Confederate Yankee
October 01, 2009
HOUSE AIDES: Public Option Making Comeback
Via a politically connected friend on Facebook:
Info from D.C. is that a public option has enough support to pass in the House. Blue Dogs caving and Black Caucus pushing hard on legislators for the public option. Plan is next week.
Is anyone else hearing the same sort of information?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:37 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I did not hear that exact quote, CY. All my sources could tell me was that we're out of diapers and that I should go get some.
Dang, I wish I had more 'sources'.
Posted by: Kevin at October 01, 2009 07:16 PM (hNk8s)
2
I'm not sure who but a Democrat introduced an amendment that would make public option type insurance up to the individual states. Not sure if that's what you may be referring to.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 04:01 AM (bhNGz)
3
Public option never left the House. Public option was always in the House bill(s) without a concern of passing. It's getting it through the Senate that's going to be difficult if not impossible.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 04:20 AM (bhNGz)
4
Actually they are going to pass an EMPTY bill, then write it after it passes anyway the Dems want. Here is the link to what is sneaking around the edge on this issue.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/02/the-vapor-bill-%E2%80%93-congress%E2%80%99-secret-plan-to-pass-obamacare-update/
Reid is looking to work with the House to flummox everyone with a tax bill to mix everyone up and push this through.
Posted by: mrbill at October 03, 2009 04:21 PM (rEgvK)
5
Sounds like pure spin spam from the left wing ginned up to create a self-fulfilling movement. If they had the votes they would bring it to the foor and get it done. All the speculation and rumor is meaningless. The dems can't decide if they want to be on record voting for deficit creating DMV Kevorkian care that takes choice away from consumers and has failed in every country it has been tried or a rational plan of reform proposed by Republicans which would take more time to hammer out.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 03, 2009 05:08 PM (5Fo+S)
6
Nice site. Thank you., buy mobile n95 nokia phone, 4496, daewoo lanos 2001, tzvj, 32 a8n asus, ueo, iriver case, 433681, blackberry gps verizon, 2288,
Posted by: apple cord laptop power at October 05, 2009 02:31 AM (UWE1m)
7
Nice site. Thank you., tracfone prepaid card, 8-(, 2000 daewoo nubira, 4441, orion nebula picture, 8-DDD, first premier card services, 8-O, williams brother, vkcfi,
Posted by: sharp dressed man at October 05, 2009 04:14 AM (V2xSF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Evil Right Wing Obama Assassination Pollster ID'd
Kinda hard to listen to Rush Limbaugh from the school cafeteria.
The Secret Service announced today that a juvenile was behind the Facebook posting that asked whether President Obama should be assassinated, calling it a prank that would not lead to prosecution.
The agency declined to release the juvenile's name, age or residence.
The latter decision is probably is a wise one not just simply because of the offender's age, but also because left wing zealots
wanted him dead.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:06 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
>>"The agency declined to release the juvenile's name, age or residence."
Or political affiliation.
Posted by: Steve at October 01, 2009 02:26 PM (rxQ0a)
2
I heard the kid was almost 14, which is the age of consent, so it's not an assasination-assasination threat.
Posted by: Tim at October 01, 2009 04:58 PM (3Wewy)
3
Linked to you on this one -- noting that liberals didn't think such threats by teens were even worthy of Secret Service attention when Bush was president.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/292940.php
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at October 01, 2009 10:23 PM (Ang0l)
4
Obama has to get this whole indoctrination thingy worked out. Obviously there are kids getting through and if this kid has time for Facebook polls than he's not getting his mandatory government ordered abortions while singing catchy Obama tunes! Bring that brat before the death panel!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 04:05 AM (bhNGz)
5
I disagree with Lipiwitz. I don't think the kid should be slain. Simply having the Secret Service show up, was probably enough to set him straight.
Rhymes with Right, I remember that! When that girl put threatened to kill Bush on her MySpace page or something, the ACLU rushed to defend her when the Secret Service investigated it. Now the same thing happens years later, and Liberals want to murder a child.
If it weren't for double standards, they'd have none at all. I'm sort of waiting for the forehead-to-the-floor apology too.
Posted by: brando at October 02, 2009 09:54 AM (IPGju)
6
Brando...I wasn't serious on killing the kid. And could you provide a link for the MySpace Bush threat because it's probably the first anybody heard of it. A reliable link and not the news channel in your head or a right wing blog which are news channels in everybody's head.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 06:41 PM (OX5qU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Made Community Safe for Roman Polanski-type Pedophiles
That might not be entirely accurate. I'm pretty sure he didn't condone drugging them first, just men having sex with underage boys:
President Obama's "safe schools czar," under fire from critics who say he's unfit for his job, acknowledged Wednesday that he "should have handled [the] situation differently" years ago when he was a schoolteacher and didn't report that a 15-year-old boy told him that he was having sex with an older man.
Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom."
In a statement issued Wednesday, Jennings said: "Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities."
And now he thinks we should keep him an an authority?
i'm sorry, but a lack of discernment, judgment, and
basic morality is inherent character flaw. Kevin Jennings is just another whackjob Obama czar that needs to be kicked to the curb.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:35 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
>>"Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when the boy, a sophomore, confessed an involvement with a man he had met in a bus station bathroom in Boston. Jennings has written that he told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom.""
And the Obama administration says to themselves, "Hey, let's make this man the "Safe Schools Czar"!
Most. Radical. Leftist. President. Ever.
Posted by: Steve at October 01, 2009 03:04 PM (rxQ0a)
2
That is the worst advice Jennings could have given, for multiple reasons, one of which is condoms are much less effective during anal intercourse! The "just use a condom and it'll be okay" POV is so off.
Posted by: Sif at October 01, 2009 10:38 PM (od0G0)
3
This guy has been pretty open about a lot of stuff. I cannot believe this all that is out there.
Posted by: davod at October 02, 2009 08:39 AM (GUZAT)
4
Something came out about him and NAMBLA in a forword for a book or something. He needs to go and take his boss with him.
Posted by: TimothyJ at October 02, 2009 05:59 PM (IKKIf)
5
Might I point out that the Mayor of Portland, Oregon has a ... history. None dare call them 'creeps'.
There are two aspects of the phenomenon under discussion: the continual assault on standards of decency and the gradual imposition of legal penalties on anyone who objects. This fellow Jennings has been implicated in both.
Posted by: Art Deco at October 02, 2009 11:31 PM (lCK/O)
6
This guy should not be allow within so many foot of a school.
Posted by: avery at October 03, 2009 08:01 PM (aGXzw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Little Men
I have a confession: I don't know much about Glenn Beck. I've read about him here and there, I've seen clips of his show on other blogs, and may have caught a couple of segments of his show. All I can deduce about him is that his style doesn't particularly appeal to me, and so I don't watch him.
He's a populist and an entertainer and he has had some undeniable successes and I wish him well, but I don't think he is the major political player that some people do.
And by some people, I include the
White House.
There is something truly odd and more than a little insecure about a Presidency that reduces the Administration and the Office of the President to quibbling with a self-described clown. Presidents should be above such petty matters as attacking a talk show personality, but our
Real World: White House seems to interject itself into all sorts of trivial matters from the arrest of private citizens (Skp Gates) to spouting off about idiotic celebrities (Kanye West).
Don't we expect better from our Presidents?
Shouldn't we expect better from our Presidents, and their administrations?
We need an Administration that is more focused about serving the nation than protecting our President's fragile ego. We need a President that will spend more time with his top generals than David Letterman.
But we're not getting that. Barack Obama is instead submitting up to a pop-star Presidency as he flits from one network to another in search of approval.
Once the election is over, a President's job is to lead. Obama keeps campaigning, seeking approval.
Now more than ever we need a leader, and instead we are subjected to little men, squabbling over the scraps of fault.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:13 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I do watch Glenn and for a self-described clown he is doing the job of conecting the dots that the left wing media wont!
Posted by: Rich in KC at October 01, 2009 12:05 PM (siQqy)
2
Two words:
Ari Fleischer
Posted by: Able Stanton at October 01, 2009 01:16 PM (O64c3)
3
I'm actually curious why Glenn Beck and Fox want to engage in a counteroffensive to keep the Olympics OUT of Chicago.
Posted by: Able Stanton at October 01, 2009 01:20 PM (O64c3)
4
I quite like Glenn. He does show some serious emotion, and he does connect those dots. Anything you see on his show can be verified, and he doesn't make up b.s.
The ting about the Whitehouse being all upset? Hmm, let me think...oh yeah. That pesky 1st Amendment thing. Gosh, how's TEH ONE™ supposed to jam stuff up our rectal passages if we know it's coming?
Posted by: cmblake6 at October 01, 2009 07:25 PM (i174V)
5
Thing. Thing. Not ting.
Posted by: cmblake6 at October 01, 2009 07:26 PM (i174V)
6
I'm actually curious why Glenn Beck and Fox want to engage in a counteroffensive to keep the Olympics OUT of Chicago.
Think of the carbon footprint. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
Posted by: Pablo at October 02, 2009 10:59 AM (yTndK)
7
Did Bush ever comment on any of the talking heads?
One of the characteristics of Bush I did NOT like was his turn-the-other-cheek response while left-wingers were burying him under mounds of manure, but seeing the O. admin. respond to anyone who disagrees with them just might change my mind on which is the right way to go.
Posted by: DoorHold at October 04, 2009 11:36 AM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
1 Free Gun, 2 Classes, 5 Days: The FrontSight Training Package
So I mentioned briefly Tuesday that I was contacted by the staff at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute last week, inquiring into whether or not I might be interested in partnering with them for a promotional venture.
Guess what? I looked it over, and it seems like a good deal.
Without further procrastination, let's get to it.
Here is what Front Sight is offering.
Four Day Defensive Handgun Certificate that allows you to attend a $2,000 Four Day Defensive Handgun Course at any time in the future with no expiration date. Have better gun handling, marksmanship and tactical skills than 99% of the people who carry a gun for a living! Your shooting buddies will ask, "Where did you learn how to shoot like that?" You will proudly tell them, "Front Sight." Course Value: $2,000. Being the Best Shooter in your group of shooting buddies... Priceless!
One Day 30 State Concealed Weapon Permit Course that gives you all the training, paperwork signed off, finger prints, and certificates to apply for permits in FL, NV, and Utah. Reciprocity agreements in place allow you to carry a concealed handgun in 30 states. Course Value: $500. Comfort of being armed and trained to handle anything... Priceless!
All 7 Front Sight Dry Practice Manuals, each over 100 pages with photos of all the techniques we teach in our Four Day Defensive Handgun, Tactical Shotgun, Practical Rifle, Select Fire M16, Uzi Submachine Gun, Empty Hand Defense and Edged Weapons Courses. These manuals are your "Perfect Practice At Home Front Sight Instructor!" Manuals Value: $280. Ability to dry practice all the correct techniques and continue to improve your skills between courses... Priceless!
Limited Edition, Stainless Steel Folding Knife with Front Sight Logo etched in handle. You can't get this knife anywhere at any price. This is a special run of knives made specifically for this offer. If we sold a logo knife in our pro shop, which we don't, it would be priced at $300 or more. You get it as part of this package. Knife Value: $300. Cool factor when you whip it out to open a box, slice an apple, or dissuade an attacker... Priceless!
Front Sight Instructor Belt, Holster, Magazine Pouch, Flashlight Holder and Flashlight. All the right gear you need to wear on your belt for a Four Day Defensive Handgun Course. Gear Value: $230. Knowing you are outfitted for your first Front Sight course with the same gear the Front Sight Instructors wear... Priceless!
Front Sight Logo Armorer's Bench Mat. Neoprene bench mat measuring approximately 16" x 12" featuring the Front Sight logo and exploded view disassembly diagrams for the 1911 pistol, Glock pistol, and AR-15 Rifle on it. Armorer's Bench Mat Value: $40. Having a Front Sight padded mat to clean and work on your guns... Priceless!
Front Sight "Any Gun Will Do-- If You Will Do" Logo Shirt. I have had so many reports of people seeing our students proudly wearing their Front Sight shirts all over the country. Our students wear them to shooting ranges, gun shows, rock concerts, Disneyland and even church! You too will enjoy proudly flying Front Sight's colors. Shirt Value: $30. Wearing it to your liberal brother-in-law's house party... Priceless!
Front Sight Logo Hat. Perfect accessory item to wear with or without your Front Sight shirt. Keeps the sun out of your eyes and your mind in Condition Yellow (If you don't know what Condition Yellow is you REALLY need to take a course with us!) Hat Value: $20. The acknowledging nod you get from other gun owners when they see you wearing it... Priceless!
Right
there I think that Front Sight has a week's worth of experience lined up a a reasonable price, but the other previously-mentioned take home prize makes the deal even sweeter.
Yes, your very own
Springfield Armory XD, in your choice of 9mm, .40 S& W, or .45 ACP.
I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the XD, and Front Sight will
give you one once you are enrolled.
Folks, this is one great offer.
What should you expect to get out of this investment in your shooting skills?
The ability to draw from a concealed holster and put a controlled pair of shots to the target's thoracic cavity from 3-5 yards away, in less than 1.5 seconds.
Folks, that is
strong. Admittedly, I can't do that now. Can you?
I'm hoping that you will consider
signing up.
With competence comes confidence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:16 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bunch of crooks if you ask me.
Front Sight assets seized.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2009/May-15-Fri-2009/news/28773367.html
Posted by: McE at October 01, 2009 10:42 AM (iCKav)
2
Knowing the whole story helps.
The founder (Ignatius Piazza) did get sued over a residential community he was trying to get developed near the range, and they're still working on the settlement to investors. The article you dropped the link to above posted on the 15th; three days later the judge removed the receivership.
Piazza has also apparently lurked around the edges of Scientology, but he claims to be a Catholic. He does admit using Hubbard's marketing techniques and has been to Scientology meetings. But that is just Piazza, and I keep that separate from the training that Front Sight provides.
I've not found one bad word written about the training, and most people who have taken the courses seem to think Front Sight quite literally the very best firearm's training there is. I'm quite comfortable recommending the training. I just wouldn't go to church with Piazza.
And I don't want you to just take my word for it. Here are the Wikipedia links to Piazza and FrontSight. And please, do your own additional research on the Internet.
I'd be comfortable taking the class and I feel comfortable recommending it to my readers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 01, 2009 11:09 AM (gAi9Z)
3
Frontsight throws up too many red flags for my taste.
Feel free to give us a review of Frontsight after you've been through their training. It's what I am NOT seeing that makes me skeptical.
Posted by: Gun Nut at October 01, 2009 11:41 AM (SXpYP)
4
Bob, "Dr." Piazza was more deeply involved in Scientology than simply attending a few meetings. He is listed in the Church of Scientology's publications as "clear". That takes a significant investment in time and money - like about $100,000. He also took the "Sunshine Rundown" course. What is the "Sunshine Rundown", you ask? It's a course that re-introduces disoriented Scientologists back into the real world. The actual firearms training might be good, but it's way over-priced. The NRA offers firearms training at a much more reasonable cost.
Posted by: EnfantTerrible at October 01, 2009 12:24 PM (UsS77)
5
This is what I found the first time I checked into Frontsight and Ignatius Piazza.
I visited yahoo.com's search engine and used the keywords "ignatius piazza lawsuit". I use a similar methodology whenever I research a business or website. I then came up with this site in particular that threw out a red flag.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/scientology/
Google or Yahoo those keywords, read, and decide for yourselves.
Posted by: Gun Nut at October 01, 2009 01:41 PM (SXpYP)
6
Sketchy belief system.
Misappropriation of funds.
Scorn for judicial process.
Obviously liberal.
Posted by: TimWB at October 01, 2009 04:47 PM (H0kXg)
7
The training in weapons use is supposed to be extremely good. That is the only valid point. If I could afford it, if I could get sufficient time off from work, I'd go to the classes, get the training, get my diplomas and goodies, and go home.
As it is, I am a long time "student of the gun" and a retired military weapons instructor. I'm, sorry for the vanity, already pretty damn good. But if there are new tricks to learn, new techniques to study, no-one is ever the total master of all.
Posted by: cmblake6 at October 01, 2009 07:36 PM (i174V)
8
Piazza is a con man.
"The ability to draw from a concealed holster and put a controlled pair of shots to the target's thoracic cavity from 3-5 yards away, in less than 1.5 seconds."
Really? I could do that 20 years ago from Military Training that the Government paid ME for. Granted, my training was longer and more intense and assignments afterwards were not on Your list of desired vacation spots. I do have a Masters in International Relations and never dabbled in the Scientology Cult but am Retired Military and in a weekend I can have you very proficient with the XD of your choice, the 1911A1 and the Mossberg 590 shotgun for far less than $2,000.00 but hey Bud, its your money.
Posted by: Old Trooper at October 04, 2009 06:23 PM (oNzU6)
9
"What should you expect to get out of this investment in your shooting skills?
The ability to draw from a concealed holster and put a controlled pair of shots to the target's thoracic cavity from 3-5 yards away, in less than 1.5 seconds."
Ok. So, what about those of us who can do that and more from farther distances and don't care for the XDs?
Seriously though. 3 to 5 yards is nothing. Studies in the past by LEOs have shown that if you can not place three rounds minute of soccer ball from atleast 7 yards in under 2 seconds from the holster, then you need to train more. A lot more.
I prefer to mix up the ranges a bit, and go as far as the range allows.
Posted by: Matt at October 05, 2009 04:08 AM (XKpp2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 30, 2009
Uh, That Should Be "Hams Across America"
They can claim to be a victim of State Farm all they want, but Hickory Farms has victimized these morons far more.
Via
Ace, who claims to be above such things.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:50 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That link should be titled "Hams Across America."
(And, no, I'm not above such things.)
Posted by: ECM at September 30, 2009 09:40 PM (q3V+C)
2
That was freakin' funny!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 01, 2009 03:36 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Crazy on the Left and Further Left
I don't often read NewsMax. I don't have anything against them, I just have limited time and resources and rely a core group of news sites, blogs, and aggregators to gather information on a daily basis.
I rather wish I did read more frequently however, because if I did I might have been able to catch John L. Perry's column from yesterday,
Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention' before it was sent down the memory hole. Clicking on that link will now redirect you to the NewsMax home page;
Perry's column has also been scrubbed.
The
scathing response from the blogosphere—based upon what I've been able to cobble together from quotes on
several sites—seems warranted.
The simple fact of the matter is that author seems to have come unhinged, and for reasons perhaps structural to the site's editorial process, the column made it to print without a sanity check by the editors.
While the number of people dissatisfied with Obama's foundering Presidency continues to balloon and his popularity erodes on a seemingly daily basis, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of mob rule and coups by military strongmen. We will have out chance to remove President Obama in 2012 as we have always removed bad Presidents, at the ballot box.
There has only been
one successful coup in American history, perpetrated by the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan and allowed by a Democratic governor and President.
Advocating to repeat such a disgrace as Perry apparently did is utterly unacceptable. NewsMax was right to yank a column that never should have made it to print, and should reconsider their relationship with Perry and what that association now represents.
Update: It is also worth noting that Perry is not a conservative;
his bio says he worked for both LBJ and Carter Administrations and Democratic Governor of Florida,
LeRoy Collins.
From further on the left,
Gore Vidal laments the "fact" that Americans are just too stupid to appreciate the genius of Obama, and also suggests that a military coup is in America's future.
Update: A statement from NewsMax:
Statement from Newsmax Regarding Blogger
In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military.
He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.
After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.
Here is the copy of the original Perry column in its entirety, as provided by a reader:
Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory"
that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:12 AM
| Comments (50)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There was at least one other successful coup: the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, in 1893.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at September 30, 2009 11:18 AM (+S8Kb)
2
The original article was removed from NewMax's site, but is preserved here:
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/newsmax-20090929-perry_coup.pdf
Sedition is an act of terrorism.
Posted by: James at September 30, 2009 11:27 AM (/vYfr)
3
For the record, I renamed this post shortly after posting it.
Far too many people are swallowing the Perry and Vidal as coming from the right and left, when this coup talk is really coming from the left and further left. I wanted to make that clear.
Jason, Hawaii wasn't yet a part of the United States at the time. James, I have a copy from a reader that I just posted in the update.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2009 12:28 PM (gAi9Z)
4
The problem that we have is that Obama is trying as hard as possible to distroy the US and our futures. He is in no way addressing the economic problem which is far from being over and has a potential for being much more servere than the Depression of the 30's. He is trying to socialize every industry. His foreign policy stance is almost guaranteed to provoke war. So what do we do? Can we wait another year hoping to get Republican numbers up to counter this nut? Certainly in 4 years we will be in a despriate situation if he gets his social measures passed. Now I here he is trying to stack the judicary. It seems that he is a busy little man.
Posted by: David at September 30, 2009 01:55 PM (dccG2)
5
Yeash. The only place I can imagine that this MIGHT have come from, sanely, is folks looking worriedly at the Obama Patterns (IE: "ooh, dictators! I like!") and saying "don't worry, Obama can't possibly overthrow the US Constitution-- the military wouldn't allow it."
I have seen this in several places-- shoot, I've _pointed this out_ in several places, when (possible trollish) folks come through and post about how Obama will set himself up as a dictator.
Main problem I have with the article is that it seems to be saying "oh, the US military will run all over the Constitution to save the country! See, they swear to defend the Constitution and the country!" Seems a little...um... off-kiter.
Posted by: Foxfier at September 30, 2009 02:21 PM (OtIqW)
6
A correction: William McKinley, a Republican, was president when the Wilmington Insurrection took place in 1898.
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at September 30, 2009 02:24 PM (tcrAf)
7
Gore Vidal believes the American people are too stupid to worship on the throne of Obama? Typical elitist mentality! Quite frankly I, and many like me, normal working class people, arrived at the conclusion that Obama is not particularly bright. His many teleprompter controlled speaches sounded very sophmoric and vague. His non prompted responses to questions
were not very well thought out or intelligent. He sounded more preachy than thoughtful and has
a lot to learn about the real world. Many very intelligent people like Gore Vidal believed in this fairy tale, so who is the dumb one?
Military coup?? Never happen. We the people will be Obama's undoing. Along with his pipe dream utopia influenced policies. Any of these policies which are passed into law, which I hope will be none, will be repealed.
Paul
Posted by: Paul Kanesky at September 30, 2009 03:17 PM (rCmYM)
8
I consider this, along with recent comments by Gore Vidal and Thomas Friedman, a fascinating and somewhat frightening insight into how the leftist mind is interpreting what is happening right now, and how the left continues to utterly fail to comprehend the source and nature of the opposition to their schemes. I'm not entirely sure that they are capable of understanding.
I am quite comfortable concluding that Perry is a leftist because he worked in the department of Health and Human Services under Carter.
In other words, I think it entirely possible that Perry is yet another agent provocateur.
Or, he could just be an idiot.
Posted by: filbert at September 30, 2009 03:19 PM (oVl3l)
9
I find your assertion that the man is a leftist based on the fact that 30 and 40 years ago he worked in a Democratic administration to be without merit. Mr. Perry has been writing for Newsmax, a conservative website, since 1999. The name of his column is "Right Angles." A brief scan of the titles of his columns indicates he is a conservative. Perhaps he was always so, or not, but there is a ton of evidence he espouses conservative thought. He has a column on Newsmax, which I don't think anyone here beleives is some sort of communist front.
Please, just disavow this traitor from your movement and return to rational debate. He insulted the servicemen and women of this country by stating that they would break their oath to uphold the constitution. That is his true sin.
Posted by: Rob W at September 30, 2009 03:40 PM (L009T)
10
By your logic, Reagan was still a liberal when he changed parties in 1962 because 30 years earlier he was a Democratic supporter of Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Posted by: barr at September 30, 2009 03:49 PM (5OEha)
11
I understand that conservatives want to distance themselves from like-minded nutjobs, but this Perry fellow is a conservative, a far-right one at that.
It's kind of facile to suggest that because he worked for a Democratic administration, oh, 40 years ago, that he is a liberal. He writes for a fringe right website and his column is entitled "Right Angles."
You are really insulting the intelligence of your regular readers and I know you don't really believe he is "left."
Posted by: John S. at September 30, 2009 04:14 PM (X1rqU)
12
I don't claim to know the first thing about Mr. Perry. I can only relate what he states in his own bio, where he was very active in state and national politics as a Democrat for much of his adult life in politics, and also belonged to a left wing think tank. I don't doubt that people can change, I just don't see any solid evidence that he has radically shifted, simply because he strongly opposes President Obama's continuing series of gaffes and missteps. Many Democrats dislike him, with Hillary Clinton supporters in particular being among Obama's most vehement enemies.
And for the record, merely writing for NewsMax is hardly proof of someone's political alliances. Dick Morris, Susan Estrich, Ed Koch, and Lanny Davis are all Democrats who write for NewsMax.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2009 04:42 PM (gAi9Z)
13
One last thought: if Perry really has completely shifted his political views, and now merely writes radical and dishonest propaganda to attack his former allies, doesn't that make him David Brock of Media Matters?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2009 04:47 PM (gAi9Z)
14
OK…I condemn this article.
But…he covers many points that are very high in the worries of many people in the U.S. some of them already proven true, some speculated at and others that are more worthy of being scare tactics than anything else.
But his premise of the Military being involved in or the method of salvation or revolution is wrong, and wrong-headed.
Now I can see ex-U.S. Military involved in coming back and running for office in their states or even national offices. I can see x-Mil joining organizations such as The Oath Keepers. I can see x-Mil coming back and setting up local militias, and going to Tea Parties and even speaking at them. I can see them going door to door getting out the vote to get Obama and the Democrats out of office.
I can also see as a last resort, mass resignations of Officers in our Military services.
But in the bitter end, if salvation or revolution is needed for the preservation and protection of this Republic, it will fall to each citizen to stand up, load up and march forward to do it.
Papa Ray
Central Texas
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
Posted by: Papa Ray at September 30, 2009 04:49 PM (JpVJn)
15
Right, Confederate Yankee. A cursory glance at his archived articles from the past decade reveals the writings of a true blue liberal Democrat.
http://archive.newsmax.com/pundits/archives/John_L._Perry-archive.shtml
It's practically fit to print on the Daily Kos!
Posted by: John S. at September 30, 2009 04:54 PM (X1rqU)
16
"It's practically fit to print on the Daily Kos"
Really?
"So enough already of referring to the likes of Boxer, Pelosi et al as "liberals." That's the cover that Cold War communists operated under. It's the camouflage that today's inheritors of the Trotskyite philosophy relish.
How happy they must be making Joe McCarthy, posthumously.
It's time these Typhoid Mary carriers of this mutant virus of Trotskyism were understood for, and called, what they really are – leftover lefties who just can't say farewell to the Marxist god that failed the whole sorry lot of them."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/10/130523.shtml
(I am not defending the guy, but he seems more blue dog than true blue...)
Posted by: jpeditor at September 30, 2009 05:17 PM (g5AOi)
17
Bob,
TPM has the full text.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php
Posted by: Kathy Kattenburg at September 30, 2009 05:24 PM (Tdz5k)
18
Sounds like this Perry is a Dick Morris wannabe.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 05:33 PM (OX5qU)
19
This is the kind of stuff that helps despotism to take root. The fear of toppling the government brings on more repression.
Posted by: Neo at September 30, 2009 06:08 PM (tE8FB)
20
I have to agree with Neo.
Out of the thunderous madness comes a single voice:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/09/29/silence-equals-assent-why-pointing-out-conservative-lunacy-must-be-done/
This is a great blog posting. I happen to agree and appreciate the two party system. It ain't perfect but it's what we got and it needs to work.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 06:34 PM (OX5qU)
21
>>"Out of the thunderous madness comes a single voice"
When will a single voice come from the thunderous madness on the left to attack the lefts insanity, including calls for Bush to be assasinated?
When will Lipshits decry Rep Greysons comments?
Rick Moran is the rights equivalent of John Perry.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 07:17 PM (2SRpL)
22
Damn, I was hoping he was right. If one understands what Ayers, Alinsky, Glen Jones and the other radicals Obama believes in, associates with and represents. His admiration for Hugo Chevez, Castro and other dictators, and the direction he seems to be taking the nation. The military option seems a bright light of hope.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 30, 2009 07:53 PM (qEAEW)
23
>>"I understand that conservatives want to distance themselves from like-minded nutjobs"
When can we expct the LEFT to distance themselves from like-minded nutjobs?
This is why I don't approve of what CY is doing here. The left will gladly accept the rights condemnaton of this, while defending people like Bill Ayers or Van Jones. Or Jimmy Carter, for that matter. All of whom are a lot more central to the modern left than Perry is to the right.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 08:33 PM (skt70)
24
>>"He insulted the servicemen and women of this country by stating that they would break their oath to uphold the constitution."
What happens if upholding the Constitution requires them to go against Americas politicians? That is no longer a mere theoretical question.
>>"Please, just disavow this traitor from your movement"
Your demand would sit better if you had been here disavowing ACORN and Van Jones recently. Both were and are far more influential than Perry.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 08:38 PM (skt70)
25
However remote the possibility of our military stepping in to remove an administration trashing the constitution, the fears by the Obama administration of just this possibility probably goes a long way to explain their immediate and continuing condemnation of the Honduran government's and military's removal of their own marxist usurper.
Posted by: Spartan79 at September 30, 2009 10:14 PM (0IRlO)
26
Not an official Newsmax max column. Set of by Gore Vidal's brain dead reasoning pointing out another form of massive right wing conspiracy as Clinton did a few days ago. "Scrubbed" as if sites like the Huffington Post do this almost daily to keep its kooks at bay. For sure with this one instance in hand, the leftist hounds will over abuse this try to portray it as mainstream "teabagger" thinking. However in the end leftists will see poll numbers for their side of the political equation fall as a result, by reason a new right leaning internet-Fox News network reaches the same number as the left wing-media-internet-Hollywood network. In addition conservatives outnumber rabid Liberals by a two to one margin, with 40% leaning independently in the middle, who are now becoming very aware how the left uses hyper inflated insult and feigned "concerns" to press what are mostly overreached nonsensical conspiracy theories.
Germane to this, military intervention is a very remote possibility. A trigger point being a much higher bar than what Obama has done so far. The Honduran situation a disturbing example of the leanings of our useful idiot in chief still does not mean he is going to invite Hugo Chavez to America to head the FBI, or take over Hillary Clinton's job. He "only" nationalized a few banks, two of the big three car manufacturers, don't hyperventilate...
What would trigger military intervention would be a direct attack on constitutional freedoms in the Bill of Rights, free speech, seizing private property, arresting individuals, all without due process under law for a citizen's political opinion. Maybe the bar would be as high as Administration officials ordering execution of Obama's opponents without using courts. Slightly less likely would have Obama leaving men in the field of battle without adequate support or defined mission for an extended time allowing US troops to be slaughtered on an altar of political sensibilities. A third reason maybe at 10% probability, looming, is Patrick Leahy's attempt to stack Federal courts with 60 odd new positions. That IS an attack on the constitutional checks and balances. Without State ok by 2/3rds majority I don't think this is constitutional. Unaccountable to anyone, appointed by radical progressives elected under a guise of being "moderate" this could trigger considerable angst in and out of the military.
It is important to remember all recent impost of this kind of government power on citizens stems from leftist socialist regimes, not right wing ones that support capitalism. It is also a point the author of this is not a well known mainstream proponent of right wing causes aka a Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. One only has to look at what John Kerry said about Vietnam's "re-education camps" to know draconian methods of dealing with political opponents never far out of mainstream leftist thoughts.
It is clear now his book "Dreams of my Father" was ghost written by Bill Ayers, which tears it for me, I will never be voting at even the local level for a Democrat again. Nor will I listen to "reasoned debate" from people working for, or linked to places like CBS, except in the vein of taking note of the lie of the day. This Olympics fling an indicator we are now governed by a corrupt, not to bright, quasi marxist leaning President whose IQ is even probably the lowest of all Presidents since Cleveland.
I look forward now to the W recovery Obama is going to give us. The second recession will be worse than this one, and longer, starting as Greenspan estimates, by late next year. This will inform American voters once and for all the failings of socialist policies. No amount of media-White House spin will mask it, clear examples of Obama administration corruption on top of it. Look for a rout of Democrats over the next two elections. Obama a one term wonder, lovingly referred to by a Sarah Palin type populist conservative as Carter II.
Posted by: Pat at September 30, 2009 11:53 PM (9/6KL)
27
Steve, you kind of just make things up as you go along huh? There's not a snowball's chance in Hell I'll decry Grayson's comments until you decry Palin's death panel comments or Grassley's "pull the plug on Grandma" comments or Bachmann's death comments or any of the other death scare tactics and comments we've been bombarded with from Republicans for the past 3 months. Zero! Zilch! Nada! Dry hump squirt son! Damn proud of Grayson and it's about damn time a Democrat with a spine gave the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. And Steve, who the hell is Bill Ayers? Some ex-convict from like 40 years ago? Your obsession, not ours. And it's only your obsession because Jesus Palin told you to obsess over it. If it wasn't for her, you probably wouldn't know who he or any of the other names you mentioned. You're an obedient echo chamber Steve but your opinion generators are on new talking points now and you have to be a little quicker at indoctrinating yourself with them if you're gonna keep up.
Hey Pat, did Alex Jones send you? Wow, you are paranoid. It's quite "draconian" of you and people like you who refuse to recognize the American democratic process of the will of the American people. The will of the American people who have gladly embraced people who you categorize with your paranoid "Leftist" conspiracy theories. The American people who rejected you, period. I suggest you pack your bags and go live in a Socialist country for a while. When you return, you may have a better appreciation of your country you claim you're proud of and not be such a paranoid spoiled brat. Oh and for the record, Greenspan was one of the major factors as to why we have this recession so pick and choose who you idolize in your "Obama failure fantasies" more carefully. You and your right-wing draconian fascist GW worshipin' Palin idolizin' Glenn Beck followin' regimes may actually start winning elections again (if you manage to find someone who can actually lead).
Zelsdorf, you're always hoping "other" people are right. Can't think or take action yourself? You're not alone. In fact, most people like yourself are always waiting for "other" people. Keep waiting (but don't hold your breath). "The military option seems a bright light of hope" -- You're kidding me right? How about f##king DEMOCRACY as hope? How about finding somebody who can actually lead instead of whining about the Left and the mainstream media and all the other rants you throw thumb-sucking tantrums about? How about finding somebody who can win back the millions of votes you lost in the past 2 election cycles rather than obsessing over 70 year old "coup throwing" domestic terrorists and freakin' ACORN? How about having a leader that can win back the confidence of their supporters rather than a bunch of idiots on TV, radio and blogs? You talk a lot about revolutions and wanting to force some regime change but at least Ayers had the balls to do it.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 01, 2009 04:26 AM (bhNGz)
28
That's the sort of rant I've come to expect from Ayers wannabe Lipiwitz. It's hard to distill that much crazy in one comment, but you did it. Nicely done.
My favorite line is: "Dry hump squirt son!"
What a weirdo.
Posted by: brando at October 01, 2009 09:23 AM (IPGju)
29
Lippy's a loon.
But it says something about the other liberal readers here that they don't repudiate him, that they don't "disavow this traitor from {their} movement" as they want us to do with Perry.
Posted by: Steve at October 01, 2009 03:33 PM (rxQ0a)
30
Wellll, it seems to me that the reason that "The Left" has not disavowed Messrs. Carter's and Grayson's statements is that they are 100% true. And Mr. Perry is clearly a man of the Right. So, how is that it become's our fault that you rightwingers can't acknowledge that at least one of your writers is either batshit crazy or guilty of sedition? Welcome to what we like to call "Reality." And to the proprietor: there's a new invention called "Google" which would help your research efforts immensely.
Posted by: Epicurus at October 01, 2009 03:59 PM (4onRb)
31
Anybody got a clue where Mr. Perry is from?
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Perry&fname=John
Posted by: Foxfier at October 01, 2009 04:50 PM (OtIqW)
32
>>"it seems to me that the reason that "The Left" has not disavowed Messrs. Carter's and Grayson's statements is that they are 100% true. ...Welcome to what we like to call "Reality.""
I notice that what you like to call "Reality" looks a lot like a really bad acid trip.
FYI, old people agree with the Republicans about the lefts health care plans. They must not have dropped the same acid you did.
Posted by: Steve at October 01, 2009 05:42 PM (50jiK)
33
Epicurus - I'm not too happy with your man Fred Phelps either.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 01, 2009 06:28 PM (3O5/e)
34
Five corporations attempted a coup during FDR's presidency, but failed when one of the generals that they approached informed the proper authorities of the plan. Congress put on a dog and pony show, and no one was held accountable. Apparently, no one wanted to upset the superior humans who ran the corporations.
Posted by: gc_wall at October 01, 2009 11:05 PM (9NiSa)
35
Brando, Steve -- You're the Ayers wannabes talking all the Weatherman ideology of revolutions and coups and taking back the nation and secession. Step up like Ayers did. Heck, give him a call and he'll show you how it's done!
Disavow a traitor -- How about 60,000 batsh#t loonies who refuse to accept our democratically elected officials and keep talking Weatherman ideology of revolutions, coups and secession like...oh...lets say...tea-baggers and birthers? Round them all up and bring them before your death panels and make them pay the sentence of your right-wing ideology of justice. Just pretend they were all Liberals and then you'd care about treason.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 04:14 AM (bhNGz)
36
We are pretty sure Lipiwitz isn't a troll, right?
I mean, he's annoying, yes, and "trolling" for reactions, but seems to believe the garbage he throws......
Posted by: Foxfier at October 02, 2009 10:10 AM (OtIqW)
37
Confederate Yankee: "I don't claim to know the first thing about Mr. Perry."
Actually, you did know one initial fact, that this column was in Newsmax. A right-wing publication.
Posted by: Barry at October 02, 2009 03:15 PM (HaPIL)
38
Why is it that people who throw reasonable debate are called trolls? And why is it that debates are always won by having childish responses that consist of insults usually found in a playground? Foxfier, any idea or are you just gonna give me a noogie or a wedgie?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 06:49 PM (OX5qU)
39
"Why is it that people who throw reasonable debate are called trolls?"
Lippy - Why don't you alert CY when you plan on having a reasonable debate and stop throwing around childish insults and contentless comments? That would be fun to watch but I doubt you can do it - you haven't demonstrated the intellectual chops so far that I've seen.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 02, 2009 08:04 PM (3O5/e)
40
Lipiwits-
Your debating skills are as dazzling as your English skills.
You might "throw a reasonable debate," or "offer a reasonable debate" or several other ways of phrasing whatever you're trying to say-- as it stands, your question is incomprehensible without corrections that can greatly change the meaning.
Posted by: Foxfier at October 02, 2009 09:21 PM (OtIqW)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 03, 2009 12:14 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 29, 2009
Affiliate Partnership with FrontSight
You may notice above that there is a banner ad to FrontSight Firearms Training Institute. After being approached by one of their staff last week about promoting a training package I decided to partner up with them, as FrontSight has a excellent reputation as a shooting school and the package they are promoting includes a Springfield Armory XD that you get to take home.
I'll have more on this later tonight or tomorrow.
In the meantime, you can read up on some the links to articles about them they so graciously provided.
Front Sight
Ignatius Piazza in Small Arms Review
Ignatius Piazza
Ignatius Piazza Blog
Ignatius Piazza in Times Democrat
Front Sight in National Enquirer
Ignatius Piazza in Handvapen
Front Sight in Sierra Times
Ignatius Piazza in Forbes
Ignatius Piazza in Playboy Magazine German Edition
Or since seeing is believing:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:39 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY - What banner ad? Heh!
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 29, 2009 11:38 PM (3O5/e)
2
Please notice that I have blocked the blinking ad.
If I can't block the blinking ad, I block the blog.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 30, 2009 11:00 AM (OmeRL)
3
Best quote of the video.
"Well, actually, I'm planning on joining the Navy Seals, so I'm trying to get some good handgun training before I go to basic training."
Yeah, you might want to spend at least one day in boot camp first, before you appoint yourself into the ranks of the Seals. I'm just saying.
Posted by: brando at September 30, 2009 12:09 PM (IPGju)
4
Springfield XD? What caliber?
I have an XD45 Compact and LOVE it. Good gun, easy to shoot and easy to clean.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at September 30, 2009 10:33 PM (n2wxa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Last Surviving Kennedy in Office Likens Obamacare Opponents to George Wallace
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) displays all the class and sobriety of his late father, slyly attempting to tie opposition to Obamacare to a noted segregationist:
"It's very, very dangerous," Kennedy said in the interview. "We put a lot of people in jail around the world for threatening our country's security. But this atmosphere of attack that doesn't attack the issue, but attacks the people, is very disruptive to the institution of democracy, which relies on a respect for the opposition."
He continued: "George Wallace didn't need a gun to pull a trigger. We just need to be mindful of the wisdom of people ... who have been through these ugly periods in American history. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I guess he forgot that segregationist Wallace was a Democrat to his dying day.
As for what he will do about the worst example of
politically-motivated hate this far, there is no word on when Kennedy will push for MSNBC personality Ed Schultz to be fired for claiming that Republicans "want to see you dead. They'd rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her."
Oh wait a minute... I forgot that those rules only apply to the opposition of liberals, not the liberal themselves who have initiated every act of violence that can directly be tied to protests over the health-care debate, from SEIU union thugs assaulting a man handing out flags, to MoveOn.Org agitators biting the finger of of a retiree in Calfornia.
It should also be noted that Kennedy made the comments in front of a hand-picked audience of just 75, afraid to meet with his own constituents openly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:24 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"George Wallace didn't need a gun to pull a trigger...."
How insensitive. Kennedy probably forgot that Wallace, as bad as he was, was a leading presidential candidate in 1972 until an assassination attempt left Wallace paralyzed from the waist down.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at September 29, 2009 07:35 PM (FJRFk)
2
Is this the Kennedy who, in the old family tradition, was driving drunk and somehow avoided the consequences that usually go with that offense?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 29, 2009 10:25 PM (0x4f6)
3
I can remember when Teddy Kennedy went down to Alabama to present George Wallace with an award praising his courage.
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at September 30, 2009 02:51 AM (tcrAf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Great Idea for 1993
Been there. Done that.
And truth be told, the traffic wasn't overwhelming.
And while it is no doubt cool to see your mug shot on the page beside Charles Krauthammer (and to a lesser extent, Eugene Robinson), the idea of a
pundit reality contest will be less than riveting entertainment for anyone not intimately involved.
As you may imagine, the folks in the blogosphere are having a field day
tearing this apart.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
The Leftosphere Strikes Back
After seething for weeks over the damage caused Roman Polanski's favorite activist group (ACORN), Think Progress has struck back against an organization as equally institutionally corrupt on the right, Kitty Werthmann.
Werthmann, an aged, suspiciously white woman who watched to Nazi rise to power in Austria as she was growing up, gave a speech
telling a pimp and prostitute how to commit fraud against the federal government to support the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution noting the similarities she saw between the cult of personality that propelled Hitler into power and those backing President Obama with similar unrestrained fervor.
But Think Progress' sting operation wasn't done just yet.
In the most damning bit of investigative journalism since Geraldo penetrated Al Capone's vault, an undercover Think Progress staffer actually got Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)—who was speaking in a room somewhere at the same conference— to
autograph a CD of Werthmann's speech.
Damning evidence
As a result of this travesty, Nancy Pelosi began working with the House of Representatives on a bill to immediately defund Minnesota.
President Obama could not be reached for comment as this article went to press, as he was pitching his health-care plan on
Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:10 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
September 28, 2009
Moby or Maybe: The Real Extremists are on the Left
Over the weekend a person on Facebook created a poll asking if President Obama should be assassinated. Results of the survey were unknown, and Facebook quickly closed the poll, suspended the user, and contacted the Secret Service.
Left wing blog such as the Huffington Post and the Political Carnival conveniently had screen captures of the poll before it was removed, and other left wing blogs and commenters are
having a field day with the story, trumpeting this as existence of proof that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, (insert conservative pundit here) is responsible of stirring up right wing violence.
They're only missing two things.
- Evidence that the person who posted the poll was serious, and not a Kilgore Trout-type moby looking to manufacture evidence of hate, and;
- if the person who posted created this poll was serious, that mainstream conservative television and radio show personalities are responsible for their views.
As is so often the case before facts as known, these liberals respond by making knee-jerk, emotional decisions, just as they did last week when the body of Census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest in a remote area where illegal drug growth and manufacture is common.
The simple truth is that
we don't know what we don't know.
We still don't know why Bill Sparkman was killed, and don't know the underlying reason behind it. That hasn't kept liberals from blaming conservatives. And now these same angry souls are claiming that conservative media are somehow behind this Facebook poll.
But we don't know who created this poll. We don't know if they are conservatives. We don't know if they are radical leftists attempting to find the sort of corruption on the right as James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles so easily uncovered on the left. We don't even know if the person who posted this poll is American, much less influenced by American conservative media figures, and it would not be beyond the ability of Canadian liberals to post such a poll as bait, knowing they would be immune from the Secret Service's reach (the "Kids in the Hall" defense).
What we do know is that history clearly shows that leftists are far more prone to violence than conservatives, and that the reactionary hatred on the political left runs far deeper than it does on the right.
CBS News blog Politcal Hotsheet captures this seething anger in just the second comment to
their entry about the poll, as they capture a leftist hoping that the person who created the poll surrenders, and then is murdered by police.
The violence that leftists see is inferred; the violence they preach is explicit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:06 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There's a history of the left saying stupid things while pretending to be on the right. Not long ago a man was tracked down who was making racist threats to Obama online. He was a black lefty trying to make the right look bad.
Posted by: Steve at September 28, 2009 06:24 PM (9aMzN)
2
>>"We still don't know why Bill Sparkman was killed, and don't know the underlying reason behind it."
Or even if he was killed. The police say they have not ruled out suicide.
Posted by: Steve at September 28, 2009 06:26 PM (9aMzN)
3
I can't imagine anoyone serious about killing Obama, particularly a conservative. If Obama left office, it would result in a Biden presidency and the fact that Obama's agenda would surely pass through congress. If Biden could not be president for some reason (mental incompetence) then we would have Nancy P. So I would say that Obama is the safest man in the country from a conservative aspect.
Posted by: David at September 28, 2009 06:45 PM (QRHVt)
4
I was in grade school when the PA system suddenly interrupted class with the news that President Kennedy had been shot. I never want to see such as day in the U.S. again.
The left howls now about the incipient violence of their opponents, but repugnant fantasies about killing Bush surfaced often during the last 8 years, always with a quick disclaimer (from the UK Telegraph):
Nicholson Baker wishes to make one thing clear: if George W. Bush is shot dead tomorrow - or any other day - it won't be his fault. "I don't want to kill the President," he states simply, but with passion. "The thought of the assassination of the President, or even of his untimely death, makes me wince."
Few novelists feel obliged to defend themselves against charges of complicity in a possible murder, but the gentle, mild-mannered Baker has recently had no choice. In his latest novel, Checkpoint, a would- be assassin discusses with a friend the killing of George W. Bush.
Posted by: zhombre at September 28, 2009 07:07 PM (zzL++)
5
>>"I was in grade school when the PA system suddenly interrupted class with the news that President Kennedy had been shot."
Relevent to this discussion is the fact that he was shot by an ardent communist. And that the American left then nevertheless blamed his death on "right-wing extremists".
Posted by: Steve at September 28, 2009 08:55 PM (tJI4L)
6
Yep, people of a particular type are still blaming Kennedy's assassination on "Texas" for lack of a better word.
Posted by: ECM at September 28, 2009 09:00 PM (q3V+C)
7
Its a shame of what this country have come to god bless us all and may the lord protect us..
Posted by: Chris Brown at September 28, 2009 10:06 PM (Fhzt2)
8
Great Post CY.
Given many of the comments by Libs on this very blog, I think that the term 'Moby' doesn't quite sum up what the Left wants.
Liberals actually want to kill the President.
Posted by: brando at September 28, 2009 11:37 PM (LjEkE)
9
I actually disagree with some of these opinions on the Left over the Kentucky census worker. Obviously it wasn't a tea-bagger or birther who committed the murder because the word "fed" was spelled correctly.
But Dan Riehl over at Carnivorous Conservative showed typical true colors of sleaze by suggesting the murdered census worker was a child predator and that would explain his murder. NO!!! The Left have no reason to suspect people on the Right are this sleazy and capable of these things. Just paranoia.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 29, 2009 11:11 AM (OX5qU)
10
Zhombre,
To give another side to the Kennedy killing. I was in High School in Louisiana. Dallas is only a few hours away. When Kennedy was killed and they announced the fact, the whole school stood and cheered. There had actually been newspaper headlines warning the president not to come south as it would result in his death. The problem was the LBJ was much worse and was armed with enouth rightous indignation that he was able to push through his sociaization of the US and the Vietnam war.
Posted by: David at September 29, 2009 11:39 AM (dccG2)
11
"Relevent to this discussion is the fact that he was shot by an ardent communist. And that the American left then nevertheless blamed his death on "right-wing extremists"."
It tells you all you need to know about their perspective when they consider a communist "right-wing".
Lipiwitz -- shut up or at least attempt to make sense.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at September 29, 2009 11:52 AM (ZJ/un)
12
>>"Dan Riehl over at Carnivorous Conservative showed typical true colors of sleaze by suggesting the murdered census worker was a child predator and that would explain his murder."
Why do you object to this? You think that only people on the left are entitled to engage in speculation? You've been speculationg for a while that he was killed by extremist right wingers, without bothering yourself with your total lack of evidence.
Posted by: Steve at September 29, 2009 01:46 PM (xeP0T)
13
Good morning,
I’ve read this blog for a number of years; enjoy both Bob’s posts and the comments. Don’t think I’ve ever commented before, but I just have to ask: What did you guys do to get saddled with an asshole troll like Lipiwitz?
Posted by: JBHood at September 29, 2009 02:42 PM (nN40A)
14
Obviously it wasn't a tea-bagger or birther who committed the murder because the word "fed" was spelled correctly.
Posted by Lipiwitz at September 29, 2009 11:11 AM
Well isn't that special. Our resident troll not only throws out a sexual reference but adds, an insult of stupidity to boot. Ha!
Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the modern day Democrat. Not your fathers Democrat party any longer.
Posted by: LH at September 29, 2009 06:12 PM (zwiyV)
15
JBHood, These are paid trolls via George Soros and Company. All right leaning blogs have them. We point and laugh, point and laugh. Whacked out nut jobs to be sure. Who are they convincing. No one.
Posted by: LH at September 29, 2009 06:15 PM (zwiyV)
16
Once again we are a totally divided nation. Many on the right are preparing for a conflict. The left is getting more and more zealous in their attacks. Many of them want a confrontation. I dont think enough of them realize how many on the right have military and law enforcement backgrounds. They seem to think that once it starts the military will squash the right and the left will inherit the nation. I wish I could see into the future. For now... Lock and load boys... it could get ugly.
Posted by: capt26thga at September 29, 2009 08:10 PM (bGS/L)
17
Obviously you're new here LH, I'm not a paid troll and most everybody here knows it. I'm just a dick and do it for free.
I don't know why you object to it Steve. You people have mastered the art of whining over the "Left's speculation". It has nothing to do with the Left. It has to do with disrespecting somebody who died tragically and his family in mourning over speculation without any level of substance to try to protect some racist paranoid idiot like Michelle Bachmann. Why would anybody throw that out there. How sick. People like you Steve have rubbed your privates raw over the ACORN hack videos and now everybody dead or alive must be child predators so people like you will drop your drawers and IQs on command. Quick, run and fetch a talking point.
And capt26thug -- the Left are in control of the World's most powerful military now. Bring your pea-shooters and misspelled "soshalist" signs. We'll be OK. If you can't even win elections, we don't think you can reload a gun quick enough to dodge the predator drones. Rest assured, the Left will have a pool going and somebody with $5 on the square will be rooting for ya!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 29, 2009 08:26 PM (OX5qU)
18
Lipiwitz is an dick but he's right about the predator accusations, they're messed up
and David, what kind of effed place did you grow up in where they would celebrate a man's death?
Posted by: MAModerate at September 29, 2009 09:55 PM (5X+Ea)
19
"It has to do with disrespecting somebody who died tragically and his family in mourning"
Lipiwitz - Sort of like you and your buddies using that woman who just died in Boehner's district as a fresh trophy for need for health care reform? Hypocrisy, thy name is Lipsofshit.
The ACORN videos speak for themselves, thankfully, and the only ones in denial about them are the retards on the left. I'm wondering what Patrick Gaspard, Bertha Lewis' right hand man in the White House is thinking right about now. And Lippy, I thought you didn't care about ACORN, more lies from you tonight.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 29, 2009 11:48 PM (3O5/e)
20
>>"It has to do with disrespecting somebody who died tragically and his family in mourning over speculation without any level of substance to try to protect some racist paranoid idiot like Michelle Bachmann."
It's a good thing you're not doing any of that horrible "speculation" crap yourself. Oh, wait.... you are. You just happen to LIKE your own racist paranoid speculation and to dislike other peoples.
In others words, you're a raging hypocrite. Which is just another way of saying a lefty.
Posted by: Steve at September 29, 2009 11:55 PM (VeJvr)
21
MayorDaleyRocks -- That wasn't disrespectful, it was fact. I don't recall anybody on the Left referring to this deceased girl from Boehner's district as a potential child molester.
And the whole Patrick Gaspard nonsense -- has anybody actually PROVED it? So far...NO! Just more BS from the opinion generators to the dimwitted echo chamber who can't spell Google.
And Steve, where am I paranoid and/or a racist. Because of the idiot Michelle Bachmann? She could be black, yellow, green, orange or polka-dot and she would STILL be an idiot. That's not racist. What, only white people are allowed to recognize idiots? You're probably white and think I'm an idiot. Racist.
Thanks MAModerate (I think). There were actually quite a few people who celebrated JFK's death because they were paranoid and thought he was a Communist. You get dumb people, add propaganda from highly paid opinion generators and you end up with an obedient echo chamber who will never stray too far into intelligent thought because it's "Liberal". Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Racist...it's all the same. Indoctrinated into believing Google, a library, encyclopedias, anything that proves truth is "Liberal" and must be ignored at all costs. What's the difference between ignorance and stupidity? Ignorance is CHOOSING to be stupid. There's a reason why Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin didn't go the the 9/12 rally is DC. They didn't want to be seen with them.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 01:31 AM (bhNGz)
22
"Lippy, I thought you didn't care about ACORN, more lies from you tonight." -- I don't! I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it. I have never in my life seen such an obsessive frenzy over something as what has been seen from the Right over ACORN. My GAWD!!! ACORN this and ACORN that and ACORN ACORN ACORN WAAH WAAH WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! We get it! You don't like ACORN! Now you get it...WE DON'T CARE!!!
Has anybody even bothered to do a little fact checking on ACORN since the two hacks became infamous? Probably not. Reality check time:
ACORN has not lost one single cent in federal funding. The Republicans put forth dueling legislation that are worded differently so now the Defund ACORN Act(s) have to go before a committee to get the wording corrected and agreed upon. Oopsie! And then there is this pesky little nuisance called the Constitution which strictly prohibits whats called a Bill Of Attainder which is legislation targeting one person or entity. If a group is guilty of corruption than legislation must be worded to apply to ALL groups guilty of corruption and not just one and according to the wording of the Defund ACORN Act(s), the Democrats have compiled a list of organizations that qualify to lose all federal funding (and plan on pursuing) including: Halliburton, KBR, McDonald/Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Blackwatere/Xe, Armor Group, Wackenhut, Boeing, Dynacorp. Titan, Bechtel, Aegis, etc. These are companies that have actually been found guilty of violations set forth in the Defund ACORN Act(s)and have had to pay massive fines and/or had employees convicted for crimes while acting in the capacity of a government contractor. Sounds like a pretty icky mess the Republicans face if they try to deny ACORN of funding. Your faith is ill placed.
Not to mention that despite the nuisance the hacks caused the housing division of ACORN, the voter registration division of ACORN is still strong and going. ALL voter registration investigations have ended with arrests of temp workers who broke the law but ACORN has operated 100% within the confines of the law. Nevada is the only one left. The voter registration investigations have caused the forced resignation of Alberto Gonzales and the behind closed doors testimony of Karl Rove and Harriet Myers which may lead to indictments over the firing of US Attorneys who found no wrong doing on behalf of ACORN.
Now your frenzy is getting so desperate and pathetic that your playing six degrees of separation with ACORN and White House staff. Pathetic. Funny but pathetic.
Not to mention we all know the truth about what you think about ACORN and why you're targeting them:
Activist Conservatives Opposing Registering Ni##ers.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 02:46 AM (bhNGz)
23
>>"where am I paranoid and/or a racist. Because of the idiot Michelle Bachmann?"
You are racist and paranoid where you attribute Sparkmans death to crazed white southern right-wing extremists. That's where.
And where you somehow manage to tie Bachmann to Sparkmans death.
Technically speaking, Lipshits, you're a loon.
You're also a pedophile who richly deserves to be behind bars.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 03:38 PM (x5n1r)
24
That is a bald faced lie Steve. I never linked Sparkman's death to crazy southern right-wing extremist (you). I originally posted in another CY blog that I believed it was the action of back woods type people similar to what you'd find in the movie "Deliverance. People who have no party affiliation, do not vote, couldn't tell you who the President and don't care. They're cut off from the outside World. That's who I believe killed Sparkman, not tea-baggers.
I never linked Bachmann to Sparkman's death. Who needs a dead census worker to establish Bachmann as a total tool?
And I'm not a pedophile, I'm a Democrat. 8>)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 05:28 PM (OX5qU)
25
Posted by Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 02:46 AM
You've got some weapons grade crazy in that comment right there, proving once again that liberalism is a mental disease.
Thanks for sharing! Do you need a license to be so stupid where you live?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 30, 2009 06:33 PM (3O5/e)
26
"And the whole Patrick Gaspard nonsense -- has anybody actually PROVED it?"
Lippy - Has anyone disproved what was written at American Spectator or Red State? Now you also have Stanley Kurtz at NRO confirming details. Ben Smith's sophistry at Politico was meaningless and a distraction. You've got nothing and are in denial once again.
"MayorDaleyRocks -- That wasn't disrespectful, it was fact."
Holding her out as a symbol for healthcare reform while her family was grieving was flat out disrespectful and ghoulish. You have no moral compass.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 30, 2009 07:59 PM (3O5/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Silence! Do Not Speak Ill of Chicago!
A Chicago television station has been forced to pull a story that many of Chicago's residents don't want the 2016 Olympics in their city. I'd be more worried about Chicago's residents if I was an Olympic athlete or spectator.
From 2000-2008 there were 4,855 homicides in Chicago, though there have been just 285 so far this year.
Hope and Change! And a more fitting logo:
"We'll send one of ours to the podium. We'll send one of yours to the morgue."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:38 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
With the out-of-control violence in that town right now, I don't see how they can expect to get the Olympics.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 28, 2009 02:08 PM (OX5qU)
2
Atlanta has a much higher homocide rate than Chicago.
And who among us can forget the carnage wreaked upon Olympic athletes when the games were held there?
Posted by: Alex at September 28, 2009 05:41 PM (TOox3)
3
Alex,
I live in Atlanta, and attended many events - it is escaping me what "carnage wrecked upon the Olympic athletes" you are referring to. Maby in your dreams, but not to the athletes.
If you are referring to the bombing at Centennial Park, that was horrible - but no olympic athletes experienced any "carnage." My son was in the park that night, and we had FBI guests in our home a week later. They were interviewing anyone that was in the park for clues. It was a very unfortunate incident - but did not detract from a great Olympics that helped Atlanta shine - the positive impact on Atlanta is still being felt today.
Sorry, but your revision of history is not accurate.
Yours truely,
Slimedog
Posted by: slimedog at September 28, 2009 09:18 PM (u/SHz)
4
"With the out-of-control violence in that town right now, I don't see how they can expect to get the Olympics."
Lipiwitz - Why couldn't that putz Obama do anything about the violence when he was a State Senator and a U.S. Senator from Illinois? He has been perpetually ineffective.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 28, 2009 09:47 PM (3O5/e)
5
daleyrocks -- apparently you're a huge fan of Mayor Daley from Chicago. Why don't you ask him?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 29, 2009 08:17 AM (OX5qU)
6
Ya think, Lippy? What has Obama ever done to actually reduce crime? You got anything? He pushed those anti-profiling bills the cops hate which don't make sense, so he's got that going for him, which is nice. He's also for strict gin control so the criminals can prey on innocent citizens at will, so he's got that too.
You got anything?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 01, 2009 11:07 PM (3O5/e)
7
I hear Munich is a peaceful city.
Wait ...
Posted by: DoorHold at October 04, 2009 11:47 AM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 26, 2009
You Can't Prevent Stupid
With all the class you've come to expect from left-wing sensationalists, Think Progress bellows:
Uninsured 22-Year-Old Boehner Constituent Dies From Swine Flu.
And like the majority of issues presented through blinders of opportunistic hatred, the actual reality of the situation is a bit different than the community-based reality would like to cobble together.
As a more credible
account notes, 22-year-old Kimberly Young died because
she made the decision not to seek care until it was too late to save her life. Friends claim the proximate cause of decision not to seek care was because she did not have health insurance, but that is a fig leaf, at best.
Young knew she did not feel well, and she knew this for almost two weeks. Like every American, she's been inundated with doom-pronouncing news stories about H1N1, its symptoms, and what it can lead to if not treated. She
made the choice to ignore her symptoms.
As a recently-graduated double major, Young presumably had the intelligence to use both telephones and computers, but she
made the choice not to find out what sort of free or low-cost options were available for her in her area. And rather obviously, she
chose to ignore the signs of distress her body was issuing until it was too late for even the best medical care in the world to save her life.
Kimberly Young didn't die because she didn't have health insurance. Kimberly Young died because she made a series of bad decisions.
While Think Progress and other liberal blogs can speculate that Young would have gone to the doctor if she had the kind of government-run healthcare they would force upon America, the simple fact of the matter is that their words are, well,
just words.
People make horrible decisions detrimental to their health every single day. They eat too much. They drink to much. They smoke too much. They don't exercise. They don't get enough sleep. And shockingly, many people—regardless of whether or not they have insurance—absolutely hate going to the doctor, and will not go until they are in absolute misery or fear for their lives.
There is no reason whatsoever to think a poorly-thought-out, paper-work impeded, fine-driven bureaucratic nightmare like Obamacare would save the late Kimberly Young or any other American.
The simple fact of the matter is that the aggravation and pain government-run healthcare will add to the already unpleasant stress of the doctor's office will make people that more resistant to seeking care.
Let's be honest, especiall since Think Progress is incapable of it.
John Boehner's opposition to the fiasco that is Obamacare didn't kill Kimberly Young. Widespread Republican and Democratic opposition to a fatally-flawed bill offered up by radicals unwilling to compromise didn't kill her, either. Her own bad decisions led her not to seek care. Her own bad decisions put Kimberly Young in the morgue, when all she had to do was take advantage of existing health care right in front of her.
But something else is also true.
The one-size-fits-all, join-us-or-we'll-fine-you approach favored by the radical left will make men and women already disinclined to seek healthcare even more resistant to going to doctors. There is little doubt that further government intrusion will make the experience even more bureaucratic, impersonal, and unpleasant.
It is perhaps more credible to claim that the additional pain Obamacare will cause will create more cautionary tales—more Kimberly Youngs—that it will save.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:00 PM
| Comments (56)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
She did not even need health insurance. All she had to do was walk into a hospital emergency room, where they are required by law to treat her, insurance or no.
Posted by: Steve at September 26, 2009 08:16 PM (6sELJ)
2
indeed. I am one of those who felt ill for a bit too long, and walked into an emergency room, told them I had no coverage, was able to pay an up front fee(or I'd have been forced to ***gasp*** wait. . . . .5 more minutes. . . for them to get a social worker). I guess that means, as I am still alive (last I checked) that I am alive because I had no insurance. Hey, makes as much sense as their claims.
Posted by: JP at September 26, 2009 08:44 PM (VxiFL)
3
Yeah, Steve! She could go into that ER and be bankrupt in no time....with no job, student loans, etc.
Jesus, Steve, have you ever even seen a hospital bill? That trip you tell her take for the flu would run her between 500 to a 1000 dollars. Gee, I wonder why someone in her condition would have waited.
Between the times you people are rude and discourteous and the times you just plain don't know what you're talking about, I sometimes wonder how you manage to wipe your own rears without Ayn Rand's instructions.
Posted by: timb at September 26, 2009 09:21 PM (iVFbj)
4
Reading the article, she 'eventually went to an urgent care facility in Hamilton where she was given pain medication and then sent home.' This was apparently after she had been ill for some time but before she became critically ill.
It is possible that, if she had waited one more day to see a doctor, her condition would have been a bit more serious and would have gotten better attention. It is hard to conclude that she would have gotten more aggressive treatment if she had sought medical care earlier.
Sometimes, sick people die even with medical care.
Posted by: MikeInOhio at September 26, 2009 09:22 PM (mnCO0)
5
I don't know what kind of idiot Think Progress takes their readers for, but even with health insurance, it is very likely that Kimberly would have had to pay for a doctor's visit, and for the prescription for Tamiflu, that together would have probably saved her life. Total: probably less than $200. My health insurance, a pretty good BC/BS plan, does not cover doctor's visits or prescriptions, and neither does that of many other Amnericans.
While what happened to Kimberly is of course very sad, you are absolutely correct: her death was very likely caused by her own bad decisions. It would be interesting to learn what kind of car she drove. Was it a late model car which saddled her with $4-500 dollar a month payments? Did an expensive iPhone rest on her badside table, and a recently purchased HDTV flat-screen TV grace her living room? Perhaps not, but many people have stretched their budget to the limit with purchases of things they could have probably done without, and when the need arises to spend a couple of hundred dollars for a doctors visit and some medicine, find that their checking account is empty and their credit cards are maxed out.
Anyway, lets pray for Kimberly and her family, and condemn Think Progress for trying to make political hay out of her tragic and unnecessary early death.
Posted by: Spartan79 at September 26, 2009 09:24 PM (7icJM)
6
I'd much rather live in a free nation where citizens die of the choices they made, rather than in a nation where citizen die of choices made for them by the state. Think Progress evidently thinks otherwise Live has no risk free options. Does the ieft think Obamacare will make us immortal?
Posted by: DavidL at September 26, 2009 09:51 PM (AK8DM)
7
The Dayton Daily News is reporting that her parents have been told she did not have swine flu/HINU. She died of complications from pneumonia, which is what she apparently had contracted. See the article currently on the www.daytondailynews.com website.
Posted by: Armitage at September 27, 2009 12:04 AM (tO7WO)
8
@Timb 9:21. I've worked in insolvency for 18 years and have never seen anybody bankrupt from a visit to the ER. And I've never seen anybody who was dead declare bankruptcy though many of them look as if they have to work at casting a shadow. And for all that, the "studies" routinely cited that attribute 60 percent of bankruptcy filings to unpaid medical bills are wildly, and I think deliberately, over stated and distorted. This is a blatant use of science to advance a political agenda and the primary author of that original Harvard study, Elizabeth Warren, now is employed by the Obama administration.
Posted by: zhombre at September 27, 2009 12:11 AM (zzL++)
9
Jesus, Steve, have you ever even seen a hospital bill? That trip you tell her take for the flu would run her between 500 to a 1000 dollars. Gee, I wonder why someone in her condition would have waited.
Let's say all of what you said is true: is it better to be bankrupt or dead? I'm no legal or financial expert, but I'm going to, generally, go with being bankrupt + alive rather than solvent + dead.
Posted by: ECM at September 27, 2009 12:19 AM (q3V+C)
10
>>"Jesus, Steve, have you ever even seen a hospital bill? That trip you tell her take for the flu would run her between 500 to a 1000 dollars."
They don't require payment.
Posted by: Steve at September 27, 2009 12:49 AM (A+qpW)
11
>>"Between the times you people are rude and discourteous.."
I guess we can't all match the civility and courtesy of lefty trolls.
Don't you have a Bush doll you should be sticking pins in?
Posted by: Steve at September 27, 2009 12:52 AM (A+qpW)
12
Last time I was here, I wrote about the nonsense that the right-wing terrorists were whining about at their little "town hall" meetings and the only defense you rednecks gave was something like "You lefties spent 8 yrs badmouthing Bush so now we get a chance to badmouth Obama blah blah blah," and that was your only defense.
Now, as typical redneck dropouts, you go back to blaming the victim in this swine flu case.
For christ sake, you all think that anyone who doesn't have insurance "chooses" not to have it? You've been living in the right-wing nut echo chamber for too long and now it's too late for you. So go ahead, blame the victim. You'll all feel better until someone you love dies from lack of insurance, by then you'll be blaming Obama for your loss.
Posted by: gustav at September 27, 2009 02:10 AM (NZLoi)
13
Steve wrote in response to his nonsense about going to an emergency room and telling us they are required to treat you there and...
"They don't require payment."
This is an absolute lie. They will bill you and if you don't pay they will hire a collection agency to call you constantly insisting that you pay up. Don't listen to this Steve re emergency room care. He doesn't have a clue.
Posted by: gustav at September 27, 2009 02:18 AM (NZLoi)
14
For christ sake, you all think that anyone who doesn't have insurance "chooses" not to have it?
No. But if this young lady claimed she couldn't afford health insurance, she was badly mistaken.
See this article:
http://bacn.me/cer
$55 a month.
Posted by: XBradTC at September 27, 2009 03:04 AM (NimeM)
15
gustav - People here aren't trying to blame the poor woman here who died, they're taking issue with the brainless loons over at Think Progress, Washington Monthly and other fringe lefty sites who are trying to make political hay out of her death by somehow making a miraculous connection between it and Boehner's opposition to ObamaCare. Can you explain the connection please other than just a desire of the left to ghoulishly publicize this woman's death?
Boehner isn't against health care reform. He's just against the version floated by Democrats in the House, which the fringe left dishonestly trumpets as him being for the status quo. They also complain about Republicans not participating in the process - remind me about Pelosi shutting them out and trying to ram it through before the summer recess. Republicans can't block this, it's the Democrats who can't get out of their own way and get a bill passed, such is the popularity of their own proposals.
Gustav - Even with Obama's reform bill in place, can you guarantee me this woman would have sought medical care or would not have died. Absolutely not. Given that ObamaCare would not even take effect until 2013, the dishonesty of the Think Progress piece is astounding, but dishonesty is a hallmark of that place.
How much extra would you have paid out of your own pocket to pay for medical care for this woman in addition to your own medical insurance costs gustav? That is in effect what ObamaCare will have us do - engage in massive cost shifting. What's your price tag gustav?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 27, 2009 03:07 AM (3O5/e)
16
far from resistant about going to seek care if obamacare passes. i personally will go to the doctors at a drop of the hat. I hope others like me will do the same thing and explode the cost of the healthcare to levels never imagined. It seems like the only way to stop these socialists is the Reagan way. bankrupt them. and I will ensure I do my part in this regards. Free healthcare...what could go wrong. What if the millions of people against this bill do the same and flood the hospitals, emercengy rooms, doctor offices for months until the system fails?
Posted by: unseen at September 27, 2009 03:14 AM (aVGmX)
17
The broken American health care system that Think Progress attempted to make Kimberly a martyr for really appears to have come through and done its job with heroic efforts to save her life when she finally sought to utilize it. She didn't need insurance either!
Epic fail on the martyrdom attempt.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 27, 2009 03:36 AM (3O5/e)
18
45,001 that have died this year due to lack of insurance. Glen Beck was right last year when he said "getting well in America could kill you!"
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainManagement/story?id=4101741&page=1
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 27, 2009 08:48 AM (OX5qU)
19
"45,001 that have died this year due to lack of insurance."
Lipiwitz - Prove the causation. Go!
Why can't your party get its act together to pass a bill that won't go into effect until 2013?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 27, 2009 11:44 AM (3O5/e)
20
Yeah, how many free clinics are out there besides county hospitals and any other hospital that accepts federal funds in return for treating the poor and old.
This is a Darwin Award.
Posted by: Federale at September 27, 2009 12:01 PM (I6UoW)
21
Hmmm...
I wonder if she had a cell phone and an internet connection. If she did she had enough money to purchase health care insurance-she chose the toys over her own health.
Also, if everyone without insurance goes "bankrupt" if the visit the ER why is it that millions of illegals/"poor people" (liberal code word for blacks) could get credit to buy houses, cars and other stuff? Perhaps it is because of racism on the part of the leftard liberals and their Corruptocrat party.
Posted by: Nahanni at September 27, 2009 01:08 PM (S4wMM)
22
i do have health insurance and i think it is expensive but i slipped on a wet spot in my carport and i was able to see a doctor at an urgent care clinic, i did wait 2 days hoping to self heal, after treatment i owed 0(zero)in co-pay, i am on bedrest until wednesday when the doc will check my arm again, i pay for insurance and i think all should do the same.
Posted by: duncan at September 27, 2009 01:09 PM (c7vU0)
23
"45,001 that have died this year due to lack of insurance."
I'm not familiar with the study that reached this conclusion but I know its author was collaborator with Elizabeth Warren on the medical expense leading to bankruptcy study I cited earlier. For that reason, I have to be skeptical. I suspect a lot of alleged science is being manipulated to back up political agendas. Global warming is the primary example.
Posted by: zhombre at September 27, 2009 01:19 PM (zzL++)
24
"Let's have an honest debate!"
President Obama keeps saying that, but he and his acolytes, Liposhitz being a prime example, keep proving incapable of the task.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 27, 2009 02:16 PM (3O5/e)
25
Depends how you define debate. The Stepford Libs define debate as compliance with what they say.
Posted by: zhombre at September 27, 2009 04:16 PM (zzL++)
26
If the Great One passes his massive change in medical care. This woman would still die. The fact is that all she had to do was go to the doctor. You don't have to have insurance. A visit to the doctor with the appropriate lab and X-ray would cost between $100 and $150(slightly more than going to the movie, why don't we socialize the movie industry?). I know because I am a physician and I recently went for a check-up. If she was terribly ill, then the ER would take her and she would be hospitalized. Social workers would assist her with the bill and arranging payment. The fact is that a large number of people could have Medicaid or Medicare but are too lazy to sign up.
Consider this. Obama killed this woman. He has been in office for 8 months and has done absolutely nothing to get the economy back. Instead he keeps trying to pass big ticket items like socialized medicine and energy taxes that are dragging us down. If he was concentrating on the one issue that matters (the economy stupid), then this woman would have had a job and thus insurance.
I The Great One passes any of his measures, the subsequent economic impact will make the Great Depression look trivial.
Posted by: David C at September 27, 2009 05:21 PM (QRHVt)
27
Gustav
She was no victim, she was a young very sick woman who made some deliberate choices that proved to fatal for her. She could have gone to an ER and with her symptoms, she would be admitted and treated and she would be very much alive to received those dreaded hospital bills AFTER her hospitalization. Hospital ERs from all 50 states will treat anybody regardless of pay source. How do I know, I work in a Cardiac unit and we get non-insured patients all the time .
And gustav, my dad has no damn insurance and he got treated and my parents contacted help from their alderman and their hospital bill was resolved . FYI, when I checked the hospital bill, you can pay it in manageable installments and I have no doubt that her parents would had help her pay those bills and her friends might do a little bit of fund raising for her to pay her bills .
There is no such thing as free Health care and no amount of Obama Care or public option or taxes is ever enough to pay for free health care and no amount of assurances or statements made by you or the President or any elected official and academics will ever change that fact. The UK had drastically reduced their military expenditures and they still have financial problems as well as rationing within their health care system. Look at the disastrous examples in Tennessee and Massachusetts, see how their state budgets strain to fund their state sponsored health plans and how successful were they .
Gustav, theories are nice, problem is, reality trumps academia and government sponsored experts.
Posted by: Will at September 27, 2009 07:04 PM (4sHuN)
28
>>"the only defense you rednecks gave was something like "You lefties spent 8 yrs badmouthing Bush so now we get a chance to badmouth Obama blah blah blah," and that was your only defense."
Boy, you really slapped us down there! What makes you think we need a "defense" to criticize Obama and what's wrong with that one?
Posted by: Steve at September 27, 2009 07:26 PM (DJ/fs)
29
>>"They will bill you and if you don't pay they will hire a collection agency to call you constantly insisting that you pay up. Don't listen to this Steve re emergency room care. He doesn't have a clue."
Then you will have no objection if Congress and the states stop allocating money to reimburse the hospitals for treating people with no insurance, since that money is not needed according to you.
Posted by: Steve at September 27, 2009 07:30 PM (DJ/fs)
30
The US taxes`paid to hospitals to cover emergency room treatment is for people without means. The hospital can seek to recover charges from ER patients.
You liberals out there may be interested, but probably not, to know that The First Lady's hospital was, and is, in receipt of millions of our tax dollars to provide ER care. The First Lady wisely devised a scheme whereby the hospital shunted off its non paying, or poor, to other facilities before treatment. They kept the millions of our tax dollars. It is really good to know that the First Lady and her her husband forgoed the millions available in the private marketplace so the could concentrate on helping people.
Posted by: davod at September 27, 2009 09:38 PM (GUZAT)
31
"Then you will have no objection if Congress and the states stop allocating money to reimburse the hospitals for treating people with no insurance, since that money is not needed according to you."
Steve - Can you point out where the other Steve said Congressional and state allocation of funds to hospitals to fund the care of nonpaying patients was not needed? I'm not finding in this thread, but perhaps you're having a Maureen Dowd moment.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 27, 2009 10:25 PM (3O5/e)
32
"They don't require payment."
This is an absolute lie. They will bill you and if you don't pay they will hire a collection agency to call you constantly insisting that you pay up. Don't listen to this Steve re emergency room care. He doesn't have a clue.
Posted by gustav at September 27, 2009 02:18 AM
No, it absolutely is not. They don't require payment before they'll deliver care. Do they want to get paid? Sure, they do. And they'll come looking for their money. But they don't require it in order to save a life.
Posted by: Pablo at September 27, 2009 11:50 PM (yTndK)
33
45,001 that have died this year due to lack of insurance. Glen Beck was right last year when he said "getting well in America could kill you!"
I was unaware that lack of insurance was a fatal condition. I suppose I should consider myself lucky to have lived through it, repeatedly. Why, the first few times, I didn't think anything of it. If only I'd have known that my lack of a premium bill to pay endangered my very life, I'd have insisted that the government force me to buy insurance.
Posted by: Pablo at September 27, 2009 11:59 PM (yTndK)
34
Too bad she wasn't searching out an abortion, she would have got a free one quite easily. Take that libtards.
Posted by: Federale at September 28, 2009 11:49 AM (ev309)
35
>>"Steve - Can you point out where the other Steve said .."
Not sure what you mean, I'm the only Steve commenting on this thread.
Posted by: Steve at September 28, 2009 05:01 PM (kp8i6)
36
"Steve - Can you point out where the other Steve said .."
Steve - Nevermind. Mixed up who was talking to who. Sorry.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 28, 2009 09:53 PM (3O5/e)
37
How many constituents of Nancy Peelousy and Barney Frankfurter died of AIDS? Was that the fault of Nancy and Barny?
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at September 29, 2009 02:55 PM (dv8zz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 25, 2009
Drudge's Easy Libel of the Military
Earlier today I noted that Drudge's link to the use of LRADs as "acoustic weapons" was over the top, which he would have easily recognized on his own if he had simply applied logic to the very video he linked. Put simply, if an LRAD is being used as a weapon, various people would not be walking or standing directly in front of it.
It's common sense.
But Matt Drudge is after headlines and eyeballs, not accuracy, and that is why his inflammatory link that screams SEE U.S. MILITARY SNATCH PROTESTER... is so detestable.
It simply does no show what he claims it shows.
Look at the very image Drudge uses as his screen capture.
How many things
immediately jump out at you that scream Drudge is wrong? Don't see it? Watch the video, and then I'll go over it in detail:
You should have noticed right off the bat that neither of the uniforms shown in this clip by the men that jumped out of the Crown Victoria are those currently being worn by our military.
See the officer on the left? He's wearing woodland BDUs. No active duty American soldiers wears BDUs, they wear ACUs, which are an entirely different style of uniform with a radically different camouflage pattern. Oh, and you might want to take a look at his shoulder, where you can see what appears to be a muted version of a
Pennsylvania State Police shoulder patch.
The second Officer apprehending the protestor is also wearing a camouflage pattern that is not military issue. The same with the driver.
Any semi-competent national media figure should be able to tell the difference between a military uniform and a police tactical uniform, and I strongly suspect Matt Drudge does.
I just don't think he gives a damn whether he accuses the military of snatching Americans in broad daylight if that helps his bottom line.
Update: For reasons I'll never be able to understand, some of my conservative blogging peers have decided that the video is
staged...
faked by the protesters themselves.
The reasons they cite are similar to mine—that the uniforms are wrong for the modern military and mis-matched—but for some reason, they assume it was a staged event or "performance art" instead of Drudge simply being wrong about a very real event.
These were police officers, carrying out a real arrest, probably at the behest of the riot police 20 feet away we see at the end of the video.
And if the shoulder patch doesn't convince you they were cops, the gun should.
Dead-center in the middle of the frame you can see the bottom of a duty holster and the handgun itself printing through the uniform.
This was a police arrest, not an illegal abduction of an American citizen by the military on U.S. soil as Matt Drudge would mislead you, nor a staged event by the protesters.
Update: Via email
Lawhawk notes a story that has a photo of PA State Police
wearing woodland BDUs.
And in an update at
Hot Air, Ed has the photo that should settle this
for once and for all.
Law enforcement
confirms a police arrest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:55 AM
| Comments (52)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I doubt very many national media figures know the difference between a military uniform and a police tactical uniform; I know I don't. Isn't it more likely that Drudge just doesn't know what he's taking about than that he's lying to get viewers? He certainly should be faulted for interpreting what he was seeing before knowing what the facts really are.
Posted by: John at September 25, 2009 11:38 AM (n6ipG)
2
The Air Force and especially Navy operator types are still using the older woodland and 3 color desert BDUs for use in areas where the pattern works better than say ACU, or the new airman pattern or woodland digital uniforms.
You are correct about the ID of the "troops" in the video as cops vs. military personnel.
The question is why are we letting leos on the street dress as paramilitary troops. It leads to this type of confusion for the average person.
Posted by: toaster802 at September 25, 2009 11:52 AM (vGjNf)
3
The question is why are we letting leos on the street dress as paramilitary troops.
And why would we have them wearing camo, and wearing it badly? Why would PA State troopers be doing a snatch and grab on this kid? If that's PA cops, there'd better be a damned good reason. And I can't think of one that explains 1) Why they didn't cuff the guy and 2) why they had so much trouble getting the guy into the car.
Posted by: Pablo at September 25, 2009 12:03 PM (yTndK)
4
Do I see an orange tip on the Police Officers gun at 24 secs in?
Posted by: Just asking at September 25, 2009 12:11 PM (zwiyV)
5
Just asking, yes, you probably did see orange markings. Many agencies do that to make sure there is not a mix-up between shotguns filled with non-lethals and shotguns filled with a lethal payload. I saw several officers so armed yesterday.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 25, 2009 12:16 PM (gAi9Z)
6
Jus for grins n giggles: The pattern that the dudes on the right are wearing is Crye Multicam www.cryeprecision.com
Used > mostly < by SF and some uberwannabe SWAT teams. Also in use surprisingly y the Latvian and Estonian Military here in Iraq. More than likely State Police in the 'Bdoos' trying to look hardcore... the lack of any other tactical gear and the placement of the sidearm (damned near impossible to get at in a 'stresstime environ') sez this 'snatch' was planned for a specific target, probably someone with an outstanding warrant. Just my 2 cents.....
Posted by: Big Country at September 25, 2009 12:29 PM (Z8fIq)
7
OK Try number two w/out accidental HTML
Just for grins n giggles: The pattern that the dudes on the right are wearing is Crye Multicam www.cryeprecision.com
Used -mostly- by SF and some uberwannabe SWAT teams. Also in use surprisingly by the Latvian and Estonian Military here in Iraq. More than likely State Police in the 'Bdoos' trying to look hardcore... the lack of any other tactical gear and the placement of the sidearm (damned near impossible to get at in a 'stresstime environ') sez this 'snatch' was planned for a specific target, probably someone with an outstanding warrant. Just my 2 cents.....
Posted by: Big Country at September 25, 2009 12:30 PM (Z8fIq)
8
I do not know who these guys are. I doubt if anybody here watching the video does either. The haircuts and military style uniforms indicate a tactical squad of some kind.
It should be noted that part of crowd control is snatching protesters from the crowd. Well done, it is a surgical procedure from which there is no way the target can escape. It should also be noted that BOTH the police AND military practice this technique. I would guess that it's probably police just because they shoved the targets head down to get him into the car. If you've watched the foreign services make a snatch they don't mind banging a struggling target around a little to help things go a little smoother.
I've never personally witnessed a real snatch, but have been volunteered to act as the snatchee in several practice sessions.
It must be kind of a scary thing, one minute all your buds are surrounding you in this one big EVENT, the next you're head down in the back seat of a vehicle under restraint. The more you struggle the more banged around you get. (Which is probably more of a feature than a bug.)
Posted by: Barney at September 25, 2009 12:42 PM (LcPv7)
9
It's hard to tell on the patch, but you may be right. As for the printing side arm, that would be your basic no-brainer. I'm pretty convinced, though I'm troubled by the need of police officers to put on their turkey hunting gear for a protest.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 25, 2009 12:47 PM (5aa4z)
10
Did any one used any handcuffs or arm restraints on the suspect? I can not actually see the video, but many refer to the lack of hand or arm restraints as a big pointer for being fake. That is SOP for all police.
Posted by: Picric at September 25, 2009 12:54 PM (oKOn9)
11
This seems real to me. If you look towards the end of the video, it looks like a kid puts his hands up in a manner to back away or back off. It seems because he is being directed to do this by a riot control officer. This officer is in the upper left of the video as the car takes off. He has a helmet w/ visor, beefed up with a heavy vest and it looks like he has flex cuffs hanging from his uniform ready to be used.
I say real. I worked at a PD department where we were given old cammies of different varieties that are swat teams used for all different things. So it isn't odd to see different uniform styles being worn by pd officers.
Posted by: Alex at September 25, 2009 12:54 PM (DqPEX)
12
The suspect isn't cuffed prior to being put in the vehicle. However LE may have changed tactics for the protest. It does make sense when you are arresting someone in a crowd that outnumbers you and is hostile to get the person out of there as quickly as possible.
You have two big guys get in the vehicle with him so there isn't to much of a danger of escaping until they can cuff and frisk.
The other thing that makes me think it's real is the gas. Looks like the car leaves through a cloud of tear gas. If the police were firing gas to break up the crowd the street would be closed to civilian traffic. So doubt it was performance art as some have stated in other threads.
Posted by: Waste93 at September 25, 2009 01:05 PM (KHM8y)
13
Picric, you are thinking about normal circumstances. Riots aren't normal, and if cops did the normal cuff-frisk-Miranda in front of a mob, it increases the risk of things getting out of hand. A law enforcement veteran at Hot Air says that what we witnessed was a "Scoop and run," which isn't unusual for these circumstances.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 25, 2009 01:06 PM (gAi9Z)
14
Isn't it common practice (I hope so) for law enforcement to place agents undercover in these types of protests/riots, to monitor for particularly violent elements?
I wonder if the "protester" being "arrested" wasn't undercover... and was in fact simply being extracted because the tear gas cloud was approaching and/or some other police action was about to take place that they didn't want to subject him to... but without blowing his cover.
No proof; just speculation.
Posted by: David at September 25, 2009 01:07 PM (ONWQS)
15
Wear of the ABU in Airforce is not mandatory until 2011. We are still allowed to wear the woodland BDU. However, besides this small correction I believe your conclusion on the matter is correct.
Posted by: Jay at September 25, 2009 01:07 PM (L8r/r)
16
I have personal experience with the people that perpetrated this. Last year the SDS (Anarchists)from the area were planning on attacking the Marine Corps recruiting station in Pittsburgh. Gathering of Eagles and others were on hand to form a barrier in front of the building. The local police were there and they were telling us all about how they have seen this before. It is street theatre, nothing more. The cops didn't react because they knew it was staged...plain and simple.
BTW...the USAF still wears the woodland BDU but would not have been involved in something like this.
Posted by: jnc1991 at September 25, 2009 01:14 PM (rJsAM)
17
Anyone suggesting this is real due to military or police like tactics being used...have you considered these guys may have had this type of training in the past. What about IVAW? There are plenty of libtards out there who hate our military enough to create propagand like this.
Has anyone bothered attempting to find out who the guy was being snatched? How about his friends? Wouldn't they be vocal about his status? If that were my buddy I would be calling the police station, his cell phone, his mother!
This is yet another attempt by Alex Jones to generate traffic to his conspiracy ministry....$$$ Good luck, Alex!
Posted by: jnc1991 at September 25, 2009 01:23 PM (rJsAM)
18
How about emailing the PA State Police to try to confirm? It's all over Drudge. Not like they don't know if it's their guys.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 25, 2009 01:32 PM (5aa4z)
19
While you are probably right about it being the cops judging by frame freezes on patch and holster, the idea that protesters would stage it isn't as outlandish and absurd as you paint it. They did the very exact thing several times in both Denver and St. Paul last year at the conventions. I saw it with my own eyes. After they finished the fake arrests they'd come back out and tell the crowd it was a demonstration.
Posted by: Caleb Howe at September 25, 2009 01:42 PM (VyIhp)
20
If you look at the other videos these armored riot police are in Alleghenny Port Authority vehicles
http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/CompanyInfo/PoliceandSafety/PortAuthorityPolice/tabid/131/Default.aspx (reverse search the phone number on the side of suburbans). They maintain a fleet of unmarked vehicles and my guess is that is who owns the Crown Vic. My conclusions is this was performed by poorly trained (not a single scratch on ANY of their riot gear and brand new equipment) and poorly supervised (stuffing an unrestrained suspect in the back of a vehicle) Port Authority officers or even rented security officers. I believe the photo of the suspect on the ground is after the abduction judging by the tired look of the 'officer' their unkept clothes (bloused trousers) and the suspect in plastic cuffs (a white ziptie, all temporary cuffs I've ever seen were black). I think this is authentic and the Port Authority of Alleghenny COunty has a heck of a lot of explaining to do.
Posted by: Stan Redmond at September 25, 2009 01:51 PM (Lcbav)
21
I find it somewhat bizarre that anyone, whether military or police, would wear woodland camo in the middle of *Pittsburgh*.
Posted by: mwl at September 25, 2009 02:24 PM (DSeW+)
22
Don't know what the USAF wears, but i think CY is calling this right, for the above reasons. I also saw, at the end of the video, the vehicle drives between the riot unit. If this was a fake, no way would the protesters get a car through the riot unit without being fired upon.
Posted by: Penfold at September 25, 2009 03:06 PM (lF2Kk)
23
Re: "Any semi-competent national media figure should be able to tell the difference between a military uniform and a police tactical uniform"
why?
and, perhaps more importantly, why should urban police be wearing camo to demonstrations on city public streets in the first place? perhaps they want the demonstrators to think what Drudge jumped to . . . or perhaps they're idiots who don't understand the PR of demonstrations. chalk another one up for the militarization of the nation's police forces.
Posted by: po at September 25, 2009 03:15 PM (WZ/Yc)
24
Actually, I have a big problem with this that no one has brought up. Except for and extremely muted patch, none of these officers appears to be wearing anything that identifies them as the police. Part of the reason of a uniform is to identify the person of authority.
I don't particularly like the idea of the police becoming so militarized, particularly the wearing of bdu's. However, I think the use of military-style faded patches makes absolutely no sense. They are civilian police and should be self-identified as such.
The fact that we have a hard-time identifying who these gentlemen are is telling. I think the car is a big give away, as well as the armed guy in armor on the far left at the very end of the video.
(if you catch me in a really grumpy mood, I let you know what I think of the poor uniform policy that allows some police to wear long-sleeve t-shirts [with the word 'Police'] and jeans. Slobby all the way)
Posted by: ElamBend at September 25, 2009 04:18 PM (UAiWm)
25
FOX News:
Authorities, Wary of Violent Protests, Beef Up Security in Pittsburgh
Ahead of G-20 Summit
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller
=====
So, there are military units in the area. Two battalions is a lot of firepower...
Plus, even if they are civilian police officers, why are civilian cops wearing military uniforms? (No, in a free nation, there is no rational excuse.)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at September 25, 2009 04:51 PM (2idn5)
26
also: Google: "Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America." More than seventy references. Government websites, laws, etc.
Do some actual research - facts, evidence, proofs, references and resources - and you'll find that things don't look as rainbowie and warm fuzzy as many of you wish to believe.
All politicians are corrupt power-mad autocrats, except for the ones you like and support? Such corrupt and power-mad men and women would never turn America into a police state, especially the politicians you know and love??
Really?
Why does the objective evidence prove that you're wrong?
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at September 25, 2009 05:01 PM (2idn5)
27
Let's face it. No matter what way this was going to turn out, it couldn't be good for the left. Either this was a.) a hoax perpetrated by the nutroots or b.) it's the government. We now know it wasn't a.). It is b.) The local government in PGH is liberal. The state government in PA is run by liberals and the national government is run by Obama. So, it's Hope and Change in action.
Posted by: bemusedinPGH at September 25, 2009 05:17 PM (5iv1T)
28
If this guy was a double amputee and was repeatedly tased I might believe that they were cops. They should have tried to knock out his front teeth on the pavement too.
Do they have any duty to identify themselves before they stuff the dude in the car? Just wondering.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 25, 2009 05:38 PM (aRm4V)
29
I find it incredible that any police officer, much less multiple police officers, would stuff a perp into the back of their patrol car with out cuffs on.
Plus, the guy hasn't been searched and is still wearing his backpack.
What's in his pockets?
What's in the backpack?
Those are important questions to ask because he's got both hands free if he decides to dig out a weapon, etc.
That's not normal is it?
Posted by: Aye Chihuahua at September 25, 2009 05:58 PM (y0/M3)
30
My opinion is that all police forces should NOT be wearing military-style camouflage uniforms. It sends the wrong impression to the American public that the US military is somehow involved in local or state police operations or arresting procedures. Something has to be done with the police force community having its officers wearing military-style uniform.
Posted by: Bob at September 25, 2009 07:29 PM (SLEq7)
31
1) Yes, any moron should be able to fact-check that those outfits don't fit anything actual military is likely to be wearing. Basic common sense says "oh, look, there's several different patterns and styles-- I should research before making a huge accusation, especially since I know that tactical-type cops like to wear cammies. Oh, and it looks like the guy on the far side is wearing a standard, blue police shirt." (Now, if they'd driven up in a white van or some sort of military vehicle, slightly more reasonable to jump to conclusions....)
2) They'd better be ready to explain this, because the action is looking pretty dang stupid.
Posted by: Foxfier at September 25, 2009 11:58 PM (PVayi)
32
maybe the simplest explanation, if your going to be doing quik strikes at the protestors and your going to be getting rough and tumble you want cloths that are loose fitting and flexible and iron tough.
bdu's fit the bill.
if you have a list of fast objectives to carry out like santching potential worst offenders getting ready to do something really ignorant, or your on the look out for numbnuts with existing warrants you want to look identifiable to your comrades but not stand out so much you look like helmeted padded riot police.
but the fact that they didnt take away his back pack at a minimum is odd to me as well as not zip tying his wrists.
Posted by: rumcrook® at September 26, 2009 12:55 PM (60WiD)
33
I agree that the uniforms do not conform to military code. But look at the men, they do not look like cops. Most cops that I see are considerably overweight and not near the physical shape of these guys. Also, look at their faces. They appear intelligent which is not a prerequisite for cops at the ordinary level. You see these types hanging around the FBI building and the President lawn.
Either way it gives you the creeps with the type of power that The One is trying to weild.
Posted by: David C at September 26, 2009 04:11 PM (FacGW)
34
There are several places that I DO NOT look at when I want reliable information.
In no particular order, some of them are:
Drudge
Andrew Sullivan
The Washington Post
Drudge
Andrew Sullivan
The New York Times
Andrew Sullivan
Drudge
The Huffington Post
Drudge
The Daily KOS
Andrew Sullivan
MSNBC
CBS
ABC
did I mention Drudge? Sullivan?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 26, 2009 07:21 PM (OmeRL)
35
Why do we let police wear military uniforms?
So they can do their thing in the War On Drugs, the War On Jaywalkers, the War on peaceful people, the War on (fillintheblank).
Not peace officers anymore.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 26, 2009 07:24 PM (OmeRL)
36
How do we know they're not military? Simple. Among the first things any member of any branch of the military is taught is to keep their hands out of their pockets and to always--ALWAYS--wear a hat outdoors. No hats? No military.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at September 27, 2009 07:42 PM (orefC)
37
Hmm, still not convinced. PSP have a duty uniform and there is no uniformity between the alleged officers. A uniform but only a small patch. No webgear, body armor, etc. Usually in riots they wear exterior body armor with big yellow letters that say police. No lights or siren on the Crown Vic. But most of all no complaint from the guy arrested.
And, by the way, why was he arrested from among all the rioters, usually the black bloc leads the violence and they wear masks and all black.
Posted by: Federale at September 28, 2009 11:54 AM (ev309)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Sounds
G20 protesters are complaining that they have come under the attack from LRADs, or Long Range Acoustic Devices. LRADs are capable of directing sound at extremely high decibels, and can be used to project a warning over distances in a focused "sonic beam," or can be used to cause pain through extremely loud sounds. Using LRADs in the latter manner would classify them as a less-than-lethal weapon, though one capable of causing permanent hearing loss.
The Drudge Report has a link this morning, "Video of 'Acoustic Weapons' Deployed on American Soil" that links to the following clip on YouTube.
But do you notice something about the way the "acoustic weapon" is being deployed? If you look at the video, it is clearly not being used as a weapon.
How do we know this?
Because if you watch the video, people cross back and forth in front the LRAD the entire time it is being used, and some even slow down or stop directly in front of it from mere yards away to shoot video, as this guy did.
The LRAD is the large gray disk mounted on the back of the black truck in the left of the frame. Moments before, a pair of young women wandered across the shot to no apparent ill effect, and seconds after, another videographer passed in front of the same device in the foot steps of the first.
I will readily agree that an LRAD
can be used as a weapon. But I'd submit this very video as evidence it was not being used that way in Pittsburgh yesterday, at least now when captured on camera.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:56 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Saw a clip on one of the networks last night showing the LRAD in use at the demonstrations, anarchists covering their ears while "shreiking" in pain and running away, meanwhile as you've pointed out others are in the vicinity showing no ill effects. It reminded me of the time Michelle Kosinski decided to go canoeing.
Posted by: wowbagger the infinitely prolonged at September 25, 2009 09:06 AM (cFGyS)
2
Maybe it is like a dog whistle, at a range only the truly insane can hear. Of course, that theory means some of the G-20 protesters are sane so I may have some bugs to work out yet.
Or maybe half of the protesters have ruined their hearing through years of loud music. See? Your mother TOLD you to turn it down.
Posted by: Silhouette at September 25, 2009 10:26 AM (+ZT5h)
3
What would be the big deal if it WERE being used as a weapon? It seems like a much friendlier device than a pistol, and all cops 'deploy' those in America.
Posted by: Kevin at September 25, 2009 12:38 PM (hNk8s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 24, 2009
Yosi Sergant's Phony Art Club Banned
If it wasn't, why did he just resign?
Breitbart
claims another scalp.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:29 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That may be your best title ever, Bob. Bravo.
Posted by: Pablo at September 24, 2009 10:25 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dead KY Census Worker Not Hung
Officials now claim earlier AP reports that he was fund hung from a tree were inaccurate. When discovered "his body was in contact with the ground."
But he did die of asphyxiation. And they have been unable to rule out whether this was an accident, homicide or suicide.
I'm beginning to wonder what would have killed Bill.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:10 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Probably an erotic asphyxiation game gone horribly wrong.
Either that, or he was knockin' 'em dead with his David Carradine impersonation.
Posted by: Zeek at September 24, 2009 06:50 PM (Wg06P)
2
Did he have his pants on?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 24, 2009 06:59 PM (OmeRL)
3
He was bound with duct-tape & naked.
Posted by: scalefree at September 26, 2009 01:31 AM (IbRA6)
4
He was naked except for his socks, hands & feet were bound with duct tape, his mouth was gagged, duct tape put over his eyes to blind him & also around his neck, the word "fed" was written across his chest in marker & his ID was taped to his shoulder. His clothes were found folded in his pickup truck some yards away. Anybody have a joke to make about that?
Posted by: scalefree at September 26, 2009 03:35 PM (IbRA6)
5
He could have had clogged sinuses and died simply from being gagged, or died of monoxide poisoning while being tranported in a car trunk. Neither of which would make it any less of a murder, if it happened during the commission of a felony.
Posted by: Tully at September 26, 2009 07:39 PM (tUyDE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More than 40 Drug Dealers Arrested Near Site of Census Worker's Hanging in Past Month
A fact underplayed even in those news sites that chose to report it.
Part-time census worker Bill Sparkman was found hanged in the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky on September 12. Contrarys to what multiple news sites and left wing blogs have erroneously reported, Sparkman's body was recovered on the 12th in an advanced state of decomposition; he was not killed on the 12th.
Left wing media have eagerly posited that Sparkman's death was purposefully done on the 12th to coincide with the Tea Party Protest held in Washington, DC on that date. This is categorically false, and local police chief suspects that Sparkman may have stumbled across a
meth lab:
However, the local police also consider it possible that Sparkman was killed because he came across illegal activity. A local police chief, Jeff Culver, said the area has a history of methamphetamine manufacturing and other drug trading.
"That part of the county, it has its ups and downs. We'll get a lot of complaints of drug activity. They'll whittle away, then flourish back up," he said.
Officially, authorities have
not yet determined if the death was a homicide or a suicide.
9/25 Update: This account says Sparkman died early on 9/11, casting previous media accounts of the condition of his body at the time of recovery into question.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:50 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Apparently his friend who is a former State Trooper warned him that this is an extremely rural area with not much of phones or communication. Basically people that are somewhat "cut off" from the outside world kind of like the movie "Deliverance". Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Utopian...doesn't matter. Wander inside some of these territories and you're as good as dead.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 24, 2009 08:16 PM (OX5qU)
2
Where are you reading that he was killed earlier than the twelfth?
Posted by: sandbagger at September 24, 2009 09:10 PM (qmjUI)
3
Hey, sandbagger...figure it out for yourself...his body was FOUND on 9/12 in an ADVANCED state of decomposition. There is no way he was killed on the 12th.
Posted by: Mr_Write at September 24, 2009 10:19 PM (tmJek)
4
Sparkman was missing no later than the 10th as one of his friends couldn't locate him and then called the police on the 11th. I don't think it's been established exactly when he died, but it seems almost certain it was before the 12th. And yes, reports say the body was decomposed.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090924/NEWS01/909240361/Census+worker+s+mysterious+death+probed
Posted by: Sav at September 25, 2009 02:02 AM (r9pKB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Creepy Obot Video Replaces Jesus With Obama
According to
Michelle Malkin, the school is B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, NJ, and the person responsible for posting the video originally was Charisse Carney-Nunes, author of
I Am Barack Obama.
Children should not be signing songs filled with campaign propaganda that sounds more appropriate in totalitarian states, nor should Obama-worshipping drones be ripping off Christian spirituals and replacing references to Jesus with "Barack Hussein Obama."
The cult of personality that surrounds our incompetent President seems more desperate and unhinged every day.
Update Video replaced. Original removed due to terms of use violation by Youtube.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:45 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm a retired elementary music teacher in Arkansas (Yea, Huckabee!), and I am HORRIFIED @ this!!
Posted by: Linda Barretth at September 24, 2009 06:52 PM (xifkj)
2
The tune was "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
Posted by: Linda Barrett at September 24, 2009 07:04 PM (xifkj)
3
open your eyes american; they are brainwashing our kids and some one needs to stop them while we still can.
Posted by: maddog 42 at September 24, 2009 09:42 PM (U0uJI)
4
Well referencing Obama to Jesus is kind of half right...you'd all love to crucify him.
lol
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 25, 2009 12:37 AM (bhNGz)
5
This is the most craziest thing I have ever heard. I cannot believe that the teachers stoop so low as to having children being heard to praise O'bama. I am not a fan but I am not a hater. I believe in giving a person a chance, so far he hasn't made the change he always talked about. Yes its true our country was in a mess with Bush but now I believe we are up to our necks in crap. You take someone who has been in office no more than a couple of months and has already broke our country in more ways than one. He is still having our federal tax dollars going to places of business that is still playing the bankruptcy card. He has spent more of our tax dollars in several months than Bush spent in all of his terms serving our country. You hear so much about his nationality, still haven't seen proof on that yet either. It seems that if you have nothing to hide then come forward. Be a man and be honest with the American Citizens and do make a change for the best not the worst. I tell you what is sad, take a child who cannot afford or find the support to go to college because she has not got out and got pregnant or she is a single parent, It seems there are no standards set for the ones who go out and mess their lives up. What about the ones who really need and want to go because their parents can't afford it or they get some kind of accuse as to say "do you have any children" or "are you a single mother " or based on your color. There should be funding for children who need and want to achieve and build a better future for themselves. I am one of those parents, my daughter has tried many times to apply for student aid, she wants very much to become a doctor. She has been put off so many times and all she hears is "are you pregnant, do you have any children and etc. She has voiced to me many times, that if she ever gets in and becomes a doctor, that she is going to set a fund up for the many girls who have done the right thing, meaning drug free, pregnant free, single free. The girls who want something for themselves and not have to be discriminated against your morals that you set in life for yourself....
Posted by: penny at September 25, 2009 01:23 AM (IlWst)
6
Ahhh Penny...the lost voice of the middle class that slip through the cracks on a daily basis. You either have to be super-poor or super-rich to get any breaks in this country. Personally, you should go for the super-rich category since organizations that help the super-poor are being attacked by hacks with video cameras disguised as pimps and whores. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 25, 2009 04:40 AM (bhNGz)
7
The teacher and the kids must be right-wing fanatics: did you notice how they use Obama's middle name?
Posted by: metoo at September 25, 2009 06:40 AM (gwieR)
8
This is CREEPY~! And these poor parents think their kids are learning math and spelling!
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2009 06:45 AM (R80G6)
9
Speaking if indoctrination, anybody remember this little treat:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/25/flashback-stockton-california-elementary-students-forced-to-hero-worship-george-w-bush-in-2002/
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 25, 2009 04:06 PM (OX5qU)
10
Posted by Lipiwitz at September 25, 2009 04:06 PM
Creepy as well. Stupid and creepy. To me, forcing children to sing praises to Obama as if he (Obama) were a reincarnation of Kim Jong-il creeps me out even more. But that is just me.
both are stupid. both are creepy.
Or did you mean to excuse this because some fools did something related? Like some sort of giant race to the bottom of the pit....
Posted by: iconoclast at September 25, 2009 07:44 PM (O8ebz)
11
lipi is inventing straws to grab at again. #1 the only way you can defend this gross mental abuse of children by an Obamabot is to try to say Bush did it too. and #2 you totally lie = the correlation is not the same at all. Your dumba** link is to a story about a school being named after Bush, not kids being forced to "hero worship" him.
Posted by: Jayne at September 26, 2009 12:05 AM (dwIL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 82 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.2341 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2101 seconds, 242 records returned.
Page size 190 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
