Confederate Yankee
November 12, 2009
Pelosi: We'll Send You to Jail if You Don't Buy Obamacare
Scratch a progressive, and uncover a Stalinist ready to fill the gulags.
You know what the difference is between Bill Ayers wanting to put Americans in concentration camps for believing in capitalism, and Nancy Pelosi wanting to put you in prison for not buying government-rationed insurance?
Not a damn thing, except Pelosi's threat carries with it the appearance of occurring under the color of law.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:02 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The fool is just INVITING a few million people to call her bluff. Can you imagine how many prisons they'd have to build?? Oh, I forgot, we don't have any money to build prisons for criminals. Never mind!
Posted by: Dell at November 12, 2009 04:33 PM (tS5n6)
2
Uh, won't I get free health care in prison?
Posted by: Razorgirl at November 12, 2009 05:02 PM (gHNO5)
3
With the Constitution now just a piece of toilet paper and the Corruptocrats doing what they please in the Administration and on Capitol Hill, what is left but massive civil disobedience and tax avoidance?
Already every small contractor, consultant and service supplier I know is working in cash payments to circumvent these confiscatory taxes. This will only grow as the Corruptocrats tighten their stranglehold.
When the government loses legitimacy it pays the price.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2009 05:31 PM (FGCRY)
4
Dell,
They will let the criminal s out to imprison us conservatives.
Posted by: Steve at November 12, 2009 05:35 PM (TaHHC)
5
Steve
Too true. In the old USSR, common criminals were not treated as badly as political criminals because the regime was much more threatened by political opposition than it was by run of the mill crime.
SSDD
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2009 06:12 PM (FGCRY)
6
The time to bear arms may be close at hand.
Posted by: capt26thga at November 12, 2009 08:15 PM (ByZJg)
7
Perhaps there will be "sanctuary cities" for those who will not submit to this regime. Only problem is, I can't think of a city whose political structure would stand up to the feds for Americans, as opposed to Mexicans. Maybe Dallas? Um, Philly? No. Um... I know, Kennesaw Georgia!
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 08:42 AM (eILON)
8
The whole purpose of the left's agenda is control. They do not want citizens, they want dependents. Castro-care is like their other programs. It is designed to let them ration health care as a means of promoting dependency. They will tell you what you can eat, what you can say and if you can live.
Lefties are fond of saying they want the government out of the bedroom. I want it out of the kitchen.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at November 13, 2009 09:37 AM (V11KV)
9
Is a jury trial and 5 years of imprisonment deficit neutral?
Posted by: Pablo at November 13, 2009 12:11 PM (yTndK)
10
No Pablo, but it IS a net carbon savings! Change.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 01:45 PM (eILON)
11
Pelosi and Bill Ayers are both Communists.
Q: What's the difference?
A: Bill Ayers is better looking.
Posted by: Commie Blaster at November 13, 2009 03:22 PM (5tZ8N)
12
I wonder how this works for the "homeless" and illegal aliens.
Posted by: Neo at November 14, 2009 02:05 AM (tE8FB)
13
U.S. to open Guantanamo branch in Chicago to house mandatory Government Health Care violators
New Guantanamo Chicago branch to be called Chitmo.
Posted by: Stopthepresses2 at November 14, 2009 09:29 AM (myM0X)
14
Del said;
"The fool is just INVITING a few million people to call her bluff. Can you imagine how many prisons they'd have to build?? Oh, I forgot, we don't have any money to build prisons for criminals. Never mind!"
Ever hear of "REX 84"?
They're already here!
Posted by: bob at November 14, 2009 01:09 PM (6oo+3)
15
This Nation is on a downward spiral and Nancy Pelosi is on the names to equate with that!
Posted by: Charlie Bell at November 16, 2009 12:52 PM (HD8uG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Convictions of a Coward: Obama Fails to Choose and Chooses to Fail on Afghanistan
Barack Obama knows nothing of military strategy or tactics, doesn't understand counterinsurgency, and holds a barely-disguised contempt for the military. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, then, that the President has rejected all options for winning the war in Afghanistan presented to him:
After months of deliberating, President Obama opted not to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The Obama Administration sat silently by and enabled what most believe to be a fraudulent reelection of Karzai, and now wants to use his reelection as an excuse? That's like watching an arsonist douse a house in gasoline, only to complain later about the smoldering rubble being a blight on the neighborhood.
Karzai is a starwman, and a pathetic one at that. On two
separate occasions in recent we've noted a remarkable counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan that bypasses Karzai's corrupt central government altogether, and works with the real arbiters of power in Afghani society, the tribes.
One Tribe at a Time (PDF) is a blueprint for winning the Afghan war, and with a smaller footprint to boot.
The Administration could easily adopt this plan, but refuses to consider it an an option. Considering it removes their self-inflicted strawman of an ineffectual and corrupt central government that largely doesn't exist outside of Kabul.
Jim Hanson, retired SF operator and Director of the Warrior Legacy Institute,
notes:
He has already had the advice of his entire military chain of command with a near unanimous call for for reinforcements to move to the strategy that won in Iraq. We have watched as he has heard from the deep wisdom of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. We have seen him dither and quibble and show a completely ineffectual and uncommitted face to our enemies and the rest of the world. Now months after his hand-picked commander has told him the situation is bad and getting worse, our troops in the field fight and die without the support of their Commander in Chief. He sent 21,000 more brave men and women there and now they are flappin' in the breeze. How can a squad leader look his men in the eyes and tell them to saddle up and head out on a patrol, perhaps to be the last to die for a cause their President no longer believes in?
Quite clearly, Barack Obama has decided against winning the war in Afghanistan, showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office.
He is steeling himself for surrender, hunting for excuses to fail. And the rubes that believed he was anything other than a self-loathing defeatist have nobody but themselves to blame for electing him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:08 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Damn Bob, how do you really feel? Ever thought of running for public office? You've got my vote!
I couldn't agree with you more and after that pussy Colin Powell told Obama to take as much time as he needs to make the right decision, we can tell who he is listening to.
Posted by: inspectorudy at November 12, 2009 11:41 AM (Vo1wX)
2
I guess the mantra "The president needs to listen to the commanders in the field" ended on January 20, 2009.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at November 12, 2009 12:08 PM (+LRPE)
3
You can tell that Obama has never played sports at a competitive level...because he doesn't know how much losing sucks. I grieve for the brave men and women who have been lost in Afghanistan and those who are still there fighting the good fight.
Posted by: favill at November 12, 2009 02:21 PM (fzLjW)
4
As his approval ratings sink, especially among independents, he becomes more dependent on the left wing to fund his campaign in 2012. The left hates the war in Afghanistan because it eats up their cash for social "progress" and because they failed to get their way in Iraq. Besides, most Muslims vote for the left everywhere in the world and their votes might count in 2012. Perhaps Obama thinks he can hold off defeat in Afgahnistan long enough to keep the left with him on health care and get him reelected. He has always gotten farther in his life by avoiding concrete decisions for which he alone has to be responsible . This war is only another example of this general theme. Also Afghanistan is not like Iraq which has oil wealth to support compromise among its factions and build a social infrastructure with some liberalizing elements in it. It has no uniformed enemy to quickly defeat, as the Russians found out. A very long term commitment is in the offing. Yet he would be better off to commit the troops the generals want and let them fight it how they want. If they fail he will be blamed but not as much as for a loss by doing too little.But the left has always distrusted the military, and Obama is a child of the left. Probably the Bay of Pigs and Tet are ringing in his ears.
Posted by: mytralman at November 12, 2009 02:35 PM (26p91)
5
As I wrote at least a year ago, the man is setting up a total pullout of Afghanistan, to be coupled with the draw-down of troops in Iraq and then there will be "no reason" to have such a costly defense department budget. You can rest assured the far left influence on him will prevail on this one. He's lost them on just about everything else and can't afford the political fallout in 2010. He HAS to take the gamble that pulling out of Afghanistan will save his bacon (along with Dems far and wide) in the mid-terms. However, I strongly suspect that "it's the economy, stupid" will override any such terrible decision. The man is a total fraud.
Posted by: Dell at November 12, 2009 04:48 PM (tS5n6)
6
What constantly amazes me is that these fools think that they can lie and lie and then lie about their lies, and we are too stupid to catch on. Just listening to these congressfools you can catch one lie built on top of another, and so forth. When will this house of cards fall? Man I sure hope soon, but unfortunately, the people out there are stupid enough to believe the lies. Who would have thought.
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 12, 2009 05:13 PM (IKKIf)
7
showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office.
Along with all the other lies Obama spouted in order to get into office. This sort of lying is as acceptable in Marxism as it is in Islam (Hudaibiya).
It only matters if people remember. And it is hard to remember when the media constantly rewrites history (with the willing help of the left).
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2009 05:42 PM (FGCRY)
8
If he were only "self-loathing" we could live with it.
He loathes the USA in general. That's a whole 'nother thing altogether.
Posted by: dad29 at November 12, 2009 08:27 PM (LHTDE)
9
Ugh! Speak NOT the name Powell! Is this auto-erotic reacharound not explicitly a repudiation of the alleged Powell Doctrine? What happened to going in fastest with the mostest, achieving a clear goal and going on home? Can anyone dispute at this point that Powell's persistent support of Obama in public divergence from his own long spouted views is anything more, anything other than racial solidarity? Powell always was an opportunist politically. He jumped on the O-wagon for no reason he is willing to burp up, he latched onto Desert Storm as its alleged architect and claimed the mantle of genius. It did not harm him that the Reps, quite wrongly, were seeking a Great Black Hope. Now, fifteen years later, we engage in the nation building Powell counseled was counter-productive... and maybe that was so, but he holds no brief against it now that it is being conducted by his Presidential preference; coincidentally a brutha. The man is without identifiable principle even in his field of "expertise". That is warfare, in case you were wondering. As far as I know, Powell has been portrayed only once in film, as the media driven bufoon of a general in Mars Attacks. Most gratifyingly, he is deathrayed at the first alien encounter and looks mighty shocked by that turn of events. I have to think he wears that expression frequently in his private moments, given the political deathrays buzzing past our ears these days.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 08:52 AM (eILON)
10
McChrystal asked for 2 divisions, 40,000 men. We do not have them available. 1 week ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Obama this that they would not recommend any soldiers being sent to Afghanistan that had not had 1 full year back in the USA from a combat deployment. You freakin armchair generals always think you know better. Go back to playing Risk. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720469173424023.html
The Joint Chiefs says we have no troops available until next summer, but you think that they should go now.
Posted by: John ryan at November 13, 2009 12:20 PM (m0Q2u)
11
John, I don't speak for anyone else here I suspect but I am not reflexively for the McChrystal plan but McChrystal is Barack's handpicked man and as I recall his appointment, he was saying the same thing then. It could well be that Afghanistan is a fool's errand but that is not what Obama ran on, he ran on a more vigorous prosecution of the Afghan campaign than that doofus Bush. This was his claim to seriousness on foreign policy matters. Has anything changed? Sure. And maybe it is time to bug out. Maybe it is time to ramp up. Maybe it is time to dig in. What it is NOT time to do is to PUBLICLY fiddle-fart around. Bush made good decisions and he made bad decisions but he was, truly, The Decider. We have replaced him with The Denier. What the decision may be, yes I can defer to Obama which is more than the Democrats were ever willing to allow W. Whether a decision is warranted; that I declare as a citizen is a closed question.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 01:53 PM (eILON)
12
Obama is proving that the Bush strategy for Afghanistan was “spot on.”
Posted by: Neo at November 14, 2009 02:05 AM (tE8FB)
13
Neo, time does seem to be endorsing that view. I think we are not far from the day when Barack publicly embraces not just Bushism on foreign policy as he quietly has done on domestic surveillance for example. He will publicly embrace Bush the man. Sadly, what potential Surge II has for success is largely time dependent. Each day of dither the jihadis maneuver freely, gain ground and resources. Whether you like it or not, Barry. YOU are The Decider now. If you don't do it, it don't get done. This and other wisdoms Bush may gently communicate.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 14, 2009 07:19 AM (Uu2CW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Are Iranian Weapons Flowing Through Your Country's Ports?
The 500 tons of Iranian rockets, grenades, ammunition and mortar shells that Israel intercepted on the MV Francop was destined for Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, a fact that Iran's friends in the Obama White House will not doubt seek to downplay if not outright ignore. That means that a media largely compliant to the Administration's wishes will fail to pick up on the alarm sounded by Israel, which noted the weapons they intercepted had first been shipped into an unsuspecting third country, unloaded, transferred, and shipped out again without anyone in that nation knowing.
The weapons were not segregated or controlled, were not properly stored or packed, and highly explosive.
And it could happen any any port at any nation on earth.
"When you deal with those containers without any precautions at all, they can explode almost anywhere. And any one of your ships could carry one of those containers one day, and any one of your ports could deal with those explosives."
This isn't a secret.
So why isn't anything being done about it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Start with the lack of security in most ports and add the tendency of most third-world customs inspectors to take bribes. Mix in total indifference to what is being shipped as long as the customs duties are paid. Top it off with traditional third-world indifference to the consequences of a container exploding and you have your answer.
Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2009 09:47 AM (7nc0l)
2
Lockheed Martin was working on a system dealing with container tracking and security for our ports, but I'm not sure of the status of the project. I also wasn't involved with it so I don't know the details of what exactly the system entailed.
However that doesn't help with 3rd world ports. The real scary thing is them getting a nuclear device on one of those ships and detonating it in one of our major ports.
Posted by: Scott at November 12, 2009 11:20 AM (6yHgW)
3
The casualness in which TCNs (third country nationals) handle high eplosives is enough to make any sane man run for cover. Even when they are TRAINED they're dangerous. I've personally seen TCNs throwing LIVE 120mm mortar rounds into a pile like so many logs. "InSh'Allah" is their watchword meaning "It's Gods Will" or "In Gods Hands" IF the stuff blows up.
Case in point: its symptomatic of Islam, this personal abrogation of personal responsibility. By claiming that everything is in "God Hands/Will" the individual in question never need feel, nor respect anyone, anything, or do anything other than what they themselves wish to do or impose on others because it's all up to God. This is why they run red lights in Kuwait (causing me a permanant limp) and don't strap their small children in car seats, or even throw load high explosives around with impunity. If God wants them to live, they will, InSh'Allah.
Posted by: Big Country at November 12, 2009 04:09 PM (H/RUP)
4
RE: Scott
It is not a matter of "getting a nuke on ONE" in a cargo container.
It's simply a matter of time, sufficient stockpile to detonate a half dozen with sufficient reserve stockpile to be credible with issuing threats and edicts, it will happen. 3-5 years.
Once they have accumulated sufficient stockpile to getting 5 or 6 in separate U.S. ports, stored say for a couple weeks to coordinate a simultaneous blast, plus another 5 or 6 in financial city centers, plus likely a couple on missiles aimed at Israel, the U.K. France and Germany,
Kaboom.
Visit the port of Long Beach sometime, the port of Oakland, the port of Houston and Baltimore.
Five years ago they Mullah thugocracy had their Pasdaran practice launching long range missiles from the holds of junk frieght ships in the Caspian. Guess what ? It works.
http://politicscentral.com/2006/10/24/ten_kilotons_and_the_port_of_l.php
Posted by: Econ_Scott at November 12, 2009 07:17 PM (kP2Fw)
5
And oh yeah one last thing,
The really cool thing about nukes, the ones that fit on missiles are generally under 1,000 pounds, small enough to fit in the back of a heavy duty pick up truck.
or least a small furniture freight box truck, could simply be DRIVEN OVERLAND to some third country, THEN loaded on a cargo container, then shipped anywhere.
Tracking ships and containers that leave Iranian ports just won't quite do it.
______________________________________________
The design of "little boy" in 1945 they didn't even have to test, they knew it worked.
And that crude design is down now to about 2,000 pounds with lithium/tritium boost.
and last week it was revealed that the Mullah Thuggocracy had tested explosives of a two point implosion design. A five generation leap in miniaturized nuke warhead design. And you won't be happy to learn where they got the design.
Operation Merlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Merlin
Posted by: Econ_Scott at November 12, 2009 07:44 PM (kP2Fw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 11, 2009
Veteran's Day
The monuments in Washington all seemed false in the cool morning mist. They were big and white and extravagant, yet the tourists cheapened them somehow as they gawked, took photos, and scurried to the next place on their list of things to see. Their attention seemed to focus on what things were rather than why they were. The scene was a poor example of Americana. Even Honest Abe seemed to frown from his throne. Of all the walls of stone only one seemed real.
This wall's long black marble slices into the ground. On it are engraved fifty-eight thousand American names from an undeclared war that no one wants to remember in the jungles of a country half a globe away. There are no ornate scrolls or stenciled directions, no fancy faded pieces of parchment, no self-serving sentiments, just names.
There's also a statue some distance away. Three bronze soldiers stare into the wall, waiting for word of their fellow soldiers, or perhaps morning their loss. The soldiers don't talk; they simply stare. They are all just boys, most of them only six years older than I was then: nineteen.
Under the statue-soldier's gaze, an elderly man lagged behind a tour at the wall. He caressed it and knelt to leave a single rose at its based. He sobbed. He had difficulty standing up. A nearby park attendant helped him and asked, "One of yours, sir?" The old man shook his head and replied, "Not just one of them. All of them."
I penned those words in the fall of 1989... 20 years ago.
They are an excerpt of a story I authored as an 18-year-old college freshman. It was based upon a trip to Washington D.C., and to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, simply known to all as The Wall. It is fictionalized, but only just. To this day it remains one of the most emotional places I've ever visited.
At the time, Vietnam was our most recent "major" conflict, though I know all wars are major are those who fight them. We were still several years away from the first Gulf War, and more than a decade from 9/11 and the wars that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq that we still fight today.
I'm met dozens of veterans since that time, from World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and our current wars. I've tried to thank them for their service, but mere words always feel inadequate to capture the gratitude I feel for all they have sacrificed so that I can live in a land of freedom and liberty.
I've tried to explain the sacrifices they've made as best I can to my older daughter. I've told her some of what I know about my Uncle Bobby's war in Korea, where he had the harrowing duty of splicing damaged communications lines for forward observers while in combat. I tried to tell her of how her grandfather—who we buried just before last Veteran's Day—stood guard against saboteurs in the wet salt spray as victory ships burned from to the torpedoes of German U-boats off the Carolina Coast.
I've told her what I know of some of our
local heroes that I know she's heard of and seen, and of those who quietly walk among us with little recognition at all.
Today is the day we thank all veterans who have served this nation and who put their lives on the line to preserve our way of life.
Words are not enough, but all the same, thank you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:32 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thank you.
Paul B CPO USCG(ret)
Posted by: Paul B at November 11, 2009 11:06 AM (18qns)
2
Our first visit to the Wall was an emotional one that I won't soon forget even though it was many years ago.
I was overcome with emotion. We were there to honor all Veterans. My husband served 4 tours in Vietnam and served in the Navy 26 years, so it was personal. But more personal because we have a family member on the wall, our former brother-in-law:
WE WILL NOT FORGET
DELBERT RAY PETERSON
MAJ - O4 - Air Force - Reserve
His tour began on Nov 1, 1965
Casualty was on Mar 9, 1966
In THUA THIEN, SOUTH VIETNAM
Hostile, died while missing, FIXED WING - CREW
AIR LOSS, CRASH ON LAND
Body was not recovered
Vietnam Wall: Panel 05E - Line 133
After visiting the Wall, we were walking around looking at some of the table exhibits set up along the walkway. There at the POW/MIA table, you could donate $10 and reach into a grab bag for one of those bracelets we all used to wear with the name of one of the POW or MIA names. We asked to reach in the Navy bag, but were informed they had no Navy bracelets left, so we took whatever was offered. I reached in and pulled out a bracelet and my knees went weak. There in my hand was the bracelet for: Delbert Ray Peterson. What are the odds?
I took that bracelet and read the material that was included about Del. Some of it was way out of date. So I wrote to the proper agency and provided them with updated info. I then packed the bracelet and sent it off to Del's niece, Raylynna his brother's child, who was born the same day that Del was shot down and named for him. Del was shot down before he'd had a chance to live his life, marry or have children.
Today my mind is on all Veterans of all wars, but most especially of those who served in Vietnam. Thank you all.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 11, 2009 02:01 PM (nas9l)
3
PS: Del was seen alive on the ground after the crash. He was seen being surrounded by the enemy. After that, there has never been another word. He was listed only as MIA for 20 years and then at some point the AF changed the designation to Assumed dead, and finally to the way it is listed above, Hostile, died while missing. He is listed on the Wall as MIA.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 11, 2009 02:09 PM (nas9l)
4
I was there.
USAF '68-'72 SSGT. Missiles, 366 MMS, Da Nang 1969-1970.
Posted by: Marc at November 11, 2009 05:20 PM (Zoziv)
5
The Wall.
The only monument that brought me to tears .... even just thinking about it does so.
Thanks and gratitude to Veterans.
Posted by: Pandora at November 11, 2009 07:05 PM (/8Bs3)
6
Today he's exactly 89-1/2 years old. He was a Marine in the Marshall Islands. His older brothers, who also served, are gone.
Today he's hospitalized with heart problems and a kidney complication. His time may be short - weeks, months, who knows?
But today and forever, he's a member of the Greatest Generation. God Bless every one of them.
He's my Dad and I'm gonna really miss him when that day comes.
Thank you for our freedom, Dad, and thank you to all the other Veterans.
Posted by: Charles in NC at November 11, 2009 08:01 PM (a1iIg)
7
Thank You CY.
Tim 2/78FA US Army 75/80
Posted by: 1903A3 at November 12, 2009 06:48 AM (E8ZSe)
8
Blech. He was clearly trying to depict this as a "tragedy", which is something that happens because of cruel fate, or accident, or foolishness. Horse pucky. This was an act of war and treason, by an enemy of America.
The tragedy is the atmosphere of fear of confrontation, AKA PC-ism, which prevented the military or law from stopping this jihad-evangelist long ago. And that is an atmosphere he personally encourages and fosters, and was continuing to encourage and foster in his crocodile-tear speech.
The man is a human Trojan Horse.
Posted by: Brian H at November 12, 2009 07:31 AM (+1/Nd)
9
Everytime I see the print of the Wall. With the exsoldier leaning against the Wall and the soldiers inside leaning back. I get teary eyed. Everytime! Anyone who doesnt just doesnt get it.
Posted by: capt26thga at November 12, 2009 08:28 PM (ByZJg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 10, 2009
Well Done, Mr. President
Considering his disturbing performance the afternoon of the massacre at Fort Hood I was nervous that President Obama would get the tone wrong in today's memorial of the fallen.
I should have known better.
There are few things he does well, but reading from a teleprompter is one of those things he excels at, and he gave the soldiers killed in the terror attack the
memorial service they deserved.
Allah has the video, and has more to say about the President's address.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:38 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Lackwit got something right where the military was concerned?
Must've been an accident.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 10, 2009 06:56 PM (dDYdj)
2
Not well done. Nice words, no action. We are still sitting ducks. Where is the call to action, the policy change the fierce defense of American people? nada, just words. And he still is bringing or has brought, 1,350 Palestinians who had lived under favor of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who can't seem to get along with any of their fellow middle easterners so Obama has agreed to bring them here. The man's a traitor.
Posted by: Jayne at November 10, 2009 10:30 PM (dwIL0)
3
President Obama did a good work and i always agree with you..
Posted by: mdeals at November 11, 2009 12:14 AM (PfGB9)
4
Empty words of another, read from a teleprompter, five dys after the fact....yeah, a lot of respect that shows. Just one more photo opp for His Zero-ness!
I agree with Ralph Peters, this effort was both insincere and weak. This poseur will never get it!
Posted by: Earl T at November 11, 2009 12:47 AM (27AHs)
5
Do his speech writers really think that all he needs to do is talk?
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
Posted by: DoubleTapper at November 11, 2009 02:45 AM (8Pplx)
6
I don't know what Obama was thinking. He should just run out onto the streets with guns and start killing Muslims. Then you can accuse him of genocide. No wait, he shouldn't run out on the streets and start killing Muslims. Then you can accuse him of being soft. He should institute policies that better track Muslims to detect terrorist activities. Then you can accuse him of Stalinism. No wait, he should respect civil liberties and NOT institute policies to track Muslims. Then you can accuse him of being a terrorist sympathizer. He should save the baby Jesus from drowning in the lake of fire. Then you can accuse him of being anti-Semitic. No wait, he should let the baby Jesus drown in a lake of fire. Then you can accuse him of being anti-Christian. He should have prevented this man from killing 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Then you can accuse him of being a Nazi. No, he should let this man kill 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. Then you can call him weak on our Nation's defense. He should prevent terrorist attacks. Then you have nothing to celebrate. No, he should allow terrorist attacks so you can celebrate.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at November 11, 2009 03:57 AM (bhNGz)
7
They were good words and it is my hope the families were comforted by them.
He spoke them well and I give him credit for that.
Posted by: mxdg at November 11, 2009 06:59 AM (bFNvP)
8
Yeah Lipiwitz has won the Crazy Award. That was distilled Liberalism; more Liberal than even Jim and Dude.
This is one I'm going to quote:
"He should just run out onto the streets with guns and start killing Muslims."
also
he should let the baby Jesus drown in a lake of fire.
he should allow terrorist attacks
Posted by: brando at November 11, 2009 09:30 AM (IPGju)
9
To me, Obama always seemed frivolous when it came to his CIC duties. Perhaps this terribly real one on one experience with men and women he is actually responsible for will help him grow into the job a little. Afghanistan casualties with his name on them are on the way
Posted by: mytralman at November 11, 2009 09:33 AM (z/QgJ)
10
I am glad you thought he did a good job. In watching the clip on the news, I was struck by how empty and insincere he sounded. I contrasted this with my memories of Pres. Bush following 9/11 and Pres. Reagan following the Challenger shuttle disaster (that speech brought me to tears).
Posted by: Penny at November 11, 2009 12:06 PM (5sGLG)
11
Some of the speech was okey dokey, but as with anything Obama talks about that is not pushing big Government, the O comes across as phony. I heard the word comrades and then the phrase "in an era of selfishness"...that's a load of crap. The taxpayers are ante-ing up 50% of income in combined taxes and the non taxpayers are clamoring for more, it's the obamabots who are the selfish ones. The Obama government and the liberal p.c. crowd created the environment that let this happen.
Posted by: Jayne at November 12, 2009 12:02 AM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
PJTV: National Security Report on Iranian Arms Smuggling to Terrorists
My appearance with Bill Whittle of EjectEjectEject and AfterBurner fame on PJTV, talking about Iran arming terrorist groups, based upon this article from yesterday at Pajamas Media and this one here.
Thanks for having me on, Bill!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:29 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Stoutcat at November 10, 2009 04:57 PM (kKdtK)
2
Impressive, very impressive.
Posted by: Jayne at November 10, 2009 11:09 PM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 09, 2009
Iranian Rockets Captured by Israel Identical to Rockets Fired At U.S. Bases in Iraq
107mm rockets of recent Iranian manufacture are among the 500 tons of ordnance recovered by the Israeli Navy, and the rockets they recovered precisely matched those captured outside of U.S FOB Hammer in July of 2007.
And in case you are wondering, yes, those same rockets are
still being used, and are still killing American soldiers today.
An American logistics contractor known to readers of this blog as "Big Country" says via email that those same rockets are still being used against American bases:
...between the hours of 2000 and 2200 (8pm to 10pm) drop, yep you guessed it, 107mm rockets on us. Some days they don't drop at all, which is even worse. The waiting ya know? The largest number was 6 in short order, and the lowest was a single one. Guess it depends on how confident they are about getting caught. One of them KIA'd a guy on the pad across from me a few weeks back… 4 WIA, 1 KIA. (That one made FOXnews and CNN) I'm getting my intel firsthand on this, (it's pretty common knowledge on post) and the Army is fully aware of the whole thing, but whether or not it helps, I dunno... wheels within wheels as they say. I hope they put the zap these jokers soon.
Will President Obama man-up and stop Iran from supplying weapons being used against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and against our allies and national interests? Or will he continue to pretend these weapons are not being used against Americans, so he can play at gutless diplomacy?
Somehow, I think we all know the answer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:16 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I remember when Jack Cafferty on CNN said that he sees no problem with this.
Posted by: brando at November 09, 2009 03:48 PM (IPGju)
2
Seems to me that we did the same thing when the USSR had their Afghani misadventure. Soviets couldn't do anything about it then and I'm not sure there's much that we can do now, even if we did have something more substantial than the current Pretender-in-Chief in the Oval Office. Certainly the Iranians have shown little fear of us and next to none for D'Ohbama...
Posted by: Diogenes Online at November 09, 2009 04:01 PM (2MrBP)
3
CY - What an incredible coincidence!
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 09, 2009 06:22 PM (3O5/e)
4
If I were in charge, I would send boomer to that part of the world, Let the Iranians know it was there and then give them an ultimatum. Desist or ceast to exist.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at November 09, 2009 06:25 PM (EqMUb)
5
I know we dont like it when they are aimed at us. Fact is Iran has just joined the arms game. US, China, Russia, France, Iran and others make weapons for export. There has been times when our soldiers were being shot at with US made arms.
Posted by: capt26thga at November 09, 2009 07:42 PM (h7WK1)
6
The point is, whether it is Iranian Shia or Al Queda Sunni or Syrian Baathists or Palestinian anti-zionists or Paki talibanophiles... all these distinctions give way to their common aim to wage what we may properly call Jihad. Sure, if they didn't have us or the Brits around to shoot at they would turn on each other; each claiming the next to be kaffir, they WILL work in common cause to blow up american GIs or civilians. The Lockerbie bomber is as much a hero to our domestic jihadists as he is to Bashar Assad, the Saddam-style secularist. This is the Unified Field Theory of Jihad and is what Bush Meant To Say when he coined the less inflammatory and less accurate GWOT.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 10, 2009 06:00 AM (wJMs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush Visits Hood Wounded, Families
I just wish that Fox News had embargoed the story of the visit and honored the former President's wishes of keeping the meeting secret.
I would imagine that visiting the families of servicemen killed and wounded is among the most emotional experiences that any President will encounter, and the fact that George and Laura Bush took the time to be with those impacted by Major Hasan's jihadist rampage says quite a bit about their character.
I hope the visit was able to provide the families and those wounded with some inspiration and comfort.
President and Mrs. Obama are due to make an
appearance at a formal memorial service tomorrow. I suspect they will spend time with the troops as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:20 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: jim at November 09, 2009 12:40 PM (eXdIs)
2
One thing we can be sure of. If President and Mrs. Obama attend the memorial service tomorrow, it will be one huge photo op for the Obamas, not a private visit of condolence for the families. And the President will take an opportunity to talk about himself and his reaction, rather than express privately his sympathy and support for the grieving families as George and Laura Bush did.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at November 09, 2009 02:48 PM (VbbNx)
3
Thrice Barry has attempted to address Ft Hood. Thrice he has muffed it. In the First Americans incident we could perhaps say he was ill prepared but a "shout out"? He has his hands in the air like he just don't care! But duty now calls and it is perhaps not too much to say that the first qualifying ability in a politician is to project sincerity. Now, it may be merely a projection but if the projection is good and clear we never know it. But Barack has failed in the first regard; he cannot even fake interest in terrorism, not least because he has already declared that it does not exist. Per Michelle, this conversation does not help his kids. Now he will be at a scripted event. Is it too much to hope he can manage it without making a fool of himself? In my view, yes, it is too much to ask. This doofus is an adolescent on his best day.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 09, 2009 03:09 PM (wJMs3)
4
I suspect they will spend time with the troops as well.
NO, They will allow the troops to admire them.
Posted by: 1sttofight at November 09, 2009 05:41 PM (J9v5T)
5
Did you see that they've built a huge wall of conexes around the memorial site so Barry doesn't have to see any of us in Redneckland during his visit?
Posted by: Mike in Texas at November 10, 2009 09:53 AM (K6uRa)
6
Thank God for this Fort Hood shootings huh? I haven't seen you people so excited and jubilant. I mean, some fo the victims weren't even dead yet and you were already dancing on the internets like the 9/11 Palestinians dancing in the streets. You prayed for 10 months for anything, something like this to happen on Barry's watch and now, WOW!!! Let the extremist partiers dance in the streets louder and brighter than Hezbullah did after 9/11.
We're having a "Celebrate Obama Sucks" keg party at some of the funerals for the dead people who thankfully got murdered at Fort Hood. We want to pay respects for those who suffered and died so we can politicize it for the tea-bagger cause. We don't care who they are or what their names are. All we care about is exploiting them to attack Obama. Hope you all can make it. We're going to put Obama is a Nazi porta-potties right on their graves. You'll love it!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at November 11, 2009 04:06 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Thank Goodness fo "Cop-Killer" Weapons
For once, an anti-gun organization's spurious claims may have saved lives.
My latest article is up at
Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:37 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 07, 2009
The "Cop Killer" FN Five-seveN
The media is wasting very little time informing us that the weapon used by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his rampage at Fort Hood was a "cop killer."
Ft. Hood terrorist used a cop killer FN-Five Seven tactical pistol—20 round clip -- Examiner
'Cop Killer" Gun though to Be Used in Ft. Hood Shooting, Offiicals Said -- ABC News
Fort Hood shootings: gunman used 'cop killer' weapon in massacre at US Army base -- UK Telegraph
Ironically, there is no known record of that weapon even being used to kill a police officer in the United States, and there is a distinct possibility that Sgt. Kimberly Munley, wounded while engaging Hasan, may have been the first American law enforcement officer ever shot with a Five-seveN.
How did the Five-seveN get it's "cop killer" reputation, then?
It was created in a Brady Campaign
press release in February of 2005.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:04 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Cop killer? at a $1000 a pop no self respecting gangsta can afford one.
Posted by: Jim at November 07, 2009 10:24 PM (Ck1lW)
2
http://www.fnhusa1.com/PDF/5.7_Brochure.pdf
Over the past months the Five-seveN pistol has been the subject of misleading allegations. These allegations are misinforming the public in the United States and elsewhere. In this context FNH USA has issued this fact sheet.
Among other things, the Five-seveN pistol has been mischaracterized by some as a new firearm which shoots armor-piercing ammunition. To be clear: armor piercing ammunition can be shot from any firearm; however, such ammunition has been illegal for commercial sale since 1986 and is only available to law enforcement and military. In this context, ALL FNH USA law enforcement and military ammunition is sold via a secure Customs Bonded Warehouse which delivers directly to the customers after due approval by BATFE.
FNH USA is a responsible and law abiding firearms company conducting business in the United States that does not and cannot sell armor-piercing ammunition on the commercial market. There are no exceptions to this federal prohibition. The only FN 5.7x28mm ammunition available to civilians has been specifically declared by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to be non-armor-piercing.
MAJ Hasan, Medical Corps, Darnell Army Medical Center, would have had no more access to SS190 5.7 x 28mm full metal jacket ball than you or I.
Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 at November 07, 2009 11:20 PM (Xezx9)
3
there you all go again with those silly little "fact" thingies..... like that can stop teh narrative.
you fools!
Posted by: redc1c4 at November 08, 2009 04:38 AM (d1FhN)
4
If this had happened with an M-16, would they now be shouting about evil assault rifles?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at November 08, 2009 01:11 PM (FJRFk)
5
I am always amazed at the concept of "cop killer". Cops have one of the safest of occupations. The concept of danger is one that they foster, not an actual fact. The reason this bothers me is that cops use the concept of their safety to rob you of rights. They are allowed to use unnecessary force in confronting any individual on the basis that they need to protect themselves. We need to put an end to this concept. I have seen too many law abiding people beat up and killed by cops over the recent years and the reason that they give is their own protection.
Posted by: David at November 08, 2009 01:11 PM (PpoBw)
6
Anti-gunners claim that civilians don't need handguns because they're dangerous and they should only be available to qualified law enforcement and military personnel.
Question of the Day: What happens to the validity of the above argument when policemen and troops start shooting at each other?
Posted by: MarkJ at November 09, 2009 07:47 AM (JA4GT)
7
"If this had happened with an M-16, would they now be shouting about evil assault rifles?"
When do they ever stop bitching about assault rifles?
Posted by: Brian Macker at November 09, 2009 08:35 AM (0zQzK)
8
FWIW, I suspect the damage would have been greater had the bastard used a .45.
Posted by: Murdoc at November 09, 2009 09:38 AM (O18jY)
9
It seems the media, like those of the left would rather disarm the people and keep them in the dark. Far safer to suck up to the powers that be, than face the anger of those you have belittled and betrayed.
Posted by: Rock at November 09, 2009 11:22 AM (2qwNd)
10
And you'll notice there's no mention of the mass murder occurring, ONCE AGAIN, in those oh-so-safe "gun free" zones.
Posted by: John at November 09, 2009 01:11 PM (Tr186)
11
Early this morning I heard a CBS reporter describe Hasan's weapon as a "laser-guided high-powered pistol".
Where does one acquire such a piece?
Posted by: NoelArmourson at November 09, 2009 02:30 PM (6xVXq)
12
Laser guided high power pistols?? I guess that playing too much Halo and reading too much science fiction books can do that to this reporter or just a plain anti-gun idiot who is a member of the media spouting nonsense.
Posted by: Will at November 09, 2009 02:55 PM (4sHuN)
13
Well thank God he didnt have a belt fed LAWs rocket launcher. Who knows what the media would have done then.
Posted by: capt26thga at November 09, 2009 07:54 PM (h7WK1)
14
David, there is much to what you say. What danger cops do face statistically is mostly car accidents, like the rest of us. Policeophilia is definitely an arrow in the quiver of the statists. Something like that obtains for firefighters too but impacts our wallets more than our rights. I had thought that the P90 fired 5.56. Live and learn. They fire an even less potent round? What desire I might have had to get one is gone. With these S Korean M1 carbs coming home the pop gun is obsolete for the home front.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 10, 2009 06:07 AM (wJMs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 06, 2009
The Victims of Fort Hood
My latest article is up at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:06 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Liberals Finally Got the Military Murders They've Been Asking For
Disdain for the military is a constant theme on the political left, a group that has consistently portrayed soldiers as violent psychopaths and babykillers for far longer than I've been alive. I've noted images of progressive protesters carrying signs attacking the troops on numerous occasions. Among the most galling of their constant steam of obscenities directed at our soldiers are variations of the sentiment, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."
These same liberals must have been thrilled yesterday afternoon to discover that an officer opened fire on our troops. It's time for them to break out their magic markers and pen new signs to praise Major Nidal Malik Hasan for doing what they've asked.
I imagine that President Obama's old mentors Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are also pleased with the attack. After all, they sent Ayer's girlfriend and other domestic terrorists of the Weather Underground to attack an Army dance at Fort Dix, an assault thwarted only by their own bomb-building ineptitude. If they had been competent, their attack on Fort Dix would
likely have been worse than yesterday's assault.
So what say you, progressives... was the massacre of American soldiers all you dreamed it might be?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:17 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Soldiers who witnessed the rampage reported that the gunman shouted “Allahu Akbar!” — an Arabic phrase for “God is great!” — before opening fire
“Allahu Akbar!” == poor "harassed psychiatrist"
Now the "PC bunch", which seems to include the FBI, are telling us that his being a Muslim had nothing to do with the shootings. Instead we are to believe that he was merely a poor "harassed psychiatrist."
Apparently, anybody yelling “Allahu Akbar!” should now be considered a poor "harassed psychiatrist" hellbent on killing everybody nearby. I wonder if the American Psychiatric Association will now come under "Patriotic Act" scrutiny.
The only upside to this story is that the guy wasn't a Postal worker.
Posted by: Neo at November 06, 2009 12:20 PM (tE8FB)
2
Learn more about the murderous, communist, Bill Ayers on our website (above) including FBI files.
Posted by: Commie Blaster at November 06, 2009 03:28 PM (5tZ8N)
3
How come we're not hearing more about the fact that Obama hand-picked this guy to be on his transition team and that he had ties to Napolitano?
Posted by: democratsarefascists at November 06, 2009 04:22 PM (GdalM)
4
"How come we're not hearing more about the fact that Obama hand-picked this guy to be on his transition team and that he had ties to Napolitano?"
Uh, because the best I can tell, Jerome Corsi made all of it up?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2009 05:04 PM (gAi9Z)
5
Look up "nutpicking" and then come back and ask what liberals think of the shooting. Or better yet, find a single example of a prominent liberal supporting soldiers murdering fellow soldiers.
Posted by: Evan at November 06, 2009 06:21 PM (T7lzv)
6
Ah yes: the weasel word "prominent".
Meanwhile, over at DKOS and DU you can find plenty of 'non-prominent' lefties doing exactly what CY noted above.
Posted by: ECM at November 07, 2009 12:34 AM (q3V+C)
7
LOL. Yeah, the vast majority of liberals want every US soldier to die. Bob Owen's brand of citizen journalism is such a thing of beauty.
Using similar logic, EVERY conservative thinks that health care reform is JUST LIKE Dachau.
Posted by: Dave at November 07, 2009 11:40 AM (toe+h)
8
Hey, Evan, find an example of a prominent liberal condemning the signs above. From before the bodies started adding up....
Posted by: Foxfier at November 07, 2009 11:53 AM (t5bWa)
9
Typical, I post a rational, objective, opinion of your post and like a good fascist, you censor dissent.
Posted by: Independence Hall at November 07, 2009 12:40 PM (eXdIs)
10
Yeah Evan, real cute with the word "prominent". I've seen this before, every example will instantly not count.
You think that libs don't think it's funny, and the very next comment is Dave wearing his LOLerskates at the whole idea. Then admitting that the vast majority of liberals want every US soldier to die.
Then he gets sarcastic toward CY and conservatives.
Time to come clean, Evan. Bring Thom, Dude, and Jim.
Posted by: brando at November 07, 2009 04:59 PM (IPGju)
11
independence, if CY deleted your post its because you swore, like he says every time he deletes a post.
and Brando, don't forget lipiwitz, he's worse than dude
Posted by: MAModerate at November 07, 2009 08:25 PM (SVD0U)
12
Good catch CY, I was thinking about those protest signs myself in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting.
So the amended version of "we support our troops who shoot their officers" would be, "we support our officers who shoot their troops!" Eh?
Posted by: Brad at November 08, 2009 07:33 AM (eEdXg)
13
Actually, this is a case of the officers shooting the troops. Still evil, still a liberal disaster, but not exactly what the second sign says to do.
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 08, 2009 02:27 PM (IKKIf)
14
independence, if CY deleted your post its because you swore, like he says every time he deletes a post.
MAModerate, I did not swear at all, I have no need to resort to coarse language as I see no point in it. I am an Independent/Libertarian and made the statement that these type of posts are what drives people such as myself away from mainstream republicans, since I happen to know many good democratic/liberal families who have sons, daughters, and other family members in our military who would be appalled to read such a post stating that they have been asking for military murders! This politicizing of such tragedy does no one any good. These 2 people (two!!!) out of millions of liberals, if they even are liberals (as I see no proof of that) are disgusting, but this post lumping all liberals into the same is equally an abomination!
Posted by: Independence Hall at November 08, 2009 04:21 PM (8kQ8M)
15
IH, read Dave's comment.
Denouncing when Libs gloat over the death of servicemen is "equally" as bad as commiting mass murder?
Um. No.
The Ft. Hood Massacre and terrorist sympathizers are what drives you away from Republicans? Republicans? Wait. What? Really?
You can save the fake ignorance. "Liberals are anti-military? Since when? I've never seen that!"
Nobody's that blind.
Posted by: brando at November 08, 2009 05:10 PM (IPGju)
16
It may not be liberals that are anti-military, but the Democrats
Posted by: MAModerate at November 08, 2009 07:57 PM (SVD0U)
17
MAModerate, that may be. I've been pretty careful to keep the words "Democrat" and "Liberal" seperate. Someone may be registered as a Democrat, but not be a full blown capital L Liberal.
I once had a Democrat tell me that all Democrats are Liberals, so that's sort of fun to throw in their faces once in while, but I can't believe that everyone that has voted for a Democrat, is pro-terrorism, pro-slavery(draft), pro-forced abortions/sterilizations, etc. Lots of overlap, yes, but they're not quite the same thing.
Posted by: brando at November 08, 2009 11:45 PM (LjEkE)
18
Does Michael Moore count as prominent? As for insulting Libs, like Whoopi sez, it isn't what they call you, it is what you answer to!
Posted by: megapotamus at November 09, 2009 03:03 PM (wJMs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tone Deaf
Here is President Obama's bizarrely flippant address yesterday afternoon in response to the massacre at Fort Hood conducted by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist.
Robert A. George was quick to call the President for his
frightening insensitivity and deep disconnect from the tragedy of the situation. It isn't the end of the world, but it gives us reason—yet again—to doubt his temperament, judgment, and gravitas, and wonder
if he is ready for the challenges of the Presidency.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:09 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
worst president ever man.........he will leave us with "change" in our pockets
Posted by: travis at November 06, 2009 01:14 PM (xyA3K)
2
and i might add....its people like this that will make them try to take our guns away.......but they aren't getting mine
Posted by: travis at November 06, 2009 01:16 PM (xyA3K)
3
Was Bill Ayers available for comment? Ahem.
Posted by: Jason at November 06, 2009 01:30 PM (/5j58)
4
The only thing this nut is concerned with is his political agenda. The left can no longer critize Bush for reading to kids. Here he has clear information of a mass killing by a Muslim at a military base and what does he do? He goes on about his stupid conference.
We are in a lot of trouble.
Posted by: David at November 06, 2009 01:36 PM (PpoBw)
5
As others have also observed, the man he gave a "shout out" to had NOT won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Instead, he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom, but one awarded to civilians, and not to the military.
Biggest irony? Obama had awarded said medal (i.e., the Medal of Freedom) to Crow HIMSELF.
The mind boggles.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 06, 2009 01:38 PM (lt/wV)
6
Teenage Mutant Ninja Potus.
Posted by: zhombre at November 06, 2009 05:36 PM (kLU+g)
7
Empty suit, empty man.
Medal of Freedom = Medal of Honor in the Obama Administration.
Think how Mr. Crow feels. Obama gives a shout out, but gets the details wrong; which shows just how much Obama cares about Mr. Crow. Not much.
Posted by: Jack at November 07, 2009 09:10 AM (bvDV5)
8
"give their lives to protect the rest of us.."
This phony POTUS doesn't even understand just what the military swears to protect and defend--the Constitution of the United States.
Every time I hear this phony spew his ignorance of the USA I want to puke. Birthers are nuts--born here or not, this pos isn't an American.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 07, 2009 10:17 PM (t5wcA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Census Worker Death Investigation Increasingly Focused on Suicide
From the Associated Press:
Investigators probing the death of a Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest increasingly doubt he was killed because of his government job and are pursuing the possibility he committed suicide, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press.
Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said no final conclusions have been made in the case. In recent weeks, however, investigators have grown more skeptical that 51-year-old Bill Sparkman died at the hands of someone angry at the federal government.
The officials said investigators continue to look closely at suicide as a possible cause of Sparkman's death for a number of reasons. There were no defensive wounds on Sparkman's body, and while his hands were bound with duct-tape, they were still somewhat mobile, suggesting he could have manipulated the rope, the officials said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:41 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Uh-oh. This worries me MORE than the initial speculation. It's always 'suicide' when the investigation begins pointing to someone in charge.
Posted by: DoorHold at November 08, 2009 11:13 AM (EeTHH)
2
My a$$ it was suicide. It was done by a group of backwoods, right wing extremists. They are going the suicide route as to not alarm America and to also hope that those who did this cowardly act slip up.
Posted by: Oggie Oglethorpe at November 09, 2009 11:14 AM (h/EEo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 05, 2009
Fort Hood Shooter ID'd
With the release of two other possible suspects, it is now starting to look like the shooting at Fort Hood today was the work of a single man, armed with two handguns. He was named as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who ironically specialized in treating traumatic stress, and who was angry about having to deploy to Iraq at the end of November.
Like another
mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech.
Figures.
Update: Breaking news as of 10:00 PM is that Hasan did not die, and is
in custody in stable condition.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:16 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you're taking a shot at VT, it's a cheap shot. If you weren't, my apologies for thinking you were.
Posted by: steve at November 05, 2009 08:20 PM (miah1)
2
No, that isn't exactly what I meant. Sorta.
The two shootings conducted in a similar method in the span of a couple of years... I frankly wonder if Hasan might have been influenced by the university massacre.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 05, 2009 08:25 PM (WjpSC)
3
Not influenced as it "he made me do it" but more inspired to carry out the same sort of attack.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 05, 2009 08:26 PM (WjpSC)
4
Soldiers at our bases are basically sitting ducks. Weapons are only carried by MPs.
"Reformed" muslims and those of middle eastern heritage are no different than VC in Nam. You didnt trust anyone with "slanted eyes" in the Nam and its no different now. Just a different face on the enemy.
Posted by: capt26thga at November 05, 2009 08:39 PM (yDWEd)
5
the shooter is in custody and not dead as first reported.
Posted by: rumcrook® at November 05, 2009 09:16 PM (60WiD)
6
I frankly wonder if Hasan might have been influenced by the university massacre.
I'm pretty sure he was much more influenced by the Religion of Peace.
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 09:22 PM (xdvz0)
7
Apparently he has survived his attempted martyrdom. Either he'll prove a coward and plead mental deficiency or stand by his convictions and have the Army execute him like the common criminal he is.
Posted by: ThomasD at November 05, 2009 09:56 PM (21H5U)
8
Because ALL VT students MUST eventually become Mass Murders, right??? That was a cheap shot and un-called-for. Ranks right up there with the All Soldiers are really just waiting to bubble over and kill everyone in range. I am a proud Hokie, and a proud Army Veteran. Either of these sorts of statements (and I have heard both today) are horridly offensive.
Posted by: kaceala at November 05, 2009 10:25 PM (ChhlM)
9
I'm a UVA grad who pretends to hate VT, especially every November when you smoke us in football, but I have to agree with you on this one kaceala. Assuming someone is a likely mass murderer because they attend VT, join the Army, practice Islam, or have slanted eyes is offensive.
College attendance, military service, religion, and epicanthic folds don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:15 PM (KD9e1)
10
Assuming someone is a likely mass murderer because they attend VT, join the Army, practice Islam, or have slanted eyes is offensive.
Let us know when someone does that. Meanwhile, it seems that people are assuming Hasan is a likely mass murderer because of all the people he appears to have killed.
Posted by: Pablo at November 05, 2009 11:37 PM (yTndK)
11
There are, at the moment, some things relating to this murderous attack (not a "tragedy" as VP Biden said) that we know with certainty:
(1) Terrorists and criminals do not obey gun control laws.
(2) Gun free zones--surprisingly, this includes military installations--are among the least safe places in America.
(3) The police cannot protect any given citizen and have no legal do duty to do so.
(4) The only thing that can potentially deter terrorists is the knowledge that there are no gun free zones and that when they attack, there will likely be armed citizens ready to resist.
(5) When a lunatic starts shooting, the only thing that can stop him is armed, capable citizens who immediately return fire.
(6) In gun free zones, even the most rapid police response will mean nothing to the victims and their loved ones, in this case, 12 dead and 31 wounded at last count.
(7) Liberals and Obamites will surely use this situation to clamor for more gun control.
(
Liberal and Obamites will suppress any information relating to the shooter that might seem negative toward Islam or any other favored victim groups or nation.
(9) Anyone expressing anger toward the shooter will be branded a racist by the press.
(10) Should it turn out that the shooter had foreign, jihadist connections, particularly any Iran-related connections, they will be ruthless suppressed by the Obamites so as not to harm "engagement" with those who seek to destroy western civilization.
Posted by: Mike McDaniel at November 05, 2009 11:41 PM (DJR56)
12
Kaceala and Jim, ConYank gave us an interesting tidbit of information and a useful reminder of an instance of another mass murder of people within the murderers daily sphere. Of all the things in the world to get offended about to pick this one is well...picky. On the other hand, Steve had a straight to the core of the matter comment.
Posted by: Jayne at November 05, 2009 11:43 PM (dwIL0)
13
Hi Pablo,
Yeah, CY made no comments at all about this guys time at VT having any influence on his crime. Three different times.
And capt26thga didn't say anything about muslims being the enemy and that they should not be trusted just like people with slanted eyes were not to be trusted in the Nam (which oddly includes every single Vietnamese person we were fighting to protect, I'm not exactly sure what he thinks we were doing over there).
Nope, no one said anything like that here at all.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:48 PM (KD9e1)
14
Yeah, Pablo's right. The assumption that he's a mass murderer is pretty much a result of 12 dead, and 31 wounded. Um, so when you look at this whole situation, the thing you're offended about is that CY pointed out that two mass murderers went to the same college, and not the mass murder itself. Murder is what I find offensive, especially against servicemen, but that's just me. Agree to disagree I guess.
I went to DU right away, and of course, they're yucking it up pretty good, and making up lies.
Today's a pretty awesome day for Liberals, but a pretty terrible day for America.
Posted by: brando at November 05, 2009 11:49 PM (LjEkE)
15
Jim's just here to gloat.
Posted by: brando at November 05, 2009 11:50 PM (LjEkE)
16
Take your spluttering indignant outrage and direct it at the man who just murdered a bunch of people, Jim.
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 11:53 PM (xdvz0)
17
Gloat Brando? You are one sick person. Get well.
Jayne,
CY didn't point out a tidbit that the two mass murderers went to the same school, he said, and I quote "frankly wonder if Hasan might have been influenced by the university massacre...Not influenced as it "he made me do it" but more inspired to carry out the same sort of attack."
CY says "Went to Tech = more likely to commit mass murder", which is stupid and offensive.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:55 PM (KD9e1)
18
Take your anger and direct it at the man who pulled the trigger, not everyone who happens to practice the same religion, Steve.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:58 PM (KD9e1)
19
Nope, I'm a Baptist.
As for the rest you sound like you're full of rage yourself Steve, I wonder if it's due to your religion or race? Or maybe you're just a jerk.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:11 AM (KD9e1)
20
CY says "Went to Tech = more likely to commit mass murder", which is stupid and offensive.
I was noting that they both used roughly the same MO of using handguns at point blank range against massed unarmed young adults with little chance of escaping a campus-like environment, but whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2009 12:28 AM (WjpSC)
21
CY you said "more inspired to carry out the same kind of attack". The attack was a mass murder, 'more inspired' is the same thing as 'more likely',
If there is another meaning for the words "more inspired" I'm all ears.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:42 AM (KD9e1)
22
I shouldn't be sniping at you over this today CY, I apologize. I think your statement was over the top, but, I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument, it's a time to think about the families of the victims.
I'd appreciate it if you could delete my last post to Steve (the one at 12:11). You deleted his, for obvious reasons, and it would probably be for the best if you deleted my response to the now missing post. That was for sure an exchange that didn't need to happen!
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:55 AM (KD9e1)
23
"More inspired" meaning "hey, that guy killed a bunch of people in a place they couldn't defend themselves so maybe I should hit the same sort of target."
Oh wait, that doesn't let you get any remarks full of mightily faux outrage at CY so you probably discarded it, if you bothered to think much about it at all.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 06, 2009 12:59 AM (RezbN)
24
Patrick,
You're leaving out the part where CY said it "figures" that Hasan went to Tech.
OK, I'm out, please direct all future comments about faux outrage to the tech grad and vet kaceala.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 01:09 AM (KD9e1)
25
"I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument, it's a time to think about the families of the victims."
You expect that to be believed after that show you just put on? I'm against mass murder, and you think I'm sick? What in the world is wrong with you? When you think of what that monster did to those servicemen and their families, you come here to yuck it up, and throw insults? Wow. You really do have negative value.
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 01:29 AM (LjEkE)
26
Brando, project much?
Quote me gloating and yucking it up or go play somewhere else. As for throwing insults, what's your excuse?
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 01:56 AM (KD9e1)
27
Play? This isn't the time for your Liberal sarcasm and snark, you goon.
They. Were. Murdered.
Don't ask CY to cover-up your comments again.
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 02:15 AM (LjEkE)
28
And yet another follower of the cult of islam murders. Here in Seattle, we are following the trial of the scumbag who shot up the Jewish Federation killing one woman. He apparently was mad at Israel.
When will we have had enough of this filthy, violent, expansionist cult?
Posted by: iconoclast at November 06, 2009 02:26 AM (O8ebz)
29
The attack was a mass murder, 'more inspired' is the same thing as 'more likely',
If there is another meaning for the words "more inspired" I'm all ears.
*facepalm*
Jim, put those goalposts down anywhere you like. Just let us know where, k? Then you can Superior Dance your butt on out.
Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2009 08:10 AM (yTndK)
30
Pablo, let me know what college you attended and I'll get back to you on what awful crime it "figures" you'll be more inspired to one day commit. Of course he wasn't exactly taking a cheap shot at VT. Sorta.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 09:08 AM (KD9e1)
31
I have to sort of agree with Jim a bit here, though CY did put in some clarifying statements in the comments. As written it is a bit of a shot at VT.
"Like another mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech."
There is nothing wrong with that statement by it self. However when you combine it with the following it does imply that there is a link between mass murders and attending VT.
"Figures."
That being said the murder's religion or mental state probably had a lot more to do with his attack than his college. In typical Muslim/Leftist fashion the man's family is playing the "religion/race card" by saying he was the victim of harassment due to his religion.
Disgusting.
They need to behead him, IIRC Muslims believe that is a dishonorable and shaming death which is why they do it to infidels. I could be wrong about that though.
Posted by: Scott at November 06, 2009 10:26 AM (6yHgW)
32
>>"I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument"
And yet you seem to be determined to have one, one in which you focus your anger at we racist intolerant bigots who object to Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 11:35 AM (E/z/c)
33
Back when the Communists were a threat, there were useful idiots like Jim around who saw it as their mission in life to stand up for the poor persecuted Commies. They were "anti-anti-communist".
The circumstances may change but the fundamental mindset of the left never does.
Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 11:40 AM (E/z/c)
34
Islam has nothing to do with this, if he attacked fellow people of the book then he is not following the religion of peace,
Posted by: MAModerate at November 07, 2009 09:45 PM (SVD0U)
35
MAModerate you are incorrect, "People of the Book" are only protected if they have submitted and have accepted their role as dhimmis. Any resistance or failure to pay the jizya removes that protection and they are often subject to all kinds of brutality. Even if it is only one person the entire community is often punished. Just ask the Christians living in Muslim majority nations.
Posted by: Scott at November 09, 2009 11:28 AM (6yHgW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Terrorist Attack on Fort Hood
There is breaking news of what sounds like a terrorist attack on Fort Hood.
Early reports are citing 7 dead, 12 wounded, and one shooter taken into custody and another still possibly on base. Some accounts claim there is a third suspect.
While there is no word yet on who is responsible, this sounds very similar to various plots by homegrown Islamic terrorist cells, such as the
Willow Springs cell arrested in North Carolina in July.
One gunman
may have been killed
Updates as they come in:
Number of wounded
revised to 15, and perhaps as many as 20.
Fort Worth
Star-Telegram says suspects were
armed with M-16s. that could just as easily mean civilian AR-15s, as well.
The shooters are
possibly soldiers?
Two suspects captured, four SWAT team members wounded.
FBI rules out terrorism. I think what they meant to claim is that this wasn't the work of an Islamic terrorist cell or an attack by domestic extremists. By any measure, this was a terror attack, no matter who the shooters or victims were.
Casualty figures have grown to
9 dead and 30 wounded.
12 KIA, 31 WIA,
shooters confirmed as soldiers, at least one of which had a "Arabic-sounding name".
Briefing:
Twelve people were killed and 31 wounded in a shooting at Fort Hood on Thursday, officials confirmed.
Ford Hood spokesman Sgt. Tim Volkert said the shooting occurred at 1:30 p.m. A military briefing at 4 p.m. said three assailants, all soldiers, fired shots at the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center and the Howze Theater next to it.
The facts of the story have solidified. Thee was one shooter, an American Major who used two handguns. Details
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:41 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey buddy. Im stationed in Camp Liberty, Baghdad with 1CD, which is based out of Ft. Hood. Some of these shootings happened right down the street from where I used to live. Unsuprisingly, everyone here is talking about it.
From what I have gathered, the security restrictions were unusually lax today, because of some graduation ceremony. This would lend support to the theory of a terrorist attack, since deranged soldiers would not need to infiltrate the base to start with.
Theres also the multiple shooters angle: Technically, I suppose its possible two crazy Army gunmen would plan something like this, but it would be hard to co-ordinate. I mean, you ask your barracks mate if he wants to go on a killing spree; he responds by turning you in and you go to jail. Its hard to break that ice, although it is possible.
Again, this is all just idle speculation.
Posted by: Neal Murray at November 05, 2009 04:36 PM (CjwiL)
2
Why is ATF on the scene? The FBI I can understand, though with their record I doubt they would be able to find even the shooter who was killed.
I wonder how long it will be before they start calling for gun control. Ironic that it occured on a military base where guns are all over the place, but locked up.
Posted by: David at November 05, 2009 05:56 PM (PpoBw)
3
Shooter identified as Major Malik Nadel Hasan, a Muslim convert. What a surprise...not!
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938
Posted by: Here you go at November 05, 2009 06:05 PM (dW44H)
4
ATF is on the scene because of the firearms hence, "alcohol tobacco and firearms (ATF)"
Posted by: deployed at November 05, 2009 06:56 PM (2bfgE)
5
This has home grown terrorism written all over it. There is no way a Major would just go postal on his fellow soldiers unless there was some sort of extremist motive. A Officer is taught from day 1 to take care of his or her troops at all cost. I'm not sure if this is official, but I've been told that this Major has not actually even been shipped once. If that is true, that would definitely rule out post traumatic stress. Even if he was shipped, it's still hard for me to believe that a Major would start to kill his fellow soldiers on a military base. Something tells me that this will not be reported as a terrorist attack though. Either because people don't understand that terrorism can be committed by people in the U.S., or just because it looks bad on someones political resume to have a terrorist attack happen on his or her watch. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Posted by: Scooby at November 05, 2009 07:03 PM (xF9MC)
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 02:20 AM (LjEkE)
7
Bob, you should update this post. The shooter used 2 handguns. At least that's the story from every outlet I've heard, including NPR news this morning (Friday, Nov. 6) as of 8:30 CST
Posted by: eric at November 06, 2009 09:55 AM (p7VhC)
8
Oh gee, haven't you heard that the poor Major suffered from PTSD by osmosis? I believe this was a terrorist act and O-ball-less needs to call it like it is. Mmm-mmm-mmm . . .
Posted by: Jill at November 06, 2009 02:37 PM (RwMPP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Benen: V for... Bachmann, or Something
It seems the stress of the health care debate is getting to the delicate Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly today, as he hysterically tries to explain to us that those protesters descending upon Capitol Hill today to do rhetorical battle against the Democratic Party's government-rationed health care bill may as well be terrorists targeting Congress with bombs.
And when has Bachmann scheduled her Capitol Hill soiree? This afternoon -- November 5 -- a date widely known as Guy Fawkes Night. (You know, "Remember, remember, the fifth of November." In other words, Bachmann wants to rally right-wing activists, label them an "insurgency," and encourage them to roam the halls of Congress deliberately "scaring" members of Congress, on the infamous date that marks an attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
From a security perspective, if Capitol Police aren't operating at a heightened state today, they're making a mistake.
Apparently in Benen's mind the dagger-wielding fictional character "V" played by Hugo Weaving in 2005's
V for Vendetta is pretty much the same as a real-life middle-aged Congresswoman from Minnesota, and protesting a bloated bill that drags a sixth of the U.S. economy into a raft of 111 new bureaucracies subject to the whim's of government rationing is the same as blowing up the Houses of Parliament.
I suppose it isn't worth noting that the character "V" was created by a power-mad government conducting medical experiments upon its citizens.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:22 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I haven't seen V for Vendetta. I think Benen was specifically referring to the plot to kill King James I and various members of the government in England in 1605.
Posted by: Will at November 05, 2009 04:06 PM (Ek1E8)
2
Wow, I'm relatively well-educated, know who Guy Fawkes was, and know about the Gunpowder plot, but really; does Benen think that "Remember, remember, the fifth of November" is taught in schools here?
"One if by land and two if by sea," yes, because it's our history.
But to expect that it's common knowledge to recall a bit of doggerel about a plot to blow up a government building thousands of miles away and hundreds of years past? Methinks the guy doth protest too much, and is vastly over-reaching to make a non-existent point.
And now I've got "Try to Remember" going through my head.
Posted by: Stoutcat at November 05, 2009 05:14 PM (kKdtK)
3
>>"And when has Bachmann scheduled her Capitol Hill soiree? This afternoon -- November 5 -- a date widely known as Guy Fawkes Night. (You know, "Remember, remember, the fifth of November.")"
I suspect that the only people who "know" this are transplanted Brits. I've never heard of "Remember, remember, the Fifth of November".
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 05:24 PM (xdvz0)
4
"a government building thousands of miles away and hundreds of years past?"
Heard of Jamestown?
Posted by: luther blissett at November 05, 2009 05:30 PM (gTar3)
5
For what it's worth, Ron Paul invoked Guy Fawkes just two years ago as part of his presidential fundraising drive.
http://www.thisnovember5th.com/
Paul and Bachmann shared a stage in Minnesota in September:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/25/bachmann-paul/
The two make for an odd couple.
Posted by: luther blissett at November 05, 2009 05:38 PM (gTar3)
6
Bachmann's technique for scaring the members of congress is to take pages from the bill, tear them into two pieces, pass them to the crowd and ask that everyone go to their congressman and ask him to explain the language. From what I have seen of the bill, that would scar me. I got this information from her interview this afternoon on Hannity.
Posted by: David at November 05, 2009 05:53 PM (PpoBw)
7
Heard of Jamestown?
Where is that again? Just outside London, England?
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 06:01 PM (xdvz0)
8
Ron Paul invoked Guy Fawkes just two years ago as part of his presidential fundraising drive
Only if you think Ron Paul owns that web site.
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 06:04 PM (xdvz0)
9
Luther, yes of course I've heard of Jamestown. Could you please relate what Jamestown has to do with a "writer" comparing Rep. Bachmann to guy Fawkes, please?
Posted by: Stoutcat at November 05, 2009 06:26 PM (UVNL3)
10
Liberals really liked the V for Vendetta movie because the liberals who made it had the bad guys be a British right wing Christian fascist party. Because England has so many evangelical Christians. Never mind that it is Labour who has been putting up CCTV cameras everywhere and passed bills abridging many traditional English liberties. There was also a healthy does of Trutherism (the Norsefire party committed the terror attacks which led to their takeover) and of course a reference to the Iraq war. Liberals loved V for Vendetta, it was 2 hours of cheering for their cause.
Posted by: Britt at November 05, 2009 07:34 PM (DcWbe)
11
It's strange that the things which liberals claim to be most afraid of bear a remarkable resemblance to the actual liberal agenda.
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 08:01 PM (xdvz0)
12
The Confederate Yankee: It seems your audience is smarter than you! They immediately understood Steve Benen's article to be reference to Guy Fawkes Day, not to a movie based on a comic book based on Guy Fawkes Day.
Britt: On that note, it's sometimes helpful to understand that many movies were first books, as was V for Vendetta. The original 1985 book was not a heavy-handed Bush-era allegory, but a very loose Thatcher-era allegory. The way it originally went, after a nuclear war in 1993, Britain becomes reclusive and weird, and the Tories become fascists. V was not a symbol of liberalism or revolution, but simply anarchy. It was much less topical and much more interesting.
Steve: The extreme right, fascism, resembles the extreme left, authoritarianism. What a coincidence!
Posted by: Donavon at November 06, 2009 10:00 AM (JoPfo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Simple Request
The 1,990-page Democratic plot to enable the government-rationing of your family's health care has grown yet again, and now weighs in a bloating and putrid 2,032 pages long. The additional 42 pages recently added give the government even more control over your lives.
Of course, few—if any— of the Democratic Congressmen and women who are pushing this bill have actually read it.
Scratch that.
Not one member of Congress in either party has read the bill in its entirety. Therefore, none understand it fully, and I'd wager that no one member even understands a majority of the bill in any detail.
The Republicans, God bless them, have enough common sense to refuse to vote to give the government life-and-death control over your lives. The last we've heard, not a single one of them will vote in favor of a bill that is so massive and convoluted that no single human being can understand it.
Democrats in the House of Representatives seem to have far less concern about what the bill actually says. On the whole, they are satisfied that it gives the government more of a role in your lives, and reduces your opportunity to make decisions with which they might disagree. That is enough of an enticement for many, if not most of them.
Some of the more moderate Democrats fear for their seats, however, and want to at least pay enough lip service to hot-button social concerns in the bill, such as the
funding of abortion and the inclusion of illegal aliens. The attempts at &qout;compromise" you hear so much about are moderates looking for ways to create language to hide funding for those endeavors. They don't actually want those those provisions made an impossibility. They just want them hidden deep enough in the bill, or relocated to a vaguely-worded Trojan horse clause, so that they can claim they "didn't know" these provisions existed when their next re-election campaign arrives.
It is because no one understands this bill, and because Democrats are trying to cover for their more moderate members that they are now pressuring to rush this still-evolving bill to a vote
this Saturday, before anyone has time to read and comprehend it.
There is something truly vile if not down right evil about the Democratic attempt to force through a bill without giving Americans (or their congressional representatives) an opportunity to read and understand it.
That refusal to release a "final" final bill, to constantly revise it and then attempt to force a rushed vote is the antithesis of how our Founders wanted Congress to discuss and debate legislation so that it would benefit the American people.
We don't even know if the bill they are attempting to force down our throats is even vaguely constitutional.
And so I have a simple request for those of you who care about America's future.
Write or call your Congressman, and get them to officially commit to delaying a final vote on a health care bill until:
- the bill is in a finalized, "frozen" form
- they are willing to to claim that they read and understand the entire bill
The reason to ask for this commitment is simple.
No Congressman should vote on a bill they do not understand, especially one that will drastically impact the lives of their constituents and fundamentally alter the social contract between the American people, private enterprise, and government.
If those we elected to Congress cannot commit to this simple request, then they clearly are not act in the best interests of their constituents or of the United States as a whole.
Where is your commitment, ladies and gentlemen of Congress?
We, the People, have a right to know.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:24 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Let's give them free bus fare to each and every politician with a lousy immigration grading, such as Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) or the whole Sacramento Liberal Marxist assembly, who have sold bona-fide legal Angelino’s into state insolvency? Why not have them live-in at every ACLU office and their communist lawyers so they could feed them. Every pro-illegal immigrant Chamber of Commerce member could open a spare room and settle some family members, until more brothers and sisters could be sponsored and join them. The Catholic Church and other religious groups could welcome them at the church doors and distribute money from the plate? The minority of Evangelicals churches could open up the rectory, accommodating hundreds of cots from the tired and poverty stricken. All the anti-sovereignty lawmakers should have plenty of room in their Virginia mansions, their custom ranches for large numbers of impoverished families. Even the President has that large White structure--could exhibit some kindness to homeless families and FEMA could establish a tent city in the grounds? Any of the House and Senate who compromised illegal immigration enforcement, should announce their address for resettlement of people who just run the gauntlet at the under funded border fence.
Let's face it these people who call us names such as xenophobes bigots and worse, adding ugly cuss words to their vocabulary should also open their doors to anybody who enters America illegally. Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates and the thousands of businesses that don't incur a darn cent should bring these family members together in their giant homes. Corporate owners who have colluded with State governors, Mayors, Judges and other lower echelon officials, should participate with a welcome mat. Perhaps American workers should obtain a hard copy list of every unpatriotic American and give illegal matriarch a page of addresses for their extended illegal families? We have San Francisco’s mayor Galvin Newsom and Los Angeles Antonio R.Villaraigosa and all the other--SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES who have completely ignore federal laws, can also give refuge in their abodes to incorrigible
gang members who have killed without conscience, illiterate drunk laborers who have slaughtered families on our streets, because they could comprehend English warning signs.
Then just picture the traffic chaos in every corner of America, unless you live in an isolated ranch in the Mohave Desert, in California. We think we have road rage now, but give it a few weeks after unfettered AMNESTY. I even have a better idea. Open America’s doors completely? No Ellis Island, Galveston Island. No documents, no inspections. NO NOTHING. Give everybody a bus ticket of their choosing, to where they wish to go? See how long the open border zealots put up with that progressive rush to overpopulation. IF you have changes of heart give a tongue-lashing to your legislators at 202-224-3121 in Washington. Learn the financial services in billions of dollars to foreign nationals at NUMBERSUSA,. Hidden corruption that has finally been uncovered, at JUDICIAL WATCH? What the US Census has to say about the POPULATION GROWTH in the future of our children at CAPSWEB? Our population will escalate from 255 million to 383 million by the year to 2050? The next 100 million will suffocate our ability to maintain water, energy, food, communication, infrastructure and a balanced environment.
Posted by: Brittancus at November 05, 2009 09:11 PM (Kc4uK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 04, 2009
A Year in American Politics (Abridged Version)
Obama '08!
Oh, Crap! '09
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:46 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Or, as Drudge put it, "Uh O!"
Posted by: Pablo at November 04, 2009 09:32 AM (yTndK)
2
Yes! Obama has lost, he is no longer President!
Posted by: salvage at November 04, 2009 09:52 AM (DEOQe)
3
The market reacted big today, so far. There is little other good news. So I wonder if they see the handwritting on the wall with Obama.
Posted by: David at November 04, 2009 11:20 AM (dccG2)
4
"Yes! Obama has lost, he is no longer President!"
You really think so? Is this a common belief for Libs? Be prepared for me to repeat that one back to you.
You're mighty weird. You, Thom, and Dude are like peas in a pod.
Posted by: brando at November 04, 2009 02:21 PM (IPGju)
5
They're rejiggering the stimulus funds as we type. Just imagine $500 billion in walking around money. It's gonna take a whole lot of something to overcome that plus the voter fraud, press fraud and campaign finance fraud, but today is a good day to savor a little reminder of the old USA.
Posted by: Jayne at November 04, 2009 10:45 PM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 03, 2009
Red Jersey: Christie Wins NJ
The Associated Press calls it for the Republican:
In the end, all the stumping in the world from the President of the United States wasn't going to stop regime change in New Jersey's highest office.
Republican Chris Christie ended Democrat Jon Corzine's four-year run in Trenton with a narrow victory on Tuesday, The Associated Press projected. Independent Chris Daggett, thought of by many as the wildcard who could upset the order of things by siphoning off votes from Christie, finished well back.
With 4,507 of 6,305 precincts reporting, Christie led Corzine 50 percent to 44 percent.
Independent voters gave President Barack Obama a huge advantage in the state last year, but they heavily favored Christie on Tuesday.
The Democratic Party and the White House spent a tremendous amount of time and resources campaigning for Corzine in a traditionally Democratic state (outspending Christie 3-1), and they still appear to have lost by a substantial margin.
There are going to be all sorts of attempts by Democrats and the left-leaning media and blogosphere to say this is not a judgement of Barack Obama's short but inept Presidency thus far.
I just wonder if any of those claims will be looked upon with the least bit of credibility.
Jonah at
NRO:
Wow. That's just amazing. I don't see how the White House can spin it away. Remember their explanation for Deeds' loss was that Deeds didn't embrace Obama enough. Corzine hugged Obama and made the election about Obama in a state Obama carried by 15 points and where Dems outnumber Republicans by a wide margin. And he lost.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So Christie wins the NJ governorship.
So what?
The state legislature is still run by Democrats. Christie will be a figurehead, nothing more.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 03, 2009 10:56 PM (dDYdj)
2
wolfwalker:
Is that the best spin you can muster?! Wow...
Posted by: ECM at November 04, 2009 01:30 AM (q3V+C)
3
Any News on California 10?
Posted by: Douglas at November 04, 2009 03:23 AM (uU+Ss)
4
So Christie wins the NJ governorship.
So what?
motivation in off elections, is motivation that is reliable.
This is a demonstration of an active peoples. This is a sign.
The 'pubs delivered big in not just an off election but in an off off election. Think it will be less of a turnout next year when the nationals are a big deal?
If you think otherwise you are a a fool.
Posted by: Douglas at November 04, 2009 03:25 AM (uU+Ss)
5
ecm: I'm a complete and incurable cynic where politics are concerned. I consider NY-23 more important, more of a bellwether, than either governorship. In a "reliably Republican" district, the GOP power structure nominated a RINO who then threw the election. Now the seat is Democrat and likely to remain so because of the power of incumbency. The GOP leadership still has no clue what it's doing wrong, and I have no confidence that it will ever learn.
I'll go further than that. With the election last year of Barry Lackwit and a controlling socialist majority in both houses of Congress ... with the national GOP leadership talking about compromise on socialized health care and cap-and-tax, while they get hoodwinked on hate crimes and other longstanding lefty goals ... I don't believe anything is going to make a difference anymore. Liberals act as if they have power whether they're a majority or not, and they always succeed in pushing forward the liberal agenda. Conservatives always act like the minority whether they are or not, and they rarely even manage to slow the liberal assaults.
I've given up. I still vote, but I don't pretend that it makes any difference. Neither should you.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 04, 2009 06:57 AM (dDYdj)
6
Begone, Grima Wormwalker!
Posted by: Gandalf at November 04, 2009 10:19 AM (N95d1)
7
Gandalf! right when we needed you. If it weren't for republicans and tea parties we would have had Obama care in it's original incarnation in July. The fight is worth it even if it's a mammoth struggle against mighty forces - as all fights are. Thanks for still voting wolfwalker. I spoke to a few while working for the Harmer campaign (ca - 10) who had your attitude but would not vote. If we had turned out 10,000 more we could have won in Pelosi's backyard.
Posted by: Jayne at November 04, 2009 10:40 PM (dwIL0)
8
wolfie is right, unfortunately. Reagan himself managed to slow the rate of growth, and that's all. The government has gotten bigger and bigger every year, no matter who's Speaker or who's President. The fight is over, they won. Because every socialist advance is only ten years later something the theoretical anti-socialists consider part of government. The Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Social Security, Medicare/aid, progressive taxation, deficit spending, etc.
They win even win they lose. A Republican President oversaw the federalization of education and the largest welfare programs in the history of the country. Both candidates last year were in favor of the bailouts, which means they were both socialist bastards. So why exactly should I walk over a cliff rather then drive over it? If get in the shiny O-mobile, at least I get to hear music before the sickening crunch on the rocks of tyranny.
Posted by: Britt at November 05, 2009 02:42 AM (DcWbe)
9
Republicans should be less impressed with the two governorship victories in New Jersey and Virginia and be alarmed and concerned over the two congressional losses in NY and CA.
It isn't a good sign when a seat your party has held since the Civil war is suddenly lost, no matter how much spin you put on it. This should be a wake up call to all of those who embrace the hateful, fearful, deceitful rhetoric of people like Bachman, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh. Their candidate was rejected.
Posted by: Oggie Oglethorpe at November 09, 2009 11:21 AM (h/EEo)
10
Oggie, does it help to by serially dishonest to be a liberal?
NY-23--the New York seat you claim was held by a Republican since the Civil War--has been held by Democrats the majority of the time, with 1993 being the last time. Wikipedia has a nice listing of all those who have held the seat in NY-23.
As for the CA race, it never was race... it was in a reliably left-wing part of California, and the vote was actually closer than Democrats expected... they won the race, but were shocked that they lost votes.
Try pedaling your lies somewhere else. We deal in facts here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 09, 2009 11:27 AM (gAi9Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 77 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.4007 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3834 seconds, 206 records returned.
Page size 142 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
