November 20, 2009

Hacked Emails Show Climate Change Scientists Committing Fraud

The climate always changes. It is in a state of constant flux, and thought to be primarily driven by the warming and cooling cycles of our sun (which has a climate of its own), a fact that disreputable scientists competing for billions in grant money have sought to minimize in recent years as they championed what can only be referred to as scare-mongering for dollars.

Via Hot Air, it seems that one of the major climate change advocacy centers recently had their email systems hacked and had their internal emails posted online. It seems that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been caught red-handed discussing techniques to generate fraudulent data:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Somehow, I think Al manbearpig Gore will ignore this.

He's serial.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 19, 2009

ACORN. Juvenile Prostitution. Los Angeles.

Stop me if you've heard this before, again.

I'm really starting to wonder exactly what it was Barack Obama was teaching these people. Needless to say, the consistent, nearly uniform acceptance of the sex slavery of minors should be grounds for dozens of investigations of the Democratic Party's shock troops. The fact that nothing has been forthcoming merely reinforces that the racketeering goes well beyond the street-level accomplices caught on tape.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:34 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Womb Raider Vows Return to Normalcy

But we all know Andrew Sullivan will wallow in insanity for the rest of his natural-borne days.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:34 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 18, 2009

If Socialized Medicine Did This to Him, What Would it do to You?

A dirty little secret of mine is a love of mixed martial arts. Right now, the biggest star in the biggest MMA promotion is heavyweight titleholder Brock Lesnar of the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

At 6'3" and 265 lbs of ripped muscle, the 32-year old former NCAA wrestling champion is arguably one of the most dangerous MAA fighters in the world today, and yet his career may be jeopardy... and at least one person is blaming his health problems on Canadian health care:

Brock Lesnar's chiropractor blames the Canadian medical system for failing to manage the UFC fighter's mystery illness after he collapsed here last week.

"His symptoms became severe while in Canada, which because of their health care system made it difficult to manage. And at this point it's a possibility that it could jeopardize his career," chiropractor Larry Novotny told KSAX-TV news in Alexandria, MN, according to the network's website.

Yeah, I know... an unknown chiropractor in Minnesota isn't exactly House (though he may be as qualified to comment on the quality of Canadian health care as Hugh Laurie).

But let us accept for the moment the possibility that Novotny is correct.

If a highly-conditioned professional athlete at the top of his game could see his health and career threatened by the inadequacies of socialized medicine, what would it do to those of us who aren't in that kind of shape?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:42 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama: Yeah, It's a Show Trial

What did you expect, folks? Leftists love this stuff:

Americans who are troubled by the decision to send alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial will feel better about it when he's put to death, President Barack Obama said Tuesday.

During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama's visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.

"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd.

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn't trying to dictate the result.

Bull. Crap.

The Administration is only holding these civil trials in New York because his Justice Department assures him that these show trials are merely a formality. Obama has every intention of using the body of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a podium from which he will no doubt trumpet his toughness in the war on terror, even as he finds a way to tuck his tail between his legs and scamper home from fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job.

Barack Obama doesn't care about justice. He cares about appearances. He'll have his show trials and the execution of these five, even as he leaves another 75 to rot in prison with no intention of bringing the to trial. KSM deserves no better and no different than his peers. There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.

Unfortunately for Mohammed, his admitted show trial makes for better optics for our President's planned retreats.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (70) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Broken Minds

This observation from Tom Maguire has haunted me since last night.

As he told us last Friday, Eric Holder wants to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts because he (mostly) attacked civilians, while the attackers of the USS Cole will be sent to a military tribunal. The Dallas Morning News explained:

There is no contradiction here: military courts for attacks on the military, civilian courts for attacks on civilians.

OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?

How bizarre is Holder's logic? First, why give more rights and more protections to a terrorists who targets civilians? Secondly, the court ought to be determined by the nature of the defendant, not the nature of the victims - if KSM is an enemy combatant he deserves a military tribunal regardless of who he was crafty enough to target.

I've long disagreed with the underlying ideology of the Obama Administration, which is based upon the philosophies of those men who replaced his father in his life. Radical left-wing ideologies like those the President learned from his mentors—Frank Marshall Davis (communist), Bill Ayers (Marxist), Jeremiah Wright (racist black liberation theology, Marxism), etc—have never led to anything other than misery for the wretches that survive it.

But Obama and his subordinates compound the errors of these diseased ideologies by adopting another failed ideology, one that acts as if the open warfare of Islamic fascism is a civilian law enforcement problem. That flawed thinking already led to horrors of 9/11. Why are our President and Attorney General so dimwitted that they desire to repeat those mistakes and put the lives of Americans at greater risk?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:35 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 It is obvious that Holder has not bounced this idea of anyone with any intelligence.This is up there with the decision to NOT prosecute the black panthers on the voting station steps in Pa. If this insanity actually leads to a trial in NYC and a bomb goes off there, it will be the end of the era of Hope and Change. Holder is way over his head in this and there in no good that can come from it. Like my Dad used to tell me when I was a teenage hoodlum with bad ideas, "What is the best and worst thing that this will produce".

Posted by: inspectorudy at November 18, 2009 11:04 AM (Vo1wX)

2 But at the same time, KSM isn't a soldier, he's a murderer. His attack wasn't an act of war it was a cowardly crime. To me that means he should be treated as a criminal, and the Brits and Spanish had the same reaction after the London and Madrid bombings. They tried those guys in the cities that had been bombed, and they tried them in civilian courts, and they got convictions for murder, not war crimes or some crap like that.

If we turn terrorists like KSM into soldiers, or enemy combatants, or any legal fudge other than criminal then any attack by those guys that targets our military -- like the Pentagon -- would be a simple act of war in an ongoing war, and the civilian deaths would be collateral damage, which is pure BS. These guys aren't fighting a war, they're terrorists plain and simple.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 02:33 PM (KD9e1)

3 I wonder if Jim would feel the same way if it was his relatives that died in those buildings on 9/11.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 18, 2009 03:09 PM (T4ASz)

4 WTF is that supposed to mean Michael, did you even read what I wrote?

KSM isn't a soldier, he's a criminal. His actions weren't attacks upon an enemy nation during a time of war, they were murders.

When we bomb cities during a war it's an act of war, not an act of murder. Do you want KSM to be able to claim he was doing the same thing? Of course not.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 03:56 PM (KD9e1)

5 Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda declared war against the US in 1996. Perhaps you missed it.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20060823-osama-bin-laden-september-11-uss-cole-al-qaeda-terrorism_print.shtml

KSM was working for Al Qaeda on 9/11, who had previously declared war on the US AND attacked several of its possessions. 9/11 was yet another attack perpetrated in prosecution of that war. That fact alone is enough to remove this matter from the civilian court system.

KSM IS a conspiratorialist to murder, but he did it in the context of a larger war effort. This is a military matter, and should be prosecuted as such. Followed by a speedy hanging (as opposed to years of appeals).

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 18, 2009 09:40 PM (TGvBq)

6 Sorry Mike, I disagree. I don't want to dignify what KSM did by making the hijackings part of some larger war. He's a criminal, he was never a soldier.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 10:57 PM (KD9e1)

7 And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack a pig farm ?

Will they be tried by a court of pigs ?

Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 08:43 AM (tE8FB)

8 So does this mean that the Holocaust was a military operation ? 6 million military deaths ? Nuremberg was a military tribunal.

Would a nuclear attack be a military or civilian operation ? Do they count the number of eviscerated and wounded military vs civilians ?

Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 08:51 AM (tE8FB)

9 You are free to disagree, but you are being willfully blind of the facts in this matter.

So by your definition, since Al Qaeda is not a formalized fighting force (aka Army), then ALL trials of Al Qaeda detainees should be held in civilian court.

Is that what you are really espousing?

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 09:04 AM (T4ASz)

10 Neo, Nuremberg is tricky for a number of reasons, the court was a mix of civilian and military, the defendants were a mix of civilian and military persons, and they were accused of a whole array of different crimes from waging illegal aggressive war to hate speech. Throw in a multinational set of prosecutors and judges and there's pretty much something for everyone there. This is just us.


Mike, I'm talking about KSM a guy who was captured far from the battlefield, not every potential defendant, different circumstances warrant different approaches.

Here's what I worry about, you can tell me if it's a valid concern.

The first shot we fired in the Iraq War was a cruise missile or missiles fired to try and kill Saddam. We had declared war, he was the head of state and the commander of the Iraqi military making him a valid target.

If some group like Al Qaeda "declares war" on us, would it then be legal in your eyes for them to attempt to blow up the President? I don't. I don't want to invest individual terrorists with the privileges of nations.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 09:30 AM (KD9e1)

11 I think the pushback on Jim is a bit gratuitous. But there is a third designation of less than ancient vintage but still with a long track record. In the Geneva Conventions this demo of asshole is called an "unlawful combatant" and as I understand it this concept loomed large in the legal underpinnings (yes, there were such) of the Bushies detention policies. It seems unclear if it is still the case and it is clearly NOT the case if other international accords are considered but in their original form the Geneva Conventions took a rather stern line on unlawful combatants; summary battlefield execution. If that is allowed then any lesser harshness in their detention is discretionary. The real indictment of the Obama KWM policy is that he has already confessed in military tribunals and no, this was not swirlied out of him. He is, as one would expect, quite a proud jihadi. As far as "justice" goes, before the recent decisions of OHolder, execution was a matter of procedure. These procedures were not yet pursued for the obvious intelligence value of KSM and who knows what other political factors. This amounts not to a delivery of justice unless a reprieve of the condemned man and a new trial is warrented. It is a perversion not of justice merely but of the justice system because rather than introducing decent jurisprudence into the GWOT it is importing Jihad into our courtrooms. So, what will be the results? I predict that KSM will walk. Holder declares that he has sufficient evidence for a CAPITAL conviction that is of sufficient provenance to be admitted. Well, maybe he thinks he does but it is the DUTY of the other side to argue otherwise. This "other" evidence must be absolutely underived from any non-Mirandized and evidence-chained information from ANY source. Needless to say this is a high bar and Holder's declared confidence is just braggadoccio. But will any of that ever become an issue? How will they seat a jury? That is a year's process at least, and then only if the defense team is not intentionally delaying. Other tactical possibilities abound that make Mr. Holder's "evidence" moot. Only two outcomes are possible. One, KSM will walk or two, he will be returned to his former state of detention. And it will not really take some Leftwing nutcase judge or plant in the jury, merely a rigorous application of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and if that doesn't happen at trial, it will happen at appeal, which is of course automatic and gub financed in capital cases. No, KSM is NOT in for speedy trial and execution. Nope. Holder promises the impossible, declaring it inevitable and in so doing reveals that he knows nothing in his supposed area of expertise OR he was instructed to make this decision. In that case he is indeed The Holder. He is holding the bag and it is ticking.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 19, 2009 09:41 AM (Z1yVV)

12 Jim believes that the Nanking Massacre wasn't murder because it was part of War.

Jim, all good people in the world disagree with you, as does the US Military.

UCMJ - Article 118 - Murder

Posted by: brando at November 19, 2009 02:47 PM (IPGju)

13 You have it completely backwards as usual Brando.

A better analogy for what I actually wrote above would be; I don't think a Chinese man who shot a Japanese woman in Tokyo a month after Nanking should be treated as though he was a soldier at war on the battlefield.

You can murder while in uniform, no one disputes that. I do not believe a person can declare war on a nation and then 5 years later kill civilians and call that an act of war. KSM was not a soldier in a war, he was a simple criminal and should be tried as such.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 03:36 PM (3GzXA)

14 Jim -

Your argument is so specious that I don't know where to start.

The US did not specifically target Saddam at the beginning of hostilities. They concentrated on command, control and communication facilities. That's the first move any aggressor makes in a war. The US may have a lobbed a missle or two after Saddam, and if they got him in the process, so much the better. But as I recall, lots of munitions fell that night, and not all of them were aimed at Saddam.

And do you really believe that Al Qaeda would hesitate, even for a second, to eliminate Bush if they had the chance? You do understand what a PR coup that would be for Al Qaeda, right?

Further, except for the heroic actions of some on flight 83, Al Qaeda WOULD have destroyed the Capital. But, if I understand your argument correctly, had the terrorists succeeded, and politicians (as opposed to civilians) died, then we could try KSM in a military court?

You may not want to "invest individual terrorists with privileges of nations", but Al Qaeda doesn't really care what you think. They have already taken those "privileges", whether granted or not.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 05:47 PM (T4ASz)

15 BAGHDAD, Iraq — The United States launched its opening attack against Iraq Thursday morning, aiming at "targets of military opportunity" in a pre-dawn "decapitation" strike after President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave the country passed unheeded.

The "decapitation" attack targeted Saddam personally, U.S. officials told Fox News, and the barrage of cruise missiles and bombs was a prelude to a major invasion of Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81607,00.html







Of course Al Qaeda would target our President, my question to you is, if we and Al Qaeda are at war, and you can legally target a leader in a "decapitation" strike while at war, would you call an attack by Al Qaeda on our President a valid act of war or a crime. I would call it a crime because I don't treat Al Qaeda as an entity that can wage war. If you say they can and have, then why would their decapitation strike be illegal and ours legal?

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 06:24 PM (3GzXA)

16 Are you being obtuse on purpose? Are you seriously suggesting that Al Qaeda has not been waging war? Or perhaps that KSM should go free because he acted while in a war?

What you clearly do not understand is that this is not a matter of legal and illegal. It is a matter of national sovereignty. Al Qaeda declared war on the US and acted on that declaration. KSM, a member of Al Qaeda, by his own admission, was the orchestrator (i.e. General) of that attack. He was caught (and it does matter where he was apprehended, as you have argued elsewhere). To the extent that he should be given a trial at all, it should be a military trial. This is not a civilian matter, and no unrepentant foreigner who acted in a war effort against this country should be granted the same rights of defense that I as a citizen enjoy.

You're getting hard to take seriously.

Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 10:01 PM (TGvBq)

17 Michael it's not clear to me that you are reading what I'm writing. Did I ever suggest KSM should go free? No, I'm saying the exact opposite.

Yes Al Qaeda has been attacking us for over a decade, but no, I don't think a handful of individual terrorists can declare war upon a nation in any meaningful way. They're not a country, they're not soldiers, they're common criminals. I don't know how I could be any more clear about that.


I'm asking you a simple question, and I think you've been ducking answering that simple question because you don't like the answer.

You keep saying Al Qaeda can declare war upon a nation in the same way the USA can, fine. Do they then have the same right we do to declare war, and then legally launch decapitation attacks against our leaders? It's a simple yes or no question. Of course I'd also appreciate your reasoning.


Did it start getting harder to take me seriously when I showed you that you were wrong about the US directly targeting Saddam at the start of the Iraq War?

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 10:29 PM (KD9e1)

18 Jim -

the economic destruction of 9-11 exceeded that of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

How exactly do you justify saying ... but no, I don't think a handful of individual terrorists can declare war upon a nation in any meaningful way.?

Posted by: Adriane at November 20, 2009 02:50 AM (0U2C0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 17, 2009

CNN's "Militias are Crazy!" Day 2

After yesterday's report attempting to portray a militia group as borderline terrorists, CNN's Jim Acosta used today's report to try to portray the founder of the group as also being an unfit parent.

Lee Miracle may run training exercises for the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia once a month in a rural area outside of Flint, but he's just as busy at home. He and his wife Katrina have eight kids, and there are more than 20 guns in the house. This explains why Lee refers to the family as "Lee and Kate plus eight plus a gun rack."

Make that several gun racks. The Miracle children are very much growing up in the militia. They take part in militia training exercises, including the weapons training.

We were there when 13-year-old Megan fired off her shotgun, but even the couple's six-year-old has had her share of target practice.

CNN's dimwitted followers obediently go where they are led, all but wetting themselves in the comments. One reader professes shock and outrage that a family has both children and guns in the same house, declaring that "somebody should do something" about that. The next poster down rhetorically asks if there is any difference between the militias and the Ku Klux Klan. It is tough to discern whether they feel having guns or belonging to the Klan would be more distasteful.

The hit job CNN did on the Miracle family was as easy as it is predictable.

They crafted both the text of the blog entry and tone of the video to inspire shock that young women and girls in the family are being taught to shoot firearms.

Being CNN, they never mention the fact that these young ladies are adequately supervised, use both the proper eye and ear protection, and in the one instance they broadcast, use a single-shot, preferred by many for training young and new shooters. In other words, the Miracle children exhibit the tells of youth taught how to act responsibly around firearms. That the women are as empowered to use firearms for their defense as are the males somehow doesn't excite the pseudo-feminist leanings of the CNN staff.

Those things don't fit CNN's narrative, you see.

It's much better to play up a caricature and beat down a strawman. Why waste time trying to discover why increasing number of people have determined that our federal government too incompetent, corrupt, and power-mad to trust?

After all, it's only news.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:42 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Leftist Terrorist Lawyer Ordered to Jail

If there is any justice, this will work out to be a life sentence.

A federal appeals court has ordered leftist Manhattan civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart to surrender and begin serving her sentence immediately on her 2005 conviction for shuttling messages from imprisoned terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Stewart, 70, has been free on bail pending appeal since her 2005 conviction for using her status as Abdel-Rahman's lawyer to violate federal rules barring him from communicating from his high-security imprisonment, and her 2006 sentence to 28 months in jail by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl.

A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Tuesday morning's ruling, not only affirmed Stewart's conviction and ordered her to prison immediately, but remanded the case to Koeltl to consider whether she should get a harsher sentence.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:01 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Another Left-Wing Mob Attacks

While the Obama Administration and the media continue to try to demonize God-fearing, Constitution-respecting Americans as potential domestic terrorists, groups of thugs closely tied to the left wing of the Democratic Party continue to violently attack those who disagree with their militant drive towards socialism.

Here is the latest attack, in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

So far thugs from ANSWER, MoveOn.org, and SEIU have threatened or intimidated thousands of attendees to town hall meetings and protests, and have physically assaulted and maimed unarmed citizens with little or no provocation.

The Obama Justice Department headed by Eric Holder?

Dead silent.

h/t Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:59 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 16, 2009

Yes Virginia, There are Death Panels

Remember how Democrats and the media kept telling you that the Obamacare health care rationing scheme passed by Nancy Pelosi's House didn't have death panels that would decide who lives and who dies?

They lied.

As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.

Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."

On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."

Liberals are trying to hide behind a fig leaf by attempting to say there are no death panels because no individual cases are brought up, reviewed, and dismissed. Instead, they envision an emotionally distant genocide, where unelected appointees will summarily dictate how much money is spent to combat a specific illness or condition. Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration. They will suffer, and they will die, while racking up private debit attempting to save their own lives. It will be worse than what we have now, while forcing the nation every closer to bankruptcy.

Lovely.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:40 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The problem is that we spend a ton of money on old folks. Our system is out of control in this respect. All parties are to blame. Doctors are not getting paid enough for the time they spend with the complicated problems of the elderly. So they turn to procedures for the greater amount of money that is paid. For instance, a cath gets you $500 and takes about 30 minutes. Talking to a patient and his family takes about 30 to 60 minutes and you get $30, if you are lucky. The patient might not need the cath for the given problems, but you do feel the tug of going to a procedure if at all indicated.

Then we have our friends the attorneys. They want every thing done and multiple times. So this gets the bill up there.

Hospitals will show favoritism to those docs that do more procedures, as long as they are efficient and do not spend too much money.

Families are demanding that mama and daddy stay alive forever. I have seen a 95 year old whose day consist of lying in his bed in the nursing home and has no idea of place, time, person or anything else. Also, blind and can not hear well. The family will insist that a $30,000+ pacemaker be placed instead of leaving the situation to God and nature. The pacemaker does nothing for the man's quality of life.

The government also makes it very difficult to allow people to die. And insist that all measures be preformed.

So we do have a problem in taking care of the elderly. I will try everything in my power to stay away from hospitals and doctors in my more advanced years. But I know that if my daughter gets a hold on me, she would makes sure that I stayed alive no matter what despite my wishes.

In years past, doctors made these decisions. The legal consequences were nill and the family respected the decisions. We need to educate people about death and quality of life. But do we need Obama making the decision? Or can he make a decision?

Posted by: David at November 16, 2009 06:25 PM (PpoBw)

2 It is a difficult problem to solve for our society! Not some impersonal commision that never has to face the people that will live or die from their decisions. But no matter what BHO and his minions sasy it is a "Death Panel". The reason it is a death panel and not a life panel is because if the system is working ok than they will never have to get invloved. It's only when the costs out way the collection that they will be put to use. Since they will not have the power to raise taxes they will only have the power to cut services. If you want your Mom or Dad to give up the services that they have paid their entire lives so that illegal aliens and their endless supply of children can have the health care that they deserve then vote for another blood sucking democrat.

Posted by: inspectorudy at November 16, 2009 07:05 PM (Vo1wX)

3 You write:
"Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration. They will suffer, and they will die, while racking up private debit attempting to save their own lives."

In a single-payer system, you are not allowed to spend your own money for health care like you spend money for everything else. You pay into the system based on earned income and care is doled out based on political correctness and political concerns. For example, in Canada, you have a 184% higher mortality rate for prostate cancer than the USA, but only an 11% higher mortality rate for breast cancer. Care to speculate as to why that might be?

Source:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/must-read-how-does-health-care-in-the-usa-compare-with-other-countries/

Posted by: Wintery Knight at November 16, 2009 08:21 PM (a+QKZ)

4 Anyone hear the rumor that the AP was going to assign a dozen or so reporters to "fact-check" the health care bills?

Me neither.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at November 17, 2009 12:20 AM (FJRFk)

5 CY, are you suggesting that under the current Medicare law, Congress authorizes unlimited funding year in and year out, or do you suspect that indeed there is already a certain amount of money budgeted for the program each year as part of the... federal budget?

I mean seriously CY, it's great to see you're in favor of unlimited spending for a government run, single payer, socialized medicine program like Medicare. Strange, but great.

I am curious though, why don't you guys simply suggest the seniors go to the emergency room for "free" care like you do for folks under 65 who lack insurance?

It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65, but so dead set against any government involvement in the health care of people 1-64. It's almost as though your stance is completely political rather than ideological. Go figure.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 02:45 AM (KD9e1)

6 It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65

Suggest ophthalmologist visit. I see the word "unlimited" zero times in what CY wrote.

You can have an opinion, but just making stuff up is very uncool dude.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 02:53 AM (ctICi)

7 OK, Mr. Avenger, explain how you can be against a "global budget" for Medicare, and against having Congress "arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year", without being in favor of unlimited spending.


CY say, and I quote:

"Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration."


If the money can't ever run out, it's an unlimited amount, is it not?

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 03:03 AM (KD9e1)

8 Two problems with making people's lives a budget item.

The Government is supposed to use a thing called 'due process' to deprive people of life, liberty or property. The star chamber or arbitrary limits does neither.

Second problem is that slope is greased. So people with, say, pancreatic cancer cost too much to keep alive and never beat the disease. Or beat it so infrequently as to make it amount to the same thing. SO you get the cancer, so sad, too bad. "Die with dignity". Then someone does a study and finds out, "Hey, you know what? It costs a lot to keep people alive who have Spina bifida...Multiple Sclerosis...ALD...autism...Down's syndrome...all these untermenchen..."
When death becomes a cost cutting policy of government, it is time for good men to rise up.

Posted by: MunDane at November 17, 2009 09:12 AM (dlS06)

9 Jim,
As I understand your comment, you desire a single payor system from birth to death for every American (and likely illegals as well).

I would call your attention to the fact that the US is virtually broke! Despite some funny accounting by the present government, I can assure you that the cost of health care will go through the roof if the government takes over. Sure there are problems with the current system of insurance. But the sytem itself is working fine and almost all of our current problems and cost can be attributed to government interference since 1985.

Mediare is a horrible program and does not pay it bills resulting in a passing of cost to the rest of us. Medicaid is a joke.

This is what I propose:
1. Elimination of the DEA and all controls on drugs except for quality assurance. That way if you want a pain med or antibiotic, head to Walgreen's and by it. Why do you need to see a physician? (I am a physician). If you want to know how to use the medication or to find out whic is best, then you see the doctor. I know this will result in a substantial reduction in doctor visits and many of the other problems (like AIDS) that plague us. It makes you responsible for you health.

2. A federal board to regulate the insurance agencies. This exist on a state level but not federal. This would assure portability, equality, and fairness. Get rid of state mandates.

3. Eliminate medicaid and mediare as we know them and convert to private policies. Have the government hand out the equivilant of food stamps for health care so you can pay your premium.

4. No insurance, no care.

Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 10:09 AM (dccG2)

10 OK, Mr. Avenger, explain how you can be against a "global budget" for Medicare, and against having Congress "arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year", without being in favor of unlimited spending.

Health care costs, for anyone, are not "unlimited" (see dictionary for definition of the word).

I want you to use crisp language. I got no horse in this game other than trying to understand WTF you are saying or advocating.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 11:39 AM (6fiQt)

11 This administration has a purpose, a purpose directed by Soros. The goal, bring America to it's knees so Soros can make even more money. He is betting against the US and he has his stooly in position. IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!

Posted by: NoLibs=PerfctWrld at November 17, 2009 12:41 PM (1y/IE)

12 Mr Avenger,

It might help your comprehension if you read and respond to all the words I type. But, I'll play along because it is possible you believe 'unlimited' means, and only means, 'infinite'. It does not, and I suggest 'infinite' isn't even the first definition for unlimited in most dictionaries, especially in common sense every day usage like "unlimited soup and salad", or "unlimited refills", or "unlimited night and weekend minutes".




The commons sense usage is indeed this:

1. unlimited - Having no restrictions or controls
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlimited

1.lacking any controls : unrestricted

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar/Unlimited


Now read very slowly if it helps. CY does not want any bill for any Medicare patient to go unpaid in any given year. He, and the WSJ editorial, are against any budget (limit) or arbitrary decision (limit), about how much the government can pay out in a year. No $$$ amount after which no care is given. That is unlimited my friend.


As for your individual patient comment, sure no one guys bill is ever going to be infinite, but it's also silly to pretend it would have one and only one limit. A Dr could order prescription Advil instead of OTC Advil, or an additional MRI, or exploratory surgery, or another round of chemo. If no one comes between the Dr and the patient when it comes to care, and the government must pay every resultant bill for every Medicare patient, tell me where is the limit, control, or restriction? And what is the word for something without controls, restrictions or limits?

OK, your turn, please bring a little more than WTF next time.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 01:56 PM (KD9e1)

13 But all semantic games with P.A. aside, it still cracks me up that CY, the WSJ, and Republican congressmen:

1) Are now defending Medicare, a single payer government program paid for (for now at least) with our tax dollars in a classic wealth distribution scheme.
2) Want the government to not interfere with said government program.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 02:07 PM (KD9e1)

14 Jim,
We used to be able to order anything we desired for a patient without government interference. It was only after the government started putting in its two cents that the cost of health care went out the roof. Other than needed oversight of the insurance industry, we do not need government regulation in medicine. In fact, it causes harm.

Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 02:22 PM (dccG2)

15 CY does not want any bill for any Medicare patient to go unpaid in any given year.

Why do you (apparently) believe this necessitates the government picks up 100% of the tab?

It seems to me you've excluded a whole universe of possibilities simply because it suits your position to do so.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 02:57 PM (53THr)

16 David,

Insurance companies have always decided what drugs or treatments were covered for a given patient, illness or condition. And they most often have annual and/or lifetime caps in total payments they'll cover. They have their own set of unelected bureaucrats, and they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. It was never -- at least not since WWII -- just you and your Dr.


Purple Avenger,

Read what CY wrote, what the WSJ editorial he linked to says, and get back to me. CY specifically argues against people having to cover their own medical expenses, and worries about the impact of those expenses upon our economy, and likens the practice of leaving seniors with medical bills to genocide. Please address your concerns about any of that to him.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 03:15 PM (3GzXA)

17 Sorry Jim, you are wrong.

Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 03:30 PM (dccG2)

18 David, are you claiming no one has annual or lifetime caps to their private health insurance, and that no health insurance providers deny coverage for things they (arbitrarily) decide are unnecessary, experimental, or pre-existing?

Or that private insurers do not argue with Dr's and patients about how much they will pay out to cover the cost of any given procedure?

Please.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 03:55 PM (3GzXA)

19 That not the arguement Jim. The arguement is the relationship that I stated was present until about 20 years ago. At that time there were few caps and no input from the insurance companies. Now don't tell me otherwise as I was actively billing at that time. As of about 20 years ago, congress passed a series of laws to favor the creation of HMO's. From that point on, medical care has gone down and cost has gone up. In addition, congress came up with the concept of DRG's. This has just about killed hospitals and many physicians.

Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 05:06 PM (ZgM5r)

20 They already approved this in the stimulus package.

Posted by: davod at November 17, 2009 05:35 PM (GUZAT)

21 Well that's an entirely different argument, how we got here, not where are we now, or why CY loves Medicare all the sudden.

The price of health care doubled in the 50s, long before Medicare or modern HMOs. Both of which were responses to the high cost of medicine and medical insurance, not the cause.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 05:41 PM (3GzXA)

22 "David, are you claiming no one has annual or lifetime caps to their private health insurance, and that no health insurance providers deny coverage for things they (arbitrarily) decide are unnecessary, experimental, or pre-existing?"

In 1989 the cap was one million dollars. Mine is now five million and I do not have a golden medical package.

Posted by: davod at November 17, 2009 05:43 PM (GUZAT)

23 Read what CY wrote, what the WSJ editorial he linked to says...

I'm not concerned about what they wrote. I'm focusing on what YOU WROTE.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 06:09 PM (7dU/r)

24 Jim, best to ignore you as all you desire to do is argue. When I comment or read a comment I want to learn something. When someone who has been active in the medical field for 40 years tells you something about the cost of medicine, listen. Of course all I have done is talk to other physicians, hospital administrators, senators and reps and many of the other key players in this. By the way, are you a troll?

Davod, some insurance packages had limits in the 80's. It all depended on where you lived. But in the 80's insurance companies were much more compliant in paying without intefering. Of course they had experimental designations and refused to pay for really stupid treatments such as chelation. But now they will not pay for an angioplasty if the lesion is 85% and not 90%. It has gotten that stupid. In the 70' and 80's all I had to do was put a patient in the hospital and treat them and did not have to explain the situation to anyone. Now you have the insurance company breathing down your neck and many other organizations that feel a nurse can make better judgements than the doctor. In the end, it cost more money and is a waste.

Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 06:25 PM (ZgM5r)

25 I'm listening David, did health care costs double in the 50s or not. If they did, and the skyrocketing costs pre-date Medicare (65) and HMOs (73), what does that tell you about cause and effect?

Look, we agree the current system is a mess, I just don't agree with you on how it should be fixed.

And for hopefully the last time. CY has a blog, I objected to some of what he said on that blog, and I think I've been very specific about what I found to be wrong, or amusing, or both. I did not offer myself as someone who has the solution to the current health care mess. He's wants to protect Medicare from government controls. It's laughable and sad.



Davod,

About 23% of people with health insurance have lifetime caps of $2 mil or less. You can go through $1 million in a couple of surgeries.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 06:51 PM (3GzXA)

26 "tell me where is the limit, control, or restriction?"

Jim - That would be the common sense of the health care providers, something you apparently do not believe in otherwise you would not advance the ridiculous position you have here after twisting CY's words and those of other commenters that they support infinite medical expenditures.

Putz

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 17, 2009 06:59 PM (3O5/e)

27 daleyrocks,

Speaking of twisting words, where did I say infinite medical expenditures? Please don't tell me you too don't think "unlimited refills" means you'll get an infinite amount of coffee.


As for the common sense of health care providers, last I looked Drs were complaining Medicare paid too little for procedures, not too much, and covered too few tests, not too many. What does that tell you?

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 07:16 PM (3GzXA)

28 Jim,
You are arguing apples and oranges. Sure health care went up in the 50's because prior to that it did not exist. In the decades preceeding the 50's you could only get a handful of surgeries and the mortality associated with those was high. In the 50's modern antibiotics came on the scene and the whole picture changed. Cost went up secondary to technicology. In the 70's the effect of the government came to play and they really stuck it to us in the 80's. Just remember, government equals and increase in cost and inefficiency.

Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 08:05 PM (ZgM5r)

29 That's a great point David, but I'm not sure how we could ever factor out the increasing complexity of medical care, I mean it's not like there wasn't an ongoing explosion of new drugs, treatment possibilities like chemo and transplants, and techs like MRIs and PET scans that occurred after the government increased it's role in health care. Apples, oranges and pears, oh my.

Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 08:19 PM (KD9e1)

30 "where did I say infinite medical expenditures?"

Jim - Well you seem to switch back and forth between dictionary definitions and "common usage" at your own convenience. By "unlimited", which you use in many places, viz.

a) "If the money can't ever run out, it's an unlimited amount, is it not?"
b)"It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65"

a) Sure sounds infinite under common usage and that's what you claim by some twisted reading that CY is advocating, yet you have not bothered to point that out. How many knee replacements can a patient have in a year, Jim? Maybe they could add in some unlimited hip replacements as well. Is that infinite or unlimited if you are more comfortable with that word? Or under ObamaCare should they take a pill instead?

Your argument, if you can call it that, is ridiculous. Do you sit down to pee?

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 17, 2009 11:16 PM (3O5/e)

31 CY doesn't want Congress to set any maximum dollar amount that can be paid out to Medicare in any given year. Is that infinite, no. Is it unlimited yes. I don't see why that's so hard to wrap ones brain around or why it's so hard to see that I chose one word, not the other.

Unlimited refills are poured in restaurants every day, and yet all those cups fall well short of infinity. Again, why is that hard to understand?


CY doesn't want it to be possible for unpaid bills being handed to folks on Medicare. What else is that if not unlimited funding? No bill unpaid, no limit to how much gets paid out for any illness or condition. If I'm wrong, and annual Medicare costs have an absolute limit by all means add up all the possible bills and supply us with the magic total. Then add one more office visit, or a thousand.

BTW, no additional comments about your own claim that Drs, if left to themselves would order fewer tests and charge less for everything, or where exactly on your body you pulled that idea from?

What's ridiculous is watching anti-big government, anti-taxation, anti-single payer people suddenly defend Medicare -- because seniors vote -- and accuse anyone looking for ways to cut Medicare costs of genocide. That is some unlimited gall right there. Perhaps even infinite gall.

Last but not least, I'd really appreciate it if you'd spend less time thinking about me peeing.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 12:46 AM (KD9e1)

32 And daylerocks, if you read a little more carefully you'll see that unlimited not meaning infinite is not only the common usage, but the #1 dictionary definition for the word, so I never switched from one to the other, it's just a couple of people here who don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. But don't take my word for it, read and learn.

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 12:48 AM (KD9e1)

33 Well, the government just recommended that women under 50 don't get mammograms. Hello health care rationing and death panels! This is all about costs and not about women's health.

Posted by: Right on Demand at November 18, 2009 01:19 AM (EK6Jb)

34 Jim - If you spend less time worried about dictionary definitions and coffee servings which make you pee, you might be able to glean a clue about CY's point rather than constructing ridiculous strawman arguments which nobody has made and then bravely hacking them down yourself.

According to Dictionary.com - the following is the third definition for infinite:
"3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space."
It lists as antonyms: "Antonyms:
1. small, limited."

Merriam Webster lists the following:
"3 : subject to no limitation or external determination"

So you can blow your sophistry on the word parsing out your pie hole.

It is clear to any honest reader that the point being made is that government run healthcare leads to rationing and that the death panels included in the Democrat bills insert faceless bureacrats between doctors and their patients in the determination of medical decisions.

Think about it. It has been a standard talking point the left has unsuccessfully been fighting off for quite some time.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 18, 2009 07:26 PM (3O5/e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Shocker: Brian Ross and The Blotter Get Details of Fort Hood Story Wrong

There are two constants we can expect from the ABC News blog The Blotter.

They will report in great detail on stories involving the criminal use of a firearm.

They will invariably get significant details grossly wrong.

Whether the subject is Mexico's drug cartels, items restricted by the 1994 Crime Bill, or basic descriptions of guns used in massacres, Ros and ABC News are predictably incompetent, and their streak continued today as they try to discuss some of the weaponry purchased by Fort Hood Jihaidi, Major Nidal Hasan:

Right next door to the strip club is the gun store, Guns Galore, where authorities say Hasan bought his semi-automatic pistol and bullets and in the weeks before the shooting, 13 extra ammunition clips that could hold up to 30 bullets each.

As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of modern firearms will tell you, modern handguns do not use clips. They use magazines, and yes there is a distinctive difference between a single piece of spring steel that holds a group of cartridges together (a clip) and an enclosed, spring-loaded mechanical device that encloses and protects cartridges an actively feeds them into a firearm's chamber (a magazine).

Then there is the fact that one cannot readily buy a 30-round magazine for the Five-SeveN pistol as ABC tries to claim.

Precisely two magazines are available with the Five-seveN, a 10-round magazine for states that restrict the number of cartridges a civilian's handgun can carry, and the standard 20-round magazine that the weapon was designed to accept. No one makes a 30-round magazine for the Five-seveN, though CMMG has a 10-round extension one can purchase separately and install to the base of the factory 20-round magazines. There are no reports that Hasan actually purchased such extensions, much less used them in his attack.

But that sort of inaccuracy is par for the course for a propagandist far more interested in pushing a political agenda than actually reporting the facts, and Ross is quite consistent in framing stories in such a way to give gun control groups an edge.

After all, who needs facts?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:21 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The "clips" vs "mags" thing i can almost accept, that's just idiotic popular culture.

but the 30 vs 20 round thing is pretty lame. Next its going to be a 200 round drum?

Posted by: John at November 16, 2009 01:39 PM (mAp1o)

2 Yeah, and the silly folks also think it was a nearly 6 inch diam. barrel.

All they need is some square backed bullets and they'd be all set.

Posted by: brando at November 16, 2009 03:46 PM (IPGju)

3 Well the "clips vs magazines" thing is generational as well. As one who trained and carried the M1 Garand, I often find myself reverting to "clips" when I really mean Magazines.

Of course the dimwit at ABC wouldn't know anything about that, and is likely just repeating whatever the anti-gun crowd has provided him as a "press release". That intellectual laziness continually pops up in the press, as they take, verbatim, the "facts" from the anti-gun groups and repeat it as fact.

Posted by: Jim at November 16, 2009 03:59 PM (WacVk)

4 Good call; the total ignorance of totally righteous haters of the facts of whatever they hate has always amazed me. Keep on dinging them for their ignorance and arrogance.

Posted by: EdGi at November 16, 2009 09:19 PM (qG6jM)

5 "After all, who needs facts?"

The above describes perfectly the liberal mindset:
Facts? We don't need no Steenking Facts!

Afterall, facts simply get in the way of what they believe.

Posted by: firefirefire at November 17, 2009 06:33 AM (tbYJ7)

6 The best definition I've read is "Clips load magazines".

So wouldn't that make it "clips feed magazines, magazines feed guns"?

Posted by: Veeshir at November 17, 2009 04:05 PM (110Vq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Militia Stories

A constant theme of the political left since the election of Barack Obama has been that militias are forming, and gosh-dern it, they're going to lynch somebody or blow something up, just you wait and see. These stories are almost always canned, trotted out and rehashed to rally Obama supporters after he has done something particularly stupid, with the most recent incident caused by Obama subserviently bowing to a foreign head of state.

CNN is running such a canned story as their top story right now on CNN.com, and left wing Raw Story predictably parrots their claim, recalling a dubious report from Mark Potok, the official source for reports on radical hate groups according to the left wing intelligensia. That Potok has to make such claims to justify his paycheck is never questioned.

And yet despite all the fear-mongering led by Potok's need for fundraising and the media's desire to buck-up their floundering President, the various militias have consistently disappointed the media. They've welcomed the press with open arms as they did the CNN crew and have been unwilling to bomb buildings or rob banks or engage in any of the other behavior so many left-wing extremist groups did from the late 1960s through the 1980s and up until the recent activities of left wing radicals.

And perhaps it is with a certain degree of irony that the other militia story in the news today comes from the NY Times own Times Traveler Blog, recalling a story from a century ago where militiamen saved the life of an African-American that an Illinois mob had decided to lynch:

The guile of police and deputy sheriffs, and then the arrival of the militia forces, prevented the Cairo, Ill., mob yesterday from seizing a second African-American, Arthur Alexander, after it lynched Will James a day earlier. Alexander "was clothed in a policeman's uniform and was thus taken safely through the city to the county jail. Word had gone ahead that he had been captured, and members of the mob were looking for the officers who had him in charge, but the disguise was not penetrated. It was well along in the morning before the knowledge spread that Alexander was in the jail. A crowd gathered then, and might have taken the negro out, but by this time the call had gone out for Company K, the local militia body, and the rioters were awed. Before they could get up the courage to act the guardsmen had gathered and a squad was sent to the jail. Part of the company also guarded the homes of Major Parsons and Sheriff Davis, who had been threatened with violence. These men seemed determined to do their duty and the mob took no chances. Meanwhile special trains were hurrying to the city the troops ordered out by Gov. Deneen. The Carbondale company arrived at daybreak, and others came in rapidly, so that by early afternoon eleven companies, comprising 800 men, were on duty at points where they might be needed. Saloons, which had kept open all night in defiance of the Mayor and the police, were closed tight and kept closed, and crowds were kept moving. It was decided late in the afternoon that Alexander should be taken to some point where there was no mob feeling. He was escorted from the jail to a special train on the Illinois Central Railroad by seven companies of militia."

The Times article is unclear of the nature of the militia, and whether it was comprised of the National Guard or the state militias that were still common during that era. But you can rest assured the current Times wouldn't cover that eventuality if it occurred today.

It doesn't fit the narrative.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:44 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Buyer's Remorse?

ABC News has an article up noting that six in ten Americans see Sarah Palin as being unqualified for President. That's saying a lot.

Palin was on the Wasilla, AK city council from 1992-96, was mayor of Wasilla from 1996-2002, chaired the AK Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003-2004 until she resigned in protest over the lack of ethics of other Republicans on the commission. Palin then became Alaska's governor from 2006 until her 2009 resignation.

By comparison, our current President spent three uneventful terms in the Illinois state senate before winning a U.S. Senate seat, where he managed to compile a voting record to the left of even declared socialist Bernie Sanders. He never held a private sector or elected executive position in his entire life prior to the Presidency, and his one piddling "executive experience" with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an unmitigated failure.

So when Americans are polled about Palin, what are they really responding to?

Are they responding to the media's unflattering portrayal of her, or could they be responding not to just Palin's own perceived inadequacies, but also out of regret now that they see the consequences of electing someone was even less qualified than she was for the office?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:09 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 15, 2009

Future ACORN Employees of the Year?

As we've seen in the various videos released thus far, ACORN seems completely fine with the idea of trafficking children for the purposes of pedophile prostitution. We can only assume that Mario Andrette McNeill and Antoinette Nicole Davis are looking to not just join the group, but shoot for senior management positions.

The two are presently under arrest for kidnapping, and human trafficking and child abuse involving prostitution.

The victim is Davis' own five year-old daughter, Shaniya.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:55 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 14, 2009

O-bow-ma

It seems that he will never learn:

How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?

This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.

And that's the problem.

As a matter of protocol, American President's should not bow to other world leaders that are their equals. To adopt a subservient role is not acceptable as a matter of protocol, and is demeaning to the office he holds. The fact that he's done this before only exacerbates the problem.

I'm do not doubt other American Presidents have made fabulous faux pas of protocol, but I don't recall one who has ever done it so frequently, so early into office.

I guess we should simply be thankful that we he arose, he didn't give a chintzy, thoughtless gift...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:38 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The "Obama Prayer"

Psalm 109:8

It was sent to me like that via email. Straight up it's pretty amusing, though the larger context of the entire Psalm it is a bit strong to apply to the President... to put it mildly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:02 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 13, 2009

Census Worker Made Suicide Look Like Homicide for Insurance Payoff?

I guess they'll quietly drop this from the narrative.

Two law enforcement officials, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said investigators were trying to determine whether Bill Sparkman committed suicide but altered the scene to make it look like a homicide, allowing his son to collect.

Life insurance policies typically do not cover suicides within a certain time period after the policy begins.

Sad, in so many ways.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:48 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

ACORN Again

Another member admits to widespread voter fraud.

The ties between ACORN, the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the Obama Administration is starting to sound like the largest incident of racketeering in American history.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:30 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Flaming "Oba Mao" Popular in China

Via Breitbart:

The Chinese have learned English from his speeches and celebrated the way he rolls up his sleeves. Now President Barack Obama is finally coming, and he's being greeted with "Oba Mao" T-shirts and a statue of him that bursts into flames.

Don't get excited, folks... though he flees the country as much as possible, President Britney always come back eventually.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:13 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Anyone Got $150 Billion for a Skid Plate?

Obama needs one for the bus.

Thump thump:

White House Counsel Greg Craig is expected to announce as early as Friday that he plans to step down from his post following a rocky tenure, people familiar with the matter said.

Craig, the top lawyer at the White House and a close aide to President Barack Obama, has helped lead the administration's efforts on several national-security policies that initially enjoyed popular support but have since become liabilities for Obama.

These include the planned closure of the prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the release of Bush administration-era national-security documents.

Craig's departure has been widely expected since the summer. He came under criticism from inside the administration and in Congress for a perceived failure to manage the political issues that have originated from Obama's decision to close Guantanamo, according to officials in the administration and in Congress.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:09 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.1778 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1521 seconds, 249 records returned.
Page size 198 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.