08 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This isn't a jockeying for political advantage.
This is inciting to riot..
Time to call it for the crime it is.
Time to vote the tyrants out of office.
Civilly. Peacefully. But decisively. These folks need to go away.
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2010 11:15 PM (96r/F)
2
As long as Congress has the capacity to spend money from other districts, other districts must have the capacity to vote and/or replace them. Any alternative would be tyranny.
We need a Federal government that provides representation respective to taxation. The founders provided for a system which didn't permit such unaccountable seizures of others property.
Posted by: Hatless Hessian at April 03, 2010 11:39 AM (7r7wy)
3
I am getting tired of Democrats attempting to use false cries of racism as an excuse or cover for their behavior,
The d-baggers also use the race card to avoid criminal charges.
Let's see...a command and control style economy implemented through government directives on private industry, check.
Obsession with race, check.
Ignoring inconvenient laws and redefining laws on the fly, check.
Cult of personality politics, check.
Encouraging lawless thuggery while complaining about the (non-existent) same of their opponents, check.
And they call us fascists??
Posted by: iconoclast at April 03, 2010 03:02 PM (yTmCE)
4
The constituents of these congressmen want cash from the stash, as some of them said so poetically in Michigan, and, really, nothing else. How the congressman obtains said cash is of no concern to them, nor is his actions in any sphere. These feelings are not isolated to the Black community, and in fact are even more prevalent among whites, especially those supported by tax revenue, directly or indirectly, in some way.Under Obama, more than ever, politicians have become marauding brigands whose followers are thirsty for loot and will forgive any trespass by their commander, any lie, any crime, to get it.
Posted by: mytralman at April 04, 2010 04:08 PM (j0lZ4)
5
Is the Congressman you are talking about John Lewis? He is my representative so this is of significant interest to me. If so can you provide a link to his retraction. This is first I have heard of this.
Posted by: Tim Sotack at April 04, 2010 10:07 PM (i2yb5)
6
Everybody lies. This is without exception.
A lie told for public gain is slander and we do have laws about that. Polticians are mostly attorneys who are mostly professional liars. Enough said.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at April 05, 2010 09:03 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Kutner Kills Himself Off (Again)
This time he did it to get out of the White House.
Who needs Washington when you can have White Castle? Kal Penn's reps confirm that the actor will leave his post as Barack Obama's associate director of public engagement to return to his acting career. First up for the actor: a new Harold & Kumar movie, this one with a Christmas theme. New Line Studios has confirmed that the movie, to be directed by newcomer Todd Strauss Schulson, will begin filming in late June with an eye on a holiday 2011 release.
How bad must the White House have been for Penn to bail on the Obama Adminstration in favor of a stoner movie?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:39 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I see no reference to Sean Penn in the quote.... I realize that the Hollyweird Lefties tend to blur together a bit, but they do still keep their own names.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at April 05, 2010 11:20 AM (zGCLY)
2
Obviously too early in the morning for me to be posting. Somehow I missed that Kutner = Kal Penn (who?) or something.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at April 05, 2010 11:22 AM (zGCLY)
3
That has to be one of the most bizzare write outs I've ever seen on TV. Random suicide out of nowhere? If you have to kill him off do the classic crazed gunman in the hospital, or have him flip his car, or resign to join Doctors Without Borders.
Posted by: Britt at April 06, 2010 11:09 PM (VN7Wi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FBI Warns of Threats From "Sovereign Citizens" Group
Letters sent to more than 30 state governors from members of the "sovereign citizen" movement are getting the attention of state and national law enforcement authorities.
The letters—addressed to Democrats and Republicans alike—warn the governors to step down within three days or be removed. Authorities do not see threats of violence in the letters, but "fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently."
The group that sent the letters calls itself "Guardians of the Free Republics" and their
Web sites reek of the kind of tin-foil nuttery you would expect from the 9/11 Truthers, Obama birthers,
chemtrail conspiracy theorists and Alex Jones-followers that the broader movement represents.
I've met and (once worked with) believers true believers in this stuff and agree with the FBI's apparent assessment that the people themselves are loony, but mostly harmless.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:43 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Did you see that the only one of the recently arrested militia group to profess a political party voted democrat in the primaries for 2006, 2007 and 2008.
It is also fortuitous that the FBI was abke to arrest th mlitia group. Otherwise there might have been more attention to "Chicago (Muslim)cab driver indicted – also planned August 2010 attack against U.S. large sports stadium-29 March 2010: A federal indictment charging Raja Lahradib KHAN, a Chicago Muslim cab driver with two counts of providing material support to al Qaeda was unsealed Friday. The indictment also exposed a plan to bomb a “large sports stadium” in the U.S.” in August."
Posted by: davod at April 02, 2010 05:04 PM (GUZAT)
2
I did a little research into militia groups on the web. My impression was that the numbers are growing. I think the passage of the Obama bill was bad enough, but the manner in which it was shoved down our throats really set off a spark. Many are beginning to see that their opinions are not being considered with this Washington group. Or for that manner, any of the politicians. Consdier that we sent the Republicans to Washington in the 80's with the clear message to reduce the government. They didn't even give it a try!
I think history shows that when you get to this point with your government, you either go along like a good sheep or you fight. The ballot does not seems to work. These people are clearly on the margin, but their concerns and frustrations are very real for all of us.
Posted by: David at April 02, 2010 05:06 PM (jHK8i)
3
Stop lumping birthers in with the real nuts. People who want to see an original hard copy birth certificate are a far cry from those who think the government conspired to kill thousands of Americans to have an excuse to kill even more people. You may not agree with the birthers, but they just want a piece of paper for crying out loud.
Posted by: Jayne at April 02, 2010 10:53 PM (dwIL0)
4
So the FBI is not concerned about this particular group, it only the morons out there who will somehow get the idea that it would be a good thing to remove governors from their offices. Pleeeezzeee. Give me a break. Are we so gullible that we will act like liberals and start violence over something as stupid as this. Just in case a libtard is reading this, "NO WE AREN'T."
Posted by: TimothyJ at April 02, 2010 11:03 PM (IKKIf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Olbermann Out on "Countdown"? New Host Named?
As MSNBC's rating continue to plunge and viewers looking for the reassurance of a strong alpha male anchor continue to defect the Rachel Maddow Show, executives at the cable network are looking to replace Countdown host Keith Olbermann with a new host.
Eduard Khil, the perspective replacement for Olbermann, shares the political views championed by the network, and focus groups suggest that Khil
articulates his views better than the blustery former ESPN sports anchor.
More info
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:16 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How do you say "rick-roll" in Russian?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 02, 2010 09:17 AM (gAi9Z)
2
shares the political views championed by the network
How exactly are those views summed up? "Unhinged moonbattery with a side order of spittle"?
"Makes the Democratic Undergound seem like an island of mental hygiene"?
Posted by: flenser at April 02, 2010 09:39 AM (bdTaL)
3
I Hope he doesn't Change back to ESPN.
Posted by: bman at April 02, 2010 11:14 AM (xPqkd)
4
Is there anyone in the US that can sneer at us unblievers as he does? He is really able to convey his total disdane for anyone that does not believe in The One and the socialization of the US with just a single look. This is a great talent.
Posted by: David at April 02, 2010 01:36 PM (jHK8i)
5
A Rottweiler could articulate views better than Olbermann.
Posted by: zhombre at April 02, 2010 04:23 PM (vUWth)
6
I am afraid the Rottweiler would be far to bright for a spot in the news.
Posted by: David at April 02, 2010 05:08 PM (jHK8i)
7
Hope this isn't an April Fool's joke. There are only two words I want to say to Keefums--"Adios Muchacho"
Posted by: Mike at April 04, 2010 09:06 AM (ktYjH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2010
Blinded by Hate
One thing we have learned in the last few weeks is that hate speech is alive and well... on the editorial page, and directed squarely at people like you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:14 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I wonder what the Nazi's would have said in there editorials in the 30's if the Jews had said they weren't wild about the attitude and policies of Hitler?
Posted by: David at April 01, 2010 01:52 PM (jHK8i)
2
"... another Times columnist took up the gauntlet, smashing fury upon the unassuming mothers..."
What can one possibly say?
Posted by: Durr at April 01, 2010 03:51 PM (D8Vvz)
3
What Constitution?
Tuesday afternoon, Neil Cavuto interviewed Judge Andrew Napolitano about the constitutional challenges to the Democrats’ health care legislation. Here’s the transcript of that conversation:
CAVUTO: So the Supreme Court might rule in our favor on this?
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, there’s a couple of areas that are so clearly contrary to the prevailing law and the rights that the Supreme Court has said we’ve had that it’s hard to believe that the Court wouldn’t interfere. For example, the imposition on states to spend more money on Medicare.
I was in Florida over the weekend giving a speech and speaking to some folks and one of them happened to be a Florida legislator who told me that Florida has to come up with one billion dollars more than they have. They can’t borrow. They have to raise taxes and then they have to spend the billion the Congress told them. He looks at me and says “I thought we were a sovereign entity, an independent legislature.” I said “You’re right and the Supreme Court has ruled that the congress can’t take away the discretion from state legislatures, make them raise taxes and spend money they’ve collected how they want.” So that’s one serious area, which is one-third of the bill.
Another serious area is the individual mandate. I’m gonna quote Gov. Haley Barbour because he said it in such a pithy way. He said “The federal government can’t tell us to buy guns. How can they tell us to buy health insurance? They can’t make us wear shoes even though everybody wants to wear shoes. How can they make us buy health insurance? There is simply no authority in the Constitution.
CAVUTO: So when the administration leading Democrats say that individual states can make you buy car insurance, you say it’s night day?
NAPOLITANO: It’s night & day because you don’t have to own a car & you’re on a state-owned highway. This legislation requires you to, just by your very existence, to buy insurance. Suppose you’re in a hospice and about to die and you’re hopeless, do you still have to buy health insurance. Do you still have to buy health insurance? The legislation doesn’t say.
The third very offensive area is this one, Neil. The Supreme Court has ruled that our right to privacy when speaking with our physician is the most protected form of conversation we can have, more than to our spouse, more than to our lawyer, more than to a priest in a confessional. When you tell your doctor, now that this bill is passed, what your health problems are, he puts it or she puts it in a computer to which the federal government has access and then the federal bureaucrat tells the doctor which procedures are available for him or her to use on you. This is a violation of the highest-ranking right of privacy.
If you knock out the bureaucratic interference, if you knock out the individual mandate, it’s dead. There’s very little left.
These aren’t insignificant issues to be ignored. If the Supreme Court takes these cases and they rule in the federal government’s favor, they’ll be ruling that states don’t have the right to create their own budgets. That type of federal meddling can’t be tolerated because it would give the federal government the ability to essentially turn governors and state legislatures into automatons.
The reason why I’m optimistic that the SCOTUS will overturn that offensive provision of the Democrats’ health care law is because the Roberts Court understands history. They understand that the various states created the federal government, not vice versa.
Telling people that they must buy something is outlandish. The federal government can’t tell us what to buy, whether it’s health insurance, cars or guns. A point was made yesterday that SCOTUS ruled that it wasn’t commandeering when the federal government ordered the states to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21.
The reason why that wasn’t considered commandeering is because states that didn’t follow the federal government’s mandate lost 5 percent of their federal highway funds. That’s a big difference. States that don’t expand Medicaid according to the federal government’s dictates would lose 100 percent of their Medicaid funding.
Finally, it’s ironic that Democrats that howl about a woman’s right to privacy in choosing an abortion now tell people that all of their medical records will be available to federal bureaucrats. It’s all the more ironic considering the fact that SCOTUS has ruled that medical privacy is the highest form of privacy recognized by SCOTUS.
The Democrats that voted for this unconstitutional monstrosity will meet with an unpleasant fate this November. This won’t be a pleasant experience for them. Thanks to their unconstitutional overreach and their repeated ignoring the will of We The People, I’m betting that alot of congressional Democrats will experience massive involuntary retirements this November.
Posted by: c wren at April 02, 2010 12:14 AM (IaYmk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Party of No to be Visited By Party of D'Oh
The Politico reports that a trio of groups representing the lowest common denominators of left-wing politics is staging an utterly absurd public relations stunt:
Three liberal groups will drop off a petition at the Republican National Committee's headquarters Thursday, urging conservative leaders to "take responsibility" for threats and incidents of vandalism against Democrats.
The event is being organized by the Brave New Foundation, MoveOn.org, CREDO and Color of Change.
The groups say about 330,000 people have signed their petition, which urges Republicans to "apologize for your hate-spewing proxies in the Tea Party Patriots. It is not acceptable for you to build your party's political fortunes by encouraging and defending bigotry and hatred among your supporters."
Reader comments are running 26-1 against this coalition of the shilling as I write this, and I suspect the event merely serves as a useful reminder of just how radical the fringe is that these groups represent.
Presumably, these group will themselves accept responsibility for the
murders of
innocents that occurred because of left wing rhetoric during the Bush Administration, the
countless threats they and their drones issued, and for the compatriots
attempted terrorist attack on the 2008 Republican National Convention that was spurred on by their rhetoric.
What... You think they won't?
In that case, I'd advise that RNC staffers keep their hands in their pockets
where they'll be safe.
I'd also advise any RNC staffers avoid coming into close proximity to the group, to avoid beat-downs like the one their thugs gave Kenneth Gladney after shoutinging "
What kind of n*gger are you?"
For the sake of diversity, of course.
And make sure that you keep them away from anything flammable, since
burning people singly (or sending
a few tens of millions to concentration camps) is also part of their belief system... anything for the "greater good."
Lastly, after they leave, the RNC should have bomb disposal teams on hand in case the group plans on leaving something behind
other than a petition.
I'm not saying all liberals are violent, but with their documented track record, we can't afford to take chances.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:51 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
and the RNC should have a similar petition for them to sign taking responsibility for all the leftist violence and while they are at it a collection for the damages done by leftist violence.
Posted by: JP at April 02, 2010 01:39 AM (VxiFL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
When It Hits the Fan
Despite my chosen title, this isn't about healthcare (At least for those outside the potential blast radius). This is an article about a significant volume of crap generated outside of Washington, DC.
This quote makes the entire article worthwhile:
Last year, a hog farmer in Hayfield, Minn., was launched 40 feet into the air in an explosion caused by methane gas from a manure pit on his farm. He sustained burns and singed hair.
Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia is watching the situation closely, worrying that if the bubbles in the hog lagoon get too large, Indiana
could tip over.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:49 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just watched that pinnacle of the evolutionary process, Hank Johnson, on You Tube. I wonder why our country is in such a mess...
Posted by: Bill at April 01, 2010 09:01 AM (97qlc)
2
Johnson, by reports, has hepatitis-C which appears to have affected his mental capacity. Which leads to the question: Why haven't his fellow Democrats prevailed on him to take medical retirement? It's not as if the Fourth Congressional District -- Cynthia McKinney's district -- is about to elect a Republican.
Posted by: RNB at April 01, 2010 10:35 AM (WkjqG)
3
Johnson is sharing an old joke with an old friend in that clip. Look around. I think American Digest has the context.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at April 01, 2010 08:52 PM (8p2XX)
4
So was that Master or Blaster?
Posted by: Veeshir at April 02, 2010 12:43 PM (swLGT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 31, 2010
Promises, Promises
It seems that every blogger on Earth is responding to the news that the Obama Administration is considering opening offshore drilling areas. near Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, and along part of the East Coast.
Predictably,
most bloggers on the right find this to be welcoming news and a vindication of the GOP's energy policies, while the eco-left is
whipping itself into a lather of
outrage and
indignation... which isn't really news, since they'll go nuclear when the barista gets their order wrong.
Among all the wailing and high-fiving, I think only Dan Riehl
has it figured out.
This is nothing.
It is an empty promise of what could be
if the Interior Department at some date in the distant future deems it acceptable. It says so right
here:
But as a result of the Obama decision, the Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012.
It's a fake concession, designed to buy Democrats a chance at avoiding a total collapse in November, and perhaps for his 2012 Presidential run.
To borrow from
the Bard:
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:56 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good catch Mr. Owen.
this follows the old rule "If it sounds to good to be true then it probably is."
Posted by: Picric at March 31, 2010 02:26 PM (xJEYd)
2
I agree with Picnic. There's a big difference, in the oil business, between 'exploration' and 'production'. You gotta find it before you produce it. And finding it takes time and lots of money. If Mr. Obama was serious about producing more oil in our own country, he would make an executive order allowing our oil companies to produce the huge proven reserves of oil and natural gas locked in the Barnett Field [Texas and Oklahoma] and the even bigger field in the upper Northeast.
No, this is just Obama bloviating for effect, to distract us from the bad news about the economy, the giant costs of the healthcare plan, and the damage his tampering and insults to Israel have created in the Middle East. Remember, he promised in his campaign to "bankrupt the coal companies". Currently, about 50% of electricity is produced by coal fired plants. Where will that leave us? Freezing in the dark, I guess.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at March 31, 2010 02:43 PM (Aaj8s)
3
Not only is it intended to help Democrats in November and maybe himself in 2012, it wouldn't exactly surprise me if this wasn't intended to win over a few votes for his cap and trade bill, as well.
Never underestimate this guy. Nothing he does is for the good of freedom.
Posted by: Nancy at March 31, 2010 03:13 PM (3TdgB)
4
Well of course it's a sham. Those on the left understand that their leaders must, upon occasion, say things that are actually, well, rational, things that sane people would say and do. They understand that their leaders do not mean it, and that when the public heat dies down, it will all be forgotten.
In this case, Obama has in place in the federal bureaucracies, more than enough socialists to ensure that the permitting process moves at glacial pace, if that fast. In addition, he knows that all of his allies in the environmental and animal rights movements (and every other leftist organization) will file lawsuits that will keep any potential drilling tied up in red tape for decades. Notice also that he is suggesting drilling only offshore, where it is most difficult and expensive, rather than on more easily accessible and productive land-based fields.
But perhaps the best indicator that this is a sham is that Obama is doing nothing at all to clear away the innumerable federal and state obstacles that prevent the exploitation of domestic energy resources. Without repealing those, any attempt to drill is doomed to amount to little more than a trickle.
As always, the one sure way to know when Obama is lying is to actually see his lips moving.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at March 31, 2010 04:41 PM (qjRSd)
5
But the eco-activists are feeling "betrayed". Oohh, the schadenfreude.
Posted by: Penfold at March 31, 2010 05:10 PM (1PeEC)
6
It is worse than a scam. It is the undefined promise of a potential maybe possible exploration in an area that might have oil, and at the same time the shutting down of proven oil reserves being drilled in Alaska.
We're giving up a dollar now, in exchange for the possibility of getting a nickle next decade.
Posted by: Georgfelis at March 31, 2010 05:17 PM (eG/MC)
7
The conspiracy theorist is me says that he agreed to this, along with concessions for a limited growth in nuclear power, to get the RINOs to buy off on the Cap&Tax bill when it comes before the Senate this year.
I agree that it's a sham, but a dangerous one that could get the Graham, McCain, and other RINOs to vote YES for Cap and Tax.
Tarheel Repub out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at March 31, 2010 05:29 PM (OQEcO)
8
The picture I got in mind seeing this was one of Skippy dangling a very shriveled carrot, wearing a grin, hoping to lure people in so he could swing away with the very large cap-n-tax club behind his back.
This ruse will not result in any oil production. He's lied too many times about too many things to believe otherwise. This is just a short term tactic to divide and obfuscate.
I'm thinking the list of morons that will fall for this includes Graham, Snowe, McCain, and many other 'can't we just get along to get something done' ijits on the Hill.
Posted by: Wind Rider at April 01, 2010 12:53 AM (NiW2h)
9
@Wind Rider. Thats easy to find out for sure. Call his bluff. Assuming it is a bait and switch before any deals are done, drill first. That should get his own so PO'd that it would not help his cause one little bit.
Posted by: ron at April 01, 2010 01:46 AM (qOiUU)
10
Didn't Bush lift the executive ban on offshore drilling in July '08? If Obama has "opened up" drilling, who closed it down between '08 and '10?
But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.
Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar also announced last week that his agency would block drilling on public lands in Utah, criticizing the Bush administration for releasing its offshore drilling plan just days before leaving office.
Source
I wonder why this tidbit has been left out of most news stories I've seen.....
Posted by: SouthernRoots at April 01, 2010 10:55 AM (FJRFk)
11
Why would he "Open" up new areas for exploration when we have hundreds of fields that we know have oil and gas in them like Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico? He is doing this so that it will be years before any drilling actually takes place. What a small time hood!
Posted by: inspectorudy at April 01, 2010 10:41 PM (Vo1wX)
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at April 05, 2010 09:05 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Great Job Clearing The Crime Scene, Guys
I'm glad that law enforcement was able to take down the Hutaree cult without shots being fired, but as with the Waco raid, there is good reason to question to question whether how they executed the raids were in the best interests of public safety (which, coincidentally, is the subject of an article I'm writing for Pajamas Media).
But now I'm concerned that they did a less than stellar job of securing the crime scene, thanks to this line in a
Wall Street Journal report.
The Hutaree appears based at Mr. Stone's home, a pair of dilapidated house trailers near the intersection of dirt roads in rural Clayton, Michigan—population 303—about 85 miles southwest of Detroit. The yard this week held three cars, a dog house, debris and a gun leaning on an old washing machine. [my emphasis--ed.]
I'm going to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and suggest they can tell a firearm from a length of pipe. If they are, what does that say about the ability of the authorities to seal a crime scene? More importantly, if they are unable to secure weapons laying in public view in plain sight, can we trust that they have done a thorough job sweeping the area for hidden munitions, such as the kind of IEDs the Hutaree were presumably planning to use in the crimes they are alleged of plotting?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:39 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Maybe cleanup was lax because they got what they needed, a big successful raid and a massive change in the narrative that they are making up as they go along. Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing was a sham from the get go? First the story was planned attacks on muslims, then it was cops. What's next? A planned assault on Nasa?
Posted by: Jeremy at March 31, 2010 11:33 AM (eMy3J)
2
Actually the first question that comes to mind is whether that gun was there originally or left by the ATF by accident.
Posted by: jvon at March 31, 2010 04:57 PM (57nla)
3
It isn't necessarily a Hutaree gun. I can imagine some fed getting tired of carrying his gun, leaning it up against something, and walking away.
Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at March 31, 2010 04:59 PM (XZWie)
4
Yeah, my money is on the gun being an ATF weapon. It would be par for the course.
Posted by: Copper Quark at March 31, 2010 05:00 PM (OOehk)
5
"Actually the first question that comes to mind is whether that gun was there originally or left by the ATF by accident.
"
Based on federal agents' history of securing weapons I'd guess it's about a 50-50 chance.
Posted by: mike at March 31, 2010 05:00 PM (tAo4S)
6
Laying in public view? You mean "lying." What does it say about the ability of a wr -- oh, I can let this one go. Good story!
Posted by: Allan Blackwell at March 31, 2010 05:04 PM (pWDJD)
7
Reminds me of that scene in Naked Gun 2 1/2.
"Hey everybody! Frank found another one!"
Posted by: Crabtree at March 31, 2010 05:05 PM (TVmXj)
8
Well, I'm not going to give the writers the benefit of the doubt. Without a photo to prove their point, I'm going to assume the probability of the journalist misidentifying a pipe as a gun is much higher than the probability of law enforcement leaving a gun laying around unaccompanied, regardless of who it belongs to.
After all, the closest most journalists come to firearms is watching the documentary CSI...
Posted by: Georg Felis at March 31, 2010 05:09 PM (eG/MC)
9
I saw a photo of the scene in my local paper, and my first thought was "I hope the cops are still there, otherwise someone was pretty stupid to leave a shotgun out in the yard."
It did look like a shotgun, and it was leaning on a washing machine. I have to believe that the cops were still there, but even then, I cannot imagine them just leaving a firearm sitting around.
Do you ever see cops at a crime scene carelessly leaving guns around in an open area? I can't imagine it. It goes against everything they are taught about both safety and evidence.
A little conspiratorial part of my mind thought "Nice placement, reinforces the "armed cult" theme well." But I told that part of me to shut up, because I don't want to seem paranoid.
It makes me wonder, has anyone asked "Hey guys, what's the deal with leaving guns around? Is this standard, and if not, why was it done here?"
For both the agencies involved and our incurious media: COMPETUNCE, DUDES!
Posted by: dennymack at March 31, 2010 05:15 PM (B4nTZ)
10
If a shotgun makes this an "armed cult", my grandaddy's Arkansas deer club should have been raided 20 years ago....
Posted by: SDN at March 31, 2010 05:22 PM (S78cq)
11
Reminded me of the circus the immigration feds pulled off when they snatched little Elian Gonzales. You know, fat guy running around in a black armored vest and some middle-aged fed with an MP-5 stuck in the face of the poor person holding a very distraught Elian.
BTW, this whole thing almost smacks of Ruby Ridge and Waco. It will be interesting to get the whole story but the national socialist media and the Democrats have now got their red-neck militia meme ramped up. Anyone who now opposes His Excellency Currently Residing in the White House will not only be a racist for opposing his political prescriptions but also a secret member of a red-neck, Christian-identity militia! And since I don't have proof I'm not a member, I guess I'm guilty as charged. That's how lib-think works.
Posted by: Hankmeister at March 31, 2010 05:23 PM (9G4ME)
12
Well, these are the same folk who thought Airshot toys were "machine guns" and seized them. Being liberal suburbanites, they might not know what the real things (as in firearms in general) look like if they're not some sexy "assault weapon" they saw on Law & Order.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 31, 2010 06:05 PM (cUKsB)
13
A Detroit paper showed the gun leaning up against a home appliance of some kind in the front yard of the house. The caption clearly called it a BB gun, though it looks like a pellet gun to me.
So, no harm, no foul. If it's as rusty as the rest of the junk in the yard, it probably won't work anyway.
Posted by: trashhauler at March 31, 2010 06:11 PM (QL3/+)
14
Recently a young NYC policeman with graduate degree in criminalogy, experience in police work
in NYC, applied to join the FBI. He was turned down because they told him that they only recruiting accountants and lawyers. So are you
surprised?
Max Sennett made movies along time ago. Watch them.
Posted by: PTL at March 31, 2010 08:59 PM (efVmq)
15
Sorry about the grammar. Too excited.
Posted by: PTL at March 31, 2010 09:01 PM (efVmq)
16
Heh, it's not like they blocked voters from the polls using clubs or anything. Besides, the washing machine was missing a leg.
Posted by: cbinflux at March 31, 2010 10:18 PM (d7Px0)
17
It's almost comical to watch the administration use traditional Alinsky attack methods against thin air. First they were going to select "tea party leaders", investigate them and demonize them. Unfortunately, they were unable to identify any "tea party leaders" because they don't exist. Apparently the administration then decided to do the next best thing. Since they are convinced that the tea party is somehow connected to militia movements, they picked a random militia and launched a full-scale government Alinsky-attack against them.
Interesting how the press did the dirty work of preparing the battle space for them by attacking the Pope for a week or so before the government attack on not just a militia, but as we are continuously reminded, a Christian militia.
Christian militia! Christian militia! CHRISTIAN militia! Get it? CHRISTIANS!!!!!
Watch the administration and MSM work for the next few weeks to desperately try and tie this random group of sad-sacks to the tea party movement.
Obama's only political tactic is the Alinsky attack. He uses it again and again, in every circumstance. He's demonized derivative traders, bankers, executives, doctors, "bitter" conservatives and now Christians.
It's becoming very transparent, very tiring, and increasingly ineffective. By November, being personally attacked and demonized by the Obama administration may be seen as a point of pride.
Posted by: jms at April 01, 2010 08:26 AM (x/fYw)
18
The feds will spend years putting together a blownup airplane in ordere to resolve the cause. They will bulldove a crime scene ASAP if theyu commited the crime. Gee, like we cannot figure that one out.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at April 02, 2010 11:57 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 30, 2010
FBI Had Agent Inside Hutaree Cult
Thomas William Piatek should be able to provide solid, first-hand evidence of the Hutaree plot to kill police officers in hopes of triggering a civil war, which means the prosecutors should have solid case that will keep these folks behind bars (or attached to a needle) where they belong.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:40 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Who wants to place bets on the fact that the mole thought up the idea to begin with? That seems to be the modus now.
Posted by: David at March 30, 2010 04:51 PM (ZgM5r)
2
It would be nice if the FBI could spend a little effort on trying to prevent serious crime. The sum total of crime carried out by the militia movement approaches zero.
I'd suggest that they spend a little less time trying to infiltrate militias and a lot more time trying to sting members of our hopelessly corrupt government.
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 05:37 PM (HU+eJ)
3
Or maybe a little time/effort infiltrating the Wahabbist madrasses around the country?
Posted by: emdfl at March 30, 2010 10:16 PM (vwRFo)
4
I can just imagine that scene out of "Team America". "Durka durka mohammed jihad?"
Posted by: Pinandpuller at March 31, 2010 02:54 AM (07w/N)
5
Yeah, because a paid fibbie snitch would never lie.......
Posted by: Jeremy at March 31, 2010 08:13 AM (eMy3J)
6
Oh for the ignorance of the whacknuts. Dost they not know that they will always be infiltrated.
Posted by: ron at March 31, 2010 09:42 AM (wXPfJ)
7
I read somewhere (online a few years ago) that something like 40% of ALL militia members are paid informants for "Da Feds" and the like. As its been suppositioned (sp?) the amount of 'agitation' by these people who, in one respect remind me of the STASI in East Germany (those of you who remember Germany used to be East and West during the Cold War).
That the STASI files, when finally opened after the crash of the "wall" something like 80% of the civilian population had been co-opted into informants for their political masters. Wifes reporting on Husbands and vice versa.... This is part in parcel as to why reconcilliation has been rather unsucessfull (sp) in the reintergration of the former East into the 'Greater Germany,' as NO ONE in the East trusts ANYONE and for good reason.
What with the constant media blitz against the tea party and the rest, is it any wonder that the timing of this raid on a 'supposed insurrectionist group' comes at a time when the current occupants of the Hill and WH need a 'right wing boogieman' in order to alleviate, nay distract from the recent revalations of the Obamacare fiasco-in-the-making? Just sayin' the timing on this and the utilization of a bunch of "Christian" wannabe revolutionaries doth not make a revolution, rather a bunch of "ig'nint" rednecks with guns talking a good story, and trying to puff up their rather dead end lives with the theory that "They are THE CHOSEN."
From a PURELY military tactical/strategic outside observation, this plan of theirs wouldn't've worked. Case in point in 2006 in Polk County FL. a Deputy was shot and killed by an assailant who was subsequently hunted down in a manhunt that defied a 'normal manhunt.' I was home on R&R and saw the first hand TV accounts showing the Hillsborough County Sheriff's M-113A3 APC and squads of Deputies in SWAT gear literally using straight-from-the-Field manual FM 3-21.71 Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (Bradley) tactics. For these people to think that they would have successfully E&E'd from the intial contact, and THEN been able to utilize guerilla warefare/terror attacks on the funeral is laughable on it's face. (Also: Side note... what the HELL does the sherriff need a M-113A3 APC withh turret mounted M-240s? Not only that but where the hell did they get it? Oh yes! the FedGov has beefed up local law enforcement so Officer Friendly is now more apropriately looking like one of Ahhh-nuld's Commandos in "Predator" just sayin there too...)
All in all, my call: A 'plant' ne' "Weed" projected a course of action to a bunch of soft like minded individuals, and then allowed said "Snowball Effect" to take place, where then, the FedGov Cops could step in and 'pluck the conspiracy' when and if ever needed, thereby allowing whoever was in charge to claim that they NEED to further crack down on any and all opposition to their agenda, be it whatever "it" is at the time.
Posted by: Big Country at March 31, 2010 11:27 AM (H/RUP)
8
Yeah, the discovery phase of the case is going to be a royal ball of worms.
Prosecution: "We will show that the defendants were planning on doing X"
Defense: "We want to see every single recorded conversation Piatek had with any branch of law enforcement for the last ten years. Because we can show reasonable doubt on your premise by showing Piatek had reason to lie about my clients and encourage them to these actions with the intent of earning money."
Posted by: Georg Felis at March 31, 2010 05:23 PM (eG/MC)
9
A 'plant' ne' "Weed" projected a course of action to a bunch of soft like minded individuals, and then allowed said "Snowball Effect" to take place, where then, the FedGov Cops could step in and 'pluck the conspiracy' when and if ever needed, thereby allowing whoever was in charge to claim that they NEED to further crack down on any and all opposition to their agenda, be it whatever "it" is at the time.
The only thing you forgot is SPLC...
Posted by: dad29 at March 31, 2010 06:41 PM (6nQNP)
10
Obama's first false flag op!
How cute.
Our little dictator is growing up.
No doubt he got advice on how to do it from Bubba Clinton.
Posted by: democratsarefascists at March 31, 2010 09:49 PM (qJUgL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hope, Change, and $300-$500 More a Year in Taxes
I wonder just how much young liberals are going to like it once they figure out that it is going to be their money that is going to be redistributed.
Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.
The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.
It's real easy to be a liberal when you're still sponging off mom and dad. Once you start paying your own bills, and see the government leaching away the fruits of your hard work to provide for others that can't (or more infuriatingly, won't), then socialism loses its shine.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:43 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The is chump change compared to what this bill will cost the average individual. Many people are seeing increases in premiums to this extent right now. They will see a yearly increase as the companies try to raise rates as high as possible without triggering govenment action. By 2014, assuming this junk stays law, there will be a show of movement into what they are predicting. Immediately thereafter there will be a hugh increase in premiums, at least to the extent the government allows. Even with government assurances they will have to bow (picture Obama's with the Japs) to the reality of the increase cost to the insurance companies.
What people don't understand is that those individuals and families that are on the margin will utilize what they perceive as "free" care. These people literally hang out at the hospital all day and night long. I have seen it. They make another culture by seeing the doctor and utilizing every aspect of the system. Right now they are relatively controled, but they feel that they are recieving something for nothing. Want an example, go the the market and look at the biggest carts with meat and other products that those of us can't usually afford on a regular basis. Ask if they are on food stamps, the answer will almost always be affirmative.
Next we will be asked to pay a VAT tax to fund all this along with the income tax. The lower half of the population will have an out. Income taxes will be increased. But guess what, we don't have the money in the US to fund the cost of these programs along with our debt.
We are really and truly screwed. Note that Dean readily admits he wants to "share the wealth" and that this program will do so.
Posted by: David at March 30, 2010 04:20 PM (ZgM5r)
2
Medicaire/medicaid make up almost 50% of the health care market in the US, so they are far more socialized than Obamacare. Also, it's fine to ask people to be responsible for their own health care costs, through insurance, just like it is to ask people to buy insurance on their cars. In either case other people can bear the costs if you don't have insurance.
Also the CBO says this will save something like 1.2 trillion over the coming years (don't remember the period). What's so bad about it?
Posted by: Durr at March 31, 2010 03:07 PM (LYJgz)
3
I have seen it. They make another culture by seeing the doctor and utilizing every aspect of the system. Right now they are relatively controled, but they feel that they are recieving something for nothing.
Posted by: hanly at April 01, 2010 10:26 PM (+TFG9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Impassioned Defense From the Incompetence-Based Community
There is a deep and abiding hatred for mom and pop America on the political left, an anger born out most vividly on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and Washington Post by writers unable to tolerate the fact that most Americans remain opposed to the heath care rationing bill rammed through Congress by the bribery, threats, and coercion of the Democrat Party.
The most recent manifestation of that hatred is Eugene Robinson's
latest outburst in the Washington
Post, where the writer attempts to claim that the fetid swamp in which he wallows is actually high ground.
But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin. An anti-globalization movement, including a few window-smashing anarchists, was gaining traction at one point, but it quickly diminished after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An environmental group and an animal-rights group have been linked with incidents of arson. Beyond those particulars, it is hard to identify any kind of leftist threat.
By contrast, there has been explosive growth among far-right, militia-type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, "constitutionalists," tax protesters and religious soldiers determined to kill people to uphold "Christian" values. Most of the groups that posed a real danger, as the Hutaree allegedly did, have been infiltrated and dismantled by authorities before they could do any damage. But we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was authored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.
Like all members of the community-based reality, Robinson is blind to the
constant incitements to violence from the political left, and purposefully mute when those calls for violence bear fruit.
Like all lefties, he reflexively cites McVeigh's horrific attack in Oklahoma City, utterly ignoring the fact that the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building is only the worst domestic terrorist attack because President Obama's long-time mentor Bill Ayers was incompetent. Ayer and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, the co-hosts of Obama's first fundraiser, were part of a bomb-happy leftist radical group that failed in their most violent attempts. One was an attempt to
bomb a police station across from a crowded diner. An even more ambitious attack to
destroy a dance at Fort Dix was thwarted only because Ayer's girlfriend and her fellow left wing terrorists prematurely detonated themselves with the bombs they were building in the basement of a Greenwich Village townhouse instead.
When left-wing Indymedia writer Andrew Mickel ambushed and killed Red Bluff Police Officer David Mobilio as he sat in his car on November 19, 2002, he did so for the
exact same reasons that authorities attribute to the Hutaree. Mickel was
trying to start a civil war as well, one that he hoped his fellow socialists and communists would support.
"Hello Everyone, my name's Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I'm coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility."
Mickel now sits on death row, and the solitary Washington
Post story that tells his sad tale is one of the few references to his crime that can be found in a media that refuses to admit that left-wing calls to violence and
savage paranoia are routine. And Mickel's violence is hardly isolated.
Carlos Hartmann, a radical liberal from Michigan, was so incensed by the Netherlands supporting the Iraq war that he traveled there with the express intent of murdering Dutch or American soldiers. Unable to find a suitable military target for his rage, this deranged liberal did the unconscionable, and
brutally slayed a Dutch student with an axe at the Roosendaal trains station. That story, like Mickel's, was all but buried by an American media with a vested interest in down-playing the violence committed by their co-conspirators.
And the left-wing violence continues, unabated.
A middle-aged MoveOn.Org radical bit the finger off of a senior citizen he provoked a fight with, and remains at large. Thugs belonging to labor unions loyal to the President have beaten up and intimidated numerous protesters, and some of those thugs await trial. A three-time cancer survivor was
assaulted by an Obama supporter just three days ago. And of course, two-time Obama campaign contributor and Jew-hating loon
Norman Leboon was just arrested for death threats leveled at Republican Eric Cantor and his family.
The left is awash in a sea of blood and
threats. It always has been, and always will be. Such must be the mindset of those who champion the supremacy of state over the rights of the individual. The only thing surprising is that more don't call Robinson and his ilk on their lies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:59 AM
| Comments (53)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Did you notice you had to go back to the 40 or 50 years to find a group planning bombings with WMD for the "current" liberal stuff, and are trying to equate fist fights with milita groups? You know better.
A couple of insane people like LeBoon (who threatened Obama and Reid, and the rest of the planet, which again you know by now but ignore for some reason), versus a movement that spans groups like the Hutaree and the Willow Springs Cell.
The Hutaree are not Mom and Pop America, pretending otherwise is dishonest beyond words.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 09:23 AM (0Kv0+)
2
Some people of all persuasions and political stripes will engage in nasty behavior. That really is beyond debate.
But in terms of rhetoric that portrays the other side as uniformly evil and worthy of destruction, I think the right has the left beat by several miles. And such thinking and speech has consequences.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 09:39 AM (oV1Hh)
3
>> The left is awash in a sea of blood and threats.
The right is awash in a sea of blood and threats. From constant rumblings about breaking America into pieces if they don't get their way to the harassment and murder of doctors who perform abortion, to the guy who opened fire on a 'liberal' church congregation with a shotgun, and the guy who went ballistic on the Holocaust museum ... please don't pretend that the right is uniformly pure and clean. Really, such claims are embarrassing.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 09:45 AM (oV1Hh)
4
Anarchist groups are planning actions and counter-protests at upcoming tea party rallies. That should be interesting.
Posted by: d.eris at March 30, 2010 10:17 AM (Zv9XA)
5
Bubba,
Explain to me again, exactly how it is that a NAZI is considered to be right wing? Is it because the movement says "national Socialist" in the name perhaps?
Today's media lumps all violence and attempts at violence at "right wing" in an attempt to alter reality. Here is a current example, front page, today's Chicago Sun times: They specifically identify the Hutare assholes as "christian" in the headline, while they do not once mention that the bombers in moscow were Muslim.
Posted by: Scott at March 30, 2010 11:25 AM (QFWBk)
6
The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.
The left has a very short memory. Between 2000 and 2008 I regularly heard "vitriolic, anti-government hate speech" coming from the left which makes what you currently hear from the right sound tame. Those people mastrubated every night to the thought of BusHitler being assassinated. They encouraged soldiers to murder their officers. And of course, they insisted that Bush was not the legitimate President of the United States. In other words, they did all the things they are whining about now, only moreso.
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 11:27 AM (ZQMmc)
7
The left's favorite paranoid fantasy is that these "right-wing white extremist Christist militias" are going to try to kill them.
As usual with the left, this is mere projection of what the left wants to to do to the whites, right-wingers, and Christians projected onto the targets of their hate.
The actual militias have a poor track record of killing people. That is to say, they have yet to kill a single person. But Obama needs his Reichstag fire.
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 11:35 AM (ZQMmc)
8
flenser,
If Obama needs his Reichstag fire why did the FBI arrest the idiots in MI and previously in NC before they carried out their plans? You kinda need to think your conspiracy theories through a bit more.
As for the left doing what the right is doing, only moreso, perhaps you can point me to an armed group of liberals that was arrested in 2000-08 for planning attacks on the government.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 12:45 PM (3GzXA)
9
>> Explain to me again, exactly how it is that a NAZI is considered to be right wing? Is it because the movement says "national Socialist" in the name perhaps?
Scott,
the guy that shot up the entrance to the Holocaust was not a socialist. He did identify himself as a member of the American Friends of the British National Party, which was a far right organization. He posted 'birther' rantings on the Free Republic website, and was welcomed there. He subscribed to a political philosophy that attributes the current plight of America to a zionist new world order, and he was a white supremacist, but he also was a minarchist when it came to government.
He was previously arrested and done time for attempting "to place the treasonous Federal Reserve Board of Governors under legal, non-violent, citizens arrest" while armed. He had a philosophy that put him right at home with the Freemen, the posse comitatus, and a large percent of those in self-organized militias.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 01:04 PM (oV1Hh)
10
If you look at the little head shot portraits of Eugene Robinson and Harold Meyerson that appear at top of their WaPo columns, you will discern a strange resemblance between the two: they are the salt and pepper shakers of liberal twit opinion.
Posted by: zhombre at March 30, 2010 02:43 PM (vUWth)
11
Bubba,
He was a Nazi. Card carrying, full blooded. Are Nazi's also white supremacists? A bunch certainly are. Are white supremacists right wing by definition? Certainly not.
However the primary word here is Nazi. Naziism is a left wing totalitarian condition. It has been since about 1933 or so....
I would define Islam as right wing. I would define some of the various militias as right wing. However, I would define most of them as just plain anti government nuts, neither left nor right, since they hate on government no matter who is in office.
Posted by: Scott at March 30, 2010 02:43 PM (QFWBk)
12
The 'socialism' in Nazi was a ploy to give the early movement as broad an appeal as possible. The whole name is a mish-mash of right and left wing German politics of the 20s. National (right), Socialist (left), German (right), Workers (left) Party.
I know what Goldberg asserts, but there is no professional historian on earth who would agree the Nazis' were left wing.
Look at who they courted (bankers, Army, Industrialists) and who they jailed/killed (Communists, Socialists, intellectuals) when they came to power, that should tell you where they stood.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 03:36 PM (3GzXA)
13
I guess Jim and Bubba want to forget the actions of PETA, the WWF whale warriors, the whacky environmentalists, Jim Hansen's call to try disbelievers in AGW for crimes against humanity.
But, you guys keep believing everything you see and hear on HuffPo and the other left sources of ?truth?.
Posted by: CoRev at March 30, 2010 03:37 PM (0U8Ob)
14
CoRev,
PETA vs a cell building IEDs to use on a police funeral (for a cop they murdered), followed by a set piece battle from prepared positions. Yeah, that sounds pretty equivalent to me as well.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 03:40 PM (3GzXA)
15
Jim, I didn't expect you to relate, but did expect the equivocation. How many bombings, property damage, fingers bitten off, protests, and marches, will it take? There are fools on both sides, but the real fools are those who ignore that fact or consider their set of fools less dangerous than the others.
Posted by: CoRev at March 30, 2010 04:12 PM (0U8Ob)
16
Protests, marches, property damage, fist fights etc are one thing, and there are plenty of examples of all of the above on both sides, no doubt about that.
Bombings? Anti-abortion bombings, targeting people, and/or facilities, OK City on the right. What are the counter examples of the left targeting people with bombs in the last 30 years?
Still waiting for an on topic example, you know, a left wing militant group that was gearing up for a war against the police and government.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 04:19 PM (3GzXA)
17
Look at who they courted (bankers, Army, Industrialists) and who they jailed/killed (Communists, Socialists, intellectuals) when they came to power, that should tell you where they stood.
Much like todays "Democratic" party.
The fascist motto was, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state".
Which political faction in todays America shares that political philosophy? It sure as hell is not "the militias", let alone "the right". It's you, Jim.
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 04:28 PM (n7BGA)
18
perhaps you can point me to an armed group of liberals that was arrested in 2000-08 for planning attacks on the government.
Typical trollish effort to change the subject.
When "the militias" kill ten percent as many people as the left has in America, get back to me. At present they seem to be notable mostly for their non-violence.
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 04:33 PM (n7BGA)
19
Still waiting for an on topic example, you know, a left wing militant group that was gearing up for a war against the police and government
Since the left-wing ARE the police and government it would be mighty peculiar if they were to wage war against themselves.
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 04:37 PM (n7BGA)
20
Yeah us lefty counter culture hippies sure are in favor of having the state run our lives. Telling us what we can read, what we can smoke, who we can marry, what we can watch on tv, when, where, and if we're allowed to buy beer on Sundays! We're pretty much known for being huge supporters of authority. You nailed it!
And sorry, but I'm not buying the idea that a world run by a Christian militia would be one where we'd have tons of personal freedoms. Guys who's fantasies start by giving everyone a rank and running around in the woods taking orders from the Arkon aren't likely to be big on listening to suggestions and criticisms.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 05:09 PM (3GzXA)
21
Jim, I find it truly intriguing when a liberal/progressive take the podium claiming that they are less dangerous than.... Many liberal views and actions are just insanely anti-life. Even though few liberals will actually admit to the facts, but their views on the environment has killed millions.
Example? DDT and Africa.
Another? Bio-fuels.
Need more? Energy demands that artificially raise the price for developing countries.
Anti-militarism that allows dictators kill hundreds of thousands even millions, but never admitting they are abetting those deaths. Oh, and then attacking any administration that does do something about the killings.
Need more examples of liberal wrongheadedness? Or, do you just want to make nonsensical points out of personal righteousness? BTW, I do not expect you to understand that last statement.
Posted by: CoRev at March 30, 2010 05:12 PM (0U8Ob)
22
So I take it CoRev you don't want to play the "who has more bombers" game any more?
Blaming things like liberal anti-militarism for...military dictators is a little rich. BTW, was FDR an evil liberal or a conservative anti-dictator hero in your version of the story.
Likewise things like energy demands being liberal? Some Exxon/Ford/GE hippie plot no doubt.
DDT was liberal? Oh, I guess you mean mosquito eradication efforts to curb malaria. OK, so what would the preferred conservative approach have been, do nothing? Then all the malaria deaths (much higher death rate) would be on your side? Very confusing stuff you're pushing now.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 05:22 PM (3GzXA)
23
Yeah us lefty counter culture hippies sure are in favor of having the state run our lives.
Your attempt at sarcasm falls flat, since that is exactly what you ARE in favor of. Maybe you'd be better off if you just stopped trying to regulate or tax everything that moves.
You're not the counter-culture, Jimmy. The militias are the counter-culture. You're the Establishment, and you have been for decades.
We're pretty much known for being huge supporters of authority.
You're pretty much known for throwing yourselves at the feet of every left-wing thug who struts down the street, yes. I believe Hugo Chavez is the latest strong man to make leftist hearts go pitter-patter.
I'm not buying the idea that a world run by a Christian militia would be one where we'd have tons of personal freedoms
Good news then! There is zero chance that "Christian militias" are going to "run the world". And as stupid and dishonest as you are, even you don't believe otherwise. You pretend to believe there is some Big Danger here for the simple reason that it suits your fascist purposes.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". Right, Jimmy?
Posted by: flenser at March 30, 2010 05:25 PM (HU+eJ)
24
Sorry, I finally figured out what the heck you meant with the DDT reference. You're saying liberals are killing people in Africa because we WON'T let them use DDT. Except:
DDT is still used in Africa.
DDT can still be used in the US when there are mosquito outbreaks.
Today's mosquito have evolved DDT resistant genes making DDT less effective, and other insecticides more valuable.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 05:29 PM (3GzXA)
25
>> However the primary word here is Nazi. Naziism is a left wing totalitarian condition. It has been since about 1933 or so....
Sorry, Scott,
you obviously haven't investigated what von Brunn thought or wrote (not that it stops you from being an expert). The guy wrote a book (available for free online), and in his book he stated that Hitler was great for his opposition to "Liberalism/Marxism/Jewry." The Holocaust Museum shooter was not a leftist; he was clearly on the right.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 06:24 PM (oV1Hh)
26
>> I guess Jim and Bubba want to forget the actions of PETA, the WWF whale warriors, the whacky environmentalists,
CoRev,
why would you assume that? I acknowledged that there are wackos and on both sides of the spectrum. I don't identify with PETA and I condemn anything they have done that is illegal. But most of it has been vandalism (letting animals go) and tasteless billboards (legal, but still worthy of condemnation). Has PETA killed anyone? Have they plotted to do so? And the 'WWF Whale Warriors' are a figment of your imagination - WWF is not involved with any illegal activities, and has not been .... but I guess good conduct is not enough to prevent slander from some quarters.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 07:03 PM (oV1Hh)
27
perhaps you can point me to an armed group of liberals that was arrested in 2000-08 for planning attacks on the government.
I like this game!
How about we start with the leftists David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder that build homemade napalm bombs to attack the delegates (including current elected officials) of the Republican National Convention in 2008 in the Twin Cities? Funny how the media didn't trumpet that FBI raid 24/7 on the news. Both of these liberal thugs got jail time on weapons charges.
But the bonus comes from Obama's close friend and ACORN buddy Wade Rathke, who was so pissed that plot was disrupted he wrote about it on his blog, lamenting that the informant was successful.
That's just off the top of my head. Would you like to continue?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 30, 2010 07:26 PM (qhZ5Z)
28
Even communist Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek acknowledges that Nazis and Fascists are a radical form of socialism (that favors collusion with major industry, akin to say, having the government own but permit industry kingpins run the financial firms, banks, major automotive companies, etc.).
Of course, the seizure of the student loan industry and placement of its functioning within the government was not fascist; it was communist. I'm sensing that ultimately, Obama would prefer the latter not the former, since his ego doesn't permit sharing of credit. But whatever gets him on his way towards totalitarianism right now is really all that matters.
Posted by: Hatless Hessian at March 30, 2010 09:03 PM (7r7wy)
29
Jim, Jim, Jim, you're just not good enough with the Lib talking points. Didn't immediately spout the knee jerk DDT/mosquito response. Tsk, tsk.
I'm not playing a game. You are! Cherry picking dates. Why? Why not include 2010 and Leboon?
BTW, after catching on to the DDT/mosquito reference why did you ignore the other points? Still googling for the correct responses?
Sheesh!!!!
Posted by: CoRev at March 30, 2010 09:45 PM (0U8Ob)
30
Um, CoRev, I also mentioned anti-militarism and energy demands. The DDT thing is bizarre coming from a conservative. Do you honestly thing taking OUR money and spending it on THEIR malaria problem is a conservative idea that liberals hindered? Get real.
And I did cover Leboon, here (1st post)and in the Leboon thread, the guy threatened Obama too. And satellites, and Disney, and Iran... On youtube. Who cares?
Hatless,
The government didn't take over the student loan industry, they took back control of the Federal Student Loan program. Yeah, the horrors, the Feds took over a Federal program! Gasp! Salie Mae's stock is up this week btw.
flenser,
I'm the Establishment. Good to know.
Last but not at all least CY,
Great call on the molotov cocktail douches, I'd forgotten all about them. (btw I think the argument with the guy who turned them in is that he was a co-conspirator who made mc's himself and then ratted out his pals. No one likes a rat, even when they do the right thing. Not mob rats, lefty rats, police rats, righty rats. I'm not saying he was wrong to go to the police, but it still kind of stinks. That's a universal feeling isn;t it?)
But please do list all the rest. I'm serious. List all the left wing bomb building/using guys in the last 20 years. I know you have a list somewhere. Skip the finger biters and video makers, and just stick to the people with real hardware and plans. Then make a similar list for the right wingers who were up to the same things. I think that would make a great thread.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2010 10:01 PM (TNxYU)
31
>> Even communist Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek acknowledges that Nazis and Fascists are a radical form of socialism
Zizek who? He's a marginal thinker. In communism, government controls business; in fascism, business controls government. Fascism is a rightist philosophy. Was Yugoslavia a mixed-up place where no one knew if government controlled business or vice-versa? Yes, it was.
"Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 30, 2010 10:51 PM (oV1Hh)
32
>> Even communist Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek acknowledges that Nazis and Fascists are a radical form of socialism
Zizek who? He's a marginal thinker. In communism, government controls business; in fascism, business controls government. Was Yugoslavia a mixed-up place where no one knew if government controlled business or vice-versa? Yes, it was.
Fascism is a rightist philosophy. "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 31, 2010 07:29 AM (oV1Hh)
33
If the impartial truth-tellers at wikipedia say that fascism is right-wing, then case closed!
Posted by: flenser at March 31, 2010 08:10 AM (ru3jZ)
34
>> If the impartial truth-tellers at wikipedia say that fascism is right-wing, then case closed!
Sure - and if you don't like real encyclopedias with a neutral point of view and multiple citations, there is always Conservapedia!
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems."
Franco in Spain? Classic right-winger. Pinochet in Chile? Right winger. Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism? An icon of the right. All of these rode into power with support of business, the military, and right-wing nationalists.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 31, 2010 10:06 AM (oV1Hh)
35
Lets lay this out. The greatest mass murderers in history have overwhelmingly been left wingers: Mao, Stalin (then Hitler) and Pol Pot. The greatest mass murderer of American citizens in, say, the last forty years (a good round number) was a fine San Francisco leftist.
The greatest source of murder and terrorism in the world today, including the USA, is not anybody's militia, but militant Islam, a big favorite of the US political left. Lets not forget leftist favorite Ward Churchill describing the victims of the 9/11 terrorists as "Little Eichman's".
Posted by: Doogie at March 31, 2010 12:38 PM (u4Oxf)
36
Benito Mussolini was an icon of the right? That is just stupid. He was the toast of liberal circles in the US during the '30's.
Even Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.”
Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
Posted by: Heffay at March 31, 2010 01:00 PM (gbpec)
37
Daniel Andreas San Diego. Unabomber. ELF. Anti-G20 riots in Pittsburgh. From that much maligned DHS report:
“Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable,...Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks — all of which extremists regard as nonviolent — to bombings and arson.”
The leftie idea that hurting the economic engine or property is an acceptable method of protest is so dominant that Deutsche Welle reported last week about a 2M Euro effort to stop leftist violence:
"The new figures showed that politically motivated crime increased about 20 percent in 2009 over the previous year, reaching a total of 33,917 cases. The largest increase was in violence by left-wing extremists, whose actions climbed by 40 percent, with 9,375 reported crimes."
Every side has it's kooks. The problem is that according to the MSM and seemingly some posters here, they exist only on the right.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 31, 2010 01:15 PM (dd2Yx)
38
"Ayer and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, the co-hosts of Obama's first fundraiser, were part of a bomb-happy leftist radical group..."
Who calmly planned how, come the revolution, they would put tens of millions of Americans in "reeducation" gulag camps and murder tens of millions more who resisted communist indoctrination. None of this (for which Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant) was enough to cause the Democratic Party to shun them.
Posted by: pst314 at March 31, 2010 02:06 PM (OA547)
39
"The 'socialism' in Nazi was a ploy to give the early movement as broad an appeal as possible."
Utterly false. If you look at what Hitler and Mussolini and their comrades wrote and said over the years, it is clear that they saw themselves as leftists and that other leftists also saw them as leftists.
"no professional historian on earth who would agree the Nazis' were left wing."
That is simply not true. There are reputable historians who regard the Nazism and fascism as being on the left.
Posted by: pst314 at March 31, 2010 02:10 PM (OA547)
40
I think a better analysis, rather than left vs right, socialism vs fascism, would be personal freedom vs government control. Most of the Tea Party folks seem to be looking for a more efficient, less intrusive, smaller government. Whereas the last two years, to include (especially) the last 6 months of the Bush administration, seems to be all about a larger, more intrusive government.
Posted by: DanB at March 31, 2010 02:26 PM (+5bSZ)
41
DanB,
I'll go along with that. "The government that governs best governs least" should be the norm, not the exception.
Scott (still shaking his head over assertions that Nazism is right wing)
Posted by: Scott at March 31, 2010 03:29 PM (QFWBk)
42
If you want really crack-pot conspiracy theories, you just have to listen to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those guys see a Right-Wing anarchist behind every tree, but have never identified a Left-Wing Anarcho-terrorist in any of the WTO demonstrations - let alone the Earth-Firsters.
Posted by: AD at March 31, 2010 03:56 PM (lDFlf)
43
>> Benito Mussolini was an icon of the right? That is just stupid. He was the toast of liberal circles in the US during the '30's. Even Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies.
You should review your history.
The conservative business community (Ford, Du Pont, Bush, etc) were very complimentary and cozy with fascism. They saw it as an antidote to communism. William Randolph was summoned to Berlin to meet with Hitler in 1934; Hitler wanted to know how he could improve his image in the US. A deal was cut, and Hearst employees were ordered to report favorably on the news from fascist Europe. DeWitt Wallace, an avowed enemy of FDR and labor unions and the publisher of Reader's Digest, was complimentary when discussing Hitler and Mussolini. US industrialists on the right were doing business with Italy and Germany, and didn't want their profits disturbed by FDRs stand against fascism... they were staunchly 'anti-interventionist' while FDR was covertly providing material and support for Britain in the two years before Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: Bubba Joe at March 31, 2010 04:02 PM (oV1Hh)
44
You can distinguish between the groups on the left and right by the reaction of the left when it comes to violence. If the reaction from the left focuses on the cause and ignores the violence, it is an ally of the left. If the reaction of the left is to focus on the violence and ignore the cause, no matter how just that cause might be, the group is right wing. Look at the reaction to the Rodney King aftermath. People burned the city down and killed people because of one jury verdict. Look at the left's reaction. Nobody on the left condemned the violence. We were told that we had to understand the reasons. It was an unjust verdict that gave them the right to act out in that way. The left is incapable of empathizing with the violence when the cause is not something they agree with. The left cannot grasp that other people have views that they feel just as strongly about. These people need to get their head out of their ass if they think that he right wing has cornered on the market when it comes to violence. I guess they need to believe that to justify their fascism. Look at speech codes on college campuses. The real reason these codes are implemented is to close down competing ideas and opinions. In their mind it is to prevent hate. To believe otherwise would make them face who they really are and what they really believe, and that is truly scary.
Posted by: Tomt at April 01, 2010 05:35 AM (+YpIp)
45
A deal was cut, and Hearst employees were ordered to report favorably on the news from fascist Europe.
The US corporate media were reporting favorably on the USSR at the same time. (And they continued to do so right up until it collapsed) I assume you have some half-baked explanation for that as well?
US industrialists on the right were doing business with Italy and Germany, and didn't want their profits disturbed by FDRs stand against fascism... they were staunchly 'anti-interventionist' while FDR was covertly providing material and support for Britain in the two years before Pearl Harbor.
Golly!
So who was it that was building the material being provided to Britian in the two years before WWII? It can't have been US industry - after all, according to internet historian Bubba, US industry was in bed with Germany. Must have been FDR's government factory (staffed by loyal lefties) that was bulding those Lend-Lease destroyers and P-40 fighters.
Of course what our useless idiot fails to grasp is the the profits of US industy go up from selling to both sides - indeed, from selling to anyone who wants to buy. Profits could not be "disturbed" by an arms race in Europe.
DeWitt Wallace, an avowed enemy of FDR and labor unions and the publisher of Reader's Digest, was complimentary when discussing Hitler and Mussolini.
FDR was complimentary when discussing Hitler and Mussolini.
Posted by: flenser at April 01, 2010 07:07 AM (8iFDt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 29, 2010
It's Always Nutty in Philadelphia
An arrest has been made in one of the cases of nutjobs threatening Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. This guy seems like a real winner.
Michelle Malkin has all the details, including pictures of the suspect, one Norman Leboon, who claims to be the 12th imam when he's not threatening American Jews.
Oh... and he's apparently a
two-time Obama donor.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:33 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Norman Leboon? You couldn't make up such an name. Life imitates art, and the art is absurdist comedy.
Posted by: zhombre at March 29, 2010 12:44 PM (vUWth)
2
Good as place as any to repost what I did just over a day ago on the WTF topic:
On the "On Topic" -
- Drunk driving inflated into political violence. Played hard it can result into an escalated counter-strike against members of the perceived opposition. Common tactic used by authoritarian parties to violently seize control of nations. Can be used by both partied in a political contest. Carries a heavy cloak of deniability. Can take years, if ever, before the survivors realize that they were the ones who initiated the violence.
And elsewhere, others of suggested political orientation are arrested for 'sedition'
Hmmmm?
Posted by: Druid at March 29, 2010 01:17 PM (Gct7d)
3
Dude threatened Obama as well, Mark Sanford, Harry Reid, and all the worlds satellites, the King of Saudia Arabia, Iran, Israel....
Apparently he's pro Princess Di though, so it's not like he's always angry.
http://wonkette.com/414495/heres-the-nut-who-threatened-eric-cantor-threatening-barack-obama-a-year-ago
Posted by: Jim at March 29, 2010 03:24 PM (3GzXA)
4
David Niewert will be all over this in 3-2-1.
Posted by: daleyrocks at March 29, 2010 05:51 PM (3O5/e)
5
Over 2,000 video threats? What a loser! Well, someone is paying attention to the loser now. To bad for him it happens to be law enforcement.
Posted by: Brad at March 29, 2010 09:02 PM (d2jLN)
6
So that's where the 12th Imam was hiding! And here I thought he was stuck in a well over in Iraq or something. No wonder they couldn't find him.
Posted by: Tim at March 30, 2010 11:06 AM (xq7pr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 60 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.1364 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1064 seconds, 203 records returned.
Page size 171 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.