Confederate Yankee
December 05, 2009
Bloomberg Tries to Politically Profiteer From Fort Hood Shooting
"Mayor Mike" may be beloved in some circles, but the billionaire gun control advocate is willing to put the lives of police at risk and use the tragedy of a terrorist attack that killed American soldiers and an unborn baby in an underhanded end run targeted at bankrupting the gun industry.
At
Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:23 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm not sure what constituency can plausibly be said to "love" Bloomberg. It ain't the Right, it sure ain't the Left. He got re-elected marginally by spending what? Twelve mil of his own cash? No Republican should be stupid enough to adhere in any way to Bloomberg. If there are Dems so foolish, so be it.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 05, 2009 08:23 AM (eGzO1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 04, 2009
Sounds Like a Downer
Ecstasy pills shaped like Barack Obama have hit the streets of Palmview, Texas.
First-time users report an immediate and intense feeling of elation which quickly fades into confusion, disillusionment, and denial.
Repeat users find the drug makes them more lethargic and dependent, but otherwise does nothing for them, even as every additional dose triples in cost.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:12 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Does the pill make them go around bowing to everyone and delaying any decision making process?
Posted by: David at December 04, 2009 05:15 PM (PpoBw)
2
Is this what passes for humor in Wingnutia? You people are just sad.
Posted by: GoneGalt at December 04, 2009 10:21 PM (FBwYR)
Posted by: Douglas at December 05, 2009 12:46 PM (uU+Ss)
4
This is why you never want to try anything that hasn't ever been tested.
Posted by: John at December 05, 2009 01:42 PM (n6ipG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Palin Goes Birther? Probably Not, But Expect to Hear It Repeated
I've not always been a fan of Sarah Palin the politician, but I've been warm to what I can divine of Sarah Palin the person. I've been disgusted with how she has been unfairly savaged by the lip-service feminists of the progressive left, and an army of critics in the media that have made a cottage industry of ripping every aspect of her life—personal, political, or manufactured—to shreds.
I find her authentic "Caribou Barbie" schtick to be refreshing, and her pre-fame accomplishments as a politician to be impressive, just as I find her work-life balance to be admirable. While it infuriates elites and wannabes, she seemed to be the epitome of the "local girl done good." Palin became successful by sticking to her principles, being herself, and working hard. I think she'd make an above-average public servant in the House of Representatives, the Senate, or maybe even the White House... after all she was far more technically qualified for the position than either Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain, being the only one of the bunch with any executive experience in either the private sector or government.
But as much as I'd like to be able to get behind Sarah Palin and be a real supporter,
stuff like this simply makes it difficult for people such as myself to put their faith in her.
I don't care if she really believes the validity of President Obama's birth certificate is fair game for debate. I find it entirely possible that she simply mangled an attempt to point out that any "debate" over Obama's birth certificate was as nutty as the "debate" over whether Trig is her son... but I'm not sure.
To stand a chance against the vicious left-wing media, Palin has to be perfect, all the time. She won't get the continual burying of gaffes the media affords the President, and instead of burying her shortcoming as they do his, they'll magnify and echo every mistake.
She can't give them any ammunition. She can't afford to even hint at supporting conspiracy theories. This comment, hopefully taken out of context, will hurt Palin. She can't do this again, and she better explain herself quickly and forcefully.
I'd like to find a politician worth listening to, and those that play to conspiracy theories won't be getting my support.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:46 AM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sir,
The link provided is from Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the "birther" accusations. Please have a read.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/stupid-conspiracies/188707498434
Posted by: favill at December 04, 2009 10:52 AM (RU8Qm)
2
I don't think you got the meaning of her response the way I did. I felt she was saying ANY question you get by the public, within reason, should be considered fair game. If you can quell a storm abou something that you have control over and fail to do so then you are the one at fault. I believe that the term "Birther" is a catchall used by web writers to be derogative and demeaning. I see the term to mean anyone who wants more info on the back ground of the man sitting in the WH. There is a small number of people who believe that Obama's presidency is illegitimate but there is a much larger segment that just want some transparency and openess that has not been forth coming. I think Palin gave an answer that is totally common sense and will resonate with a lot of voters. She is not commenting on the conspiracy implied in the term "Birther".
Posted by: inspectorudy at December 04, 2009 11:03 AM (Vo1wX)
3
I dunno. I've found that Liberals I've spoken to (that represent 52% of the population) actually believe that Palin and Fey are the same person.
They believe that Palin said that she can see Russia from her house.
They are also easily fooled by a photoshop.
I doubt that the truth of Palin's actual postion is of much concern for those that are so out of touch with reality.
Posted by: brando at December 04, 2009 11:20 AM (IPGju)
4
No one is perfect. The blogger is right that Sarah Palin would do well not to give any ammo to the enemy (politically speaking). But it won't matter what she says in the long run. The LSM will find something to focus on to discredit her.
I don't understand the conservative tendency to think our candidates have to be perfect in order to be successful. Liberals never expect that of their candidates, not even when the imperfection is a moral failure, not just a verbal gaffe.
Rather than being afraid of the LSM, I think conservatives should just take them on. Sarah does that. And she's not afraid to admit a mistke when she makes one. Why should we be?
Posted by: qr4j at December 04, 2009 11:49 AM (v6M3/)
5
The birthers really have poisoned the waters. While it might be the case that all Palin was saying was that everything is on the table in a presidential campaign (which would have been good advice to maverick), the birth certificate/nationality issue has been so poisoned by the birther nuts that nothing can be said that even remotely connects to the birthers.
For example, I feel Obama is not an American. Not in the legal sense, but in the cultural sense. Obama grew up with America-hating marxists, lived in Indonesia during his formative years, and studied the Koran. Of course Obama continually misses the heartbeat of America whenever he is off the teleprompter--his heart is not American.
But is Obama legally entitled to be POTUS--it certainly appears to be so. While it was reasonable to investigate his qualifications, particularly because of his rather odd upbringing, going beyond that into conspiracy theories just made things worse.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 04, 2009 12:00 PM (O8ebz)
6
i will vote for sarah in 2012! read her book and also look up her record. she has lots of guts and stands for everything that i do.
be at the polls in 2010! vote out the democrats and rinos.
Posted by: southernsue at December 04, 2009 12:13 PM (cXQcM)
7
I agree with iconoclast about Obama being an "American", also though I have to wonder about a man who spends nearly a million dollars in legal fees to hide what others have allowed to be public.
We know Bush was a C student, yet we know absolutely nothing about Obama's Haaavaaard performance. Why the difference?
Its an easily settled question, why waste money to keep it hidden and uncertain? McCain had more scrutiny than Obama. There is also the issue that if, and that's a very big if in my opinion, Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be PotUS then we have basically said the US Constitution means exactly squat. THAT is the 3000 pound elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Scott at December 04, 2009 12:14 PM (6yHgW)
8
also, i have even come to question this obama's birth. remember he is half white and half muslim. he is not half american black. he identifies himself with too many dictators and anti-americans. his policies are also anti-american. sarah, if this is what she is saying, has a right to question his birth. also, she is not into political correctness as is so practiced by too many. what is wrong with calling a spade a spade? i am tired of this tip toeing around the anti-american crowd. after all look where we are today in the USA.
Posted by: southernsue at December 04, 2009 12:19 PM (cXQcM)
9
I don't see anything objectionable in what she said. Obama's refusal to produce his original birth certificate is bizarre and fair game. Of course, it's also consistent with his tendency to bury any documentation of his past, including his writings while in school.
The newspaper birth announcements should really settle the matter of where he was born for most people, but it's no crime to point out his refusal to release the original birth certificate.
Posted by: Dr. Horrible at December 04, 2009 12:22 PM (Dj4BX)
10
It is also a teaching moment.
Most Americans don't realize that the Constitution says nothing about requiring you be born in one of the 50 states to qualify for the job of President.
Neither does the Bill of Rights apply directly to actions by the States, but rather the Federal government. (Selective amendments have been deemed "incorporated" by the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, but that's the doing of the Supreme Court, and it has been slanted by Leftist justices).
Posted by: Anil Petra at December 04, 2009 12:35 PM (6rr0u)
11
Palin:
"Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States."
I don't understand what you'e talking about here, CY.
Posted by: Steve at December 04, 2009 01:07 PM (a0hRg)
12
"I find her authentic 'Caribou Barbie' schtick to be refreshing".
There is literally nothing "authentic" about a "schtick".
Posted by: Will at December 04, 2009 01:59 PM (nHiSI)
13
In 2004, there were questions raised about Dubya's TXANG service, and John Kerry's medals.
Folks tracked down what they could of Dubya's records (many were lost in a fire at a military archive), and aside from Dan Rather, nothing was found (despite intense efforts) to contradict that Dubya served his time.
John Kerry, to this day, has never released his military records. At best, he showed them to a select few from the Boston Globe, who looked and said, "Yup, looks alright to me!"
What we now see is the same double standard, applied to Palin and Obama. Palin's relationship w/ Trig is somehow open to question with a "I'm not ACCUSING, I'm just SAYING" kind of defense. But any question about Obama, not necessarily where he was born (I think that he is legally entitled to serve as President), but also his school records, his board duties w/ Ayers in Chicago, etc., are all somehow beyond the pale of research and investigation.
How many people did AP assign to fact-check Palin's book? How many did they assign to Obama's book?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at December 04, 2009 03:53 PM (lt/wV)
14
Scott writes:
"I agree with iconoclast about Obama being an "American", also though I have to wonder about a man who spends nearly a million dollars in legal fees to hide what others have allowed to be public.
We know Bush was a C student, yet we know absolutely nothing about Obama's Haaavaaard performance. Why the difference?
Its an easily settled question, why waste money to keep it hidden and uncertain? McCain had more scrutiny than Obama. There is also the issue that if, and that's a very big if in my opinion, Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be PotUS then we have basically said the US Constitution means exactly squat. THAT is the 3000 pound elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned."
A few questions/points:
1.) Since you "have to wonder" about Obama because of his legal fees, do you also "have to wonder" about Sarah Palin, who cited the ~$500,000 in legal fees as one of the reasons for her resignation?
2.) Re: Your point that we "know absolutely nothing about Obama's Haaavaaard performance," despite the fact that we know W. was a C student--
Considering the fact that he was President of the Harvard Law Review, I think we can safely assume that Obama did pretty well in school.
3.) "3000 pound elephant in the room"? Seriously? Get your idioms straight. It's either the "elephant in the room" or the "800 lb. gorilla," not the "3000 lb. elephant in the room."
Posted by: Troy Flowers at December 04, 2009 04:59 PM (Ux45c)
15
>>"Considering the fact that he was President of the Harvard Law Review, I think we can safely assume that Obama did pretty well in school."
That's a painfully ignorant comment. You don't get elected President of the Harvard Law Review on the basis of your grades.
Posted by: Steve at December 04, 2009 05:22 PM (/DCgw)
16
Under the category of painfully/willfully ignorant, this is a contender:
1.) Since you "have to wonder" about Obama because of his legal fees, do you also "have to wonder" about Sarah Palin, who cited the ~$500,000 in legal fees as one of the reasons for her resignation?
Since O's legal expenses were known to be due to his fetish for hiding his background (as stated in the comment) while Palin's expenses were known to be due to local legal costs resulting from lawfare waged against her by activists.
Do try to keep up and not embarrass your side any more than you have to with such inane comments.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 04, 2009 05:38 PM (FGCRY)
17
Troy, will you ever get over Bush? As a conservative and one who voted for Bush twice, I can assure you that he ranks up there with one of the worst of our presidents. The only thing is that he was far better than Gore or Kerry. If he had run against Obama I would still have voted for Bush as in 8 years he did less damage than Obama has in 10 months.
As to Palin, I like her is a quirky way. It is good to see a strong woman stand up against a nation of liberal fools. But I do not think she is presidential material. Of course neither is Obama. But after Obama finishes wrecking this country we will need a very strong male to right the wrongs. If we could only get someone with some of the values of Palin but more smarts.
Posted by: David at December 04, 2009 06:08 PM (PpoBw)
18
Steve, Obama was selected to be an editor of the Law Review after his first year of law school on the basis of a writing competition and his grades.
Posted by: Troy Flowers at December 04, 2009 06:11 PM (Ux45c)
19
David,
I'm over Bush. If you re-read my post, you'll notice that I was responding to a comment written by "Scott," who brought up the issue of W's grades. I even copied-and-pasted his entire comment at the beginning of my post. I'm not sure how you managed to misinterpret my response to "Scott" as a suggestion that I'm not "over Bush," but you somehow did it.
Posted by: Troy Flowers at December 04, 2009 06:18 PM (Ux45c)
20
CY,
What conspiracy theory did Palin endorse or put forward--or even hint at?
She talked straight, without fear--that's what the public favorably responds to--not pussyfooting around because some bad man in the media will say MORE bad stuff about her, jeez!!!
Posted by: mockmook at December 04, 2009 08:25 PM (0f6vn)
21
She'd be a lot easier to take seriously as a representative of anything if she hadn't quit her job as soon as the going got a little tough.
Posted by: beet at December 04, 2009 08:34 PM (vzU4z)
22
"Palin became successful by sticking to her principles, being herself, and working hard."
Ha ha. She quit as governor.
Posted by: kyle at December 04, 2009 10:22 PM (ML+Hg)
23
My god, the ignorance and utter stupidity on display in some of the comments on this post (Southern Sue, for example) makes me weep for the future of this country and its educational system. Then I remember this: The type of people who rabidly rally around figures like Sarah Palin (these types usually don't know anything specific about her politics - they just like her spirit!) and attack the President not on his ideas or policies but on some completely arbitrary and absurd notion of what it is to be "American" are going to ruin the Republican Party. In fact, they are already well on their way.
Posted by: Anna at December 04, 2009 11:30 PM (4krsV)
24
Jeez con yank, the woman says anything the electorate has a question about should be fair game and you call her out? Stop wee weeing. Palin's gutsy, and the only significant pol speaking up - boldly, and apparently all alone - for conservative i.e. true American values.
Posted by: Jayne at December 04, 2009 11:34 PM (dwIL0)
25
Troy
I enjoyed the assertion you had for Obama's grades. Please do tell us more..we are dying to hear it. And read the cite that proves O had such stellar grades. Which would explain why O never actually, you know, wrote an article for the review he was editing. The first ever to have had such an omission.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 04, 2009 11:55 PM (06exp)
26
As an anarchist, I will gleefully vote for Sarah Palin...both times, first on Dancing With The Stars and then for President of the United States.
Posted by: Grandma Beejay at December 05, 2009 01:03 AM (mjMVC)
27
qr4j,
Do tell, what mistakes has Sarah Palin admitted to? My count is zero, please illuminate.
Posted by: Rex at December 05, 2009 03:14 AM (Hp3T8)
28
last time I read, Palin correctly knew the number of states in the USA, the number of letters in the word "jobs", was not in bed with convicted felons like Rezko (as was Obama), nor had been shown to be a plagiarist and liar (like Biden).
Palin did manage to defeat the corrupt (Republican) machine in Alaska as well as get a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline done that benefited all Alaska and USA citizens.
Obama was able to run a $160 million fund into the ground with no positive results (similar to how the USA economy is being run into the ground) and Biden managed to spend a 30 year career in the Senate without holding any significant chairmanships (similar to his current status).
tell me again why Palin would have been so much worse than Obama? Without resort to a Tina Fey skit please.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 05, 2009 12:35 PM (06exp)
29
Your post is funny. I love how people think it is the best political move to disown 58% of their base. Since polls so that 58% of the Gop base thinks the BC issues is a valid issue. You and other bloggers think it is a bad issue to bring up. why is that? because you are afraid of the media. The fact is that a true boneheaded political move would be to call 58% of your voting base nuts, idiots, morons. Just like the GOP elites did during the amnesty debate you think the Gop leadership should do with the BC issue. why because you think it is nuts? The GOp leadership thought it was nuts to be against amnesty.
The fact is if you are asking to lead your party you should adress the issues that the majority of your party wants addressed. I could see you POV if the birthers were a small minority of the party or even a larger minority like the turthers. however those that have concerns about the BC is a large majority of the GOP to ignore their concerns would be a very very bad move.
finally I am not a birther. Don't think it is a issue but at least I am not stupid enough to call 58% of my party stupid. you seem not to understand that concept.
Posted by: unseen at December 06, 2009 03:21 PM (XSdGX)
30
"Steve, Obama was selected to be an editor of the Law Review after his first year of law school on the basis of a writing competition and his grades."
Interesting that this commentator doesn't mention the impact of Affirmative Action on this process. As of the 1970's Harvard began to incorporate "other factors", such as an applicant's "diversity", when selecting the President. From the New York Times:
"The [merit-based] system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."
IOW, barring some spectacular academic failure, it was possible for one to become an editor based on grades OR the writing competition. Furthermore, the selection process was not "blind:
students voting for the editor would have been aware of the race of an applicant. Harvard's students and faculty were embarrassed by the lack of minority editors prior to the mid-1970's; as of 1990, there was probably still pressure to promote "diverse", as opposed to competent, candidates.
And regarding his grades, keep in mind that taking easy, multi-culti first year electives is a surefire way to boost your GPA. Does anyone honestly think that an "A" in, say, Queer Studies and the Law, Race and the Law, etc is the equivalent of one in, say, a securities course? Without his transcripts there's no way to know for sure whether or not his course load was intellectually rigorous.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at December 06, 2009 04:24 PM (tmwj4)
31
anna,
thanks for the response to my comments. again, i will vote for sarah in 2012! also, be at the polls in 2010 and vote the democrats and rinos out!
also, when obama's policies are implemented you will go down with the rest of us. no one will be immune from this horrible mess that this horrible administration is trying to thrust upon us all.
i know how you feel that your side is right. however, our situation in the USA will not change until we elect people that know economics and have some kind of morals.
Posted by: southernsue at December 07, 2009 12:46 PM (cXQcM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oh, Deer
When I was younger, my father and I used to drive through Tarboro, NC, on the way to hunt deer on a farm outside of Enfield. If we knew we could have hung outside the jewelry store on Main Street in Tarboro, it would have saved us some gas.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:01 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 03, 2009
Fort Hood Hero Cop's Career Cut Short
Sgt. Kim Munley, one of two civilian police officers that were among the first to respond to jihadist Nidal Hasan's rampage at Fort Hood, may have her career as a street cop cut short as a result of her injuries.
Sgt. Kimberly Munley said doctors have told her she needs a total knee replacement, a surgery set for January, but that her new knee is likely to wear out sooner if she runs or carries the 15- to 25-pound gear pack required by her job.
"I do want to stay in law enforcement. I'm not going to be able to do what I did before, which is basically work the street," she told Wilmington, N.C., television station WECT on Wednesday. "It's going to give me another avenue to look in as far as possibly teaching and instructing."
Hopefully she'll be able to find other law enforcement duties as rewarding as her role as a street cop.
Hasan, the radical Muslim soldier that shot Munley and more than three dozen others, remains hospitalized, paralyzed, and potentially facing the death penalty.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:01 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There are several complete knee replacements. the one my wife has, never wears out and she does everything she did prior. The typical replacement will wear out. the new technology doesn't
Posted by: maverick at December 04, 2009 09:52 AM (ET9pe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Inupiat Story CNN Missed
John D. Sutter, not content to mill around while continuing revelations rock the integrity of the AGW community, decided to write a an article for CNN called Climate change threatens life in Shishmaref, Alaska.
It's actually quite a pleasant read, but Sutter seems to miss the real lesson to be learned from the world's impact on the Inupiat people.
You see, the Inupiat were once a nomadic people until a distant federal government saw fit to intrude into their lives, telling then that their children must live by government rules, forcing them to live as the government saw fit and undermining their culture.
Over time, the people adapted to the conditions the distant government bureaucrats forced them into, and as a result, they now have their very existence as a culture jeopardized because the government turned a mobile society into a sedentary people ill-suited to live a life that nature in that part of the world conspired against. Now seemingly helpless and conditioned to look for handouts, their culture faces extinction because they've lost the nomadic ways of their forefathers, thanks to the intervention of the government.
Sutter seems to think his article is about climate change. The climate always changes. The real problem here is a government crippled a society already engineered to deal with that change by arrogantly imposing their will, insisting their ways are better.
Something to think about.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:00 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you want something else to get your dander up, look further in the article. Note that modern influence in creeping into the area in the form of commodities brought in by plane. I hate to tell you this but that is a government action. I can assure you that the people in that area are not paying the full price for the various items in the store and the cost of transportaion. You the tax payor are picking up that little item. This is true in almost all Indian reservations. How do I know, I have purchased items from those stores and they sell at about 10 cents on the dollar.
Posted by: David at December 03, 2009 01:11 PM (PpoBw)
2
gee - might we not be looking at what we will become as the government takes more iron fisted control of our lives. Obamacare, cap & tax, Government motors, nationalized banks, presidents firing CEO's, and on and on and on..........
Posted by: slimedog at December 03, 2009 09:46 PM (Inz1x)
3
"Shishmaref's people were nomadic, following seals and caribou, until the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs built a school on the island in the early 1900s and forced Inupiat children to attend. Some residents still resent that school; they say it punished those who spoke Inupiaq and stifled other aspects of the Native culture..."
"Morris says the changes in Shishmaref -- the melting sea ice, the disappearing seals and polar bears, the crumbling coastline -- are beyond the village's control..."
"...We've got to move. There's no question about it," he said. "That seawall will stop erosion on this end, but the water will go around it. My ancestors said it will happen. It will happen."
They started moving there in the early 1900s. Heaven knows how long it took for the tribe to settle there. Maybe his ancestors were talking about the nomadic way of life they used to lead.
The estimated cost to relocate one village - $200.00 million.
Posted by: davod at December 06, 2009 06:56 AM (GUZAT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The AGW Racketeering Deepens
NASA has joined the list of key AGW research mainstays that has conspired to hide real climate data in hopes of keeping the theory of man-made global warming alive.
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
The more this scandal unfolds, the more I'm stunned by the scale of it all. It appears that the entire AGW movement is based upon politically manipulated data designed to keep providing billions of dollars in research grants flowing to those who would forsake their integrity and objectivity in an organized conspiracy to defraud every last human being on planet Earth.
This shouldn't be just a matter of questioning science, but the subject of an international racketeering investigation that should encompass thousands of scientists and researchers, grant writers, scientific advisors in the world's governments, politicians (up to and including current heads of state) and activists such as former Vice President Al Gore.
It would seem to me that if individuals and groups in the investigation knew about or were manufacturing compromised, manipulated, or outright false data that were being used to determine the laws and policies of states, nations, and the international community, then those colluding would be guilty of something akin to treason.
Do you thank that overstated? Entire economies would be drastically and fundamentally altered by suggestions made by these perpetrators, affecting the lives of billions of people far more profoundly than espionage, terrorism, or even most wars.
I think a death sentence would be too extreme for even the worst of the culprits, but serious felony charges should be considered, and life sentences would seem more than fair for those that would put billions of lives at risk over what increasingly seems to be nothing less than naked greed and the pursuit of power and influence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:50 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I suddenly though about one of the counter arguments to the Truther movement: It is not possible for the US government to have secretly planted explosives in the Twin Towers on 9:11. The truth would have come out.
Kind of like Glimategate.
Posted by: Jack at December 03, 2009 11:16 AM (bvDV5)
2
This is all so depressing. I'm starting to wonder if the entire government and everything it touches is corrupt. OK, maybe not. I still have respect for the military. Can anyone show me why I'm unfairly cynical?
Posted by: John at December 03, 2009 11:28 AM (n6ipG)
3
I would so love to see video of Algore doing the perpwalk. Would gladden my heart so this Christmas season.
Posted by: TimothyJ at December 03, 2009 03:32 PM (IKKIf)
4
Let us all keep this push for pursuit of truth going.The counrty, the planet cannot afford for this hoax to proceed. If tens of trillions of dollars will (supposedly) only change the temps by 7/100 of a degree, is that something a wise investor would throw money into?
Posted by: rob at December 04, 2009 06:00 AM (6AIBG)
5
Human caused gobal warming has be so ideologically oversold and wedded to politics and money, I am unfortunately skeptical whether you can find a good objective body of scientists out there now who could fairly reevaluate the data.
When I was taking a Project Management course I had a teacher who said that you should always be glad for the team curmudgeon, the contrarian, because he or she made you stick to reality and defend your points with dry reason. It sounds like climate science needs a good dose of this attitude to clean it up. But, like I said, with so much money, politics and ideology poisoning the well, I don't see this coming out of the scientific community anytime soon. I hope I am wrong. Perhaps public pressure will force the issue enough to make reverse the trend.
Posted by: mbabbitt at December 04, 2009 10:22 AM (p/jtE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ROK to Deploy World's Most Advanced Combat Rifle To Afghanistan
The U.S. XM-29 program faltered, then split, then was shelved, but the South Korean K-11 dual-caliber air-burst weapon is about to deploy to Afghanistan:
South Korean troops to be deployed in Afghanistan will be armed with the latest K-11 airburst assault rifles for self-defense, according to the Ministry of National Defense.
[snip]
Developed by the state-funded Agency for Defense Development, the K-11 consists of a semi-automatic 20mm smart grenade launcher, an under-slung assault rifle firing a standard 5.56mm NATO round, and a top-mounted computer-assisted sighting system with integrated rangefinder and thermal infrared night vision capabilities.
Using a self-detonation system, the 20mm round from the rifle can track its target and explode three to four meters above it. And it is also capable of penetrating walls of buildings.
I wouldn't want to tote
this beast, but it gives South Korean troops some very interesting capabilities.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:51 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mr. Taliban better watch out - in Vietnam the most FEARED combat soldier to the Viet Cong were the ROK's. They were scared to death - ROK's took no prisoners! Rok's asked no questions! U.S. combat troops loved having them around.
Have fun Mr. Taliban!!!!!
Posted by: slimedog at December 03, 2009 09:53 PM (Inz1x)
2
It's weight is comparable to our M16 and lighter than the M16 or M4 with attached grenade launcher.
While the U.S. Military is going to spend millions on [6] changes on the M4 which will make it a better weapon but still in many experts opinion not as good, reliable or versatile weapon as is used in other nation's armys.
Witness this weapon.
Papa Ray
Posted by: Papa Ray at December 03, 2009 11:22 PM (JpVJn)
3
Wonder if it's a 'every troop' weapon, or one per squad?
Posted by: Firehand at December 05, 2009 11:15 AM (2QjWO)
4
Two per squad, over 13 pounds empty weight, and unit cost over $16,000.
Not sure, but I think the 20mm is bolt action instead of semi-auto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11
Posted by: Brad at December 05, 2009 06:27 PM (jJ0nE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 02, 2009
Barbara Boxer: Lincoln's Assassination in Ford's Theater Was Really About Whether or Not Booth Got His Gun Legally
The key to being a liberal Senator seems to be the ability to ignore the body on the ground in order to whine about the origins of the smoking gun.
Enjoy Senator Barbara Boxer's warped brand of
climate change fraud denial:
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.
Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.
"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."
She's far more concerned about catching the (probable) insider that released the information to the public than dealing with the very real probability that the cult of man-made global warming is based upon fraudulent, manipulated, and politicized data.
It takes quite a woman to stick her head in the sand while it's still up her own butt, but Babs seems to be capable of that, if very little else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:50 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If she had said the same thing about Sarah Palin's e-mails I might believe her.
Posted by: vinnie at December 02, 2009 10:10 PM (EEDce)
2
Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Posted by: Will Butler at December 02, 2009 11:07 PM (LgpMF)
3
I hope she shoots the messenger with a legally purchased weapon!
Posted by: Sif at December 02, 2009 11:38 PM (od0G0)
4
I think some one should take a look at the Boxer family stock portfolio. My guess is that she has a lot invested in green equities.
Posted by: Jack at December 03, 2009 01:10 AM (bvDV5)
5
So she wanted the relavant US criminal code read into the record.
The "theft" was in the UK from a UK institution. The date was first posted on a Russian server.
Does she have any evidence that the "crime" took place in the US or that that the "criminal" was a US citizen? I doubt it.
Ergo, she is claiming extraterritoriality for the US government. The laws she writes will be obeyed throughout the world. Her writ will carry everywhere.
Humble, isn't she?
Posted by: Whitehall at December 03, 2009 10:30 AM (qfg0H)
6
Wonder if she's up for a treason prosecution for those who leaked the classified info to the NYT?
Posted by: SDN at December 03, 2009 10:50 AM (9aZtz)
7
she has less value to society than a crack whore.
Posted by: rumcrook® at December 03, 2009 12:05 PM (60WiD)
8
Shades of the leaked memo from the Democrattic side of the supposedly non-partisan Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. The memo laid out the Democrats intention to use intelligence for political purposes.
The furore from the Dems and media was so great about the confidentiality of the committee being breached. The politicing of intelligence information - not so much.
Posted by: davod at December 03, 2009 05:36 PM (GUZAT)
9
The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be swept "under the carpet". I guess you can’t subvert the investigation from the outside.
Posted by: Neo at December 04, 2009 12:26 PM (tE8FB)
10
Thank goodness for her there is all that case law from the hundreds who were prosecuted for providing liberal rags with classified information over the last several decades.
Posted by: DoorHold at December 06, 2009 11:23 AM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tiger Admits to Sinking His Putz
Shameful.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:41 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If he was going to get into trouble he really should have picked a girl that was worth all the difficulty. The one they are showing is trash. I hope he has been taking his penicillin.
Posted by: David at December 02, 2009 02:54 PM (dccG2)
2
ahem, I must say that in all my numerous relationships I never lost a guy to another woman. So being a defender of the male of the species I contend that there was something amiss to begin with in the Elin/Tiger romance before Tiger strayed, in fact caused him to stray.
Posted by: Jayne at December 02, 2009 08:38 PM (dwIL0)
3
Ok, you win the internets today.
*laughs*
great post title.
Posted by: Robert at December 03, 2009 05:32 AM (SF33D)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More "Settled" Science
Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: "Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.
"In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time."
He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
Note the part where he states "CO2 cannot be driving global warming now," because the political event occurring next week in Copenhagen hinges upon CO2 being
the greenhouse gas that "must"be regulated... a fact that is
nothing but a fraud, like the AGW movement itself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Professor Plimer is one of my heroes. Lord Monckton is another. Perhaps, even in spite of Gore and the other climate profiteers, some truth will emerge from this scandal. My husband and I have been following this scandal for more than ten years, subscribing to Dr. Fred Singer's weekly newsletter. There is so much money-making embedded now in this AGW global warming activity, so many folks making gangbusters money out of it, I wonder if it can be halted, or even slowed down.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at December 02, 2009 03:54 PM (VbbNx)
2
Plimer is a proffessor...... of geology not climatology. The US Army and the US NAvy both believe that the climate is changing I believe them not some Australian prof of geology professor
Posted by: John Ryan at December 02, 2009 10:21 PM (m0Q2u)
3
John, if you understood geology, and what it can tell us about long term climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, then you'd give them far more credibility than people who have admitted to doctoring data, corrupting models, and subverting peer review in order to justify their paychecks.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 02, 2009 10:40 PM (WjpSC)
4
John
Just what do you think makes a climatologist? So far it seems to be poor statistical abilities and poor programming skills. Phil Jones--he of CRU fame--has a civil engineering PhD. Not terribly relevant if you think that geology is irrelevant. Keith Briffa doesn't have an easily accessible cv nor any accreditations I can find. Keith Briffa is #2 at CRU and author of (yet another) debunked hockey stick curve.
Michael Mann--he of the originally debunked hockey stick curve--himself has a geology PhD.
Care to chat some more about who is qualified to chat about the climate??
Posted by: iconoclast at December 03, 2009 12:38 AM (06exp)
5
Here are a couple of AGW rebuttals that I came across recently. Add them to Climategate and you have real doubt about the whole AGW thing.
I have wrote this for years. I took a couple of courses in Thermal Transport Analysis and a general Thermo course in pursuit of my degree. The minuscule portion of the Atmosphere that is CO2 ( 0.04%) can not, due to the laws of Physics affect our climate. I went through this years ago. Now we have a couple researchers with a study in more detail. Sic em!
Quote
Politics and Greenhouse Gases
By John McLaughlin
Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic "science" used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.
To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.
2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.
3. Invoking a "greenhouse effect" model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called "radiative forcing") which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.
In an AT article posted September 27, I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.
The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.
The Greenhouse Model
The paper initially tackles the concept of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere (vital for any discussion of radiative heat transfer) and how it is affected by carbon dioxide, which, they point out, is a trace gas. The current estimated concentration of CO2 is 0.04% by volume and 0.06% by mass. Gerlich and Tscheuschner show that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% -- within the margin of measuring error.
The authors then devote nearly twenty pages to a detailed theoretical and experimental model analysis of the classic glass greenhouse. This model posits that glass surrounding a large volume of air allows solar radiation to pass through to heat the greenhouse surface and then selectively blocks resulting infrared energy from escaping. However, calculations show that no property of glass can adequately explain the temperature rise. Normal glass assumed in the model just cannot selectively screen and filter sufficient radiation energy by spectral absorption or reflection. Thus, assumption of a dominant radiative heating model must be incorrect.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner rely on referenced experimental evidence to show what is really going on. The dominant heat transfer mechanism is not radiation, but convection. Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.
If the classic glass greenhouse model is obviously wrong, then this raises suspicions about the atmospheric "greenhouse effect" itself. The authors examine definitions of "greenhouse effect" by three respected sources (the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy; the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics; and Encyclopedia Britannica Online). They show how each uses ill-defined global concepts (such as "mean temperature"), confuse infrared radiation with heat (they're different), incorrectly describe the physics inside a glass greenhouse, and use other terms unsupported by the laws of physics.
Surprisingly, the authors find that the term "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work or text involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. They then attempt to fill that void. They first derive the generalized equations a computer would have to solve to calculate an average radiative temperature for a rotating smooth globe without oceans (half exposed to the sun and half not) and inclined relative to the sun (as is Earth). They show that for a globe the size of Earth, even this simple non-convection model would be unsolvable by the most powerful computers available today or for the foreseeable future -- not only because of the quantity of calculations required, but also because of the impossibility of setting the initial boundary conditions at every point needed to even begin the calculation process.
Relevant Atmospheric Physics
Gerlich and Tscheuschner next show that even the simplest forms of the special equations needed for a true analysis of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) relationships involved in planetary atmospheric heating cannot be solved -- even for small-space regions and small-time intervals -- because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered. The real world is just too complex.
However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for "radiative transfer," and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or "forcing" effect on the warmer surface below violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
There are too many different transfer phenomena (radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.) and types of interfaces (static or moving) between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc. for which no applicable scientific theory nor ability to determine boundary conditions exists. "Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws," the authors conclude (their emphasis). "Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate."
Dr. Roy Spencer, in his book Climate Confusion, points out how man-made global warming alarmists attempt to mislead the public by claiming that global CO2 emissions total about 50 billion tons per year while failing to acknowledge that the total weight of the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. In other words, the 50 billion tons adds to 5 million billion tons, or a mere 10 parts per million -- relatively speaking, a trivial change each year.
Spencer shows how with oceans covering nearly seventy percent of Earth, water vapor and ocean currents totally dominate our global climate. He attributes oceanic and atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific as the dominant modern climate forcing mechanism. As for infrared radiation, Gerlich and Tscheuschner agree with earlier studies that water vapor is responsible for most of the IR absorption in the Earth's atmosphere. Thus, any infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide represents only a tiny part of the full IR spectrum and is affected little by raising CO2 concentration.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner state without equivocation that there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect which explains the relevant physical phenomena. They call the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases "deliberate misnomers" and a "myth beyond physical reality" and conclude:
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
Thus, scientific support for the man-made global warming hoax slowly collapses while politicians rush to lock in massive international wealth-redistribution in its name. Those pesky "greenhouse gases" just don't behave in a politically correct manner.
This is an example of what professional engineers and scientists do when they are at their best. The most lucid rebuttal I have read.
Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
Here is the entire 115 Pg Paper with references, if you want to wade through it or Archive it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Update: Here is another Mathematician with a similar take on the "Science" being sold to the rest of us: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html
Makes a lot of sense.
I know Scientific methodology, and when The main scientists refused to share Data with anyone, Alarm Bells went off...Years ago.
Comment here and there if you wish.
Posted by: Marc at December 03, 2009 12:44 AM (Zoziv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Splits the Baby
The key to mimicking Solomon-like wisdom is to understand when the great biblical king was making an absurd suggestion to prompt truth, and when he was being direct.
The President's speech at West Point was anything but wise; it was instead the purest display of strategic incompetence and political pandering of an arrogant and self-serving career.
He put more troops in harm's way and conceded defeat in
just three paragraphs.
Obama does not have the intestinal fortitude to win the war, nor the character to declare that the war (in his opinion) is not worth fighting. Nor does he have the courage to admit he lied to the American people as he campaigned, when he repeatedly said Afghanistan was the war we must fight and win.
Instead, our Commander in Chief abdicates his responsibility to the men and women who serve this nation in uniform, and commits 30,000 more American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to a war he has already conceded.
Every wound and death in Afghanistan from this moment on is blood spilled needlessly by a craven coward who lacks the basic integrity and leadership required of the office of the Presidency.
Damn him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:57 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I couldn't agree more with your general thrust. I am someone who thinks that we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately (and, no, I don't wish to discuss it here!), but, that being said, I really don't understand how it makes any sense to say that we are going to put tens of thousands more troops into the theater and, at the same time, announce in advance that we are going to pull them out again less than a year and a half after they get there!
I think Obama should just admit that he got it wrong during the campaign. But, if that is not what he is going to do, how is he keeping his promise to "win" in Afghanistan if he is already conceding a time line for withdrawl? As you quite correctly say, what is the point of asking for the sacrifice of lives, limbs, and money for a cause you are conceding will not succeed in advance? It's worse than LBJ in Vietnam. It's as if LBJ added troops in 1965 and, AT THE SAME TIME, said he was going to start pulling them out in 1967! It makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the Taliban even take the build up seriously? By the time it is fully in effect, the countdown to to withdrawal will already have begun.
How could Obama look these patriotic, self-sacrificing, idealistic West Point cadets in the eye and tell them he is going to ask them to die for nothing? For nothing, that is, other than to cover his backside and give him "plausible deniability" when he is accused of breaking his campaign promise. The self serving cynicism of this coldblooded, egotistical, transparently full of you-know-what, pop in jay pretending to be a great moral leader makes my blood boil. The notion that this disgraceful clown, this utterly heartless, souless, disgustingly self worshipping con man has become the President of our beloved country makes me literally sick to my stomache. He makes me ill.
Posted by: freemansfarm at December 02, 2009 02:28 AM (/SCLM)
2
Obamastrikes me as the kind of guy who screams his own name while having sex.
Posted by: dakotas5 at December 02, 2009 08:00 AM (AxUGz)
3
How could Obama look these patriotic, self-sacrificing, idealistic West Point cadets in the eye and tell them he is going to ask them to die for nothing? For nothing, that is, other than to cover his backside and give him "plausible deniability" when he is accused of breaking his campaign promise.
Easy - like pissy Chrissy says - it's the enemy camp.
Posted by: bandit at December 02, 2009 10:17 AM (/R+6i)
4
its also easy when you have a well camoflauged/hidden personality disorder.
if your a narcissistic sociopath with a broken personality, then
1. you dont empathize with fellow humans
2. they are just props in your personal parade.
3. you only "see" them if they adore you in all your magnificence.
4. you connect with them as part of your group. to him they are the other.
Posted by: rumcrook® at December 02, 2009 12:53 PM (60WiD)
5
wouldn't it be interesting if the Republican led Congress in 2011 refused to appropriate funds for a withdrawal, and instead continued to fund the ongoing in-country missions? what would Ear Leader do then?
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 02, 2009 01:26 PM (d1FhN)
6
As another pundit pointed out, this is not just an 8 year war, but a 30 year war started by another Democratic president. Yes it was ol'Jimmy who thought it would be a good idea to topple the only good government (God help them) the Afghans ever had. Hell, I would certainly take Brezhnev over the idiots and fanatics who have been running the country ever since. Obama is just doing what he always does, refusing to make a real choice and trying to please everyone. Nothing but a great disappointment from the first day...
Posted by: Will Butler at December 02, 2009 08:38 PM (LgpMF)
7
From ConYank post to last comment exactly right. I've had a most difficult time keeping my spirits from sinking today.
Posted by: Jayne at December 02, 2009 11:53 PM (dwIL0)
8
Hefty comments to which I will only add: The part that make ME sick about the conflict in Afgh. is, the need to clean up a mess left by the previous administration's neglect.
Posted by: ex-pate home again at December 06, 2009 12:20 PM (WD0yQ)
9
God, here we go again, "Let's pull out of Afghanistan". Let's do and allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to take control then move on to finishing Pakistan, at which point, you can then start to worry about when the first nuke will hit this country and where. It's certain the U.N. is as much wasted space as the Whitehouse these days, so nothing will be done about them or Iran. Our egomaniacal leader will wander around lost as he always does. We, who have served, can look in his eyes and see he has no respect for the military just as we could the Clintons.
Posted by: Yankeedoodle at December 06, 2009 01:22 PM (57MUP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Few. The Proud. The Frum.
"The Marines are elitist too."
The Marines have a right to be.
From the oh-so-important
http://www.frumforum.com/
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Gah. I thought Frum prided himself on being erudite?
Elitist: a person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.
• a person who believes that they belong to an elite
Elite: a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth : China's educated elite | [as adj. ] an elite combat force.
Marines are ELITES because of their training and esprit de corps.
Frum is an ELITIST because he thinks people without Ivy League degrees are cattle.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at December 02, 2009 11:56 AM (ZJ/un)
2
I take offense to that! I believe that those without Ivy League degrees are sheep, not cattle.
Posted by: David Frum at December 02, 2009 12:20 PM (DcWbe)
3
whereas i believe that those *with* Ivy League degrees are swine.
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 02, 2009 01:28 PM (d1FhN)
4
You insult swine. Swine are useful and tasty.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at December 02, 2009 03:07 PM (ZJ/un)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 01, 2009
ASU Journalism Students Start Practicing Early
Today they're in the media; tomorrow they'll be writing for it:
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was asked by a panel of journalists Monday night to explain his relationship with the media, his various law enforcement policies and whether his office conducts racial profiling.
Arpaio told the panel that his office is an "equal opportunity law enforcement agency" that will arrest anyone who violates the law.
Later in the interview at ASU's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, protesters began singing a version of "Bohemian Rhapsody" and chanting as Arpaio was asked about a federal investigation and his policies on illegal immigration.
Personally, I think Arpaio should have responded to these dunces with a drawling, "What we have heah is a fail-yah to communicate," but I doubt the protestors would have been bright enough to pick up on the reference.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:30 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've always thought of him as a competent Buford T. Justice.
So maybe
What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law.
Or just a blanket, "Stupid sumbitches" as he stalked off.
Posted by: Veeshir at December 02, 2009 04:04 PM (Atu9s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Adidas=All Day I Duck Aimed Shoes?
Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi who infamously threw his shoes at President Bush during a December 2008 press conference in Iraq, was himself the target of a shoe thrower today at a news conference in Paris.
Fittingly enough, al-Zeidi's brother chased today's show thrower, winging his shoes at him during the chase.
Socks to be them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:14 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
The Real Climate Change Deniers
Claims of pending catastrophic destruction caused by man's influence on the climate is far older that the technology you a reading this blog on.
Long before Macs and PCs were commonplace and decades before the World Wide Web, there were the equivalent of pseudo-scientific madmen screaming to anyone who would listen that a massive, sudden ice age was about to descend and snuff out humanity if we didn't dramatically change our ways.
And yet, the planet survived the decade of disco and the AMC Pacer without either destruction or investing heavily in snow boots, and the crazies were mercifully ignored. They retreated back to their dusty hovels to lick their wounds and find another sky that was about to fall. The better part of a generation later, the faithful reemerged, convinced that it wasn't massive
cooling that was going to kill us all, but massive
warming. They were off by 180-degrees, that's all.
And so in the 90s and up until recently the cult has grown louder and more insistent, braying that the science is "settled" and if we didn't do something immediately, they would
fail to get rich on their investments in unproven alternative energy sources and Denver would be awash with whales.
Of course, those of us who have even a minimal amount of exposure to science or computers know that the "settled science"
is anything but, and
recent disclosures have proven that both the data and the computer models have been fudged to the point of completely invalidating them as legitimate evidence of anything
other than fraud. As it was before with global cooling, global warming (now called climate change since the warming, uh, failed to happen) has been exposed as a matter of faith among some, funding among others, and opportunism by nearly all of it's adherents.
President Barack Obama likes to style himself as an intellectual—even as he refuses to let anyone see his transcripts—and tries to cultivate an aura of Vulcan sobriety and reason as he stumbles from gaffe to gaffe. Next week he will attend a summit in Copehagen Denmark with many other world leaders, and they will do what politicians always do, and attempt to arrogantly insert themselves into matter they lack the education or experience to understand.
If Obama is actually the intellectual he pretends to be, he'll use his time on the world stage to discuss the recent disturbing revelations about the leading proponents of the climate change theology. He will bring up their destruction of the raw data that forms the very foundation of the movement, serial manipulation of data to achieve a desired result, conspiracy to silence or stonewall critics, and the utter corruption of computer data models riddled with manual "adjustments" to create climate change on paper even as it stubbornly refused to manifest in the climate of the real world.
But we know better than that, don't we?
For some it is far more important to ignore the science undermining their ideological position, and these climate change cultists are the sad souls truly in denial.
Sponsored link: casino online
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:13 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you review as many CC blogs daily as I do, it is obvious that the denialist (previous pro-AGW cohort) are getting more and more desperate. Their arguments, when they can mount one, is just a repeat of the talking points from the "circled wagon" cohort.
Posted by: CoRev at December 01, 2009 06:00 PM (0U8Ob)
2
Well, what significance is this "missing" and "tampered" data so long as these "scientists" can still assure us there is a "consensus?" After all, that's what really matters, isn't it?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 01, 2009 11:13 PM (yXeiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Maurice Clemmons Killed By Seattle Police After Manhunt
It appears Clemmons was shot in an area where police had been investigating friends and family members who were thought to have been harboring the cop-killer.
Maurice Clemmons, the suspect in the murders of 4 Lakewood Police Officers has been fatally shot by Seattle Police. It happened around 2:30 a.m. Tuesday morning along South Kenyon Street in the Rainier Valley.
Authorities suspected 37-year old Clemmons of gunning down 4 police officers at a coffee shop Sunday morning in Lakewood, a suburb about 35 miles south of Seattle.
His death comes just one day after Pierce County Sheriff's authorities said they believed Clemmons was being helped to escape capture by a network of friends and family.
On Monday night, officers had surrounded a house in the south Seattle suburb of Renton, questioning residents who may have aided Maurice Clemmons since the Sunday morning shootings. Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said no one was arrested.
It was believed that Clemmons was shot in the abdomen during the attack on the Lakewood officers at a coffee shop near Tacoma.
Troyer also said some of those who have helped Clemmons have tried to mislead police. "Yes, we think we've been given misinformation. Our main goal is to get him into custody, then we'll deal with everything else," Troyer told reporters in Renton Monday night.
Police scanner audio indicates that Clemmons ran from a home when he was shot, and that people inside the home acted suspiciously, requiring officers to pull back while Clemmons was on the ground until they could secure the scene.
Hopefully, all of murderer's friends and family member will face felony charges for assisting this thug's attempt to evade justice.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:21 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am relieved that Clemmons did not kill again and agree that anyone who helped him should be charged , on another message board there is already talk of wrongful death lawsuits and what society did to Clemmons to ruin his life etc etc,crazy talk in my opinion.
My prayers are for the families and friends of the four dead officers and the child Clemmons raped.
Posted by: duncan at December 01, 2009 09:29 AM (yYtuK)
2
Good, now we don't have to support this scumbag with our tax dollars. The officer(s) who shot him should get a bonus for saving us the time, expense, and trouble of a trial. Its about time that someone in a government agency did something right.
Posted by: Scott at December 01, 2009 11:05 AM (6yHgW)
3
True justice would be to have Huckabye and the parole board spend some time in jail for letting this scum out.
Posted by: David at December 01, 2009 12:22 PM (dccG2)
4
Scott- my first thought, as well.
Posted by: Foxfier at December 01, 2009 03:16 PM (zFkAV)
5
Damn, there goes Clemmons' chance to be commencement speaker at the next Evergreen State graduation.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 01, 2009 11:14 PM (yXeiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 30, 2009
Friends and Family Helping Cop-Killer Evade Police
I remember when Eric Robert Rudolph was hiding in the mountains of western North Carolina, and the media echoed law enforcement's disgust of a killer being sheltered by those with right-wing anti-government sentiments.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I doubt that narrative will go quite as far, so kudos to the Seattle
Times for reporting what much of media
will probably try to avoid:
Maurice Clemmons has been getting help and shelter from friends and relatives since shortly after the Sunday morning shooting deaths of four Lakewood police officers, authorities have concluded.
"Basically, there's no way that he could be doing this by himself; he was shot in the abdomen," said Sheri Badger, Pierce County spokeswoman at the incident command center.
Also frustrating to law-enforcement officers is that Clemmons reportedly told acquaintances the night before the attack to "watch the news" because he was going to "kill cops."
No one reported his comments to police until after the attack, Badger said.
I'm going to loop this back around once more to
Christopher John Monfort. Like Clemmons and many African-Americans, Monfort was weaned in a culture that not only demeans law and order, but which actively glorifies violence against it in popular music and other entertainment.
Folks want to ignore the truth because they want to avoid being called racists, but the simple fact of the matter is that much of African-American culture ranges between distrust of the police and outright hostility, and that hostility has exploded into violence that has left six police officers in this area alone gunned down in less than a month, with only one of those six escaping the coroner's attention.
It probably wouldn't take very much effort at all to loop this violent hatred of authority to the disdain of law practiced by left wing groups primarily composed of minorities such as ACORN, the thugs we've seen in SEIU, the New Black Panthers, and the slightly more sophisticated bigotry of Jeremiah Wright and both Barack and Michelle "for the first time in my life" Obama, but frankly, I'm tired.
Directly or indirectly, there is an African-American culture problem here that no one wants to address, much less attempt to fix. The recent ambushes of police officers by these particular angry black men simply underscore that uncomfortable and deadly truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:43 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sad to hear this, why would anyone aid this homicidal coward??? I am following this too and I have heard that police are arresting those who gave false info.
Posted by: duncan at November 30, 2009 09:39 PM (yYtuK)
2
Well, at least he's gut-shot. I would guess 90% chance of dying in agony without a doctor. It'd serve him right... but it would be better, I think, to get him alive so the authorities can find out who helped him, so they too can be prosecuted.
Posted by: Russ at November 30, 2009 09:55 PM (YyAwk)
3
There always seems to be that "Bonnie & Clyde" element among us who glorify those who commit the most heinous crimes.
In this particular case, it seems to me that at least a couple of people were well aware of what this worthless scumbag was going to do (kill cops!) and not only failed to report it, to prevent a terrible tragedy from taking place - but allowed it to happen even though there was an excellent chance that their "friend" or relative was going to die, one way or the other. What kind of friend or relative is that?
I hope every last person who aided or abetted this murderer is brought to justice.
No one understands that he's innocent until proven guilty any more than I. However, IF he is found guilty, THE most severe punishment should result.
Posted by: Dell at November 30, 2009 10:20 PM (lDRZT)
4
I certainly hope that the officer was using hollow-points when he shot Clemmons. Not only would it help to insure Clemmons early departure, but it would also help avoid the 9mm tendency to go though the target.
As for the friends and family helping this scumbag, I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It sounds like a number of them belong in jail as well.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 30, 2009 11:27 PM (O8ebz)
5
Something similar has been going on in Denver where the police new that gangs of black men and women were confronting white and Hispanic men with racial slurs and beating and robbing them. The police did not make this known to the public! The public was told that a series of robberies were happening in a certain part of town and that the public should be aware of the danger. Not once did the cops mention black on white hate crime or indicate in any way that the crimes were black on white. You are right Bob, this is getting out of hand due to the PC movement.
Posted by: inspectorudy at December 01, 2009 12:47 AM (Vo1wX)
6
The police were just on the news and reporting that family and friends were helping this pos evade capture and providing some amount of medical help.
The police warned that people helping Clemmons would be liable to criminal charges. If Clemmons killed anyone, those helpers would be liable to murder charges.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 01, 2009 02:04 AM (O8ebz)
7
"Once two men went up old Rocky Top,
"Looking for a moonshine still,
"Those men never came down from Rocky Top,
"Reckon they never will ...."
Posted by: beet at December 01, 2009 12:18 PM (vzU4z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Seattle Police Focusing on Cowan Park in Manhunt
Police are setting a perimeter around Cowan Park in Seattle as they hunt for a suspect wanted for the murder of four police officers yesterday in Parkland, WA. According to police radio chatter, a blood trail has been found, and CSI units are being called in to investigate.
Suspect may have Twitter account:
http://twitter.com/mauriceclemmons, though he certainly didn't do much with it if he did.
Moments after that information went out, Twitter went down. Probably unrelated, but you never know...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:44 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
grew up with officer tina griswold in shelton, she was a great person, you will be missed tiny tina.
Posted by: luva the scissors at November 30, 2009 04:24 PM (QjKgz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Leftist-Motivated Cop-Killing in the Northwest?
My latest is up at Pajamas Media, discussing the previous murders of police officers from leftists educated in the area, and the possibility that the murder of four police officers yesterday by Maurice Clemmons may have been a copycat crime inspired by the most recent of those shooters (Monfort), aggravated by his own stated hatred of police and mental instability.
In the meantime, I'm following accounts of the shooting on Twitter at
#WAshooting and listening to Seattle police continue their manhunt of the suspect via an
online police scanner.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:49 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Clemmons was a born again christian when Huckabee commuted his sentence
Posted by: John Ryan at November 30, 2009 06:29 PM (m0Q2u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 74 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0965 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0784 seconds, 125 records returned.
Page size 105 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.