Confederate Yankee
January 05, 2010
Sorry Your Mommy Got Blown Up, Timmy: We Were Watching Icebergs
Pardon me for the sarcasm, but that future mea culpa is one that will likely be delivered (in substance, if not form) to the families of Americans killed because global warming cultists in the CIA are using assets to hunt clouds, tropical forests and ice instead of terrorists:
The nation’s top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government’s intelligence assets — including spy satellites and other classified sensors — to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change. They seek insights from natural phenomena like clouds and glaciers, deserts and tropical forests.
The collaboration restarts an effort the Bush administration shut down and has the strong backing of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the last year, as part of the effort, the collaborators have scrutinized images of Arctic sea ice from reconnaissance satellites in an effort to distinguish things like summer melts from climate trends, and they have had images of the ice pack declassified to speed the scientific analysis.
That silly Bush administration!
Why, if there is one thing I've heard throughout the so-called "war on terror" it is that we've just had far too many intelligence assets being wasted, and that we might be better off draining analysts to retarget climate data from our multi-billion dollar constellation of satellites to a bunch of fear-mongering climatologists.
The article, of course, claims that:
the monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.
Bull.
Anyone who has ever worked—well, anywhere—knows that side projects that have "little or no impact" invariably end up drawing a substantial number of resources away from their primary missions. In this case, that inevitable scope creep is intruding on a line of work where the consequences of failure can be the death of the very citizens the CIA is supposed to protect.
As for the scientists, I would think they already have their hands full attempting to validate and explain their existing manipulated data and doctored models.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But CY, haven't you heard? AGW is a national security risk. Therefore, it only makes sense to use national security resources to track it.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at January 05, 2010 04:12 PM (FJRFk)
2
Yep, this explains everything wrong with our intel-community.
Posted by: Michael at January 05, 2010 08:45 PM (PU7e+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Massachusetts Senate Race Tightens. Is Obamacare The Cause?
A new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows that Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown (a member of the MA state Senate) trailing Democrat Martha Coakley (the state Attorney general) by only nine percentage points in the special election being held to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat:
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
The special Senate election will be held on January 19 and special elections typically feature low turnout. That’s one reason the race appears to be a bit closer than might typically be expected for a Senate race in Massachusetts. Kennedy carried 69% of the vote when he was reelected in 2006.
I think this is a far closer race an anyone had any reason to suspect, but this may be because of a grassroots effort by Republican, conservative, and Tea Party activists (not always the same folks) to try to make this race a referendum on the national health care rationing bill known as Obamacare.
I doubt Brown will score an upset victory even with Coakley rather arrogantly
taking a vacation just before the election, but if he makes it relatively close, that may be seen as a prelude to the kind of treatment Democrats might expect from voters for their attempts to bully through a dangerously flawed and poorly understood bill.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:38 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I do not know if Obamacare is the cause or not, but I am hoping that his vote could be the 41st in the Senate. I would rather have it in January 19 that to wait until November.
Posted by: Picric at January 05, 2010 02:23 PM (oKOn9)
2
Send a donation to Scott Brown and help him over the top. This can be the start of the beat down the democrats are going to see in 2010 and 2012.
You can donate here:
https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown
Vote for Scott Brown.
Posted by: Pete at January 05, 2010 05:47 PM (UXmm5)
3
It's certainly no thanks to the rnc.
Posted by: emdfl at January 05, 2010 06:21 PM (CoWs+)
4
Lets elect Scott Brown and show the country we are sending help to the US Senate to stop the communist agenda of Obama, and the House and Senate leadership. Wake up and vote for Scott Brown!!!
Posted by: Pat Rawlings at January 06, 2010 09:48 AM (mdN4u)
5
I am optimistic in a Brown victory. A victory for change that our state needs deperately. After so many years of ultra liberal one sided thinking, we must cut thee old ties, and put real balance back into our lives, for fair and equal representation, for all!!!!!!!!
Dick Swan
Pres. CEO
A.R.M.S. Inc.
Posted by: Dick Swan at January 07, 2010 09:12 PM (weLxq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 04, 2010
Vegas Courthouse Gunman Upset Over Social Security Cut
It looks like we have a motive for today's shooting at a Las Vegas courthouse.
A 66-year-old Las Vegas retiree, disgruntled over cuts in his Social Security benefits, opened fire this morning in the lobby of the federal courthouse here, killing a court security officer and wounding a deputy U.S. marshal, authorities said.
The gunman, identified as Johnny Lee Wicks, 66, was shot in the head and died on the scene, according to law enforcement sources. The deputy marshal was in stable condition at a local hospital. The names of the marshal and court security officer have not been released, though the security officer was a 65-year-old retired policeman, according to local media outlets.
Wicks was a recent retiree who was suing the U.S. government because his Social Security benefits were apparently denied or reduced, a law enforcement official said. He was living in a Las Vegas-area retirement home.
According to Fox News, the case
was filed in 2008 but formally thrown out in September of 2009.
What he perceived as an unfair reduction in benefits was enough to send this retiree over the edge. I can only imagine the furor that will erupt when the entire Social Security system collapses under the weight of millions of Baby Boomers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:32 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There's an angle here that the MSM seems to be avoiding - imagine that.
In a couple of the other stories I found about the incident, it was noted that it wasn't just a retiree mad about not getting benefits - little more depth to it.
Yes, Wicks was pissed about a reduction of benefits - but according to this article, the reason for his outrage is multifold - he was convinced he was denied because of his race (i.e. they did it to him because he was black), and that part of the reduction came not because of who he was, but what he did (moved to Nevada, which doesn't include a State supplement, as was the case where he moved from - California)
Interesting to see that the author of the article I'm citing hopes that nobody will make political hay out of the case - I mean, what's to make hay about here? Just someone who's become convinced he's been victimized because of his race, and lost access to additional wealth redistribution. Nothing to see here, move along.
Don't make any comment about the twisted system and mindset that truly victimized the guy to the point he thought his only recourse was to torch the retirement home he was living in then go on a shooting rampage. That would be impolitik.
Posted by: Wind Rider at January 04, 2010 10:45 PM (drenD)
2
Wait until all those aarp members find out how badly their wonderful organization has screwed them in the coming health care bill.
Posted by: emdfl at January 04, 2010 11:13 PM (+md8d)
3
Now people are killing because they're not getting enough free money? Oh boy!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 05, 2010 01:38 PM (MxQFN)
4
Social Security payments are not "free money".
But you knew that didn't you?
As for the concern about what happens at the complete collapse of the Ponzi scheme--not to worry. The improvements in "health" care will be coordinated to make sure none of us are still alive to make a fuss.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at January 05, 2010 03:55 PM (OmeRL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 02, 2010
Violence Policy Center Still Can't Tell Difference Between Living, Dead
This is getting rather ridiculous.
Weeks ago in a Pajamas Media article I
eviscerated the shoddy "research" of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun group President Obama repeatedly helped fund while a director of the Joyce Foundation.
In that exposeé, I highlighted the fact that VPC couldn't even total the number of deaths they reported correctly, "double-dipping" to create a higher false number of fatalities. But among the the biggest, most glaring weakness of the
VPC report was the claim that at least one person they listed as killed, was never shot.
The VPC claims:
On March 8, 2008, Christine Burroughs, naked and covered with blood, ran to neighbor Alice and Lance Lather’s house seeking refuge from her enraged husband, Arthur Burroughs. Burroughs followed his wife to the home, fatally shooting Lance Lather. Burroughs then barricaded himself in the neighbors’ bathroom with his wife. A SWAT team and hostage negotiator were called to the house, but Burroughs shot and killed his wife and then himself. Christine Burroughs had previously told Alice Lather that her husband wanted to kill her because she wanted a divorce. Burroughs had been previously employed in loss prevention and security for T.J. Maxx and had possessed a concealed handgun permit since at least 1999.
As noted by citing several news accounts, including two that
interviewed Christine Burroughs
after the shooting, Mrs. Burroughs survived her husband's rampage. She was never shot. Period.
Gun control organizations routinely engage in hyperbole, fear tactics, and falsifying claims to pursue their political objectives. Still, even by the low standards of gun control groups, isn't claiming that someone died when they did not far over the line of acceptable behavior?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:12 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This presents quite a quandry! If she was dead she could vote Democrat in all future elections. since she is alive, does she get to vote at all? Just curious!
Posted by: The Dude at January 02, 2010 05:47 PM (JGVln)
2
Why would they do this? Simple but tragic. Statists/socialists/communists (take your pick, they're one in the same) do not believe in or recognize the inherent value of individual lives. All must be subordinated to the glory of the state, administered by self-proclaimed elites with the correct pedigrees. Thus can they happily enact health care measures that will not, in fact, care for the health of individuals, while establishing death panels (while simultaneously denying they exist) to ensure that millions will die by bureaucratic whim (while trying to enact legislation that will permanently enshrine the death panels they claim don't exist and make it impossible for the nonexistent panels ever to be disbanded).
If one does not recognize the inherent worth of individual lives, there can be no right to defend such lives, devoid of meaning as they are, and the means to defend them must be seized and regulated lest those who do value their own lives, and those of their families, take offense to the dictates of the state and actually try to do something about it.
In the pursuit of such noble communist goals, truth is whatever the scientific communists say it is and issues such as embarrassment and shame enter into their thinking not at all.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at January 02, 2010 06:28 PM (JyD4t)
3
I smell a fat settlement if she wanted to sue them.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2010 12:21 AM (XSAff)
4
The numbers "crunching" formula used is identical to the process to determine Gorebal warming!!
And now do you understand?
Posted by: Dell at January 05, 2010 08:58 PM (5ppXf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Xe Contractors Killed In CIA Attack
Via WRAL:
Two CIA contractors killed in a bombing in Afghanistan Wednesday were employed by North Carolina-based Xe, formerly known as Blackwater, according to CNN.
A former intelligence officer told CNN that two of seven deceased worked for the private security and training firm based in Moyock, a small community in Currituck County.
The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the bombing at a former military base on the edge of Khost city, the capital of Khost province, which borders Pakistan and is a Taliban stronghold. Six other CIA workers were wounded.
It would be interesting to know what services the Xe contractors were performing. Theoretically, security for government employees would have been their primary role. Just as obviously, that security was breached.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:51 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Theoretically, you have no idea what their role was. Just as obviously you imply that they failed somehow. Weak.
Posted by: Mr. Obvious at January 02, 2010 11:36 AM (MJqpC)
2
Obviously Mr. Obvious does not know much about the story and succeeds only in a Sarcasm Fail.
Talk about weak.
Posted by: JP at January 02, 2010 12:52 PM (VxiFL)
3
SOMEBODY sure as hell failed.
Knowing only what I read in the papers, it seems to me a fundamental error to trust a turncoat to the extent that he was allowed even to SEE so many people on that base, never mind get that close to them.
Is this Monday morning QBing? NO, it isn't, because we are supposed to have learned the way this game has already been played in that part of the world.
Basic security, and Basic COMPARTMENTALIZATION clearly did not happen. But a horrendous bomb did.
I certainly hope I am totally wrong, and that we were not as foolish, and inept as it appears we were.
Posted by: Bill Smith at January 03, 2010 08:10 PM (qX8Pt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 01, 2010
More "Settled" Science: Atmospheric CO2 Hasn't Increased Since Fillmore Administration
Actually, they are going only on recorded data, so another way of saying this is that atmospheric CO2 hasn't risen in recorded history:
Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
Oh, that lovely phrase again, where they reveal anthropogenic climate change cultists reveal they've
assumed variables for their models that will lead to a desired outcome, instead of using what they actually known.
Using what you know and can prove instead of making speculative assumptions that invariably justify your preferred outcome... what a concept.
Update: The research abstract is a bit more clear:
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
My bold above.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:53 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The article seems to be poorly written.
Apparently it is about the ratio of absorbed CO2 not changing--or something.
But, it is NOT saying that the absolute value of CO2 is unchanged.
Posted by: mockmook at January 01, 2010 12:57 PM (0f6vn)
2
Mockmook, think it through. If the ratio is unchanging while the overall amount is going up, then the cause is not solely man made. Is it coincidental that both natural and man made CO2 are rising at exactly the same rate? Or more likely that mankind is not a big player, and man made CO2 definitely not a big player.
Posted by: CoRev at January 01, 2010 01:10 PM (0U8Ob)
3
"In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."
http://www.sciencedaily DOT com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Mock, it is the airborne fraction of CO2 that is supposedly the problem. And IT has not changed in 150 years.
That having been said, airborne CO2 does NOT cause the oceans to warm, as anyone who has watched a cold beer go flat as it warms up can tell you.
It is the SUN which warms -- sometimes more, sometimes less -- the oceans, and causes dissolved CO2 to come out of solution; just like the beer.
It would appear that hoax #1 having been exposed, these people are off on the next one: That the biochemistry of plants, and the properties of sea water have mysteriously changed such that they can no longer absorb as much CO2.
Give it UP, already.
Posted by: Bill Smith at January 01, 2010 01:18 PM (3UAh4)
4
"Hide the decline," or "hide the non existent increase?" Amazing what we discover when we employ actual science rather than wishful thinking. But we have nothing to worry about as Barack Obama has promised to change everything and restore science to its rightful place: lying in the service of a statist agenda.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at January 01, 2010 01:35 PM (JyD4t)
5
Damn it Bob! Cluttering the issue with facts!
Not to be dissuaded, however, the EPA is now looking to follow up on calling CO2 a 'pollutant' with a complete overhaul of Land Use regulations!
Think Kelo on steroids, and you might be halfway there.
Posted by: Wind Rider at January 01, 2010 02:16 PM (drenD)
6
Wind Rider, if the EPA actually goes forward there will be many, many, and even more lawsuits. One loss will cause the whole house of cards to fall. It will take years, but it is inevitable, especially with time.
Posted by: CoRev at January 01, 2010 03:15 PM (0U8Ob)
7
Spam filter not working?
I don't need a wedding dress, thank you.
Posted by: Marc at January 02, 2010 12:59 AM (Zoziv)
8
I don't need a wedding dress, thank you.
Posted by: Marc at January 2, 2010 12:59 AM
------------- --------------- -----------
I don't know. Maybe you'd look cute in one..?
[ sorry, couldn't resist that ;-)) ]
Posted by: chuck in st paul at January 02, 2010 10:13 AM (adr25)
9
Mock is right. It's dealing with proportions, not with total amounts. CO2 is increasing, it's just the ratio of CO2 that is going into the atmosphere has stayed a fairly constant 45% for 150 years.
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
That's from a press release from the researcher's university.
Posted by: dorkafork at January 02, 2010 10:33 AM (WbRO8)
10
BTW, I found that press release through an anti-AGW blog, they interpret it the same way: ratio, not total amount. (See the "World Climate Report" blog, Nov.10, 2009 entry. Spam filter lets wedding dress comments through, but not that.)
Posted by: dorkafork at January 02, 2010 10:39 AM (WbRO8)
11
Yes, it's the proportion sequestered that hasn't changed, CO2 is still rising. The significance of the study is it contradicts the warmist claims that humans are overloading Earth's natural ability to absorb CO2.
Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes at January 02, 2010 07:45 PM (43L36)
12
I have some concerns that those commenting might be able to answer. CO2 supposedly a green house gas in the upper atmosphere. Much of what you are quoting has to do with its presence at our level. Now, CO2 in heavier than air, it does not float up to the upper atmosphere. So if CO2 is exerting an influence, how does it get to the upper atmosphere? It seems that the whole argument is smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: David at January 03, 2010 02:44 PM (VpBDM)
13
Now, CO2 in heavier than air, it does not float up to the upper atmosphere.
Storm clouds are natural transports of air from ground level to regions as high as 40-50,000 feet
There's a lot of mixing that goes on naturally. I don't know how it would be quantified, but mechanisms do exist. Obviously, mechanisms exist which moves CFC's, which are relatively heavy molecules, into the upper atmosphere.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2010 12:27 AM (XSAff)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama The Appeaser May Have Violated Executive Order Against Negotiating With Terrorists
I completely missed this story yesterday, where Bill Roggio noted that the Obama Administration fell into a trap laid by Iranian-backed extremists, and released terrorists that killed American soldiers:
The US has released the leader of an Iranian-backed Shia terror group behind the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in January 2007.
Qais Qazali, the leader of the Asaib al Haq or the League of the Righteous, was set free by the US military and transferred to Iraqi custody in exchange for the release of British hostage Peter Moore, US military officers and intelligence officials told The Long War Journal. The US military directly implicated Qais in the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in January 2007.
"We let a very dangerous man go, a man whose hands are stained with US and Iraqi blood," a military officer said. "We are going to pay for this in the future."
The US military has maintained that the release of members and leaders of the League of the Righteous is related to a reconciliation agreement between the terror group and the Iraqi government, but some US military officers disagree.
"The official line is the release of Qazali is about reconciliation, but in reality this was a prisoner swap," a military intelligence official said.
The Brit released in this uneven exchange was purposefully kidnapped to be used as swap-bait, and our American Chamberlain showed he was precisely the cultured rube they expected.
Today, Roggio follows up by noting that Obama may have violated an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan that
expressly forbid negotiating with terrorists.
To the best I can determine, there are two possible answers to the question of whether or not Obama violated National Security Decision Directive Number 207.
The first possible answer is that yes, the Administration did violate the Directive. If that is the case, I'm not sure what the ramifications could or should be. I suspect that even if criminal laws were broken by the White House, the Holder Justice Department would not seek to prosecute. In the unlikely event that they would prosecute, you can be assured that a lower-level staffer would be the fall guy.
The other possible answer—and perhaps the more likely one—is that shortly after taking office President Obama issued an executive order of his own that authorizes negotiations with terrorists.
Whether he broke the Reagan-era directive or cravenly issued a secret one of his own, the fact of the matter is that our nation's enemies know that taking hostages is now a viable option to win concessions with this President.
Hell of a job, Barry.
Hell of a job.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:08 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The other possible answer—and perhaps the more likely one—is that shortly after taking office President Obama issued an executive order of his own that authorizes negotiations with terrorists."
If he didn't, he will tomorrow morning!!
And trust me, you'll never, ever hear of Eric Holder prosecuting a Democrap...Just not going to happen. And it's just as well; his legal expertise will be put to a severe test in the KSM "circus trial" in NYC.
Posted by: Dell at January 01, 2010 01:40 PM (PFMmF)
2
How do we get this fool out of office before he gets us killed?
Posted by: crosspatch at January 01, 2010 07:49 PM (ZbLJZ)
3
He ran for office to destroy America....not protect her.
Posted by: torabora at January 01, 2010 09:39 PM (CgCrn)
4
Constitutional Law Professor? Which predecessor will get the blame for not explaining the weight of Executive orders to this neophyte? Not only is common sense lacking, but his staff is clueless. Dangerous clueless!
Posted by: hutch1200 at January 01, 2010 10:10 PM (ET/7o)
5
This is going to be a long year.
Posted by: Marc at January 02, 2010 12:52 AM (Zoziv)
6
The phrase I got from Ace's website, that I think applies to this is "It's a feature, not a bug."
I've been saying that a lot, lately. It's fun.
Posted by: brando at January 05, 2010 09:08 AM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 31, 2009
Houston Wets Itself Over Glorified Pipe
Read this story and you'd think that Houston Police ran across a terrorist with heavy-duty, anti-tank weaponry.
It isn't until you get to almost the end of the article that they finally reveal that the "rocket launcher" is nothing more or less than a fiberglass tube.
Prosecutors said there are no state charges for having the unarmed launcher or possessing Jihadist writings, unless they contain some type of threat.
The former director of Houston's FBI office said rocket launchers can be dangerous if they're in the wrong hands.
"I don't know any other use for those weapons except in combat," Don Clark said. "I've had them in combat, used them in combat. That's what they are used for."
The weapon is the warhead and rocket; the tube is a single-use disposable item.
So one of two things happened here. This jihadi wannabe acquired a used (and therefore useless) AT-4 tube (probably via an online aution like
this one), or he bought the
Airsoft version.
I'm quite sure it can be terrifying. It just simply isn't a weapon, no matter how much drama the media attempted to stir up here to justify the amont of time they spent on this story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:27 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yep. Reminds me of an op-ed I wrote for the Orange County Register years ago, when Los Angeles County and then-state Attorney General Bill Lockyer were trying to "get tough" on gun shows. State agents made a spectacle of seizing several "illegal" weapons from the now-defunct Great Western show, including a "rocket launcher." It turned out exactly has you would expect. Big photo-op. No charges. I blogged about today's hysterical story and reminisced about the old days here.
Happy new year to you!
Posted by: Ben Boychuk at December 31, 2009 08:08 PM (OKES5)
2
Yeah -- no more dangerous than spent shell casings.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at December 31, 2009 10:21 PM (NDHz+)
3
So, jihadist writings and the launcher tube for rocket. Alright, he can't kill anyone with just the tube any more than he can shoot someone with a gun without any bullets.
But... how do we know he doesn't have a rocket? Not much point in obtaining the tube if you don't have a rocket.
Before I shrug my shoulders, I'd want to know whether this jihad-aficionado has one or is trying to get one.
Posted by: Silvering at January 01, 2010 01:57 AM (Uer3y)
4
But... how do we know he doesn't have a rocket? Not much point in obtaining the tube if you don't have a rocket.
They are made as a single use unit.
That means the tube is useless once the rocket come out. They are made to be disposed of on the battle field, and the last thing you do is dispose of something with technology or an offensive use for your enemy to then use against you.
That also is the only way you can get one as a private citizen. after use, it is useless, and therefor able to be legally owned as a curio.
Now, as it is useless militarily, that does not mean it is useless. The early tube were just the right size to hold the spoon on a grenade that had the pins pulled. a bit of hacking, a trip wire and hanging the tube in a tree and some schmuck comes along and trips the trap. . . several grenades fall and detonate. . . usually without them hitting the ground. . .causing mayhem. Soldiers learned to either keep the tubes, or destroy them after use.
So he had something that has all the same use as a section of PVC. And trust me, I can get damned destructive with bits of PVC.
Posted by: JP at January 01, 2010 02:38 AM (VxiFL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
All Charges Dropped Against Blackwater Guards in Nisoor Square Shooting
I'm sure that liberal heads are just spinning as they try to come up with a convoluted explanation of how Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Eric Prince kidnapped and waterboarded the judge's schnauzer to let this happen, but the simple fact is that this prosecution was always more suspect than the media let on. The investigation devolved into a politically-driven witch hunt before the echoes of the last shots went silent, with the Iraqi government seemingly destroying evidence at the scene and U.S. presecutors seemingly more driven by a desire to find a scapegoat than to determine the facts of the case.
And now it looks like that pig-headed mentality
did the case in:
In a 90-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled that the government violated the guards' rights by using their immunized statements to help the investigation. The ruling comes after a lengthy set of hearings that examined whether federal prosecutors and agents improperly used such statements that the guards gave to State Department investigators following the shooting on Sept. 16, 2007.
"The explanations offered by prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions and persuade the court that they did not use the defendants' compelled testimony were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility," Urbina wrote.
I don't think that this dismissal means that these contractors were necessarily innocent, but the political focus of the investigation means we long ago lost any chance there was of ever determining if there was any justification for the guards to open and then maintain their fire.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:07 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It was the Bush DOJ that dropped the ball here. It's not like it's tough to connect the line between the dot marked "incompetent prosecution" and the one marked "Bush DOJ."
Posted by: jpe at December 31, 2009 08:02 PM (TZy1B)
2
CY, you really waste a lot of energy bashing liberals. And, it hurts your posts. You open up with a nonsensical rant against Liberals, then continue with a post and a conclusion that pretty much sums up what most Liberals think as well regarding this bungled case.
JPE is dead on.
Posted by: DJ at December 31, 2009 08:26 PM (XLkjt)
3
Uhhhh, you mean kinda' like this, at HuffPo???
"this is appalling ~
read between the lines and it's "dismissed on a technicality"
i agree with kata (below) that baby bush's buddies set this up to collapse.
more and more, it's clear we need some war crimes trials."
And there are hundreds more there - all about the same. The Libtards are ripped off by a Bill Clinton appointed Judge. Don't that just frost your buns??
CY's post is instantly correct.
Posted by: Dell at December 31, 2009 08:50 PM (L9aq4)
4
Hey sounds as if their karma ran over their dogma. The case was politically inspired and the outcome is just desserts.
Posted by: frankm at January 01, 2010 01:36 AM (OfdWp)
5
The shooting in busy Nisoor Square left 17 civilians dead. The Iraqi government wanted the guards to face trial in Iraq and officials there said they would closely watch how the U.S. judicial system handled the case.
(Judge) Urbina said the prosecutors ignored the advice of senior Justice Department officials and built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said that violated the guards' constitutional rights. He dismissed the government's explanations as "contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility."
----------------------------
The Justice Department set up a process to avoid those problems, but Urbina said lead prosecutor Ken Kohl and others "purposefully flouted the advice" of senior Justice Department officials telling them not to use the statements.
----------------
When the story first hit the AP wires, the fact that the prosecutors basically threw the case away was highlighted. Within hours, it was re-written, so that the Justice Dept statements saying the prosecutors purposefully fucked up are buried in the last paragraph. That's what we need - a justice system and media who cover up murder. Blackwater is a bunch of pretty bent wackjobs.
---------------------------------
On October 4, 2007 U.S. military reports indicated Blackwater's guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force. "It was obviously excessive," a U.S. military official speaking on condition of anonymity told the Washington Post. "The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them," the official continued. The Blackwater guards appeared to have fired grenade launchers in addition to machine guns, according to the report.[4]
On October 13, 2007, the FBI reported it had found at least 14 of the 17 civilians killed to have been without cause.[10] The three possibly justifiable killings involved the two passengers of a white Kia sedan which rolled toward the convoy, as well as an unidentified Iraqi nearby.[10] Much of the blame for the unjustified casulties has been put on "turret gunner no. 3", Paul Slough, 29, of Keller, Texas, who fired a large number of rounds during the event.[10]
Posted by: Ass-kickin' Yankee at January 01, 2010 11:42 PM (uJn9x)
6
Sure it can, especially when it smells like decomp.
JAC, you're an idiot.
Posted by: ung at January 02, 2010 02:44 AM (SKEgy)
7
This sort of miscarriage of justice is another prime example of what "can" happen when the US Government hires mercenaries to do the work of soldiers. Of course, this is what "does" happen when a president, Bush II, surrounds himself with the ideological purists from the so called Chicago School of Economics such as Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys (AKA Thugs) had been preparing and positioning themselves for years for this war. This war has never been about giving democracy to the Iraqi people. It's been about making a few people piles and piles of money in the name of democracy.
The Blackwater guards had no business being in Iraq in the first place. They are hired mercenaries, called contractors. And, compared to the poor US soldiers who proudly serve our nation, these folks serve only the almighty dollar. The proof is in the pudding, too, when you compare their salaries to that of US soldiers.
Shameful. Absolutely shameful that they were there in the first place.
Posted by: Dude at January 02, 2010 05:32 PM (5gxhz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Would-Be Robber Killed With Concealed Handgun
It looks like someone made the wrong choice of victim at the ATM of my old hometown bank:
An off-duty Pitt County Sheriff's deputy on Wednesday night shot and killed a man who reportedly tried to rob him at an ATM on Charles Boulevard, the Greenville Police Department reported.
The deputy, whose name has not been released, was at the automatic teller machine at the State Employees Credit Union, 2296 Charles Blvd. when the incident occured, according to a news release issued at 1:30 a.m. Thursday.
I hope that the deputy that killed this armed theif is able to deal with the trauma that typically occurs following a shooting.
It is worth noting that the deputy was off-duty which made his appearance no different than the estimated 160,000 North Carolinians with concealed carry permits.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:18 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Indeed.
God bless you guys that carry concealed. You make this state a safer place.
Posted by: Dan Irving at December 31, 2009 12:04 PM (zw8QA)
2
Amen to that Sister. Thank God for Second Ammendment Rights!
Posted by: Bubba at December 31, 2009 12:17 PM (vZ8Oa)
3
I always wonder how these things go down. I'm glad the almost-victim is safe and sound, but how incompetent must a mugger be to let a guy draw a weapon and get the drop on him even though he has the element of surprise? Would be cool to see the surveillance tape...
Posted by: Will Butler at December 31, 2009 06:54 PM (LgpMF)
4
Thanks to good training and the ability to carry a concealed permit the perp is the one in the morgue. It could have been the other way around.
I hate to know that such a young man is dead because he thought a few hundred dollars was worth his life. When are our young people going to learn that life is worth more than a few dollars. But I am glad to know that in such a situation, one that could be any one of us, a gun was available to defend this life. Listen up legilators!!!! Concealed gun permitees only defend themselves. They are legally carrying. The perk WAS NOT!! Just goes to show that the bad guy will always find the illegal gun!
Posted by: Janice Haley at December 31, 2009 09:35 PM (8kQ8M)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Finally Issued First Veto
Predictably, it doesn't matter.
At this point the great difficulty in describing the Obama Presidency is determining whether the theme is that of a tragi-comedy or a horror film.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am not an obammy supporter, far from it, but this came about 7 years earlier than the first veto by Bush.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at January 01, 2010 09:53 PM (eXdIs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Finnish Mall Shot Up, Shooter Commits Suicide
Via my friend Jose Guardia comes news that a man walked into a mall in Finland's second largest city and killed four shoppers.
His body, and body of his wife, were
later found:
Police say they found a body in the apartment of the suspected gunman, identified as 43-year-old Ibrahim Shkupolli.
His ex-wife has also been found dead in an apartment in Espoo, raising the total dead including the gunman to six.
According to Yle, Shkupolli used a 9-millimeter caliber hand gun.
Hundreds of people in the mall were panicked by the shots, witnesses said.
It wouldn't be surprising if Shkupolli murdered his wife over some sort of domestic dispute, decided that his life was over, and went to the mall to ruin as many lives as possible before returning to his apartment to commit suicide to avoid the consequences of his actions. Like many mass shooters, Shkupolli took the coward's way out.
People will not doubt focus on the fact that Shkupoli's first name is Ibrahim, and wonder if this was yet another case of a Muslim going on jihad. I suppose that is possible, but it doesn't seem likely based upon early reports.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:19 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wonder what the gun control laws are there? They worked as well as ever, didn't they?
Posted by: SDN at December 31, 2009 09:55 AM (S78cq)
2
Finland has less onerous laws on guns than most European countries. That said, the same kind of thing happens from time to time in those countries that do have such hardline laws.
Posted by: JP at December 31, 2009 11:44 AM (VxiFL)
3
JP don't you believe in the ordained right to bear arms?
Posted by: Bubba Redneck at December 31, 2009 12:39 PM (vZ8Oa)
4
Yes, he was an Albanian Muslim http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com/2009/12/human-sacrifice-in-islam.html
Posted by: Moss at December 31, 2009 04:09 PM (ulkeO)
5
Finland is one of the top 5 most heavily armed countries in the world, some 1.6 million firearms in a country of 5 million (more or less). Mostly longarms I think, they also have a very low crime rate generally, as there is almost no poverty.,and few social tensions.
As for the Albanian, I've been to Albania and Bosnia and Muslims from that area are very secular and almost never fundamentalists, sort of like christians in Vermont, ;-).
I could mention the high quality Vodka and fine women in Finland as well, but I'll stop now.
Posted by: Will Butler at December 31, 2009 04:53 PM (LgpMF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 30, 2009
Limbaugh in HI Hospital With Chest Pains
Via KITV:
Conservative radio talk host Rush Limbaugh was rushed to a Honolulu hospital on Wednesday afternoon with chest pains, sources told KITV.
Paramedics responded to the call at 2:41 p.m. at the Kahala Hotel and Resort.
Limbaugh suffered from chest pains, sources said. Paramedics treated him and took him to Queen's Medical Center in serious condition.
Sure,
now Obama's motorcade isn't available as an
ambulance service...
Update: Limbaugh now
resting comfortably.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:24 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I sure hope he's better soon. They say he is stable.
Posted by: Mark Harvey at December 30, 2009 11:00 PM (K6V0s)
Posted by: Marc at December 30, 2009 11:27 PM (Zoziv)
3
Check out this link.
http://race42008.com/2009/12/30/liberal-glee-on-display-over-limbaugh-hospitalization/
Is anyone surprised?
Posted by: Brad at December 31, 2009 12:31 AM (0SCjJ)
4
This news definitely got my attention like none other recently.
Posted by: Jayne at December 31, 2009 01:10 AM (dwIL0)
5
I hope this isn't another overdose! Liberals don't need more ammo.
Posted by: Bubba at December 31, 2009 09:17 AM (vZ8Oa)
6
Just wait until they have the authority to determine what health care critics like Rush (or you, or your family) get.
Posted by: SDN at December 31, 2009 09:53 AM (S78cq)
7
Has Wanda Sykes released a statement yet?
Posted by: Pinandpuller at December 31, 2009 09:59 AM (07w/N)
8
Who is Wanda Sykes? All I was saying earlier is that I don't want to find out this was another pain medication overdose. Liberals will use that to discredit Rush. They'll discredit what he's said in the last few weeks and months as "drug induced". Don't get me wrong, I listen to Rush Limbaugh and agree with a lot of what he says. I just worry however this will interfere with his ability to get his message out effectively.
Posted by: Bubba at December 31, 2009 10:20 AM (vZ8Oa)
9
All my best to my buddy Rush, many warm wishes for your speedy recovery!!
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at December 31, 2009 01:57 PM (+CMZl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama's TSA Finally Going After Real Terrorist Threat
Which of course means those individuals that highlight the Administration's incompetence, in this instance, travel bloggers (via Instapundit).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wait, I thought that people who published sensitive documents that the Administration didn't want published were brave whistleblowers speaking truth to power! That's what Leftards said when the NYSlimes published actual Top Secret stuff....
Posted by: SDN at December 30, 2009 10:34 PM (S78cq)
2
Imagine that the one action that the TSA could take that would definitely stop airline terrorist has been leaked. I mean, not being able to get out of your seat one hour before landing is one of the most brilliant concepts that I have ever heard of. This one action would stop the Mulims for sure. We need more rules and regulations that effect all of us so that we can definitely put these people in there place. Perhaps the TSA could place all passengers in handcuffs and shackles on assuming your seat. Or for that matter, if you are contemplating an airline flight you could go to the nearest jail and spend several months. These actions are sure to protect us.
Posted by: David at December 31, 2009 03:43 PM (VpBDM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
You Know You're Screwed When Even Your Whores Stop Taking Your Calls
While the competition to verbally fellate Barack Obama has been intense in the op-ed section since he first started his presidential run, the various staffers of the New York Times have always been among the most reliable. From Krugman, Rich, Freidman, and Douthat, etc. when it came to the man who would become President, they always gave good ed. It is, after all, the service for which they are employed.
So it was a bit shocking to see one of the premier courtesans of the
Times, Maureen Dowd, finally rip into the Administration for one of its
characteristic failures:
If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?
[snip]
Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.
[snip]
Citing the attempt of the Nigerian's father to warn U.S. authorities six months ago, the president intoned: "It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list."
In his detached way, Spock was letting us know that our besieged starship was not speeding into a safer new future, and that we still have to be scared.
Heck of a job, Barry.
Now, if only Krugman will admit Obama is destroying the economy...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:45 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
LOL. I was once told I give the best phone in town while manning a phone bank, but giving good ed. Now that is funny.
Happy New Year Bob and friends.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at December 30, 2009 02:31 PM (nas9l)
2
I'm pretty sure by now that Barry will stop taking advise from Tiger Woods.
Posted by: Neo at December 30, 2009 04:37 PM (tE8FB)
3
Imagine what is going to happen when there is a terrorist incident and it is traced back to the fact that Obama allowed this creep to lawyer up.
Some things that are coming from this concern me. Now there is a big push on to have total body scanners. This in very, very dangerous. You are being exposed to radiation at an unknown level. The company may state a specfic level, but it will be administered by people who have no idea as to how to deal with such instruments and little intelligence. The average technician at a hospital has 4 years of schools. Even then, a physicist is constantly reviewing the techs and machines. Low level radiation will cause eye damage, thyroid disease (cancer), fetus malformations in pregunant women, skin cancer (melenoma) and on and on. Will it assure you that bomb material is not on the plane? No. My 17 year old was able to come up with several suggestions as to how to get past the stupid security. The answer, profiling and declaring Islam an enemy and removing its religious protection.
Posted by: David at December 30, 2009 05:23 PM (VpBDM)
4
The Daily News, also reliably Obama-fellating, zipped up his pants w/ his junk still hanging out, too:
Even so, Obama’s description of Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist” was remarkable and disturbing. This radicalized young Nigerian is nothing of the sort. He operated, in fact, as an Al Qaeda-recruited, Al Qaeda-supplied, Al Qaeda-directed foot soldier – as, to put it directly, an enemy combatant, and not as the criminal “suspect” of Obama’s description.
In similarly distant fashion, the President ordered up a “review” of how Abdulmutallab smuggled explosives onto the jet and a “review” of how he slipped through the government’s various terror watch lists despite signals of clear and present danger.
Missing then was a statement about those obvious and unacceptable security cracks; the name, rank and serial number of the officials who would conduct the inquiries, and a deadline for completion and a report to the public. Tuesday, Obama filled in those rather basic blanks.
Link: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/30/2009-12-30_its_time_prez_for_you_to_get_serious.html
Posted by: ECM at December 30, 2009 05:40 PM (nYKDd)
5
Barry just doesn't have what it takes. Good looking suit and really quite articulate, though.
And that is fine if you are president of the garden club, but not if you are President of the United States.
Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2009 09:41 PM (bvDV5)
6
The answer, profiling and declaring Islam an enemy and removing its religious protection.
@David: I would have to respectfully disagree. The best solution, IMO, would be to make airlines responsible for their own security. People don't fly on planes that go boom. When people don't fly, airlines don't make money. It would be in their vested interest to make their airlines as safe as possible. Of course it isn't that simple. We'd also have to get Teh Gov't out of the airline industry. And, like any cancer, once it's in it's hard to get rid of ...
Posted by: Dan Irving at December 31, 2009 11:34 AM (zw8QA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 28, 2009
Question His Judgment
Mr. Obama, Dr. Whitaker and others had been golfing at the Luana Hills Country Club for about an hour when they suddenly jumped into the presidential motorcade and made a dramatic, high-speed departure. The unexpected move triggered concerns about whether the president was injured, particularly after an ambulance with flashing lights sped to the compound. The White House at first did not explain the incident out of concern for the privacy of the Whitakers, but later sent Mr. Burton to tell reporters the first family was uninjured.
The ambulance left after about 15 minutes at the compound, followed by a black sedan. Mr. Obama returned via motorcade to the golf course. An administration official said no stitches were needed.
Our President risked his own safety, the safety of his family, his friends and the lives of the Secret Service staff for an impromptu dash across the island so that a friend could attend to a
very minor injury. I wonder if this egress was high speed, and if any side streets were hastily closed with seconds to spare so that the Presidential motorcade could pass by unimpeded.
I wonder if local police officers placed their lives on the line to race out in front and provide security. Officers have died escorting
Hillary Clinton and
George Bush, but we begrudging accept the lives lost as the cost of protecting those running for President and those currently in office.
Nobody elected Erik Whitaker, or his son. Barack Obama put God-knows how many lives at risk and abused his office to spare his friend a few minutes of travel time and uncertainly... all for a trifling boo-boo. It is a case of unnecessary dramatics, of tremendous effort and expense, wasted needlessly, when a less rushed and practical approach would have been both less dangerous and more productive.
But that's becoming the signature of his entire term in office, isn't it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:26 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OMG!!! Another crisis to create pandemonium. Or maybe it's just a cry for attention...
Posted by: Ky Woman at December 28, 2009 10:16 PM (WUQLg)
2
Hmmm... a friend's kid get's a boo-boo, and it's all crisis and racing across town.
A nutbag tries to blow up a plane over American soil, and it's just... meh... I'll get to it in a couple of days... Tee up, boys!
Posted by: jana at December 29, 2009 03:03 AM (vSRlG)
3
Let's not be too hard on the guy. Those boo-boos hurt. Just ask John Kerry.
Posted by: Tim at December 29, 2009 09:19 AM (3Wewy)
4
This really cast doubt on the Great One. I am an avid golfer and have been in many an emergency. In the face of a crisis, the game must go on. I have nursed someone shot when at a hole close to the road. We continued to play until back to the club house. On another occasion one of our group had heat stroke and we continue to play until we could get him a cart. We did not suspend play at that time as he was ahead on the bets.
This president needs to man up. He is a girly man.
Posted by: David at December 29, 2009 09:43 AM (dccG2)
5
I think Obama like the drama and power of the presidency almost like a kid playing a video game. It is an adventure for him, the black cars, the fast moving caravan, the big blue plane. And he gets to stay the center of attention too since he is the main character. As for speed, all presidential motorcades (any thing with the president in it) move very fast for security reasons. I saw Clinton coming down 53st in Manhattan on his way to the Sheraton in a group of at least 25 limos, ambulences, Suvs etc rocking at about 60 mph. Really cool.
Posted by: mytralman at December 29, 2009 10:16 AM (26p91)
6
Why was he in no hurry when over 200 lives could have been lost?
Or how about those killed at Fort Hood?
There was no urgency in his reaction to either of those incidents.
He cares not one bit about America. It is all about him and those that are in his immediate vicinity.
Posted by: 1IDVET at December 29, 2009 11:11 AM (AwOS7)
7
He was showing off for his friends--like a kid.
Posted by: SKAY at December 29, 2009 12:34 PM (y5IWb)
8
I sure hope they did not go to the emergency room.
In the words of Dr. Eric Whitaker: "You should not use the emergency department as the place to get primary care," Whitaker said. "For some reason, this is controversial. Emergency rooms should be used for emergencies."
Posted by: flenser at December 29, 2009 01:38 PM (RUO3H)
9
Egad. Normal rational people would quickly assess the extent of any injury and determine if medical care beyond their means was required. If so, they would quickly determine if that care was an emergency or not. It an emergency, they'd call an ambulance. For anything else, they'd simply drive to their doctor or nearest emergency room at a rational speed. No drama, no fuss, just reasonable, everyday folks doing what's necessary. And then there is our president...
By the way, isn't a qualified MD--military, I believe--always accompanying the POTUS, or at the least, very quickly available?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at December 29, 2009 03:23 PM (JyD4t)
10
It's as if Obama never grew up. Perhaps we should start referring to him as "the boy president".
Posted by: pst314 at December 29, 2009 06:31 PM (XP0Bd)
11
I'm pretty sure someone on the secret service detail must be paramedic qualified, and they undoubtedly have something resembling a deluxe combat surgical kit within reach 7x24...or at least a basic Home Depot "construction site" type first aid kit with some compression bandages, butterflys, and basic suture set.
If they don't have any of that, then maybe they need to rethink their "road kit"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 30, 2009 12:20 AM (WqfbF)
12
The Narcissist in Chief
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at December 30, 2009 06:03 AM (MxQFN)
13
It least they didn't unleash the power of the "football"
Posted by: Neo at December 30, 2009 04:39 PM (tE8FB)
14
Why is no one mocking the fact that the 'guest' in question was a DOCTOR? Never mind that Obama should be accompanied by a medic at all times, forget that an ambulance is the typical response (which it seems like was there?), don't bother criticizing the severity of the injury. Just explain to me why a DOCTOR needed a Presidential motorcade for a minor injury. However, I find the article very unclear. I feel like I'm missing half the story and don't understand where the 'compound' came from, was that a hospital or a clinic?
Posted by: Kat at January 02, 2010 11:35 AM (UQf9a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Surrenders U.S. Sovereignty
Barack Obama quietly issued an executive order before Christmas that gives an international police force extraordinary new rights inside the United States. The most radical President ever elected has summarily given the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) the same diplomatic immunities granted nations, rendering them virtually immune from U.S. law and beyond the reach of our own law enforcement agencies.
But the powers granted to INTERPOL seems to be only a first step, as experts draw the logical conclusion that Obama is on a path to damn U.S. servicemen and politicians to the whims of a corrupt International Criminal Court.
Read it all at Pajamas Media, and be sure to follow the links.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:32 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You know, I hyperventilated about this on a number of online forums, but then it occurred to me that an EO doesn't have the force of law and certainly not the standing of the U.S. Constitution. While international relations is the purview of the Executive Branch, in the event of criminal proceedings against a U.S. citizen, the Judiciary would throw this out in a heartbeat.
I think the greater concern was identified by Andy McCarthy. Since INTERPOL's U.S. headquarters is inside the DOJ in D.C. - "Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?"
Posted by: diogenes online at December 28, 2009 08:52 AM (2MrBP)
2
From its beginning, Interpol was merely a way for police forces to exchange information. When did it get enforcement powers of its own and what were the reasons?
Posted by: Bleepless at December 28, 2009 05:41 PM (sRxdX)
3
then it occurred to me that an EO doesn't have the force of law and certainly not the standing of the U.S. Constitution.
The original WWII vintage legislation being modified by Reagan's EO and now Obama's, explicitly framed up a list of restrictions and possible tax liabilities, and explicitly stated that the president would have authority via EO to add/delete these for an organization as they pleased.
So the original FDR WWII era legislation was explicitly written to allow modification by EO.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2009 01:45 AM (CAH/B)
4
So the original FDR WWII era legislation was explicitly written to allow modification by EO.
Even so, it is still subordinate to the Constitution...
Posted by: diogenes online at December 29, 2009 07:57 AM (2MrBP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 27, 2009
Terrorist Not Only One With Pants On Fire
I'e been offline spending time with family over the past few days and so I'm behind the curve on the story of the terrorist that tried to detonate a bomb on a flight about to land in Detroit. The attempted detonation of a PETN device with a nitroglycerine detonator failed. Instead of bringing down the airliner, the explosive misfired and burned instead of exploding. A Dutch passenger is credited with being a hero for his actions in the immediate wake of the failed attack for subduing the would-be terrorist, but the simple fact of the matter is that if the device had functioned properly, the plane would have likely gone down, killing hundreds. Quite simply, God and bad chemistry was on our side.
It was therefore quite revolting to see DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano claim that "
the system worked." The system was an utter and unmitigated failure.
The system allowed one of the most dangerous explosives known to man—one known to be a favorite of al Qaeda—aboard a flight into the United States in sufficient quantity to destroy a plane in midair. The device used one of the oldest known and most common explosives in the world as a trigger as well. As for the bomber himself, he was a known al Qaeda affiiliate who had been turned in by his own father for his extremism.
In what way, Janet Napolitano, did Homeland Security "work" when it let a known terrorist fly into the United States with a bomb strapped to his body?
The simple fact of the matter is that our security measures failed once again, and the DHS secretary is trying to cover for a group that repeatedly fail in their primary mission, while wasting time and energy and focus in attempts to demonize her political opponents.
The DHS failed, and failed miserably. Perhaps if they spent more time attempting to hunt down terrorists, and less time trying to smear Americans that don't like Barack Obama, terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wouldn't be able to make it onto US-bound flights in the first place.
Jonah Goldberg wants Napolitano fired, but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. Looking at this Administration's raft of failed and marginally competent appointees, do you really expect that any replacement nominee would be any less ideologically-drive or more effective?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:58 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Secretary should be fired only because she said the system worked, another Obamoid lie. She should have said she was going to do better, or some other lie, but one less egregious. This was really not a TSA procedural failure, but if anything a failure of political correctness, or an obsession with "privacy" which has hindered the use of body scanners. It also shows that Obama's groveling to the Muslim world has achieved nothing. If you want to puke, read the latest from some shithead in the Atlantic who says the bomber was incompetent so why get upset? We could win his but we have not the spine. It will take a nuke attack to get us in the right frame of mind.
Posted by: mytralman at December 27, 2009 09:40 PM (26p91)
2
Need to strike "DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano" and replace with "The Obama Administration" -
It was therefore quite revolting to see the Obama Administration claim that "the system worked." The system was an utter and unmitigated failure.
He earned it, the Buck stops with the One.
*in fine print it can be foot-noted what individually hand-selected Obama appointee demonstrated The One's great judgment in delegation of his duties and responsibilities.
Posted by: Druid at December 27, 2009 10:18 PM (Gct7d)
3
Unfortunately the system didn't work. What did work was, as was noted, A. the device failed and B. the folks on the plane who took action. Its been noted already by some other folks that while security protocols have ALREADY changed in England . . NOTHING has changed here. Its still up to us - the citizens of this country to look out for ourselves and our country
Posted by: Nina at December 27, 2009 10:47 PM (+dRBA)
4
Um, excuse me, but ... how can we say anything about the efficacy of American aircraft security based on a case in which a man boarded a flight in another country, which has different security standards enforced by different people? Does anyone even know if the Netherlands' air-security agency gives a damn about the DHS no-fly list?
I think TSA in particular and Homeland Security in general are a bunch of totally useless clowns, but come on, people. What's the point of smacking them around for somebody else's failure?
Posted by: wolfwalker at December 27, 2009 10:55 PM (hypy8)
5
mytralman
Do you think muslims are going to agree to full body scans?
I picked up my kids at the Nashville airport the other day and there was a lady in a full burka greeting people from the same plane.
I doubt that the TSA would even pat down a lady like that or put her under extra screening.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at December 28, 2009 12:55 AM (07w/N)
6
Ah, but according to the deranged logic and beliefs of Janet Napolitano and the rest of the Obamites, the system worked just perfectly. Their concerns have little or nothing to do with protecting the public from terrorist attacks and everything with social justice and protecting the tender sensibilities of favored victim groups, which includes anyone who would wish to harm the United States or its citizens.
No doubt the terrorist involved was not in the least inconvenienced, nor was his self esteem bruised, at least not up until the moment that, due to dumbest of dumb luck, he set the family jewels on fire (natural selection?) rather than killing everyone on the aircraft, forcing, of all people, a Dutch filmmaker to do what the Obamites refuse to do: catch terrorists. This incident also proves, by the way, that God has an omniscient sense of irony.
So as the terrorists has already been appropriately lawyered up and mirandized, all potential intelligence has been lost, and a celebrity show trial will be scheduled, all of the Obamite's goals have been reached. To their way of thinking, the system did work just perfectly. Isn't it nice when a plan comes together?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at December 28, 2009 12:02 PM (JyD4t)
7
This particular incident stikes 'too friggin close to home' for me. Thats the EXACT flight I usually take on my homeward bound journeys. In fact, Household Six had me come home at Thanksgiving this year, as Christmas was going to be 'too hectic'... Good thing!!! Yet another case of the Big C 'dodging a bullet' thanks to the Good Lord watching out for fools and drunks (of which I qual' on both counts.)
Please make a note all you AlQuaedaKids out there...Y'all do NOT want this 380 Pound Pissed Off Redneck getting his paws on you... My advice: stick to blowing up schools hospitals churches and other defenseless targets... it's more y'alls speed...y'all don't want ME gettin hold of ya as it'd be a "Lets see how many bones I can break before the police intervene" or a "How many times can we play 'flush the retard terrorist in the blu-stuff before he drowns?' or an all time favorite "Bulkhead Head Bashing: Which Gives way first?" My money is on your head.
It just goes to show how much kinder and gentler the Dutch involved in this fracas were/are. I saw the booking photos and ain't nary a mark on this terrorist douche... Me? On my way home from a long pull of B.S. in Iraq? I'm not sure he'd be much good for questioning for a while after, 'cept "Blink once for Yes, two for No."
As for the Obamanoids? I'd say it's time make THEM fly coach on these jaunts, as it might ingrain a bit more reality to the situation. That and fire all them worthless lyin' heaps o'dookie spoutin' off 'bout "how the system worked" Which one? The fire extinguisher? Or the paranoid kid who wrassled this critter down before he could finish the job? Sheesh! Kudos to you kid!
Posted by: Big Country at December 28, 2009 01:40 PM (tf/FU)
8
The only reason this attempt failed is because the guy tried to set the mix off before it had time to dry.
Posted by: emdfl at December 28, 2009 08:49 PM (wAAen)
9
But Napolitano was right -- the government will grow in size as it imposes more restrictions on Americans, and will conduct more citizen surveillance. Politically connected firms will sell more spy equipment to the government, thereby boosting the economy.
Posted by: Old Rebel at December 29, 2009 10:35 AM (eTIZJ)
10
You know what all this means. More 80 year old grandmothers will be strip searched now.
Posted by: capt26thga at January 01, 2010 08:02 AM (8Ldhj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas
I have a hyper toddler and her older sister raring to go downstairs and tear into their presents, so I'll keep this short and sweet.
May your Christmas be magical and filled with happiness.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:44 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Merry Christmas to All!
Dude
Posted by: Dude at December 25, 2009 08:43 AM (5gxhz)
2
Indeed! Enjoy each and every minute - especially on THIS day!
Merry Christmas each and every one...
Posted by: Dell at December 25, 2009 10:01 AM (LpD4b)
3
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at December 25, 2009 10:32 AM (OQEcO)
4
Merry Christmas very one! May you all have a day of happyness and peace!
Posted by: ken at December 25, 2009 07:51 PM (3XWeQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 23, 2009
Defining "Dictators"
The final hurdle to passing the Democratic Senate's version of government health care rationing is a challenge by Republicans that a requirement in both the House and Senate versions that Americans must buy government-mandated insurance is unconstitutional.
Conservative critics contend that the provision violates the Constitution's "takings clause," which says "private property [cannot] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Democrats counter that the mandate is necessary to make the planned overhaul of the health-care system work, and ensure that as many people as possible participate in the system. Under the Senate bill, individuals who don't purchase coverage would face a financial penalty up to $750.
Democrats say the courts have given Congress wide authority to impose rules under its powers to regulate interstate commerce.
"We feel very sound in our position," Mr. Reid said.
Interesting. Reid doesn't even
attempt to claim that his health care bill is constitutional, just that people must be forced to purchase it or the scheme won't work (utterly leaving out the fact that no large-scale government-run program has ever worked, fiscally). He only comes as close as saying that he has his bets on the courts allowing such a scheme, based upon hotly-disputed precedents.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack OBama and all their radical allies in the Democratic Party are literally declaring that they have the power to force you to buy a specific product or a specific service. The only qualifier—according to Reid himself—is that the product or service must be necessary according to the arbitrary and capricious decisions of Democratic policymakers.
They are in word and deed
dictators, dictating what we must buy in order to support and increase their control over us. This isn't the American dream. It is the beginning of an American nightmare.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:38 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Everybody I know owns a gun. None of us will be communists. I think we really need a Constitutional convention to avoid an insurrection that will make the civil war look like volley ball practice.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at December 23, 2009 02:05 PM (brIiu)
2
Reid is claiming that they can force this based on interstate commerce?? What an ass. According to the law, you cannot buy health insurance across state lines. Therefore, NO interstate commerce. It is all Intra-state. Maybe he confused the two? Get this ass-hat a dictionary.
Posted by: Tim in Philly at December 23, 2009 02:48 PM (PnG/3)
3
You buy SSI with every paycheck. All of you will collect Social Security at some point. Why is Social Security not unconstitutional?
Posted by: Dave at December 23, 2009 11:51 PM (YhDZE)
4
For Odin's Acolyte,
My Sharps and my Number 1, Mark III SMLE are at your service. As well as a sharp blade. Blame the English for that one.
And I have survived kidney cancer. What are those assholes gonna do to me, anyway?
Posted by: Glenn Cassel AMH1 USN Retired at December 23, 2009 11:56 PM (Tprch)
5
You buy SSI with every paycheck. All of you will collect Social Security at some point. Why is Social Security not unconstitutional?
Posted by Dave at December 23, 2009 11:51 PM
It is unconstitutional.
I also won't collect it. It will run dry in seven years, which is before my 30th birthday.
Posted by: Britt at December 24, 2009 12:47 AM (DcWbe)
6
Wonder if Reid has a liberal group all set to take the Constitutionality of this up before the 9th Circuit. Let it fester between the 9th and the lower courts for a couple of years and then hope for a 5-4 score in the Supreme Court.
I have more expectations to experience the sun rising in the west than I do for collecting from SSI. My SSI deductions from my 19 years of work have gone to pay for other people to sit at home and complain that I don't work hard enough or that they don't get paid enough to sit at home. The SSI Trust Fund is less real than the flux capacitor.
Posted by: JAFAC at December 24, 2009 01:57 AM (n9/LR)
7
You buy SSI with every paycheck.
Nobody is compelled to have a paying job in this country with SSI deductions.
In fact, if all of your "income" is based on capital gains, its quite possible to go through life without ever having contributed a dime to Social Security when you retire.
Also, you're not "buying" anything with those social security deductions, you money goes right back out the door again to someone else. Social Security is a transfer program that moves dollars from the young to the retired. The only thing you get is a (supposed) promise that when you retire, some younger persons will be sending you money...and even that "promise" is being considered dubious by a lot of people these days. I've still got a ways to go, and I'd bet money today that I'll never see a dime out of social security, and I'm planning accordingly.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 24, 2009 02:04 AM (Ll5gC)
8
Social Security benefits haven't gone "right back out the door again to someone else." for many, many years. Not since Lyndon Johnson opened the flood gates and allowed those funds to be "borrowed" by his Great Society administration. There's nothing left in that till except IOUs from a variety of unfunded, federally mandated, entitlement programs.
I've worked - and contributed mightily - to the Social Security System for over 40 years, and I don't plan on getting any of it back, either! In fact, I'm still working - despite a disability - because I can't afford to retire! I'm NOT complaining; just pointing out a couple of facts that seem to get quite altered with dicussion.
Right now, my best estimate is that if you don't have a quarter of a million dollars set aside for retirement, you'll continue working, too! Not counting inflation, it will cost you at least $25K per year just to exist. You do the math.
Posted by: Dell at December 24, 2009 04:32 PM (LpD4b)
9
Oh....and the topic!
I don't see how the current health care legislation is any different than the poll tax. And that went South many years ago....after enjoying a long run in most all 57 states.
Posted by: Dell at December 24, 2009 04:34 PM (LpD4b)
10
The poll tax didn't affect everybody, that's a difference. This thing is going to screw everyone over.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.-Winston Churchill
Merry Christmas everyone!
Posted by: Britt at December 24, 2009 06:13 PM (DcWbe)
11
SSI is a tax paid to the government. There's no dispute that government has the power to tax. In this instance, we will be legally obliged to buy a product sold by an insurance company. The nature of the transaction is different.
The other analogy is "same a having to buy car insurance", which fails because people can choose not to drive / own a car.
IMO, Reid et al. would welcome a court ruling saying the insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Their response will be "Well, we TRIED to do it in the private market, but the courts said we can't. We'll just have to have a government run system - there's no question we can tax people to pay for it."
Posted by: BD57 at December 24, 2009 07:56 PM (tsapy)
12
BD57 may be correct. I hope that they do take this issue through the federal court system.
Really, our opinion, no one's opinion, has any bearing on the constitutionality of this issue, except for the 9 SCOTUS judges.
If they rule it to be unconstitutional (doubtful that they will rule it to be) it is interesting to consider that such a ruling would indeed open the door to a universal coverage single payer system, also known as a government owned and operated insurance company.
Thankfully, that's what we'll end up having one day, anyway. It's just a matter of time. And, we'll be a better nation for it.
Posted by: Dude at December 24, 2009 10:54 PM (5gxhz)
13
"I think we really need a Constitutional convention to avoid an insurrection that will make the civil war look like volley ball practice.
Posted by Odins Acolyte at December 23, 2009 02:05 PM"
Have you checked the constitution recently to see what's required to call a constitutional convention? Do you have any idea what would be at stake if we did have a convention?
It ain't gonna happen. You know why? 'Cause everything in the constitution could be changed, including the Bill of Rights.
It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Dude at December 24, 2009 11:02 PM (5gxhz)
14
It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by Dude at December 24, 2009 11:02 PM
True. By the time the pressure from the states gets high enough to seriously consider a Constitutional Convention, the pressure valve of Constitutional Amendments will be in play.
Plus, there is the reverse of FDR's "court packing" threat which blackmailed the SCOTUS into the current unlimited interpretation of the Commerce Clause. An overreaching SCOTUS is just as vulnerable as the rest of the federal government to state pressure.
It will be fascinating to see what happens. The threat from Rick Perry regarding Texas secession might be either hot air or a harbinger. The Medicaid debacle part of the health care bill will definitely inflame the states rights concerns even more.
But a Constitutional Convention just ain't going to happen...great threat though!
Posted by: iconoclast at December 27, 2009 12:03 PM (7wRwp)
15
A few points based on the comments.
SSI is technically not an insurance. It is a tax. That is what FDR intended as the constitution prevented his implimentation of an old age pension system similar to the Europeans. Somehow, probably due to the success of internal revenue, they figured the tax would pass the courts.
Now, it you think you are going to avoid the issue by not working. Think again. My understanding is that is the situation that got our Treasurey secretary. You see, if you make any money and are not working, then you have to pay a self employment tax. I have to do that and don't care for it at all as I now have to incorporate to reduce the exposure.
I agree that the only way to change this government is following the advice of Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: David at December 27, 2009 01:02 PM (VpBDM)
16
The rhetoric from Rick Perry and ALL other secession advocates is nothing but hot air. We've been through this before and it didn't work out very well for the states that attempted to leave the Union. What would make any rational person think that the outcome would be different if it were tried again?
Any attempt by any state to secede from the United States of America would be crushed like a cockroach scurrying across the floor. The foolish people who talk of secession are a very small minority of unhappy "conservatives". The vast majority of conservatives know this, too.
No, Texas isn't going to secede from the Union. Neither is any other state. Furthermore, they have no constitutional right to do so.
For those of you who are unhappy with our current national leadership, you'll have an opportunity in less than a year to replace Congressmen and some Senators with whom you disagree. History shows us that, traditionally, the party in power will lose some of their seats in the mid-term elections.
Posted by: Dude at December 29, 2009 02:52 PM (5gxhz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 71 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1522 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1308 seconds, 149 records returned.
Page size 114 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.