Confederate Yankee
March 01, 2010
Pelosi To House Democrats: I'll Sacrifice You For Obamacare
Hear the words of a true believer:
Ms. Pelosi was asked what she would say to House Democrats who were "in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now."
"Our members, every one of them, wants health care," Ms. Pelosi said. “They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill."
"But," Ms. Pelosi continued, "the American people need it. Why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people, to get them results that give them not only health security, but economic security."
I'm sure it comes as a surprise to no one that Nancy Pelosi is a radical zealot willing to sacrifice as "lesser" red state Democrats to advance her drive to socialism. That she sees the bankrupting nightmares of Social Security and Medicare as the kind of program Obamcare should aspire to be simply clarifies she is far more interested in growing the power and influence of government than she is helping the poor taxpayers saddled by the debt she keeps attempting to increase in billion dollar bites.
Pelosi and her dim-witted allies can't seem to grasp the basic concept that government cannot provide cradle-to-grave
everything, nor does she understand it does almost nothing well. Nor do she and her allies seem to grasp that the United States doesn't have an infinite supply of money, even as her home state edges ever closer to bankruptcy because of the exact same kinds of economy-killing liberal programs she champions.
Her run as Speaker may be over in November.
Let's hope the damage she can do to our nation in the meantime is negligible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:58 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
San Fran must truly believe HER seat is safe for reelection. She may be somewhat startled come election day to find out that she is one of those congresscritters who are wondering why they were retired by their ardent supporters.
Posted by: TimothyJ at March 01, 2010 11:56 AM (IKKIf)
2
Being a recent California emigrant I can tell you SF will not vote her out, she will lose her seat because the repubs take the house back but SF and Bearkley believe they live in a socialist utopia and want the rest of the country to suffer with them.
Posted by: Alvin Mullins at March 01, 2010 12:16 PM (gkOEo)
3
It took courage to pass Social Security -- which is now broke.
It took courage to pass Medicare -- which is now short of funds by several billion dollars.
So now they want to pass "health care reform".
Are they going for the bankrupt trifecta?
You betcha.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 01, 2010 02:11 PM (XUpm+)
4
The Democrats strategy is admirable, although it's goals are not.
No matter HOW badly they do in November, or even following November's, the Dems WILL be back in power again someday. They know this.
But in the meantime, they will have caused a permanent change to our Nation, another permanent step towards the Socialism they crave.
Seen any of Johnson's Great Society programs go away yet? How about Roosevelt's New Deal programs? No? Of course not. They'll trade losing a lot of seats for a few cycles to drag us one more step down the road of full Government control.
Think we'll ever get back the Banks? Health Care? Mortgage Industry? GM?
Wanna bet?
Orion
Posted by: Orion at March 01, 2010 04:18 PM (UnCdA)
5
Can't you just see it? Pelosi with glittering obsidian knife while hundreds are marched up the pyramid steps...the wailing in the air as she cannibalizes her own for the god SOH (socialist Obama healthcare). My imagination is really so much better than reality at times.

Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 01, 2010 04:36 PM (brIiu)
6
Soc Sec, and Medicare got real bipartisan support, and were rather popular with the voters.
0bamacare. . . not so much.
Posted by: JP at March 02, 2010 03:35 AM (VxiFL)
7
... you need to understand something about midterm landslides: They’re usually composed of three parts. First, the other party’s activists are highly motivated. Second, your own activists are highly unmotivated. Third, independents want to burn Washington to the ground.
Spot on.
Posted by: Neo at March 02, 2010 08:27 AM (tE8FB)
8
"Let us hope...."
Nay, friend.
Let us PRAY!!
Posted by: dad29 at March 02, 2010 10:07 AM (aHNYw)
9
the Dems WILL be back in power again someday.
Maybe, maybe not. The democrats are pushing an immigration agenda that could ,30 years down the road, render them a permanent minority party.
The Hispanics largely vote for them, for now, but as those people advance solidly into the middle class economically, this can change. Statistically it takes a couple of generations for that process to happen. Of course there's also the "traditional Catholic" card in play with many of the Hispanics. At some point, the liberal agenda hits a "hard stop" with faithful Catholics.
The Dems have potentially traded long term demographic trends against temporary tactical advantage. I don't see how this can work to their advantage long term.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 02, 2010 09:07 PM (wdZP3)
10
That was the most hilarious bit.... she is all for sacrifice just as long as it is not her! Hilarious! She is going nowhere unless they boot her from Majority Leader. Aren't these lambs HER constituents? Yes, they are, and just like you and me they deserve exactly the leadership they elect or allow, God help them!
Posted by: megapotamus at March 03, 2010 01:38 PM (LWhHe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 26, 2010
These Clowns Can't Quit
It seems some BDS-afflicted souls will never tire of the witch hunt:
Senior Democrats and watchdog groups demanded Friday that the Justice Department investigate the disappearance of e-mail messages by Bush lawyers who drafted memos blessing harsh interrogation tactics, saying their absence cast doubt on an ethics report that cleared the lawyers of professional misconduct.
The lost e-mails cover a critical period in 2002 when Justice Department attorneys labored under heavy pressure on a memo that gave the CIA a green light to use simulated drowning, sleep deprivation and other since-repudiated interrogation techniques against al-Qaeda suspects.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), at a hearing Friday, pressed authorities for answers. "Why were these critical records deleted? Why were they kept from investigators?" he asked.
Here's a hint, Pat: The missing emails are being kept in a vault between Obama's "real" birth certificate and Bush's TANG records.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:57 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Maybe they're in the same area Hillary's billing records were.
Posted by: Rick at February 26, 2010 04:30 PM (GmIEI)
2
Yes, on the shelf, underneath John Kerry's military records
Posted by: Nikita at February 26, 2010 06:13 PM (+YhtA)
3
Near the documents that the charmingly forgetful Sandy Berger misplaced in his underwear.
DGF
Posted by: DGF at February 27, 2010 08:25 AM (40BrB)
4
Right next to Obama's college transcripts, his application to Occidental and the passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981 with buddy Wahid Hamid.
Posted by: George at February 27, 2010 10:10 PM (WA19M)
5
I'd check Sandy Berger's socks. He has a way of making stuff vanish.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 27, 2010 11:38 PM (qVdfK)
6
The shelf below the map showing where Jimmy Hoffa is buried and the outtakes from the fake moon landing!
Posted by: Pat Patterson at February 28, 2010 12:36 AM (FHAOW)
7
I know where they are!!!
They're with those missing man made global warming emails.
Posted by: Rick at February 28, 2010 10:14 AM (CJn1Y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Military Kept Eye on Abortionists, Racists During 2002 Utah Olympics
Sad:
The U.S. military monitored Planned Parenthood and a white supremacist group as part of the government’s security preparations for the 2002 Olympics in Utah, according to new documents released by the Department of Defense.
The U.S. Joint Forces Command liaison collected and disseminated information on U.S. citizens who were members of Planned Parenthood and the white supremacist group National Alliance regarding their involvement in protests and distributing literature, according to an intelligence-oversight report released by the Pentagon. The documents indicate that the JFC liaison was working with the FBI's Olympic Intelligence Center at the time.
That the government may have been monitoring potential threats just after 9/11 and may have danced on the edges of legality
concerns critics.
And while some will question the legality of the monitoring, very few will question why supremacist groups may be on the radar as potential threats. Many of these same concerned citizens, however, seem appalled that Planned Parenthood was on the list of organizations being monitored.
While PP has never taken up arms to conduct killings, they've never need to do so. Founded by a eugenicist, they continue to target minority communities, accept donations to specifically abort minorities. Planned Parenthood, a sacred institution for many on the left, is likely responsible for more deaths in minority communities in any given year than all racial supremacist groups in U.S. history, but they insist on viewing them as benign.
There is something quite wrong with that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:08 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Don't forget that the last Olympics held on US soil had a terrorist attack, so of course there was a great deal of concern about domestic terrorism.
Posted by: XBradTC at February 26, 2010 01:45 PM (cB95w)
2
Hmm...
Sounds like a violation of Posse Comitatus Act, however minor and technical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Posted by: Brad at February 26, 2010 03:47 PM (cKa1u)
3
Not to defend PP, but ya' monitor likely targets too.
Posted by: Druid at February 27, 2010 10:01 PM (Gct7d)
4
I don't think so, Brad. At the very least it's a very gray area. Intel-gathering isn't traditionally a "law enforcement activity." Posse Comitatus was intended to prevent the Army from doing overtly police-ish stuff like patrolling the streets and arresting people.
Posted by: wolfwalker at February 28, 2010 05:54 AM (0u1Dr)
5
wolfwalker
Surveillance for the purpose of enforcing civilian law: stakeouts, intel gathering or otherwise; sounds like prohibited law enforcement activities to me. The military involvement in the ATF raid of Waco, such as providing training and equipment, did not involve direct use of Army units for arrest. Yet that activity was only permissible because of the drug law enforcement loophole of the Posse Comitatus Act, a loophole which the ATF falsely invoked. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.
Posted by: Brad at March 01, 2010 12:52 AM (cKa1u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 25, 2010
We're Not Canadians, Eh?
McDonald's used crowd shots from Carolina Hurricanes games to represent Canadians in their north-of-the-border Olympics ad, "Anticipation."
What... they can't find a crowd for them otherwise?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:02 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
I Thought He'd Be Greener
But how do the other Star Wars action figures feel?
In case you were wondering, this is
CNN.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:27 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And yes, the guy they interviewed is named Akio Toyoda.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 25, 2010 11:34 AM (gAi9Z)
2
Wow... way to set you uber-geek credentials there. I had no idea what you were talking about, except by context.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at February 25, 2010 12:40 PM (zGCLY)
3
The company uses the name Toyota (with a T) rather than Toyoda (with a D) b/c Toyota is associated with the number 8 which is a lucky number in Japanese culture. It takes 8 strokes to write Toyota in Japanese kanji (traditional caligraphy) and the number 8 is thought to bring luck and prosperity. I learned all this from the following BBC piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8534294.stm
CY: I now see from your post @ 11:34 that you knew that Toyoda (with a D) is his actual name but I had already written this uber-geeky post and it would shame to let it go to waste.
Posted by: Eric S at February 25, 2010 02:19 PM (p7VhC)
4
You also managed to capture CNN's embarrassing fall for the 140 year old hotdog, which turned out to be a hoax: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/network_falls_for_year_old_hot_dog_UQcr8dlc46cYj7trEJebeI
Posted by: Texas Pete at February 26, 2010 05:11 PM (giU14)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Keith Olbermann Has Daddy Issues
I never watch Keith Olbermann for the same reason I ignore Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly— I can't stand their drama-queen antics. But while I ignore O'Reilly and Beck for their theatrics, it is a bit harder to turn your back on Olbermann's rhetoric, especially when his frothing hatred and bigotry is on such violent display as it was last night.
Brad Wilmouth suffered through Olbermann's latest attempt to dehumanize his critics at
Newbusters:
On Wednesday's Countdown show, in his latest "Special Comment," MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, after recounting some of the heartrending details of his father's current health problems, went on to slam Sarah Palin, Betsy McCaughey, and ObamaCare critics, especially those who have used the term "death panels," calling such national health care opponents by the names "subhumans," "ghouls," and "fiends." He went on to "damn" to "hell" those who use the term "death panels." Olbermann: "It's a life panel, and damn those who call it otherwise to hell!"
Actually, Mr. Olbermann, the kind of health care rationing system that you and your fellow liberals would force upon America is the equivalent of "death panel" triage, with a deadly combination of apathy and accountancy leading to appalling care.
As Barack Obama and his socialist allies in the Democratic Party engage in political theater this morning to try to revive their attempt to intrude into your family's health care decisions, I want you to turn to this
dreadful cautionary tale of what Britain's attempt at socialized medicine has done to its population.
The Democrats simply cannot be taken seriously when they claim to be against torture while attempting to implement a health care rationing scheme that isn't as good as the care detainees get at Gitmo.
Patients were routinely neglected or left "sobbing and humiliated" by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.
An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.
The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.
Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses "left a lot to be desired".
This is the kind of care Keith Olbermann wants for his own father?
It sounds like
somebody has
daddy issues:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:02 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interesting how the coward hid behind and used his sick father to keep from accepting the Dallas Tea Party invitation.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 25, 2010 12:05 PM (+LRPE)
2
I will not live under socialism.
Beat the Drums of War.
After the Tea Party...
One if by land; two if by sea.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 25, 2010 01:00 PM (brIiu)
3
Mr. Olberman wants his cake and he wants to eat it too. He is well aware that his millions of dollars and his union membership will exempt him from the health care fiasco, but he wants it so that his father can receive better treatment in the hospital. Uh, just wow. Without his union membership and millions of dollars, Mr. Olberman's father would be just one more notch on the health care savings death panel gun and would be allowed to die with dignity, but definitely allowed to die. Liberals. You can't live with them and you can't educate them.
Posted by: TimothyJ at February 25, 2010 01:14 PM (IKKIf)
4
The example of the British NHS could equally apply to any VA system in the US. I have worked many of the hospitals and can assure you that Federal workers loose their humanity on entering the door. Patient's are commonly left in their own filt and unwashed. The answer when you ask the personel why, "it is not my job description". Obama estimates one trillion in expenses over a one year period, try one trillion per year.
Posted by: David at February 25, 2010 02:57 PM (jHK8i)
5
If my father was that sick and I had as much money as Ms. Olbermann, I would just pay for his care. As long as I've got a dime, no one in my family will be in need.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at February 26, 2010 02:08 AM (eXdIs)
6
How many Left-leaners, perhaps not too enamored of Obama, justified their decision as lesser-evilism citing W's apparently well known and oft discussed "daddy issues"? Immediately after the election I ran into one of these doofs. Apparently a good fraction of the Bush-bashing book industry was committed to this meme. If only I knew then what we know now of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. I've made much sport since then, though. If the talk does drift to the noxious Bushes or even the hellish Clintons and their domestic realities, try introducing some of the more obvious facts about the Family Obama and you will find quickly that the Obama fan club has not even entertained the notion that after so much dishing it out, they might be required to take it. Not even a little bit. It's all racist dontcha know, to which one might as well go nucular in response, "What's wrong with being racist? Barack was in a racist cult for twenty years, no one minded that!"
Posted by: megapotamus at February 26, 2010 01:25 PM (LWhHe)
7
Poll Guardian/UK 8-14-09
Which system would you rather be treated under?
UK 89.1 US 10.1
London Telegraph reporting on a survey of 10000 doctors;(November 2009)
48% of US doctors have found difficulty getting treatment for patients in UK 6%.
It is fine to have philosophical differences with the system, but facts rather than anecdotes should rule.
Posted by: pat at February 26, 2010 03:53 PM (gkX/Q)
8
Now we have good or even excellent care for most, lousy care for a few. Under Obama care we will have mediocre or poor care for most and excellent care for a few . My working class friends in France and England pay for private care when they or their families are ill and need even a little more than elective attention. They now accept this without regret. However,in the US,the dilution of quality this rotten system will bring will cause regret, a lot of it too, to all but the most insulated, either by money or influence. The Barefoot Doctor is coming for you, America.
Posted by: mytralman at February 26, 2010 05:06 PM (q8Y4l)
9
It is fine to have philosophical differences with the system, but facts rather than anecdotes should rule.
Posted by pat at February 26, 2010 03:53 PM
Anecdotes illustrate the fact that the NHS has poorer outcomes than the USA and, regardless of what this cherry-picked set of docs state, much poorer access to 21st century healthcare.
Lying in filth also well describes having to read some of the lies promoted by advocates of socializing healthcare.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 27, 2010 12:17 PM (O8ebz)
10
Pat,
I hate to tell you this but your statement does not make sense. As a doctor, have I had difficulty getting treatment for my patients? Sure, namely the ones covered by government medicine like Medicare and Medicaid. Will that change with Obamacare? Absolutlely, everyone will have difficulty.
Posted by: David at February 27, 2010 05:05 PM (jHK8i)
11
Dear Friends,
I know that what I going to say may be anethema to conservatives, but the movement is thinking with its heart on healthcare not its head.
The use of anecdotes that "feel" true has been used for policy after the Vietman war and thru the Reagan years.
The "welfare queen", the spitting on returning soldiers and the reduction of marginal tax rates increasing the gross revenue to government are at best evocative ideas to justify policy at worst manipulation of the base to award the ruling class.
Posted by: pat at February 28, 2010 10:55 AM (vreqy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 24, 2010
Biathlon: Finally Worth Watching
(h/t
The Firearm Blog)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And now, how about the Javelin?
Posted by: Bill Smith at February 24, 2010 10:17 PM (MlY/g)
2
The summer Olympics would have been a whole lot more interesting if the pool had been filled with frickin’ sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their frickin’ heads.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 25, 2010 09:54 AM (+LRPE)
3
Sadly,most teams in biathlon,while offering excellent speed and good offense,are weak on D...
Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 28, 2010 11:20 AM (oxMVR)
4
Now, I'd start watching the Olympics if they added that!
Oh, did I say that out loud?
Posted by: RebeccaH at February 28, 2010 12:18 PM (JAQT9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
L.A. Times Can't Tell Difference Between U.S. Army, NRA
Hey, they've all got guns, right?
A caption for the photo (bizarrely placed at the end of the article) notes that the photo was taken at a memorial service for those killed at Fort Hood by Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan in an apparent act of jihad... which also has nothing to do with the NRA.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:25 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I wouldn't say nothing to do with the photo, at least not for the Brady Bunch.
Let's face it, any major event involving a firearm is grounds for the gun banners to go into high dudgeon. They perpetually exploit any possible tragedy to serve their ends.
In the mind of a gunner banner when a lefty like Obama fails to follow suit it simply MUST be due to fear of the NRA. It couldn't have anything to do with the notion that the problem was a jihadist nutbag, not a handgun.
So, take the caption as confirmation of everything we've come to expect from the gun banners and their media cheerleaders.
Posted by: ThomasD at February 24, 2010 12:32 PM (21H5U)
2
Fort Hood involved a "no guns zone" that just happened to be on a military base. Maybe it's a of subtle, pro-self-defense, message?
Posted by: Rob Crawford at February 24, 2010 02:01 PM (ZJ/un)
3
I agree with Rob, if you into account the photo with an Army memorial background and state "NRA" in the title, you've shot yourself (LA Times) in the leg trying the give someone else a pistol wipping.
Posted by: Jason at February 24, 2010 02:09 PM (FKrUw)
4
If the LAT couldn't write incorrect headlines, it wouldn't be able to write any headlines at all.
Posted by: AD at February 24, 2010 03:34 PM (heBF0)
5
I understand why some right-wingnut like you wouldn't understand the connection between the headline and the picture.
If Obama wasn't scared by you racist right-wingers that cling to your guns, Obama would not have had to attend any silly military photo op. He could have stayed at the White House and fixed all the problems he inherited from Bush.
/sarcasm?
Posted by: Bozak at February 24, 2010 03:56 PM (xQQTV)
6
Bozak
Your ignorance is stunning, if you remember , this attack was stopped by a GASP! gun in a no gun zone. If these soldiers were allowed to protect them selfs instead of being disarmed, this would have ended quickly.
Of coarse it doesn't fit your socialist agenda to have people fend for their own lives because you believe in a nanny state and have the gov change your diaper from cradle to grave because you are too weak to fend for yourself.
America was fortunately founded by people with honor who didn't need a babysitter like you do and we are a free nation BECAUSE WE ARE ARMED!
"When the government fears the people there is liberty;
when the people fear the government there is tyranny" Thomas Jefferson.
And I hope Obama is scared to death of our guns, its the only thing that is stopping him from a total removal of our rights and turning us into Europe ( you know the Europe that depends on us defending them because they are so weak)
And Obama has taken a deficit and made it many times larger with NO RESULTS, good job Obama!!.
You go a head and be a weak little socialist ( we know that you won't be satisfied until we are a county of little girls like France) maybe the strong will have mercy on you and toss you a new pair of panties once in a while to keep you happy.
Posted by: JMB at February 24, 2010 06:06 PM (xtEo/)
7
JMB
Are you by any chance one of those people who call the guy from BlameBush a liberal elitist, and think that the onion is real?
Posted by: mamoderate at February 24, 2010 06:32 PM (/O2Yg)
8
It would have been nice if you had posted a URL for the LA Times article in question. How hard would that have been?
Posted by: Big Boy Bob at February 24, 2010 07:03 PM (7PFsP)
9
Come on you guys! This is just plain stupid to blame Obama for this stupid article. Editors were involved. Obama clearly recognized that the people in the pictures might have had guns. Wake up. People with guns! Scary.
Posted by: SenatorMark4 at February 24, 2010 08:26 PM (UAbqJ)
10
Big Bob,
Uh, slick, the entire sentence "Hey, they've all got guns, right?" is a link to the article.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 24, 2010 08:31 PM (WjpSC)
11
"JMB
Are you by any chance one of those people who call the guy from BlameBush a liberal elitist, and think that the onion is real?"
No, but he probably is but I am not familiar with that person and no, I don't read the Onion, prefer to learn from history myself.
Posted by: JMB at February 25, 2010 09:31 AM (xtEo/)
12
Y'all; that gentelman was joking. He had to be.
And we do all have guns. Scary ain't it?
Everybody should have one, by law!
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 01, 2010 04:41 PM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I Hate It When The Politico Screws Up a Story
Under the headline Exclusive: White House privately plots 2012 campaign run, Mike Allen writes:
President Barack Obama's top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 reelection campaign, which is likely to be run out of Chicago and managed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to Democrats familiar with the discussions.
Allen needs to get his ears checked.
I suspect that what sources have told him is that Obama's top advisors are laying the groundwork because they expect to be
run out of Chicago in 2012 when Obama loses the White House after a constant string of broken promises, gaffes, and policy failures.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:59 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This story seems to be really old news. Odumbass hasn't stopped campaigning from 2008 yet.
Posted by: Stephana at February 24, 2010 12:20 PM (olUEe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 22, 2010
Reid: Out of Work Men Become Abusers
It sounds like Landra will be in for a tough December.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:07 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Actually, life will IMPROVE for Reid if he's defeated in his re-election bid. He'll get a short vacation and then accept a high level position with the Obama administration as some sort of czar - probably a Presidential liaison to the Senate. You can rest assured that deal has already been made; which is the reason he's so willing to spearhead Obama Care through the Senate right now. He knows a better job awaits.
Posted by: Dell at February 22, 2010 09:23 PM (H/+W/)
2
Seems to me that Mrs. Reid had better be driven to the local womens' shelter immediately following Harry's concession speech. After all, this comment gives us great insight into the soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader/soon-to-be-former Senator.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 22, 2010 09:45 PM (KU4uN)
3
This former senator makes me chuckle. Hey Harry, don't let the door hit cha where the Good Lord split cha! Or maybe.....
I'm off to go beat my wife now. I will make sure I hurry back!
Posted by: Stick at February 24, 2010 06:16 AM (XZu3c)
4
Typical progressive emotional response, with little fact or objectivity to support the reality of it.
Basically lying his butt off as usual.
Posted by: Michael at February 24, 2010 06:45 AM (LW8CE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And They Call Themselves Scientists
Anthropogenic climate change cultists are forced to retreat again:
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
What is interesting about this particular report is that scientists don't know if see levels will rise or fall, only that the method by which they reached their conclusions are wrong. To me, that seems to sum up what is wrong with the entire anthropogenic climate change movement.
We don't know if the world is getting warmer, or colder, or even if we are looking at the right factors and variables. All we know for certain is that it has been warmer for short periods of time, and far colder for much longer periods of time, and that the sea has been both higher and lower than it is now.
In our arrogance, we assume that whatever is now is "correct" and that variations are bad, and that somehow
we must be responsible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:54 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is clear that you don't understand the science. The One has clearly indicated that the science is true and right. I am sure that if you asked, he would explain it to you again.
But don't worry, he has a plan. By eliminating all business activity in the US and raising taxes on those of us who would presume to seek wealth, he will lower the temperature, or raise it depending on the need.
The same is true for the health care issue. The One has indicated that we sinned by charging for medical services and developing insurance plans that did not cover everything at a rate that is lower than the note on your boat. He and the other almighty have tried to fix the problem before by insuring all older individuals and paying their bills at 20% of the actual cost. This did not work because we are undeserving and ignorant. Now, he will tax us do that we can pay less or is it more. We will have plenty of time to comtemplate these issues as we wait for the doctor and our turn for care, if we are deserving.
Posted by: David at February 22, 2010 04:32 PM (jHK8i)
2
Listen up, you wingnut deniers. Just be grateful that Obama and his insane clown posse haven't suggested human sacrifices as a way to impeded global warming.
Oh, wait a minute.....never mind.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 22, 2010 05:14 PM (zKViF)
3
Hey, come on, give Obama a break, the seas have, in fact, been receding. Huh? Since 2004? Hmm, how can we blame Bush for that?
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2010 05:27 PM (TFSHk)
4
I've always been amused by the "The seas are rising!" hysteria. Well, yeah, they've been rising for the last few centuries. What's amusing is that the rate of rise actually seems to be slowing.
Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2010 07:33 PM (A9IXO)
5
They're not scientists- it's a religion to them. Like most, I've been documenting their worship of the Green God on my blog. False idols and all that.
Posted by: A Conservative Teacher at February 22, 2010 09:46 PM (IZIUp)
6
I guess this is what Darwin would call ... The Narcissism of the Species
Posted by: Neo at February 23, 2010 04:29 PM (CT8LT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Removing All Doubt: Obama the Socialist
His pedophile mentor Frank Marshal Davis was a radical communist. His neighbor, alleged book doctor, fellow board member and fundraiser Bill Ayers is a murderous Marxist who hoped to put tens of millions of Americans in concentration camps in the American southwest. His pastor and mentor of more than two decades is a racial separatist and socialist, as is another one of his Chicago allies, the lynching-advocate Michael Pfleger.
So I'm not the least bit surprised to find that Barack Obama has announced a
health care rationing solution on par with what you would expect from a petty tyrant like Castro or Chavez.
President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation's health care system, White House officials said Sunday...
[snip]
...By focusing on the effort to tighten regulation of insurance costs, a new element not included in either the House or Senate bills, Mr. Obama is seizing on outrage over recent premium increases of up to 39 percent announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California and moving to portray the Democrats' health overhaul as a way to protect Americans from profiteering insurers.
When someone as moderate and even-keeled as James Joyner
lambasts the Obama plan as "much more radical" than the Congressional plan Americans already hate, you know it must be extreme.
Existing government over-regulation in California led Anthem Blue Cross to loose customers, and kept them from finding new markets to keep their rates low for existing subscribers. As a last, desperate bid to remain solvent, they were forced to raise their rates an astronomical amount. Obama won't let insurance agencies compete and lower prices through competition for your business, and instead wants them regulated until they are choked out of existence and the American people scream for relief.
A corrupt politician from a corrupt political machine, Obama's "solution" seems patterned on the protection racket you see in organized crime, squeezing companies and the American people dry as he tries to profit from a problem he and his political allies created.
Every idea he has, and every bit of legislation he supports, reinforces the fact that Barack Obama simply doesn't like America as it is, and loathes capitalism.
He has no faith in the American people or in our ingenuity, and sees only more regulation and more government power as a solution.
He is pathetic, and easily the worse American President in history. It's simply a shame we have to wait until 2012 to boot him out into the street.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:44 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
By 2012, I suppose that next Obama will be breaking out the “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
Posted by: Neo at February 22, 2010 11:41 AM (tE8FB)
2
He is, without question, the ENEMY foreign AND domestic!
Posted by: MadRad at February 22, 2010 01:34 PM (TKGe1)
3
Does anybody know if Obama ever took any courses on economics ?
Posted by: Neo at February 22, 2010 02:38 PM (tE8FB)
4
Move over Looney Tunes, now we have the hilarious CommieTunes series, which stars the communists members of our government, like Obama.
Watch them all at commieblaster(dot)com (CommieTunes page).
Posted by: CommieBlaster at February 22, 2010 03:23 PM (5tZ8N)
5
We may not have to wait until 2012. If the Republicans make substantial gains in the Congressional races this fall, do you think this shallow, conceited Poseur in Chief can withstand the subsequent adversity? He's likely to come undone. When in his life has this guy had to show real strength of character, endurance or backbone? I wouldn't be surprised by an interim President Biden, caretaker while Clinton and Bayh scrap over the nomination and what's left of the Democrat party.
Posted by: zhombre at February 22, 2010 03:49 PM (VPkIM)
6
The only outrage I saw over Anthem's rate increases was phony outrage from the libs, trying desperately to hold onto the issue. I've heard of doubling down on stupid; much like the deficit, it appears Teh Messiah wants to triple down.
Posted by: Tim at February 22, 2010 04:44 PM (xq7pr)
7
I still doubt he is a socialist... on my blog I document how his ideology is closer to fascist.
Posted by: A Conservative Teacher at February 22, 2010 09:47 PM (IZIUp)
8
A Conservative Teacher,
Hmm, quibbling. Fascism was "created" by Mussolini who, in all truth, was a socialist not making it in the ranks of the official party. He created fascism based on the same tree from which socialism and communism after that. All for the state, nothing but the state, nothing against the state, or something quite similar was his slogan. If you read his manifesto, actually have it translated or learn Italian, you will see clearly that fascism IS socialism. If you look through history, you will find some versions of socialism which are as exact as politics gets, in comparison.
Posted by: Doom at February 23, 2010 11:13 AM (p5da/)
9
It's not really quibbling and my ideas are really not that crazy. Read (if you haven't already) Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg and then listen to Obama talk about trying to find 'the third way'. Fascism is different than socialism in that it is even worse, I guess.
Posted by: A Conservative Teacher at February 23, 2010 04:56 PM (IZIUp)
10
Thanks for the link to the "health care rationing solution" in your post. I read it. However, I didn't read anything about health care rationing.
I did, however, read about the 39% rate increase announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California. It's also noteworthy, I believe, to acknowledge the increase in profits of 56% enjoyed by the nation's five biggest private insurers in 2009 over the previous year. This, too, was in the same NYT article.
While we're on this topic, I suppose you missed the news article informing us that the President supports the move in Congress to repeal The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, the antitrust exemption currently enjoyed by health insurers.
Oh well, I suppose that petty little details that contradict your absurd notion that President Obama loathes capitalism aren't worth mentioning.
As for your statement that "Barack Obama simply doesn't like America as it is", you may want to consider a reality check. If you do, you will learn that there are millions of Americans who don't like America as it is. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the faults and problems that our country is enduring. In fact, they're rather obvious at the moment to many millions of us.
Not to worry, we'll get through this difficult time. Eventually, America will wake up. We, too, will have a single payer health insurance system in our great country. But, it probably won't happen until the current health insurance system has totally collapsed, which may be much sooner than you think. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Dude at February 23, 2010 08:22 PM (5gxhz)
11
No, it's not rationing.
Rep Weiner (D-NY) in an uncharacteristically candid interview called it what it is: redistribution of health care.
Posted by: Jim at February 23, 2010 11:00 PM (mqEDX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Joe Stack's Daughter Calls Him a "Hero"
In case you've already forgotten the name, Joe Stack was the man who set his house on fire last week, and then suicide-crashed his small plane into a building containing IRS offices in Austin, TX, killing Stack and Vernon Hunter, an IRS employee.
Samantha Bell, Stack's daughter, considers him a hero. Sorta:
The daughter of a man who crashed his small plane into an Internal Revenue Service building called her father a hero for his anti-government views but said his actions, which killed a tax service employee, were "inappropriate."
Joe Stack's adult daughter, Samantha Bell, spoke to ABC's "Good Morning America" from her home in Norway. Asked during a phone interview broadcast Monday if she considered her father a hero, she said: "Yes. Because now maybe people will listen."
It sounds like
someone is living in what we here at
CY like to call a "community-based reality." I think it is normal for most well-adjusted people to hold a somewhat idolized view of their parents, even as they know that they are far from perfect. But when one of your parents spends the better part of his life making the same bad decision over and over again, and then decides that his bull-headedness is justification to try to murder a building full of people, it's time to shake off that idealized view, and realize that
you know, Dad was a real prick.
Dennis the Peasant, an accountant by trade, didn't know Stack in person, but certainly has
had his fill of the type. I have no reason to doubt Dennis' insights. Stack was a crank and tax cheat, who blamed others for his failures.
The tax code is a mess, and is in drastic need of reform. I think everyone outside of the Beltway can agree on that. But problems with the tax code—and multiple attempts to defraud it—aren't grounds for mass homicide.
And Joe Stack is anything but a hero.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:50 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What kind of moron would even think to ask a question such as if "..she considered her father a hero..."?
Only an MSM "reporter" would even come up with a question as idiotic as that.
Posted by: Stoutcat at February 22, 2010 10:38 AM (kKdtK)
2
What Joe Stack and McVeigh before him show is that the government will completely ignore your complaint that lead to their reflective action.
Sorry Sam, nothing will change except that your father won't be around any more.
Posted by: Neo at February 22, 2010 10:46 AM (tE8FB)
3
So what was the reason he did it???? I mean why? To say its the IRS is not enough info to satisfy the reason.
Posted by: Larry at February 22, 2010 03:17 PM (CsfsU)
4
There's no point in reading Stack's missive. Respect for the dead ... and I mean for the poor guy, a Viet Nam vet who died when that plane hit ... warrants ignoring this rant. Dennis the Peasant is right on the money. The guy was a loser and a whiner and a crank and his rant is but sound and fury ... signifying nothing.
Posted by: zhombre at February 22, 2010 06:54 PM (VPkIM)
5
Sir,
What he did was down right awful. He flew an aircraft into a building. I think his sentiment towards the IRS is undeniably echoing how most people view the Government and the IRS.
Even on Commie News Network only 26% say they trust our government!
All I am trying to say is this; I would not condone anyone doing this, he should have done it a different way (show his disgust), perhaps got politically active? I do NOT think that he should be demonized though. People break. He broke the wrong way, he will probably have to answer to a higher power now...
Push push push. The average Joe will snap....
Posted by: Stick at February 24, 2010 06:13 AM (XZu3c)
6
"perhaps got politically active?"
Seriously? Do you actual think anything will change? The Bureaucracy is forever. The only change that counts will be at bayonet point and not for the better. The system does not have problems, The System IS the problem.
Posted by: Jeremy at February 24, 2010 12:26 PM (eMy3J)
7
There are millions of average Joes under pressure who do not snap; who not write execrable, ranting suicide notes; who do not fly their airplanes if they own an airplane into public buildings; and who do not set their homes on fire with wife and children still inside. Average Joes carry on and keep it together in the face of adversity. You do a great disservice, Stick, comparing this pathetic lunatic to millions of normal guys.
Posted by: zhombre at February 24, 2010 06:00 PM (VPkIM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 21, 2010
Andrew Breitbart Comes Out Swinging at CPAC
Andrew Breitbart had quite the time at CPAC, getting into verbal altercations with a black racist and a serial liar face-to-face, while taking down a another ignorant ideologue at the New York Times during a speech.
As others have noted, Darlye Jenkins of One People's Project is a left wing hate blogger without any expectation of standards or morals, and so he is hardly worth confronting, any more that it is worthwhile going after Amanda Marcotte or Oliver Willis for their wheezings.
Max Blumenthal, the limousine liberal offspring who has made a career out of attempting to destroy the reputations of individuals through lies, distortions, and innuendo also found himself downrange of Andrew, and scurried out in an embarrassed huff after being caught in another lie in the span of a few minutes.
And of course, Breitbart ripped into Kate Zernicke of the
Times for lying about Jason Mattera in print, implying that Mattera was a racist for using his own normal speaking voice.
It was an interesting series of vingettes, as we saw progressive journalistic politics practices by dishonest individuals, biased online magazines, and ideologically-driven "news" organizations. All were exposed for using the same sort of tactics. These confrontations expose a simple truth: there is little difference in the ethics of rabble-rousing blogs, new media, and mainstream media outlets, with the only real difference being that the larger organizations have more reach and
may face economic penalties if they are caught in a lie and do not retract it in a timely manner.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:48 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Big Lie. Told over and over, the Left hope it becomes truth.
Here's the problem: these calumnies go unretracted in the mainstream media, which manages what the majority of people in the US are allowed to hear and thus to believe. Those who dig a bit to uncover the truth are rewarded for their efforts by having arguments with people who only know what Salon tells Jim Lehrer and Chris Matthews to tell them.
People don't think anymore. It's too hard.
Posted by: Jim at February 21, 2010 09:07 AM (mqEDX)
2
Breitbart is en fuego. That is how it needs to be done.
Posted by: Pablo at February 21, 2010 09:20 AM (yTndK)
3
Andrew Breitbart is THE MAN
An example to us all on the New Media's resurgent Right...
Posted by: Reaganite Republican at February 21, 2010 09:29 AM (vdbJV)
4
Come out swinging. That's the way you do it. The godawful cicadas on the left --- Max Blumenthal, Rachel Maddow, Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Dunn, Oliver Willis --- are in essence weak, snarky, anemic little creeps. Scrape away the veneer of snide and smug superiority (ref Thomas Sowell, Vision of the Annointed) and they got nothing. No real intellectual chops, and absolute zero empathy for real people who live in the Real United States and not its make believe Progressive version.
Posted by: zhombre at February 21, 2010 09:51 AM (VPkIM)
5
Speaking of Rachel Maddow, another great Breitbart moment, at her expense:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33164.html
Posted by: Pablo at February 21, 2010 10:08 AM (yTndK)
6
I don't follow Jason Mattera, so I went out and watched the video. Kate Zernicke had to dig real deep to find the racism there. The comments of the Times readers was by far worse.
Posted by: Neo at February 22, 2010 10:50 AM (tE8FB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Conspiratorial Crank Wins CPAC Presidential Straw Poll
Never underestimate the power of crazy people to warp the outcome of small group events.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:12 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is why so many people doubt conservatives.
Posted by: Neo at February 21, 2010 09:08 AM (tE8FB)
Posted by: Slveryder at February 21, 2010 10:06 AM (OOkN7)
3
Take it with a grain of salt. The conservatives are just thumbing their noses at the elitist lefties by throwing Ron Paul in their faces. I'm chuckling. It's a brilliant strategy.
At this point, it'll take one helluva swing to the right to end up somewhere in the middle. Hence the Ron Paul/Sarah Palin supporters. It's not a bad plan to build in "negotiating room", IMO.
Posted by: lady red at February 21, 2010 10:27 AM (wtIkn)
4
Are you really surprised, given that CPAC was co-sponsored by the John Birch Society?
Posted by: Gunpowder Chronicle at February 21, 2010 10:44 AM (WazW7)
5
Not that I agree with all of Ron Paul's positions, but ... what the heck is so bad about a guy who is an unabashed Constitutionalist? Is respect for our Constitution at such a low that we must denigrate those who stand up for it?
Posted by: Virginian at February 21, 2010 11:10 AM (XE19V)
6
Virginian:
Other than being a lying loon who would cripple the economy with his policies?
Posted by: JP at February 21, 2010 01:38 PM (VxiFL)
7
JP:
"Lying loon"? What has he lied about? And exactly how would a free market economy cripple us? Oh yeah, the highly regulated economy we have now is really humming along, isn't it? (We've never actually had a free market economy, you know; the govt. has always seen fit to regulate and legislate and interfere.) At least Paul believes in not spending more than you have. That alone, if put into practice in this country, would do America a world of good. Instead we have a president, and a Congress, that insist on spending money they don't have, and won't ever have, and putting us more in debt to China - which now owns more than half of the national debt. And you call PAUL the loon? What the Democrats are doing right now is the looniest thing imaginable.
Posted by: Virginian at February 21, 2010 01:57 PM (XE19V)
8
I'm kinda wondering how Paul is any worse than, say, a leftist like Romney or a Christian Socialist like Huckabee.
Given a choice between a slightly nutty conservative/libertarian and a bunch of non-conservatives/libertarians, I'll vote for the nut. It's important.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at February 21, 2010 03:56 PM (Dj4BX)
9
Well said, Dr. H.
The media like to say Paul was never a "serious" presidential candidate, but in fact he finished third behind McCain and Huckabee. With the Tea Party movement, his candidacy is re-energized.
All things being equal, a far-right conservative is not going to take away liberties and damage the nation the way a far-left liberal will. I am talking sins of omission rather than comission - the latter of which have far more potential to subvert the Constitution and cripple our nation beyond repair. As we are seeing now.
Posted by: Virginian at February 21, 2010 05:42 PM (XE19V)
10
If any of you had bothered to read the report on the DETAILS you would have learned that out of more than 10,000 attendees at CPAC 4,800 voted and about one third of those voted for crazy paul. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Posted by: inspectorudy at February 21, 2010 11:17 PM (Vo1wX)
11
Virginian,
Ron Paul finished fourth, far behind Romney, in third place because he dropped out 1 month before Huckabee, with 35 total delegates, 1.6% of the total GOP vote. Paul was never close to being a serious contender for president. He's crazy and everyone, except for college students, you, and Dr. Horrible, recognized that.
Posted by: MAModerate at February 22, 2010 06:44 PM (/O2Yg)
12
I used to make fun of the guy. Still do whenever he talks foreign policy, because he's way off on that whole sphere.
Still, at the end of the day I want the federal government to shrunk down in a huge way. It will never happen, because the Left won the war and now the only argument in politics is how to divide the spoils of the tax system. The mainstream of the GOP doesn't want the government shrunk anymore then the Democrats do, IMO. They basically want things to stay about as they are now: a "safety net" which now includes things like cell phones and college education which consumes 20% of the wealth of this country, and a national security establishment which consumes another 10%. Oh, and the debt. Don't forget that. The Dems want more so they can swaddle us all in the loving embrace of the nanny state from cradle to grave...for our own good of course.
So the Democrats want to take half my money, and the Republicans want to take a quarter of it. The GOP wants to spend my money on cool things like fighter jets and aircraft carriers, and the Democrats want to prop up their welfare state, bring more of their supporters into the gravy train of government employment.
I know which one I choose between the two, but it's not the one I really want. We live in a democracy now. It was supposed to be a republic, but it isn't anymore. So Paul has no chance of winning. If you allow people to vote themselves the treasury, they will.
Can you name another politician who's going to restore the republic? Sarah Palin won't, Mitt Rommney won't. Those who owe their prestige and wealth to the system will not tear it down. They can't. They have too much tied up in the system to let it go.
So yeah. Ron Paul all the way. I can't win, because the system the Founders created is gone, gone forever. The mob rules, its fleeting passions are in control. This year it's the swaggering flight suited Texan, now the elegant and cerebral Chicagoan, maybe next the winking lady from Alaska. All of them are the same at their core: they confiscate wealth that is not theirs and spend it as they see fit. I don't want to trot out Godwin's Law, but I'm going to: Hitler having a third of Stalin's death toll doesn't make him better.
Elitist? No. Elitists seek to consolidate power. They want you watching state run media, going to state run schools and hospitals and banks. I want to be left alone, I want a government that keeps the peace, keeps watch in the night for threats, and leaves everything else to the private sector. I want a single ambassador for each nation, and he or she can damn well live in a rented apartment not a mansion/fortress. I want a Department of War, not a Department of Defense. I want a Border Security Force, a single large intelligence agency, and an FBI with powers of investigation only. No more of these damn yellow lettered windbreakers. The alphabet soup must stop. 4 Cabinet departments is all you need.
Oh, and Paul is right about the Fed too. When you give government the power of the currency, you give them everything. Right now economic policy for both parties is inflate the bubble and hope the other party is in power when it bursts.
The sad and terrible thing is that the one man in Congress who believes that Congress is limited to the powers specifically granted to it under the Constitution is considered to be a nut. Washington would be sorely disappointed.
Posted by: Britt at February 24, 2010 03:24 AM (DcWbe)
13
Frankly I disagree with you here. Over the past year, even though I probably thought the same as you then, but have learned to agree more with Ron Paul than ever before.
I am tired of people like McCain,Huckabee,Palin, and Romney who are nothing more that Keynesian war hawks.
We need to return to the gold and silver as money,and mind our own business.
Posted by: Micheal at February 24, 2010 06:59 AM (LW8CE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 20, 2010
Finally, Some Common Sense Out of Holder's Justice Department
While it is sure to cause many a lefty to wet themselves, John Yoo and Jay Bybee have been cleared of any wrong-doing in their post 9/11 work providing legal advice on enhanced interrogation techniques. It's refreshing to see that even a Justice Department as corrupt and biased as this one hasn't been able to criminalize honestly argued opinion, even though they certainly tried.
Jennifer Rubin, who has followed this fare more closely that I,
dissects the decision, and makes the case that if Holder really wants to prosecute those in Justice who have done wrong, he should start by investigating his own people.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:39 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now, if someone with half a brain would take John Conyers aside and slap some "smarts" into him, maybe the political aspect of this entire fiasco would disappear.
Conyers fully intends to "review" this decision and it would NOT surprise me to learn that his Democrat controlled committee disagrees with the results and recommends further Congressional action.
Posted by: Dell at February 20, 2010 10:14 AM (H/+W/)
2
To understand the politics behind this investigation, one only has to step back to see that it's George W. Bush that the Democrats have targeted.
Anything short of making President Bush look bad is unacceptable. Thus, the case will never die. Conyers HAS to disagree with the DOJ report because the left wing of his party demands it. Senators like Patrick Leahy, who has made it his life's work to destroy George Bush, won't allow any other result.
Posted by: Dell at February 20, 2010 10:20 AM (H/+W/)
3
Yes, of course W is the target but we have yet another misfire. Or something. The old cliche has it that talent hits the target no one else can hit. Genius hits the target no one else can see. What do we call the repetitive targeting of, really, a target that is not there that results in toes being pruned from the guy shooting? Language herself fails us in these astonishing times.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 20, 2010 10:57 AM (LWhHe)
4
Some common sense in the justice department? Give me a break, look at your previous article.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at February 21, 2010 02:07 AM (8kQ8M)
5
The other way to look at this is that the Obama Administration is planning to use some of these techniques and needs to rehabilitate the memos.
Posted by: Neo at February 22, 2010 10:55 AM (tE8FB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 19, 2010
Obama Appoints Nine Terrorist Lawyers to Justice
You've got to be kidding me.
If Byron York is correct, the CIA needs to start flying Reapers over Eric Holder's
terrorist advocate-filled Justice Department:
Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.
At least
nine Obama-appointed terrorist lawyers work in the very department that is supposed to be trying to put them away behind bars. This strikes me as a conflict of interest whether or not these appointees recuse themselves from cases involving their (hopefully former) clients.
Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is not too much to say that this is truly the greatest scandal of the Obamistration. When Barry complains of Gitmo parolees, the lack of convictions in tribunals and allegations of abuse he is refering largley to the advesarial work of Eric Holder's law firm. Holder himself maintained only the most implausible deniability. Shall we call their actions treasonous? Lynn Stewart rises to that level, upon conviction. But Holder's cronies were working within the law, to the extent we know. So okay. We are all good citizens here but even if we excuse their mendacious lawfare waged on the nation does that mean they should be admitted to PROSECUTE these same cutthroats they were just defending? Nothing more exotic than simple professional ethics should bar them. But if Obama bars the Jihadi Legal Department he will have to bar Holder as well. Can you imagine the backlash when the Second Black President sacks the First Black AG? He doesn't need that beef. Not now.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 20, 2010 11:03 AM (LWhHe)
2
Hey! These people are just part of the ninety-nine percent of lawyers who give the others a bad name!
Posted by: Earl T at February 20, 2010 03:18 PM (ldMw8)
3
Not sure just how big a deal this actually is.
A lawyer specialising in real estate may sometimes represent a purchaser while at other times representing a seller - while possibly not being personally sympathetic to either client.
Much more background is needed.
Posted by: John A at February 20, 2010 04:58 PM (LEb+F)
4
John, the differences between real estate law and our dealings with jihadis should be enough to show how shallow and weak you analogy is but if they are not, google up Covington Burling and some filter like jihad or terror. These pukes are True Believers that there is no such thing as a terrorist, just misunderstood goatherders. And now they are not providing defense but are in charge of prosecutions! Yes, this is quite terrible. Yes, it is treason, plain and simple.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 21, 2010 05:02 PM (LWhHe)
5
Dear Friends:
Don't forget that the Constitution of our country guarantees the presumption of innocence to every criminal defendant, as well as the right to a speedy and fair trial.
It is a testimony to the high regard in which we hold justice, that we are willing and able to be equanimous in dispensing it. To safeguard the impartiality of the system, we have to be extra cautious about preventing our emotions and prejudices from poisoning the quality of our legal system.
That is what makes America better than less arduously democratic societies.
If you knock down all the barriers protecting freedom and equal justice, where will you hide, yourself, when the winds of prejudice blow against you?
Posted by: Public Takeover at February 23, 2010 11:21 AM (aZq1l)
6
@ Public Takeover and others
You need to remember that the Gitmo Detainees are not criminal defendants. They are enemy combatants, who should be tried under the UCMJ. The rights of due process are different. When you call them criminals you marginalize what they have done.
Also Al Qaeda is not a democratic society.
Posted by: fish at February 23, 2010 06:14 PM (czMIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Prayers for Dan
Dan Collins of POWIP has been admitted to the hospital. Please keep him in your prayers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:34 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Eww
Uh, Tiger?
Love your mother, don't
love your mother.
More therapy is exactly what you need.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Guess he's decided to keep his affairs in the family from now on. Stay classy Tiger!
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at February 19, 2010 01:46 PM (+LRPE)
Posted by: David at February 19, 2010 03:35 PM (aTssA)
3
This photo may explain alot.
Does anyone think tiger is at all sorry???
Posted by: duncan at February 20, 2010 01:33 AM (CfmM0)
4
And you'all jump on Southerners for marrying our cousins.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at February 21, 2010 02:09 AM (8kQ8M)
5
Hell, I thought he was dating a Supreme Court Justice when I first saw the photo.
Posted by: ccoffer at February 21, 2010 11:42 AM (ZtWp7)
6
the mom's the aggressor here, but then again, maybe it's just a bad angle and he's actually kissing her cheek.
Posted by: Jayne at February 22, 2010 11:07 PM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is Think Progress Capable of Publishing the Truth?
I'm a blogger, and have always worn my political views on my sleeve, and that seems to be the case for most political bloggers, right or left. We see the world through a certain point of view, and react to that news as we interpret it. I often disagree with how my peers on the left and right view things, but I can at least understand that their view—how ever much I disagree with it or view it to be distorted—is an honest one.
I can't say the same, however, about
Media Matters or
Think Progress, who like their nutty contemporaries at
World Net Daily, seem intent on twisting even the most innocuous, innocent statement into something approaching an outright misrepresentation or lie. For a pair of sites that revel in painting their opposition as monsters in love with waterboarding, they seem far too comfortable with torturing reality.
Max Bergmanns'
latest distortion targeting new Senator Scott Brown is a perfect example of the kind of willful deception that regularly oozes from
, and Professor William Jacobson dissects the distortions with a surgeon's precision.
I almost feel sorry for them, individuals so wedded to an intellectually bankrupt ideology that they've given up all decency, integrity and honor in order to viciously cycle lies for a living. Anything to be relevant, I suppose. Even if that relevance is based upon habitual deception.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:30 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Most of the folks you speak of are a product of Socialist leaning crowd of the 60's, so I wouldn't hold out much hope that they'll suddenly "realize" the error of their ways. I'm not surprised, really. I lived through the nightmares their parents created and it's simply more of the same.
Something to look forward to? If, in fact, we're still the United States, the exact same political ideology will rear its ugly head in another 25 years, when their kids take over.
Posted by: Dell at February 19, 2010 11:07 AM (H/+W/)
2
I know you don't want to see this statement, but here goes, its Bush's fault. I am serious in this statement and was a Bush supporter even though he was a liberal and stupid. The fact is he was better than his opposition. Here is the reason, Bush defined the war we are in as a war on terror. That is like saying that we are at war with the atomic bomb. So anytime someone does something violent, then people start yelling terror and confuse the issue and the principals for which we fight. Bush should have bit the bullet and said we are at war with Islam. We are not at war with a single nation state but have begun the inevitable confrontation with a religion. If he had done this, then the whole issue would be cast in a different light and we would be united in a goal. As it is, the war on terror is going to fractionate us.
As to the difference in conservative and liberal bloggers. It seems that when you read conservative blogs the purpose of the statements is to improve our country. When you read liberal statements, the purpose seems to one up the competition, to confuse, to distort and to play a game.
Posted by: David at February 19, 2010 03:47 PM (aTssA)
3
That they are libs/progs/socialists/comms, means they never HAD any decency, integrity, or honor TO give up;ipso facto.
Posted by: emdfl at February 19, 2010 08:59 PM (ja6S8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 65 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1187 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0971 seconds, 147 records returned.
Page size 101 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.