Confederate Yankee
September 15, 2009
A Tale of Two Economies
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the worst recession since the 1930s is probably over.
Bernanke says the economy is probably growing now, but it won't be sufficient to prevent the unemployment rate, now at a 26-year high of 9.7 percent, from rising.
In responding to questions at the Brookings Institution, Bernanke says "the recession is very likely over at this point."
While I would certainly like to hope that Bernanke is right, his
comments don't square with reports that credit is
shrinking and that President is on the verge of inciting a
trade war with our biggest creditor.
The Fed Chairman's comments seem disconnected from our financial reality. I don't think he's being honest with us.
My bigger question is why.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:36 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We've been in a trade war with China for at least the last ten years and they're kicking our butts. That's a big part of the reason why we owe them so much money.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 12:24 PM (/DzAK)
2
These comments also don't square with the large number of cargo ships parked in various backwater ports around the world, and some not so backwater ports like Singapore. There are hundreds anchored there....
PeterT
Posted by: PeterT at September 15, 2009 12:49 PM (4I9p+)
3
Sorry, Ben, but reality is not buying what you are selling today--try again in 12 months. (And it gives me no pleasure to say it because a lot of my family is suffering real hardship due to the present, economic, climate.)
Posted by: ECM at September 15, 2009 03:14 PM (q3V+C)
4
Dr. Bernanke may have access to preliminary data which would support his thesis.
Your link refers to an article on the contraction in the money measure known as "M3". The Federal Reserve has this to say about this metric:
For example, the publication of the M3 monetary aggregate on the H.6 release was discontinued in March 2006. M3 did not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that was not already embodied in M2 and had not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years.
The quantum of M2 did decline by an annualized rate of 2.3% that quarter, but the quantum of M1 increased.
Posted by: Art b at September 17, 2009 06:53 PM (lCK/O)
5
As long as no one's pointing to the stock market as an indicator. The current run-up is largely due to computerized hyper-trading, not any change in real value.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 20, 2009 12:32 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Escalation of Force
I saw via Glenn last night that law enforcement in San Diego. The link to the original article is apparently overloaded at the moment, but Danger Room also covered the story:
"The [Long Range Acoustic Device] was stationed by San Diego County Sheriff deputies at a recent town hall forum hosted by Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) in Spring Valley and at a subsequent town hall with Congressman Darrell Issa (R-San Diego)," East Country Magazine reported after reviewing official records. It was also parked at a local sand-building competition along the beach.
Though the Long Range Acoustic Device can be used for hailing, it has also been employed as a weapon, most prominently in 2005 by a cruise ship, which used it to ward off attacking pirates. In fact, the device, which was developed after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, is designed precisely for that sort of mission. It can permanently damage hearing, depending on how it's used.
Deploying the Long Range Acoustic Device to local events has provided ammunition to critics of Police Sheriff Bill Gore, who was the agent-in-charge of the FBI's infamous 1992 Ruby Ridge siege. In response to questions posed by East Country Magazine about use of the technology, Gore said that officers had the appropriate training and that the device's use as a deterrent is just a "precaution in case you need it."
I understand why law enforcement desires less-than-lethal solutions, and I also understand why they prefer to deploy these tools at a distance instead of at close range. The obvious hope—the "holy grail"—is a system that can help law enforcement control a situation and deescalate a threat without putting officers or their opposition at risk of suffering permanent injury or death. A system that creates separation is presumably thought to reduce the inherent risk of short-range confrontations.
But is an LRAD an acceptable tool for use for non-violent domestic crowd control?
While I can see an obvious need for systems that make keep potentially heavily-armed crowds at a distance in foreign theaters of combat, I'm at a loss to explain why domestic law enforcement agencies feel the need to deploy acoustic weapons that have the potential to create permanent physical damage in situations where no reasonable person expects the level of violence that could justify such a system.
The deployment of an LRAD in the situation as described seems to be an unwarranted escalation of force from law enforcement, one that poses a significant simultaneous threat of permanent injury to large numbers of people. It has the potential to be used as a communications tool, or a weapon as indiscriminate as a claymore mine.
My gut reaction s that full-power military grade LRADs do not belong in the hands of civilian law enforcement at benign public gatherings any more than fully-automatic M4s do, and that having such systems in place will only encourage agitators to bring weaponry sufficient to counter these systems, putting the population at large at a much great risk than there would have been if LRADs was never introduced to the situation at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:00 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
>>"My gut reaction s that full-power military grade LRADs do not belong in the hands of civilian law enforcement at benign public gatherings"
They don't belong in the hands of law enforcement, period. The real story here is the way our rulers are becoming more and more open about seeing the American people as an unruly mob in need of a "whiff of grapeshot". Tom Friedmans longing for Chinese-style dictatorship is an example. So is the love-affair of the "libertarian" right for that same dictatorship.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 10:17 AM (S6ytN)
2
Okay, so we can't waterboard terrorists (which has no permanent effect), but we can allow civilian lawmen to inflict hearing damage on unruly American protesters. Sure, why not.
Posted by: tsmonk at September 15, 2009 10:37 AM (E8R20)
3
I know that if I encountered such a device when I was trying to get a message to my congressman, I would be enclined to use force from a distance as well. Unfortunately the only force I am allowed is potentially deadly.
Posted by: David at September 15, 2009 11:04 AM (dccG2)
4
apparently, someone asked the Deputy driving the thing around on an ATV and the Deputy acted like he had no clue to what the thing was he was giving a tour of the crowd to.
http://eastcountymagazine.org/?q=node/1874 is supposed to be a link but I cannot get it to work at the moment.
Posted by: JP at September 15, 2009 11:15 AM (VxiFL)
5
At some point aggresive law enforcement crosses a line form "protect and serve" to "thugs with a badge."
Another reason why an armed society is a polite society.
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at September 15, 2009 11:31 AM (BuYeH)
6
I have to agree, having an LRAD present at such events is an unnecessary show of force on the part of of the SD Sheriff's office. I think they were probably hoping most people wouldn't know what it was. I have to admit I probably wouldn't recognize one if I saw it.
A sand building competition? Please.
Then again we all know how many riots have ensued after the local favorite sand builder loses the competition...
Posted by: Scott at September 15, 2009 11:45 AM (mqy6N)
7
". . . has provided ammunition to critics of Police Sheriff Bill Gore."
What the hell is a Police Sheriff?
Posted by: Pat at September 15, 2009 02:25 PM (GhD9A)
8
What was that about government's should be afraid of their people not the opposite?
We are in so much trouble in this country.
Posted by: Robohobo at September 16, 2009 12:19 AM (dh7vp)
9
"having such systems in place will only encourage agitators to bring weaponry sufficient to counter these systems"
Or earplugs.
Posted by: guy at September 16, 2009 01:12 AM (NfA2V)
10
So in a crowd of 10,000 people we have 20 that decide to get violent. All 10,000 get hearing loss. This weapon needs to go back to the military.
Paul in Texas
Posted by: Paul at September 18, 2009 04:49 PM (rCmYM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Snow Troll
I woke up this morning to find the following comment spammed across the comment sections of a dozen posts, regardless of subject matter:
Yes it is all the black people's fault. Let us kill all the black people. We should not have a black president.
The spammer hails from the IP of 99.233.2.165, which seems to trace to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. I cannot imagine why a Canadian is worried about having Barack Obama as his President,
unless...
What if Barack has a
Canadian birth certificate?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:47 AM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Snow Troll or Moby Canuck, the Great White Whale from the Great White North?
Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2009 09:04 AM (rfZbE)
2
My God, that's brilliant! Those damned Canucks, should have suspected it all along!
And who the hell do they think the're fooling with their round "bacon," anyway? Like we can't tell it's really just ham!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 15, 2009 10:06 AM (Vcyz0)
3
Time to dust off the classic MST3K "Final Sacrifice" and whip up some anti-Canadian frenzy. A riot is an ugly thing...
And I think it's just about time that we had one!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 15, 2009 10:10 AM (Vcyz0)
4
It's odd that the most obnoxious trolls and mobys you encounter on American political blogs are so frequently Candadian. I've noticed this going on for several years now.
This guy was a moby, not a troll.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 10:21 AM (S6ytN)
5
I visited Canada in the 60's and found that they preched a good sermon but were more racist than us in the south.
Posted by: David at September 15, 2009 11:05 AM (dccG2)
6
Maybe there's no straw man/sarcasm arguement to his comments.
He's simply giving us a good solid example of what Canadians/Liberals intend to do. Just read his statement straight up.
Posted by: brando at September 15, 2009 11:12 AM (IPGju)
7
Odds are that this type of behavior goes against his user agreement with his ISP. If you want to report abusive members send an email to ipmanage@rogers.wave.ca. Odds are after one or two emails they will shut down his service.
Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2009 11:47 AM (54Fjx)
8
I haven't bothered to look up the IP addresses but apparently something similar happened in one of Ann Althouse's posts yesterday.
It wasn't spammed across multiple posts but it was rather similar in nature.
Posted by: john at September 15, 2009 01:20 PM (VHuhG)
9
Steve, I'd say the moby/troll definition depends upon whether he thought he was mocking conservative attitudes or expected to be taken at face value. But isn't it interesting that the most egregious comments on right of center blogs come from mobies? You'd think some actual RWDBs would be yammering about racist fascist hate without needing these people to prime the pump. Furthermore, I have never seen the tactic provoke anything but instant condemnation. We racist fascists are pretty canny, huh?
But this tactic is, sad to say, a Canadian tradition of late. If you've followed the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant case you'd know that the Canadian Human Rights commission has more Nazi posters on the 'net than there are actual Nazis in Canada.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 15, 2009 01:50 PM (Ddb84)
10
I second the advice to report the behavior.
Posted by: Foxfier at September 15, 2009 01:51 PM (OtIqW)
11
That was a terrible missed attempt at sarcasm. I wanted to stir up things a bit on the blog and see the kind of reaction I get from regular posters.
Have to admit that I am impressed all the responses were sensible, calm and not at all racist. You would be surprised by some of the things I have read online recently from both right and left wing blogs/forums.
The choice of words may have been a bit extreme, but having seen your post about the president below I made a wrong assumption that your blog might have a racist leaning towards it. By the way, I am a black Non-Canadian conservative.
Posted by: A at September 15, 2009 03:10 PM (7Eh5n)
12
Don't you mean that you're a "Concerned Christian"?
"You would be surprised by some of the things I have read online recently"
I bet I wouldn't be surprised. It couldn't be any worse than someone saying that they would like to literally kill all the black people in the world.
"I wanted to stir up things a bit"
Nah. You wanted to flatly state your position, and I disagree with your position. I'll quote you though.
Posted by: brando at September 15, 2009 04:55 PM (IPGju)
13
@Brando, as stated, I am black myself
Posted by: A at September 15, 2009 04:59 PM (7Eh5n)
14
>>"By the way, I am a black Non-Canadian conservative."
Sure you are. And I'm black non-Canadian liberal who thinks you are lying.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 05:06 PM (WU05m)
15
>>'I am impressed all the responses were sensible, calm and not at all racist."
And you still impress me as one of the dumbest lefties I've seen in a long time.
>>"having seen your post about the president below I made a wrong assumption that your blog might have a racist leaning towards it."
Yeah, I can see why a post which is any way critical of Obama would be disturbing to you.
>>"as stated, I am black myself"
Given that you hide your IP address and your email address, what makes you think that anybody would believe anything you say? The one thng we know about you for certain is that you are a liar.
Even if you are black, your skin is not a magic escape card which excuses you from wrongdoing. A black conservative would understand this.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 05:16 PM (WU05m)
16
Hey, "A", I see you were doing the exact same crap at Althouses blog yesterday. She has a post up on it. You must be so proud to get all this attention.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 05:25 PM (WU05m)
17
@Steve - no, being black does not give me a magic escape card, but it would certainly not make me want to *seriously* call out for the killing of black folks (of which I am part).
Anyways, in retrospect, my comments were very ill-advised. I posted them when I was very emotional and also sleep deprived. I was watching something on TV that really offended me and got me fired up. Went online to search for something and came across this site (Google racist in chief).
My apologies to C. Y. and all forum members.
Posted by: A at September 15, 2009 05:25 PM (7Eh5n)
18
And you posted the same crap at Ann Alhouses' blog? Wow, you're really sleep deprived all right. I'd still report to to the Secret Service.
At which point we'll find out you work for Acorn, Mr Conservative.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 05:47 PM (WU05m)
19
I was just wondering, Bob. Is it legal to publish a user's IP address? Could someone claim invasion of privacy? I did essentially the same thing on a Delphi Forum, and I was accused of betraying personal information. The person was an uninvited troll who took information from the Delphi Forum, copied it and published it in a local newspaper Opinion Section without the permission of the original authors.
Posted by: Jerry Haberer at September 15, 2009 05:56 PM (HoVgC)
20
>>"I was just wondering, Bob. Is it legal to publish a user's IP address? Could someone claim invasion of privacy?"
Not unless you think it is illegal to publish any other information about somebody, such as their phone number or address. Which it is not. And this particular person, who claims to have acted on implulse, was using an anonymizer.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 06:03 PM (WU05m)
21
I did not post anything on Althouse (or elsewhere). I had to go to Althouse's blog to see what you were referring to, and I just read about the whole thing like right now.
Posted by: A at September 15, 2009 06:05 PM (7Eh5n)
22
Given your record of dishonesty, why should anybody believe you about anything?
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 06:40 PM (Yce5W)
23
As a Canadian, I disown that twit.
You people have enough to worry about without some self importnat maggot, from up, here jerking your chain
Posted by: robins111 at September 15, 2009 07:44 PM (PKJkH)
24
At least Canada has honest tea-baggers saying what they really want to say unlike here in America.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 08:44 PM (OX5qU)
25
And the Canadian is trolling for the same reasons why other people from other countries troll our blog sites...WE'RE A FREAKIN' JOKE TO THEM!!!
Can you imagine how funny it must have been to people from other countries watching a bunch of rednecks dressed like demented Muppets roaming around Washington on Saturday with misspelled signs spewing paranoid gibberish. I still can't stop laughing and I freakin' live here.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 08:56 PM (OX5qU)
26
Making it illegal to publish someone's IP would be functionally the same as making it illegal to publish the number of someone who has called you.
For that matter, some message boards show the poster's IP address by default... Blizz's use to....
For some stupid reason, though, Jerry, a LOT of unprintables like to claim that sharing an IP address is illegal. (Can be breach of contract if the user agreements says that you won't, but that's it.)
Posted by: Foxfier at September 15, 2009 09:02 PM (OtIqW)
27
I've been sleep deprived before, but I've never called for the death of around a billion people including myself.
That must be some kind of whacked out sleep dept.
Posted by: brando at September 15, 2009 09:56 PM (LjEkE)
28
>>"And the Canadian is trolling for the same reasons why other people from other countries troll our blog sites...WE'RE A FREAKIN' JOKE TO THEM!!!"
You're the joke to them, Lipshits. And to us. I read these comments to see what inane babble you'll come up with next.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 10:13 PM (VwUP7)
29
That actually is the most likely scenerio. Babymama who hails from Seattle and was scheduled to go to college in Seattle after Baraka was born perhaps went to Vancouver for some sightseeing and Baraka popped out unexpectedly, then babymama returned to Hawaii. At that time an oral declaration of citizenship was all that was needed to cross the border with Canada. Back in Hawaii, babymama obtained a birth cert from Hawaii based on her residency not on where Baraka was born, as allowed by Hawaii law. A very real possibility.
Posted by: Federale at September 16, 2009 06:22 PM (QZ/te)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 14, 2009
Nuts in the Fire
After three separate ACORN offices enthusiastically attempted to help a pimp and prostitute get a government loan for a brothel to be filled with underage girls from Central America, the Senate has voted 983-7 to strip the Obama-trained organization of all federal funding.
The Pedophile-Pimping Seven are:
- Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Roland Burris (D-IL)
- Robert Casey (D-PA)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
- Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
- Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
President Obama, who spent time training ACORN operatives as a community organizer in Chicago and who recently displayed rapt interest in a new vintage of South American origin, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:21 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hey .. low blow! I don't like Obama's style or his politics, but there's nothing wrong with admiring the scenery every once in a while!
Posted by: Tom J. at September 14, 2009 09:04 PM (O3ixZ)
2
I wonder if they have any video of the "pro & pimp" with Bill Ayers.
Posted by: Neo at September 14, 2009 09:24 PM (tE8FB)
3
From those seven votes I conclude that Illinois and Vermont are, for reasons unknown, particularly sympatico with child whoring illegal immigrant pimp assistance programs, and that Casey and Whitehouse are too dumb to know what they are voting on. And I wish Bernie would come out of the closet and call himself a socialist.
Posted by: zhombre@hotmail.com at September 14, 2009 09:43 PM (zzL++)
4
New Orleans is the headquarters of ACORN.
Where is Senators David Vitter and Mary
Landru?
Posted by: Cletus Martin at September 14, 2009 09:52 PM (7FPvO)
5
Next Step: Revoke their 501c3 status and audit their asses into oblivion.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at September 14, 2009 10:02 PM (Fnr44)
6
CY - Vote was 83-7, I believe, with a bunch not voting.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 14, 2009 11:43 PM (3O5/e)
7
Bugs the crap out of me that these weasels can change their votes once they realize they're on the wrong side. Just seems fundamentally wrong to me. (If the preceding didn't make sense, the blame belongs to the white russians.)
Posted by: ArmedGeek at September 15, 2009 12:49 AM (7MRXR)
8
Senator David Vitter voting on something involving prostitution? You're kidding right?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 03:45 AM (bhNGz)
9
It's not over yet...has to go through reconciliation and then be voted on in the House.
Posted by: PapaSwamp at September 15, 2009 08:52 AM (EKIlJ)
10
Senator David Vitter voting on something involving prostitution? You're kidding right?
Vitter (R-LA), Not Voting
That is a pretty shiny penny you hold up though.
Epic fail! Snicker
Posted by: Poor dumb Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 09:47 AM (jK4H4)
11
Oh look! It's the bully from my kid's school who stays home a lot so he doesn't become a soshalist. How precious.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 08:47 PM (OX5qU)
12
Democrats voting on something involving corruption and prostitution? You're kidding right?
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 10:35 PM (VwUP7)
13
>>"It's the bully from my kid's school"
Aww, poow widdle Lipshits (or is it Evans?) was bullied in school! Let's give little Timmy a big hug.
Posted by: Steve at September 15, 2009 10:38 PM (VwUP7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ACORN: Rotten to the Core
Auctioning
Childrens
Orifices
Right
Now
Busted for the
third time helping a "pimp" and "prostitute" illegally acquire housing loans for a brothel to traffic in under-age illegal aliens. ACORN is a corrupt and possibly criminal enterprise, and all federal and state associations and funding to the group should immediately be severed.
The Department of Justice
must launch an investigation immediately, and if they fail to do so, Eric Holder needs to step down as Attorney General.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:36 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Eric Holder needs to step down as Attorney General.
As if New Black Panther party, Walpin, Andrew Sullivan, Amtrak Inspector General, and more were not enough?
With the most corrupt administration in memory (and, after the Clintons, that is saying alot!) in place right now, I think it is highly unlikely that Holder can resign. Given all of the highly questionable actions going on a DoJ, Holder may have to remain in office just to avoid prosecution and a highly enjoyable (for us) perp walk to Club Fed.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 14, 2009 11:06 AM (O8ebz)
2
Hot Air is saying that the Senate just voted to defund ACORN
Posted by: John at September 14, 2009 06:20 PM (LAlkD)
3
I think Eric Holder and the Justice Department is a little busy with the last eight years of rampant, out of control, unregulated corruption that actually cost Americans their lives.
ACORN is a local law enforcement issue and should be handled as such.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 02:12 AM (bhNGz)
4
I just realized, if ACORN is auctioning off children's orifices, shouldn't we have an ankle bracelet monitor on Mark Foley?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 03:42 AM (bhNGz)
5
I'm sure DoJ will begin an investigation and criminally prosecute...
Fox News.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 15, 2009 04:34 AM (Vcyz0)
6
I would think that a cork in Barney's butt would be more appropropriate, Lippy. That and maybe freezing his and Dodd's bank accounts.
Posted by: emdfl at September 15, 2009 09:43 AM (blNMI)
7
We are all such legal scholars to obviously know better than the DoJ. Yes...you're all a bunch of brilliant "Perry Masons".
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 08:49 PM (OX5qU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blumethal: Know Who Is Responsible for Satanism and Mass Shootings? Jesus.
Max Blumethal has a long track record as a media activist, and has established a clear method of operation:
- Draw conclusion
- Create/modify facts to support that conclusion
The actual subject doesn't matter.
He sees
lynchings in lyrics,
manufactures non-existent weapons at gun shows, and sees
racism in every nook and cranny, and has more
moral flexibility than any human with a fully-developed sense of right and wrong should have.
So it should hardly be surprising that Blumenthal took the relatively rare case of a mentally-unstable man going on a violent rampage, and turned that into an indictment against an entire faith in
The Nightmare of Christianity.
You may remember Matthew Murray's story, even if you long ago forgot his name. Murray had been thrown out of a missionary program three years before in Arvada, CO, and then became obsessed with it, sending it hate mail in the weeks before he finally went on a rampage, killing two people and wounding two others.
The next day, armed with several weapons and carrying a book by satanist Alister Crowley, Murray launched an assault on New Life Church in Colorado Springs with the intention of committing a mass homicide. Church member Jeanne Assam was also a volunteer security guard, and drew her concealed pistol and engaged Murray in the church foyer, wounding him. Murray then took his own life.
Assam's
stand against Murray's rampage made her something of a hero, and Murrya was written of for what he was; a deeply disturbed and violent young man with hate in his heart and
confused sexuality.
But murderous spree of a possibly gay satanist wasn't what gay atheist agitator Max Blumethal wanted to see, so he decided to create something more conducive to the world he likes to imagine exists, where home schools are cults and home-schooled children are mindless and dangerous drones slaved to an aggressive and oppressive religion.
There are tens of millions of active, church-going Christians in the United States and millions more that profess Christian values even if they do not regularly attend services. There are also an
estimated more than one million children home-schooled.
But Blumenthal looks past all of that to focus on one young man and try to insist that this exceedingly rare and isolated incident should be used to indict Christianity as a whole.
That
The Nation would run an article based upon such obviously flawed logic simply shows that their far left-wing radicalized contempt for people of faith far outstrips their ability to apply logic or rational editorial thought.
If Blumethal had attempted to make the equally absurd argument that Murray's alleged sexual preferences were at the root of his murderous psychology, and that other homosexuals or bisexuals were therefore ticking time bombs, the editors of
The Nation would have unceremoniously thrown him out on his ass.
But logic and reason matter not a whit to Max Blumenthal, nor his editors at
The Nation. What matters is that they had a remotely plausible excuse to smear those with which they disagree, and that's all the justification they ever need.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:49 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This isn't an article. It's an excerpt from an entire book of his modus operandi.
Posted by: WTFCI at September 14, 2009 05:20 PM (GtYrq)
2
But The Nation has unique if inverted magnetic properties, like a compass that will always point AWAY from true north. Whatever editorial position is articulated in the pages of The Nation, always assume it is 180 degrees from reality.
Posted by: zhombre at September 14, 2009 06:00 PM (zzL++)
3
Hey A, you gonna make the same comment in every post? Maybe you should get your own blog to advocate genocide. Check out Human Rights Watch, they've got a spot for a guy like you.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 15, 2009 04:37 AM (Vcyz0)
4
I think the key to understanding the editorial staff of The Nation is that they're still mad their side lost the Spanish Civil War.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 15, 2009 06:41 AM (Vcyz0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 13, 2009
No Surprise Here: Kanye West Hates White People
I could care less about the various award shows and stopped watching music video channels way back when they stopped playing music videos, but chronic tool Kanye West's latest stunt goes too far. West snatched the microphone out of Taylor Swift's hand as she started to give her acceptance speech for Best Female video at the VMAs, and told her that she didn't deserve the award, that Beyoncé did.
I don't know the videos in question, and frankly, it doesn't matter. What we do know is that West is a first rate jerk with a long record of deviant and outrageous behavior, who acted up again when a white girl won an award he thought a black artist deserved.
I'd say it was likely a racist incident, but then, with West, that's to be expected.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:36 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It will be interesting to see the contrast between this and Joe Wilson.
Wilson shouldn't have interruptued Die Ein but he didn't take all the guy's time up-President Obama was able to finish his set.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 14, 2009 12:58 AM (aRm4V)
2
What if a white artist had done this to a black award winner?? It would be called racist and unacceptable. So far all I hear is Kayne is a jerk, he shouldn't have done it ect. ect. The Wilson incident last week is a good example. I read hundreds of comments on how racist Wilson was . Since our president is NOT a black man but as much white as he is black who was Wilson being racist to , the white 50% or the black 50%? Black people are so blind now that they cannot even acknowledge that Obama is half white. Now that is racism 1000%
Posted by: Alan Tooraen at September 14, 2009 01:18 AM (1jA1+)
3
Kanye West is racist and it shows, he should be ban from Live TV and the MTV awards. Look at his behavior

and your right you wont hear many people say he is a racist because that only happens to black people. You gotta love this country and the reverse racism that goes on and nothing is said...MAKES ME SICK!!
Posted by: john-Ohio at September 14, 2009 09:11 AM (GVM9H)
4
Kanye and our racist president & first lady should go have a beer together and talk about how to kill WHITEY!! lol
Posted by: john-Ohio at September 14, 2009 09:13 AM (GVM9H)
5
Who or what is Kaynye West? Sounds like just another black racist to me.
Posted by: emdfl at September 14, 2009 09:23 AM (Mkonf)
6
Black Racist? Isn't that a double negative? Do they cancel each other out? It seems they do.
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 14, 2009 11:19 AM (svkhS)
7
Contrast:
This is what happens when a liberal chemically-challenged racist hater hijacks a teleprompter for shameless self-promotion, and ends up drunkenly begging for sex from Beyonce right in front of his date, SnakeWoman, or bowing to Saudi royalty, or insulting America's allies, or apologizing for America to her enemies....
When a patriot retakes a teleprompter from a hijacker, it only a couple of words, like, "death panel", "you lie", "let's roll". The hijacking to worry about is happening to The Republic, coordinated out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and its many ACORN and union affiliates. Todd Beemer's words ring more and more true if America is to avoid the loss of freedom and fortune brought by, not just this administration, but by government gone rogue.
"Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
Captain John Parker 1775
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 14, 2009 11:59 AM (svkhS)
8
West is an execrable figure to say the least. Does anyone remember the reverence Kanye's opinion was greeted with when he declared that Bush exploded the levees during Katrina the better to drown his homies? This stooge, sadly, is representative of many, many young black people. Forget the dismissal of schooling in any decent form, this is much more than even that intentional ignorance. Racist hatred is the norm. Demeaning and exploiting women of all descriptions is the measure of their manhood and blackness. Anything smacking of rational thought is acting white. Like Barack, obviously he has been told his whole life that whities are the only obstacle to his wonderfulness. Well, we'll make 'em pay for that, right brutha?
Posted by: megapotamus at September 14, 2009 03:39 PM (wJMs3)
9
Obama has invited West and Swift to the WH for a "cognac summit."
Posted by: zhombre at September 14, 2009 09:45 PM (zzL++)
10
You want racism, where are the non-blacks at the BET awards? What, only blacks can entertain other blacks? Shame.
And Kanye? Just another idiot rapper tool.
Posted by: DavidB at September 15, 2009 07:36 AM (+hRiw)
11
As I recall, this clown also had his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone wearing a crown of thorns. And likes to speak of himself in the third person.
Posted by: Firehand at September 15, 2009 10:57 PM (utc7r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 12, 2009
Message Delivered
Estimates of the crowd size at today's TEA party protest in Washington, DC vary widely, but most estimates place it north of half a million up to potentially two million or more.
By any estimate, that is an impressive figure, but what is more impressive than the numbers is the kind of person who turned out. It wasn't the professionally-aggrieved protester class, but men, women, and children of every age who had never protested anything in their lives. It was Democrats and Republicans and independents and people who had never before cared about political matters at all. It was a cross-section of America, who knew in their hearts that America cannot much longer survive if it continues down the path that our self-serving politicians are leading us.
Barack Obama was sworn in seven months ago in front of roughly a million Americans who hope he represented the future of this republic. Today, perhaps
double that number angrily let the world know that they no longer have faith in him or his allies.
It was a powerful message.
It remains to be seen if he retains enough humility to listen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:03 PM
| Comments (71)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Anyone who thought Barry Soetoro represented the future of the Republic was smoking something funny. Puh-leaze!
The Big Eared Chimp Barry is nothing but a community agitator, a racist, anti-American wannabe, who never worked a day in his life.
He and his kind of Marxist, Black Liberation Theology nut-balls need to be shown the door out of DC.
Posted by: rssg at September 12, 2009 10:46 PM (HH3AB)
2
There is no humility there. The associations of his past are also his present. If you want the measure of a person, check their accomplishments and friends.
Posted by: Janelle at September 12, 2009 10:50 PM (b/JdQ)
3
It says a lot that he made a point of being out of town today. A leader, even an unpopular leader whose policies were widely opposed, would have at least acknowledged the gathering. This clown is just a mouthpiece, not a leader.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at September 12, 2009 11:03 PM (Fnr44)
4
I would say that 10% of the crowd were Senior Citizens which is fantastic in once sense and extremely sad in another in that they feel they are not being listened to and felt they had nothing left to do but to go down to DC to be heard with fellow Americans. They came in wheelchairs and with canes and were a powerful voice. NONE of these protesters were paid except for those idiot LaRouche nuts. I had a few well placed words for those tools!
I broke up an interview with one of them by screaming into the mike that LaRouche is a criminal and they don't speak for Conservatives. The traiterous oldstream media always find those tools to paint us as crazy and I despise them for it.
Posted by: Jaded at September 12, 2009 11:10 PM (1I7uq)
5
Wow, I didn't know there were that many racist, Nazi, evil mongers in America. And they did such a good job of imitating normal looking people, too.
Posted by: Jayne at September 12, 2009 11:14 PM (dwIL0)
6
I just returned from the LA tea party. 5,000 people. What a great gathering of Americans. I met as many as I could, all working citizens full of love for American and deeply concerned about the threat to liberty of a government gone arrogantly amok. Bill Whittle gave the best and most stirring speech -- on the constitution; you can find his work on pajamas media.
Posted by: rrpjr at September 12, 2009 11:22 PM (RTl70)
7
It all made me so damn proud to be an American again. Thank you, Tea Party Express! Thank you Glenn Beck. Thank you, America!
Posted by: Jerry Haberer at September 12, 2009 11:25 PM (HoVgC)
8
2 million? No way. DC fire dept says more like 60K.
You clowns can't even count. Go back to school.
Posted by: Liars at September 12, 2009 11:52 PM (IRC/t)
9
Ya know you lie you say i lie,i don't care how many it was,we went and that's all there is to it.This isn't some damn football game,our rights as american are being trampled on.I just found out today in my town the small buissness owner are going to have to pay fees on the electronics they use in thier stores,,,WHAT!!!!? You know the card swipers and the computers,this after hitting the antique dealers with fees for each consignment booth,plus another fee for just being on main street.Janet the Napolian tanto head of FEMA hit all of us home owners with flood insurance fees that don't even cover my belongings but cover the lenders money,that my friend is SOCIALISM!!!!Ass far as i am concerned her and her cronies can kiss my ASS!
Posted by: Chief Thundermoon at September 13, 2009 12:36 AM (Efdjh)
10
Can't you just behave like adults for four years?
You'll get another chance to convince the rest of us to let you drive the country into the ground again, in 2012. Until then, can't you just man-up and admit that democracy means you don't always get your way? Or are you going to stamp your feet and wave your fists like cranky three year olds ?
You're embarrassing yourselves.
Posted by: Get Over It at September 13, 2009 12:48 AM (IRC/t)
11
>>"Or are you going to stamp your feet and wave your fists like cranky three year olds?"
You mean like you Democrats did for the entire eight years Bush was in office? Yes, we're going to be every bit as annoying as you were. Deal with it.
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 01:07 AM (Z6thO)
12
Whatever happened to Dissent is Patriotic
How is that embarrassing?
You should be embarrassed, you control the congress and the presidency and you are worried about a few people who disagree with The Man.
Whoa the 60's must finally be over!
Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2009 01:09 AM (9YHuO)
13
Worried ? Hardly. Once again, you over-estimate yourselves.
Upset over dissent? Not even a little. But let's face it, "dissent" is a mighty big word to use to people walking around screaming about things which have no basis in reality.
Posted by: Worried? at September 13, 2009 01:26 AM (IRC/t)
14
@ Worried?
I could give you about 60 thousand angry Americans who disagree with you...
Posted by: Anthony at September 13, 2009 01:32 AM (wUsav)
15
>> "dissent" is a mighty big word to use to people walking around screaming about things which have no basis in reality."
Funny how you didn't look at it that way between 2001 and 2008. In those years you regarded dissent as the most noble and patriotic thing a person could do. Now all of a sudden it's the hallmark of cranks and crazies.
If lefties could not be hypocrites, they would not know how to behave at all.
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 01:54 AM (Z6thO)
16
For all the people that represented us in Washington DC and all the other events THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! You guys were awesome!!! I am so proud of all of you you don't even know. We will succeed and our weapon is our heart and soul and the most powerful of all the truth! Great job lets keep it up, and may God bless us all.
Posted by: jann at September 13, 2009 05:55 AM (sBGqI)
17
"Wow, I didn't know there were that many racist, Nazi, evil mongers in America. And they did such a good job of imitating normal looking people, too."
Jayne
Please note that this is not a thread about Obama's address to congress.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 13, 2009 07:41 AM (aRm4V)
18
Why do the Obama astroturfers need to use different screen names all the time? If you guys are so representative of ACTUAL public opinion why does ACORN have to pay you pukes to go out, misrepresent yourselves and pollute the boards of genuine citizens? Pathetic. Muy pathetic. And it was the Dems who originally said to prepare for 2 mil on the Mall. Like all their tricks, this one is old and obvious: inflate expectations so the whole thing can later be called a failure. Ooops! The inflated figure... the one Axelrod and Rahm couldn't believe was approachable was actually met. There is a collective pants-clearing exercise going on now Chez Obama. But do not expect any serious change in course. This will have to be done again. And again. And bigger.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 13, 2009 08:03 AM (FnL7Q)
19
"2 million? No way. DC fire dept says more like 60K."
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn33/danceswithglock/motivatorb06ef63843b4a997ff57c0ed4c.jpg
Yeah, that looks like 60K to me.
You libs cant even lie well.
Posted by: Matt at September 13, 2009 08:07 AM (54Fjx)
20
Charles Johnson, in his redirected jihad against anyone from the right who mentions God, the South, or gets too mean to jihadis called Robert Stacy McCain a Southern white supremacist yesterday in connection with the DC Tea Party. CJ was also claiming he "lost count" of Obama = Hilter signs (funny, I watched video yesterday and did not see one).
In response, R.S.McCain gives one of the best comebacks and defenses of the South and conservatism I have ever read. Read it all.
Point I.
Point II.
Point III.
Posted by: Joe at September 13, 2009 10:25 AM (0Gde6)
21
Ahem -
We are a REPUBLIC - not a Democracy
I saw one of the LaRouche Obama as Hitler signs - big whop-de-do.
There was also one woman with a Confederate Flag - oh the horrors - divert your eyes.
But anyone who can look at those traffic cam and airial photos and minimize that crowd down to 60K deserves a job in the state run media or in the Obama propaganda administration.
Posted by: neomom at September 13, 2009 10:51 AM (PiO8s)
22
most estimates place it north of half a million up to potentially two million or more.
"Most" consists of who exactly? Even Fox News -- who's been promoting this event for weeks -- calls it "tens of thousands". Not even hundreds of thousands, much less over a million.
Posted by: Pennypacker at September 13, 2009 10:54 AM (tTXmT)
23
>>"Most" consists of who exactly?
Most media outlets.
Also, most peoples eyeballs. Stop reading Kos for five seconds and look at some aerial pictures of the event.
It's remarkable the way you people will refuse to believe what your own eyes tell you.
Lastly, stop the silly sockpuppeting. Pick a name and stick with it.
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 11:09 AM (C9F/h)
24
Who is Charles Johnson?
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 11:10 AM (C9F/h)
25
Here's your "60 thouand", Mr Socky.
Link.
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 11:21 AM (C9F/h)
26
Kibbe from FreedomWorks lied about ABC quoting the crowd size at 1 to 1.5 million. The DC fire department and law enforcement agencies estimate the crowd at 70,000. All the bloggers and right-wing media outlets ran with those numbers including Malkin quoting the crowd at 2 million. At one point yesterday, Fox News reported the crowd size at 400 million. That's FOUR HUNDRED MILLION!!! That's every human being in our country and approximately 100 million shipped in from other countries. Neat trick!
FreedomWorks has apologized for misquoting ABC News for lying about the alleged crowd size report:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055
And the message has been delivered quite clearly: 70,000 divided by 50 states equals 1400 protesters per state. Hope you're not planning on winning any elections with those incredibly dismal numbers. The message is you're still not a threat and we're still moving forward.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 13, 2009 02:05 PM (OX5qU)
27
I guess it will now be time for the right to learn how useless and ineffective mass protest is. I and millions of others demonstrated against the Iraq war, and I doubt Bush even realized the protests were taking place. Don't expect Obama to care either, he knows none of you voted for him anyway. The USA is a sham of a democracy, ruled by corrupt and omnipotent corporations and the elites who serve them. It does not matter in any profound way which party is in the White House.
Posted by: wbutler at September 13, 2009 02:25 PM (znAs1)
28
"At one point yesterday, Fox News reported the crowd size at 400 million."
Can you please provide a link to this claim?
"And the message has been delivered quite clearly: 70,000 divided by 50 states equals 1400 protesters per state."
lets assume that there were only 70,000 people there. Lets also use a little bit of logic, just a wee bit ok.
Logic would dictate that only a small percentage of people that agree with those protesters actually went, logic also dictates that the further away from DC you get, the lower the percentage of people that share those views.
Take me for example. I did not go, but the only reason I did not, was because I did not know about it. Yes, shame on me.
As it was not widely reported on beforehand, logic would dictate that many Americans didn't even know there was going to be an event.
Logic would also dictate, that as many Americans do not even watch the nightly news anymore, that had it been widely reported on, they wouldn't have known about it.
Your argument, as stated in your post, is idiotic.
Posted by: Matt at September 13, 2009 02:32 PM (54Fjx)
29
Politicians in Washington should take this serious. When one compares the appearance and behavior of these protestors, to the liberal/leftists/progressive protestors, its easy to see these protestors are the bill payers of this country and not the takers. Without the support of the bill payers Washington will not be able to "water the weeds".
Posted by: Rick at September 13, 2009 02:33 PM (FWmwx)
30
Well said wbutler. There were twice as many protesters in anti-war/anti-Bush rallies coordinated in both Washington and New York and despite the Left honking their own wankers on such a "clear message", Bush still got re-elected. And the Left didn't have a mainstream media cable news channel dedicated to broadcasting them all day like Fox News did for these tea-baggers yesterday.
The crowd was impressive, no doubt about it but what was the message? There was tons and tons of messages spewing about all sorts of paranoid stupid crap. Nobody made any rational points about anything. A mob of angry dimwits who couldn't even stay on message about anything. Why? No leadership! Np shepherds to coral the sheep into making sense about anything at all. It's nice that these protesters showed up but they are followers, not leaders. Without somebody besides TV, Radio and blogger personalities to lead them into the promise land of making a difference, I don't think they should be a concern to anybody. Just a gathering of angry dumb folk.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 13, 2009 02:38 PM (OX5qU)
31
"Logic would dictate that only a small percentage of people that agree with those protesters actually went, logic also dictates that the further away from DC you get, the lower the percentage of people that share those views."
Damn the no edit function.
Sorry, kids got to going crazy, and I lost concentration.
That should have read "logic also dictates that the further away from DC you get, the lower the percentage showed up."
Posted by: Matt at September 13, 2009 02:38 PM (54Fjx)
32
Dozens of people showed up. Just ask MSNBC ...
Posted by: Jim at September 13, 2009 02:40 PM (yYbeZ)
33
Guess we'll just have to do it again, and bigger.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 13, 2009 02:58 PM (L26dt)
34
Lipiwitz channeling George III.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at September 13, 2009 03:25 PM (PBTsv)
35
The DC fire department and law enforcement agencies estimate the crowd at 70,000.
The DC fire and police are forbidden from giving estimates. The accurate quote is "in excess of 75,000".
Which .5-1.5 million definitely is. And working Americans, not professional agitators. Pretty good turnout.
But go ahead and radicalize the group even more. Pretty soon we will have the likes of back to "fist in the air and head in the sand" where you belong.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 13, 2009 04:03 PM (G/up0)
36
The DC Fire Department is not in the busness of giving crowd estmates.
I repeat, look at the pictures. LOOK AT THE PICTURES! They don't lie.
The ablity of you lefties to lie about even the most obvious things never ceases to amaze me, and I've been watching it for decades.
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 04:32 PM (akMpk)
37
>>"70,000 divided by 50 states equals 1400 protesters per state. Hope you're not planning on winning any elections with those incredibly dismal numbers. The message is you're still not a threat and we're still moving forward. "
The message, Lipshits, is that you are either an illiterate moron or shockingly dishonest. Although we can't rule out the possibility that you are both at once.
But if you are right then your pack of jackels will have no problem moving forward with their agenda. Let's see if that happens. My bet is that your precious government run health care is dead in the water.
Posted by: Steve at September 13, 2009 04:39 PM (akMpk)
38
FOXNEWS keeps saying tens of thousands.
Posted by: davod at September 13, 2009 05:02 PM (GUZAT)
39
Dear Lefties,
Keep whistling past the graveyard. There were only two of us there, and Unicorns can fly.
2010 is right around the corner, and those Tea Partiers vote. We'll see whose right in a few months.
Posted by: Old Dad at September 13, 2009 06:14 PM (Gn3nw)
40
2010 is right around the corner, and those Tea Partiers vote. We'll see whose right in a few months.
But who to vote for? Most Republicans are scared of their own shadows. If there is no alternative, the Dims will continue their march to a socialist utopia...ok, a socialist dump
Posted by: iconoclast at September 13, 2009 09:01 PM (G/up0)
41
I was there, I moved around the crowd constantly, spoke to anyone who would speak with me.
As I entered the Capitol grounds, I asked a Capitol police officer if he knew how many people were there. He said 1.5 million. Take that for what it is worth.
Numbers don't really matter much to me. I never got the whole "let's count noses" thing. There was a lot of people there, and they were all not pleased with the government. One thing I thought was interesting was that the Gadsen flag was very popular. I'd say over half the flags there were Gadsen flags, the rest the Stars and Stripes, and a smattering of the state flags. Saw two San Jacinto flags, and one battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. I thought one of the coolest things was hearing better speeches from activist groups then from Congresscritters.
Posted by: Britt at September 13, 2009 11:47 PM (DcWbe)
42
It was great being there with over a million people fighting to keep Obama and this democratic administration from socializing this country.
This is a good picture showing the incredible attendance that liberals are to pathetic and ignorant to accept:
http://twitcaps.com/search?q=%23912dc
CAN YOU HEAR US NOW!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Baxter Greene at September 14, 2009 12:24 AM (uUPj8)
43
Sorry,
This photo is not 9/12 march.
http://twitcaps.com/search?q=%23912dc
Posted by: Baxter Greene at September 14, 2009 12:47 AM (uUPj8)
44
Baxter. The photos were discussed earlier in the thread. It was taken on 9/12.
Also, the national park service is saying that "It is a record.... We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."
Posted by: Matt at September 14, 2009 08:09 AM (54Fjx)
45
The media numbers (for believability) are out and explain the propaganda medias estimates.
The have lost any creditability they ever had, so will continue down the path of destruction, because they have no other choice. The must continue to support the far left with fingers in ears and say "Na Na Na Na Na".
I hope we can find a way to control the nut jobs in this administration, but the media is pretty much a dead issue. They no longer have credability or trust in this country, it is really bad when you have to listen and read stories in the EU media to find out about events in the USA.
Pathetic
Posted by: John at September 14, 2009 10:10 AM (bvaOU)
46
You people really need to grow up,
Posted by: growup at September 14, 2009 12:48 PM (IRC/t)
47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Moratorium The protest on October 16, 1969 was 600,000 strong. It was portrayed in "Forrest Gump" as a sideline. The pictures from then vs. now show almost the same population density that was seen back then. IF it was ONLY 70,000 people, the Mall would have shown some open areas. I tend to lean towards the bloggers on site. I can't say for sure, as I AM in Iraq, but from the pictures I've seen of it, plus reports from my Brother (a Fed Agent) that this was WAY more than the Mouthpiece Media is allowing.
Posted by: Big Country at September 14, 2009 02:54 PM (H/RUP)
48
Baxter...some of those pictures were hilarious especially the mall crowd with the caption that said "EDITED PHOTO TO SHOW MORE PEOPLE ATTENDED, GOT CAUGHT AND THEN BLAMED THE DEMS FOR A SET UP". Who knew honesty could be so freakin' hilarious.
There are photos circulating on the right-wing blogs showing a massive crowd on Pennsylvania avenue. They are also circulating pictures with massive crowds on the mall that look strangely familiar to the crowds that were on the mall back in January. Some right-wing bloggers are claiming 2 million people on Penn Ave and some are claiming 2 million on the mall and Fox News said 400 million which means every single human being in America was there and we borrowed 100 million from other countries. Neat trick.
The DC Fire Department has confirmed about 60,000. FLOP!
The Grand Pooba Tea-Bagger herself, Michelle Malkin has a picture she has confirmed on her blog site that "yes, it's authentic nutroots". Apparently the Grand Pooba tea-bagger herself, Michelle Malkin didn't notice in the picture that the building that houses the Department of Indian Affairs isn't there. Well? They didn't build it yesterday!
You guys are soooo precious.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 14, 2009 07:28 PM (OX5qU)
49
The actual number really isn't that important.
But Obama should remind himself that the next time all those folks come the DC, it's quite possible that they will all have pitch-forks .. and they won't be looking for any Wall Street types.
Posted by: Neo at September 14, 2009 09:09 PM (tE8FB)
50
Well with numbers that low, you shouldn't have a problem getting enough pitch-forks.
And Obama and the rest of America that democratically elected President Obama through our constitutionally established process as presented by our patriot fore-fathers have more than enough armed personnel and weapons to accommodate your pitch-forks. I'm sure they will hold their own quite well against a fleet of black-hawks. Hell, we'll even give you an extra ten minutes so you can figure out which side of the pitch-fork you're supposed to be using.
It's time you pink-team pansies stop talking and suit up. Grab your guns and pitch-forks and bring it if you got the balls (in which you don't). The sooner the World's most powerful military can wipe these parasites off the planet, the sooner we can get back to doing adult stuff.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 15, 2009 02:21 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 11, 2009
"I Put a Bomb in Your Building, Bitch"
Someone find out where all of Obama's domestic terrorist friends are; organizers for tomorrow's 9/12 protest in Washington, DC were forced out of their building due to a bomb threat.
I'm sure that DHS and the Southern Poverty Law Center will be along any minute now to assure us the perpetrator was a
right wing extremist:
A FreedomWorks staffer told ABC News that the organization's offices at 601 Pennsylvania Avenue were evacuated on Friday afternoon by DC Metro Police because of a bomb scare.
DC Metro police has confirmed to ABC News' Jason Ryan that the DC Metro police had, indeed, evacuated the organization's offices after being told by the organization that it had received a bomb threat.
The threat came when a man called the FreedomWorks main line and told the organization's female receptionist: "I put a bomb in your building, bitch."
The FreedomWorks staffer who spoke with ABC News said that the organization has received multiple threats but that for some reason, the DC Metro police thought that this one was credible enough to evacuate the building.
Hope. Change. Multiple bomb threats.
Man, I'm loving this Presidency so far.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:41 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hope and Change = Bait and Switch
Posted by: Bill G. at September 12, 2009 06:39 AM (HUOW4)
2
Someone of even greature notariety than Joe Wilson will need to confront Obama and say: "You are liar and a thug"
Posted by: martin j smith at September 12, 2009 08:21 AM (RJaIa)
3
An evacuated building is a really good time for someone to get in and have a look around.
Posted by: davo at September 12, 2009 09:06 AM (GUZAT)
4
The strangest comment about today's Washington Tea Party protest is that the White House officially denied knowledge that there was one planned. Hey guys... look out the windows, listen to the news. The D.C. police estimate that there are 1.2 million dissatisfied citizens who have been betrayed by the government out there on 14th Street and surrounding areas, peacefully, if noisily, protesting the betrayal.
And, of course, Obama is out of town. Not reassuring, is it?
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at September 12, 2009 05:45 PM (VbbNx)
5
Yeah the claimed ignorance of today's events, as often lately, leave us with a choice between epic incompetence and banal mendacity. It's the latter. But the bombthreat thing... ya know, all it takes is a phone. This is the amusement of the real-life Bart Simpsons and is as common as it is stupid. Look, if you were bombing, say, the Pentagon or a debutante ball you WOULD NOT WARN THE TARGETS. So Ayers is off the hook for this one. Do they have teenage kids?
Posted by: megapotamus at September 12, 2009 05:55 PM (0k7yE)
6
The answer as to who called in the threat would be a man with experience concerning these things. His name? William Ayers, of course.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 12, 2009 08:55 PM (cQ2G9)
7
Of course there was a bomb scare. And I bet it came from one of the FreedomWorks staffers. After all, what whingenut gathering would be complete without a "bomb scare" ?
Posted by: yawn at September 13, 2009 12:49 AM (IRC/t)
8
Posted by yawn at September 13, 2009 12:49 AM
I just love that leftard projection. That is the kind of operation that the left just loves. So of course they fantasize that everyone is as desperate for legitimacy as they are.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 13, 2009 04:06 PM (G/up0)
9
You called it CY. Yawn came by and proved you right. Even when you point it out in the post itself, they still can't help themselves.
Libs have weird logic. They don't believe that terrorist sympathizers could threaten terrorism. They completely invert the object and subject.
Posted by: brando at September 14, 2009 05:10 PM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sadly Necessary
A re-linking of Popular Mechanics' Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report.
Because sadly, Van Jones isn't the only left-wing idiot that signed that infamous petition, and
most of his peers are still convinced the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:51 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes but at least we've seen his birth certificate to debunk a NEW infamous petition from brand new, even bigger morons. LOL
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 11, 2009 12:54 PM (OX5qU)
2
Lipiwitz, if you think that group of nuts arguing over the country of their President's birth is anywhere close to being on par (much less "even bigger") with accusing the previous President, Vice President, and literally hundreds of others of being involved in allowing (or directly causing) thousands of American to die a gruesome death in order to create a justification for an even bloodier series of war, then you have huge, huge issues.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 11, 2009 01:07 PM (gAi9Z)
3
Lipiwitz. Jeez. Do you ever wonder why so many people are disgusted by Liberals? It's because of crap like that. 9/11 really brings the LOLs for you.
I'll file that in the memory banks. You're not a good person.
Posted by: brando at September 11, 2009 01:42 PM (IPGju)
4
They can't be too disgusted with Liberals or their issues, they voted us in majority control didn't they?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 11, 2009 06:09 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: Marc at September 11, 2009 06:12 PM (Zoziv)
6
>>"at least we've seen his birth certificate"
Who is this "his"? Did you bother to read the post before depositiong your little nuggets all over the place?
Posted by: Steve at September 11, 2009 07:59 PM (OQW4n)
7
"They can't be too disgusted with Liberals or their issues, they voted us in majority control didn't they?" We'll have another election in 2010 and that mistake may be corrected. If the Democrat majority is turned out, will you accept that as a judgment of the voters or lament how they are having a mere tantrum? One thing I've noticed about libs is how well they rationalize defeat. They never lose. Elections are stolen, voters are mislead and beguiled, but liberals never lose on the merits of their ideology or the weakness of their ideas.
Posted by: zhombre at September 11, 2009 08:42 PM (zzL++)
8
I knew it. Lipiwitz thinks that the vast majority of people are all LOLz about 9/11. Maybe he's right. Even though I'm on the minority on this one, I know I'm the correct minority. Mass murder isn't funny to me, but I'm not a Liberal.
Posted by: brando at September 11, 2009 10:15 PM (LjEkE)
9
Um, are we reading the same article? I don't see a lot of those signatories "convinced the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen" -- instead I'm reading a lot of people who think that the 9/11 Commission did a very substandard job of investigating the tragedy. You don't need to be a tinfoil conspiracy theorist to hold that view. If you don't see a difference between those positions you're being willfully blind.
Posted by: Pennypacker at September 11, 2009 10:47 PM (tTXmT)
10
>>"Um, are we reading the same article? I don't see a lot of those signatories "convinced the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen"
Are you reading the article which says that "high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur"?
Posted by: Steve at September 12, 2009 12:29 AM (BvEhq)
11
It does say that, Pennypacker. How do you reconcile that?
Posted by: brando at September 12, 2009 11:48 AM (LjEkE)
12
I'm reading the Salon article that CY references which supposedly shows that all of Van Jones's peers believe the Bush administration planned 9/11. The one with quotes like this one:
Since when did Salon permit Glenn Beck and the almost equally loony WSJ editorial page to set the terms of discussion, calling those who want answers to so much that remains unexplained about 9/11 "truthers" and thus giving them equivalence with "birthers," "deathers" and "tea baggers"?
Or this one:
The petition, as I signed it, was essentially recommending that an independent investigation take place. I felt at the time, and still feel, that with events of such monumental importance as this, the more light that can be shed the better. I do not believe that the official 9/11 Commission Report addressed many of the most important questions about the events. Nevertheless, I have no ongoing association with the 9/11 Truthers.
Or this:
First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job. That body was deliberately enfeebled by Bush/Cheney: grossly underfunded ($3 million -- while, for example, the budget for the study of the Challenger disaster was $50 million, and Whitewater cost over $40 million); granted no subpoena power; forced to rush the process; denied all sorts of vital information; and otherwise slowed down, fouled up, kept in the dark. (I write at length about Bush/Cheney's varied efforts to prevent, then hobble, the Commission in my book "Cruel and Unusual," pp. 33ff.)
These aren't people alleging that Bush had any foreknowledge of the terrorist plan. These are people who thought the 9/11 Commission did a poor job.
Posted by: Pennypacker at September 12, 2009 05:51 PM (tTXmT)
Posted by: brando at September 13, 2009 01:54 PM (LjEkE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Anti-Abortion "Sign Man" Brutally Shot Down
Jim Pouillon, known among his neighbors as the "sign man" for his signs opposing the practice of abortion, was gunned down this morning in Owosso MI as students at the high school across the street were unloading from buses at 7:20 a.m.
Owosso resident Gary Shepherd, who lives near the high school, said he was in bed sleeping when he heard "four shots and tires squeeling."
He and his wife went outside to see what was happening.
"I just saw several people that I knew who were medical officials working on (Pouillon) and giving him CPR," Shepherd said. "It's a pretty sad day when somebody shoots someone over a political agenda that he had. He was always known as the 'sign man.' ... This country is based on freedom of speech."
A second man police was believed killed by the same suspect around 6:00 a.m. at nearby Fouss Gravel. The suspect in both shootings is believed to be the same man, and is in police custody.
A press conference has been scheduled by local law enforcement to discuss the shootings at 11:30 CT.
h/t
Don Surber, who is also covering.
Update: The
Blog Prof has a post up where a commenter suggests that the protester's murder was a crime of opportunity committed by someone strongly opposed to his views who was already on the hook for the earleir murder that morning. Gravel company owner Mike Fuoss was gunned down first, and the shooter, knowing he was going to be captured for the Fuoss murder, decided to "kill that ass," —abortion protester Poullion—who was apparently known to stand outside the high school in the mornings.
I'm not sure if that makes Poullion's murder an assassination, a crime of opportunity, or a bit of both.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:26 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
More detail here, including the identity of the victim and the possible motive:
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/breaking-anti-abortion-activist-shot.html
Posted by: theblogprof at September 11, 2009 11:53 AM (SrlmQ)
2
Are we going to see as many stories in the mainstream press about this assassination, as we did when Dr. Tiller was killed? Baited breaths await.....
Posted by: Mikey60 at September 11, 2009 03:37 PM (0XEcj)
3
God commands us "Thou shall not kill" Killing is a crime and it is a sin before God and man. Who has divided America? A nation divided among itself cannot stand.
Posted by: Make Money Online at September 11, 2009 04:44 PM (fSabZ)
4
And of course HummerBlue is omniscient enough to know any of the drivel he spouts...
Posted by: SDN at September 11, 2009 04:45 PM (F3wAI)
5
Anti-Abortion "Sign Man" Brutally Shot Down
Drudge: Pro-Life activist shot in front of school... Developing...
Posted by: Anita at September 11, 2009 05:04 PM (EGjjc)
6
>>"those who support a women's right to control her own body"
The issue with reagrds to abortion is not a women's right to control her own body, but a womans right to control and destroy anothers body.
Of course, stating the issue accurately is not in your best interests.
Posted by: Steve at September 11, 2009 05:04 PM (OQW4n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Still Raw, Still Visceral
Eight years later, all I can clearly remember is the sinking feeling in my gut and the unnaturally blue skies we had in the Hudson Valley that morning.
This says so much more than my words can.
Via Instapundit, on Facebook.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:23 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I worked at a financial institution in mid-town Manhattan near Grand Central Station. I will never forget this day and the pain, suffering and intense fear it caused. Standing on the trading floor with my co-workers watching the terrible scene unfold; the cries of horror and disbelief, people running out the door knowing their loved ones were in those Towers. The devastating losses of family, business associates and friends. The stream of silent, shocked people walking up Lexington Avenue through the day; the endless scream of sirens and seeing fighter jets overhead; the posters of the missing on every building and pole; standing on Fifth Avenue at 2:00 in the afternoon and seeing the spire of smoke that was once the Trade Center. The bomb scares in the days following and hundreds of people pouring onto the streets in fear. The long dark days of seemingly endless funerals and memorials on the streets of New York. Never forget and never let anyone demean this Day of Remembrance. RIP.
Posted by: Catherine at September 11, 2009 08:35 AM (nP2B1)
2
I worked refueling planes at N.O. International(Now Luis Armstrong Int.).
Late flights had me hopping, and I over heard something hit the tower, and speculation was a cessna or private jet. . . Back out to work another of the late flights, when suddenly, the workers on one of my flights disappeared. . .
grounded.
I will never forget.
Posted by: JP at September 11, 2009 12:22 PM (VxiFL)
3
I am sorry I am late to this thread. But I rarely feel right posting about it, maybe because it still cuts like a knife, I'm not sure.
I think, no I know that this event was much like Pearl Harbor for our generation. It is a thing where you will never forget that day, where you were, what you were doing, and the feeling you had in the pit of your stomach.
I was with 3/8 Weapons Company. We were on our way out to the field for a static line shoot with the big guns (.50 and MK19). The range we were going to required us to leave base. We stopped at a red light and an old ugly blue van with rust all over it pulled up along side of us. Nothing unusual about it. But instead of the driver simply looking ahead and waiting on the light to turn green, he turned to me, sitting in the passenger seat of our HMMWV, and said. “You boys are about to get really busy. Someone bombed the World Trade Centers.” Before I could ask anything the light turned green and he drove off. I figured he was just another crazy old guy wanting to mess with us. It couldn’t have happened here, not on our soil. I quickly pushed the encounter from my mind and back on the task at hand.
A few miles down the road the OOD came on the radio and told me that I had to bring the entire section back to the rear and secure everyone to their rooms. Leave the weapons out of the armory and have them take them to the second deck lounge, and place a gear guard on them.
Odd, but nothing too unusual, plans change all the time. Maybe the 4 forgot to lock the range on and they were trying to find another open range. There was no telling. I didn’t even think to give any validity to what the crazy old man said.
After I worked out a roster to rotate the gear guards for chow and what not I went back to my room in the BEQ grabbed a soda (Dr. Pepper) and a tuna sandwich (Swiss cheese, mustard and mayo) from the mini fridge and stepped out onto the catwalk to have a smoke.
I lived on the third deck on the side of the BEQ that overlooked the road that lead to the PX. From that vantage point you could see the traffic circle, the main LZ by the field house, and all the way down to K street. We lived in HP2345 at the time, and it was on C street.
After a few moments a group of five Harriers flew overhead, fast! Still nothing unusual. They were constantly flying near our barracks. It was a straight shot from New River to the B ranges they used to drop bombs. Then another five. And another. Then a group of 18s. After a bit of time in, you can actually learn the sounds of the various birds, it was always a game of ours to sit there and guess what type of bird was flying overhead. Well when I heard the 18s I actually looked up. 18s normally came from Cherry Point, and that is a totally different direction, and they were coming from that direction. But what made me look up is the fact that there are no ranges in the direction they were traveling. Well when I looked up I knew something was odd. Really odd.
Normally birds fly empty, no munitions when simply flying, and when they are going to the bombing range they only load a few. Never a full stack. But these were armed to the teeth. But they were not carrying bombs. Then I kind of looked out over the parking lot to the road and saw Abrams driving down the road. I only thought it odd because normally the flex mounts on the TC hatches were normally void of their machine guns while traveling down the road. But sure enough they were mounted and had rounds on the feed trays. The Abrams turned towards the PX, that road leads to the main gate. Then I saw an AAV park itself upon the grass in the center of the traffic circle, then off to my left by the fire station there was two vehicles from LAR.
I checked the news and sure enough the WTC was hit, and while I was watching the smoke rise they cut in to say that the Pentagon had been hit.
The Ops Chief showed up a few minutes later with ammo and briefed us.
I was pissed. So pissed that I remember not being able to see straight. A deep seeded kind of pissed off that I hadn’t felt before. I had been in combat before, I knew what it was like. But never before did I ever wish death upon someone.
Well we were on ACM at the time. So we all knew what was going to happen. We checked our Marines' gear once again making sure they had everything they needed. By two o'clock there were buses waiting to take us to Cherry Point. Setting on the tarmac was a C5. Engines spun up ready to take off. My CAAT team was going to be on the first flight out with Lima Company. We sat on the Tarmac with that same bird, engines spun up, for days, waiting to go break something. But the call didn't come, so we went back to Camp Lejeune and sat in our rooms, no training, no PT. Just sitting there waiting on a call to go.
Posted by: Matt at September 12, 2009 07:47 AM (54Fjx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 10, 2009
Long Guns I'd Like to See
Every once in a while I get the opportunity to test some exquisite firearms.
The last to pass through my hands was Ruger's first entry into the AR market, the piston-driven SR-556, which I was able to outfit with an Insight Technologies MRDS optic. I just returned it last week after having it for three months, and it was
tough to send back. I'll post my range report in the weeks to come.
Having a newly-released gun in your hands sometimes lead you to try to get into the mind of the designer to try to understand why they decided on the features they brought to market, and in my case, that leads me to wonder about other firearms that I'd be interested in seeing developed from existing firearms, or entirely new designs.
There are two that I've been kicking around in the back of my mind in recent weeks, one being a 5.56 Garand, and the other is a user-friendly dedicated home-defense shotgun.
The 5.56 Garand
The Garand needs no introduction. It was America's premier service rifle in World War II through the Korean War, a semi-automatic firing eight .30-'06 rounds loaded from an en bloc clip.
There are millions of Garands in the hands of American shooters, with the vast majority of them chambered in the traditional .30-'06, but the .308 Winchester increasing being adopted in new rifles. Modification of Garands into other calibers is nothing new, with custom Garands chambered in .338 Magnum and 458 Magnum being
available to those who can afford them, but I'd like to see development taken the other way.
I'd like to see a Garand design modernized and scaled to the 5.56 cartridge. Imagine a Garand at 90-percent the size of the original, with a forward-mounted short section of picatinny rail for "scout"-type scopes, with a detachable rear sight (and perhaps a folding rear backup iron site). Even scaled to 90-percent, I wold think an 8-10 round en bloc clip is quite possible.
I imagine it as a truck gun, equally suited for utility work, plinking, predator, and defense or light to medium game hunting.
The Home Defense Shotgun
While the 5.56 is a nice " want to have," the next firearm on my wish list is for a real and vital market that in my experience, is under-served.
When I was selling firearms, the most heart-wrenching work I took on was trying to help someone who had recently been the victim of a crime. A young couple just starting out was living in rough part of town, awoke one night to a someone high on drugs battering open their front door. A single older lady found signs that someone had tried to force open her apartment window. A single woman in her 20s, visibly shaken, scared that her obsessive ex-boyfriend was going to break in one night and hurt her for leaving him.
None of these customers was the caricature of a gun owner that liberals love to set up as strawmen, and none really wanted to purchase a gun. What they really wanted was the sense of security that only firearms can provide in a potentially dangerous situation.
For each of these customers, I wish I had a better option than what I had on the shelves. What I wish I had to sell was a very easy to operate, compact and nearly foolproof shotgun, one that was light and compact enough for women and smaller-statured men, without punishing recoil, and with at least 4-5 rounds in the magazine. I still don't see a perfect solution on the market (and a one-size fits all solution will never exist), but something built off the basic concepts behind the Kel-Tec RFB would certainly be a step in the right direction.
The
RFB is a very compact bullpup-style .308 rifle that ejects spent shells forward, meaning it can be used ambidextrously without any modifications. A similar weapon chambered in 20-gauge with simple iron sights and larger game loads (#4-#6) could certainly be the in-home, last defense gun that I would have recommended if we had it on the shelf.
I don't know that there is a significant market for either firearm, but it would certainly be interesting to see how such concepts might work out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:52 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm going to ignore that "most liberals" comment.
The Garand is a fine weapon. I own one. But it's a long-distance weapon unless you intend to use it as a club. Whatever conflict you and I are about to confront requires something in the close combat role.
If you insist on the long-range potential of the M1, but want something with less opportunity to bite your thumb, I suggest the M-14. It was what I was trained on and it is a beautiful rifle, phased out only because it tends to ride up on full auto. But in single shot or three-round bursts, the 14 is a great weapon. It's what I would grab in a heartbeat.
Still, in today's urban environment, you're looking at a carbine, perhaps. In that case, I'd suggest the H&K MP5. Comes in a variety of permutations, folding stock, banana clip, etc. It is a sweet weapon, one of the finest I've fired. Throws 9s like grandma threw chicken feed, but with more accuracy. No offense to grandma.
But, as one of my instructors said, "For home defense, nothing beats a Remington or Mossberg pump." He racked the shotgun. "That there," he said, "is the barking dog of firearms."
So, I have a Remington, an M1, my GI Colt .45 (because I am seriously old school) and a Browning .22 for close in and desperate work.
Stick with the classics, Bob. Cary, where you live, is about as safe as Disneyland.
But you'll absorb some firearm history, at the least.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at September 10, 2009 11:27 PM (Bx4FB)
2
>>"one being a 5.56 Garand"
Isn't that what the Mini-14 is? A 5.56mm (.223) verion of the M-14 rifle, which itself was the Garand with a bigger mag?
Posted by: Steve at September 10, 2009 11:45 PM (Wd5Ki)
3
There is an M1 like you describe made by Beretta called the BM59. I had one and it is about a foot shorter than the M1 and it was a 308 NATO. It was built under license for the Italian army. Mine had a bipod and it was my boat gun in Fl. during the boat drug hijacking days.
Posted by: inspectorudy at September 11, 2009 12:03 AM (wkCYX)
4
Terrenoire? Gross. Why would anyone believe anything you say? Ugh.
CY, I've always liked bulpup style weapons, but I think it's only because they're a little weird with the magazine placement. It seems a bit overly complicated.
For example, the brass has to travel something like 18 inches inside the weapon, before it's ejected. That seems like a good way for the cycle to get mucked up. Instead of firing it and getting it out, an even more goofy design would be to have a crazy stray ejector tube.
Also their own site said this (caps by me):
"No open sights are provided, ALLOWING the user to select from the very best new optics and sight systems available."
Oh, they *allow* the user to use optics? Good. Good. Maybe they could sell a weapon with rail mounted iron sights? I dunno. So you can go to the range right away, or in case you don't feel like shelling out big bucks for the very best new optics.
Posted by: brando at September 11, 2009 12:44 AM (LjEkE)
5
My wishlist would be for someone to chamber an AR-15 or similar rifle in 6.5x45 and, yes I would jump all over the Ruger SR in 6.5x45. Seems like it would be very simple to tool for - the only change would be the barrel. IMO, would be the ultimate survival rifle, good for personal defense and taking game up to small deer.
I've been tempted to try it myself with a 6.5TCU chambered AR barrel, but I wonder if the "Improved" shoulder design would be a good idea in an autoloader. I may have to bite the bullet and order an SSK 6.5MPC upper, but that's a bit pricey.
Posted by: diogenes online at September 11, 2009 09:20 AM (2MrBP)
6
A bullpup shottie would definitely be easier to manage inside a house, but I wonder if it's mean looks wouldn't be off-putting to a typical non-gun person. Such a gun is meant for only one thing: self-defense, and that's a mighty big hill for some people's psyche to climb.
Something like a Mossberg Bantam in 20 gauge might be less intimidating, as the argument can be made that it's a sporting gun. Lots of Hollywood celebrities and sports stars shoot clays, so it's a good entry-level gun as well as an effective home defense gun.
Posted by: Exurbankevin at September 11, 2009 11:20 AM (toqoX)
7
diogenes -
I have a friend who builds 6.5X45 uppers for AR's. Drop me a note if you want his number.
Posted by: emdfl at September 11, 2009 05:53 PM (Mkonf)
8
I save several firearms, but chose my 12 GA Pump Riot gun for general house protection. It stays loaded with 00 Buck. It also holds 10 rounds.
My backup is my Colt MKIV Series 70 .45 ACP That I bought new, as soon as I got back from Vietnam. I instinctively shoot well with it after almost 40 years of practice.
My other guns include an AR, but that is last resort. My other guns are for pure fun.
Posted by: Marc at September 11, 2009 06:01 PM (Zoziv)
9
I'd love to see a "Baby Garand" in 5.56. Ruger could use a variation on the Mini-14 receiver, and do an 8-10 round enbloc clip (or a flush 8-10 round box magazine to keep the "classic" profile). Don't like the idea of the Picatinny segment-if you're going to call it a Garand, it ought to look like one.
Posted by: TJ Simons at September 11, 2009 06:49 PM (07OWy)
10
The answer to the 'punishing' shotgun recoil would be to have available catridges that do not have the same powder charge as a hunting round. Buckshot for the 20' to 30' range, perhaps.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 11, 2009 06:57 PM (TUWci)
11
Ahh the shotgun. Let me count the ways.
Anyway. Yeah it is a great home defense firearm. But if you guys forget everything else I have ever said, remember this. Do not load it with anything less than #4 buck. Anything less will lack the velocity at 3 yd to reliably penetrate to vital organs. Yes you will get a mean looking shallow wound with bird shot, and that will likely turn away the normal intruder. But guys that are hopped up on something will not likely be stopped.
00 buck will sure do the trick. But it can have the tendency to over penetrate.
Posted by: Matt at September 12, 2009 07:57 AM (54Fjx)
12
There is a 5.56 version of the Garand, it's the Ruger Mini-14. Of course it is based on the M-14 which is a magazine version of the M-1.
Posted by: Federale at September 12, 2009 05:09 PM (I6UoW)
13
After reading I thought I should add....
Mossberg makes a home defense shotgun, the HS410, mode for home defense and women in mind. It has a number of features that make it very well suited to the roll. I know "410" , that couldn't be very useful?, but at close range it is as powerful as a rifle and easier to control than a pistol. The sound of the bolt is also universal for "Behave yourself!" They can be hard to find sometimes.
And I see that this has already been mentioned.
In classic rifles in 5.56 or .223, Ruger's mini-14, It is called the mini-14 because it is basically a scaled down M-14.
Posted by: Ron at September 12, 2009 08:41 PM (x31tg)
14
All you guys are just playing around.
Get serious, belt fed LAWS rocket. Now thats gonna wake up the neighbors. It will be easy to find the bad guys if you miss. A trail of odorous body fluids will lead you right to them. hahaha!!!
The wife and I both have Glock 17s. As easy to operate a revolver but with a whole lot more ammo.
Posted by: capt26thga at September 13, 2009 02:39 PM (BJeda)
15
capt26thga - a little hard on the plaster, perhaps?
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 13, 2009 03:26 PM (TUWci)
16
I know this comment is a little late in the game, but the HD shotgun you've described was eerily similar to what a freind of mine once described.
Heres the kicker: He's a Marine veteran of the retaking of Fallujah. He had mentioned being dissatisfied with the M16A4 for urban combat, and I asked him what he thought the ideal tool for the scenario would be. His reply was a box magazine fed bullpup 20 Gauge shotgun with a smoothbore barrel.
Posted by: HullBreach at September 14, 2009 04:22 PM (v+nDn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Worshipping Protocol Over Truth
The extent of which our leaders have utterly warped morals was glaringly revealed last night when SC Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie!" after President Obama claimed that the health-care proposals he supports would not cover illegal aliens.
The simple fact of the matter is that Wilson was correct; there is nothing in the Democratic bill that would exclude coverage to those in this country illegally, and the President knows that to be true.
And yet it is a far greater sin in the eyes of the Congress that Wilson breached protocol than it was the President willfully and knowingly lied to the American people. Even Wilson himself, throughly indoctrinated, was immediately contrite.
But why should he be?
Do the trapping of office and protocol demand that obvious lies that are spouted in Congressional addresses go uncontested? Apparently so.
And we're a poorer nation for it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:16 AM
| Comments (62)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You are sorely misinformed like Rep. Wilson. This rabid, emotional approach to this issue is not constructive. The bill clearly states that you won't be a part of this plan if you are not in the country legally.
From the NYT today:
The legislation approved by three House committees clearly states that only lawful residents will qualify for new health insurance subsidies. “Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
Posted by: Bernard at September 10, 2009 08:46 AM (1xn1P)
2
I disagree, if this kind of stuff happens in congress, then it will be like taiwan's (I think it was them) parliamentary fight. There has to be some civility in this, or nothing will ever get accomplished (like it would anyways...). If someone shouted out in congress every time someone else lied, CSPAN would have to be on mute. There is a time and a place for dissent, but this was a poorly chosen one. This won't help the republicans at all, and will more than likely help the democrats.
It was a valid point, just improper timing- in a business meeting at work if your boss says something that is wrong do you stand up in the middle of the conference call and yell "Bullshit you lying piece of..." ? I imagine not. But there is a time and place for disagreement.
Posted by: Scott at September 10, 2009 08:48 AM (giIn8)
3
Obama: 'If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out'
Joe Wilson (R-SC) returns the favor ... calls out Obama
Democrats get their collective "tit in a ringer"
Posted by: Neo at September 10, 2009 08:58 AM (tE8FB)
4
Bernard:
While the bill states that only lawful residents can use Obamacare, it also has no penalty for illegals using it, and no means of enforcing the "lawful residents only" provisions. Indeed, I believe it prohibits checking.
So, if I am an illegal, and there is no penalty for breaking the law and no way for me to get caught, obviously I am going to respect that law. right? Dream on.
Posted by: Mark L at September 10, 2009 09:05 AM (a+kMW)
5
@Bernard
Current law prohibits medical providers from asking whether a patient is a legal resident.
Yeah, they threw in that language knowing that it was completely unenforceable.
That makes it a lie.
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at September 10, 2009 09:34 AM (73P68)
6
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. Are they going to repeal that, and leave the critically ill in the streets to die if they don't have their papers in hand? Didn't think so.
Many illegals are covered by their employer's health plans. How do we address that? Heh.
Clinics and health centers serving low-income paitents never ask for proof of citizenship. We going to make such ID mandatory? Dump the ill and suffering back into the streets? I think not.
Yes, we'll continue to cover illegals in one form or another.
Posted by: Tully at September 10, 2009 09:52 AM (tUyDE)
7
>>"The legislation approved by three House committees clearly states that only lawful residents will qualify for new health insurance subsidies. “Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”"
You must be joking. It's not whatever nonsense is written in the subtitle, it's what measures are in place in the bill itself to prevent illegals from using our health care system. And there are no such neasures! The House Republicans attempted to put some in, and the Democrats stripped them out.
Obama was lying, and so are you.
Posted by: Steve at September 10, 2009 10:07 AM (Gzy97)
8
>>"From the NYT today"
Well there's your problem! Stop reading Democratic party propaganda and thinking it describes reality.
Posted by: Steve at September 10, 2009 10:10 AM (Gzy97)
9
Tully I agree with you, however, Obama said his health care proposals would not cover illegal aliens but it will.
Posted by: Rick at September 10, 2009 11:23 AM (FWmwx)
10
Yes, we'll continue to cover illegals in one form or another.
Posted by Tully at September 10, 2009 09:52 AM
For the time being, yes. At some point--when the country decides to look at more of the real reasons health care costs are rising, then reducing the number of illegal aliens and their drain on our resources will become a priority.
Simply requiring proof of citizenship/legal residency for work, school, and government-subsidized medical care will resolve a lot of the problem. Doesn't mean they will be denied emergency care--just that they will go from the emergency room to the INS detention center.
As for private charity, such as the free Catholic hospitals: nothing is stopping them from providing health care to whomever they wish. At least as long as the charity services exist; with the destruction of charitable deductions and the assault on Catholic hospitals (requiring them to provide abortion services) this option may disappear.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 10, 2009 11:33 AM (O8ebz)
11
Obama is lying and should be called out in public about it. First, there is not a crisis in medical care. That should be reason enough to slow this process and inform the public as to their options. The only problem that I know of with medical care is the insurance agencies that can do whatever they desire. Some regulation here is necessary but not the government taking over. The other aspect of medical care is cost, that is directly related to the government and the fact they will not pay for medicare and medicaid. In fact if the the government got out of medicine then everything would be perfect.
Posted by: David at September 10, 2009 12:56 PM (k1mBN)
12
Joe Wilson stood up to “get in their face” and “punch back twice as hard.”
Oh, wait. That's what Obama instructed his supporters to do.
Posted by: George at September 10, 2009 01:35 PM (WA19M)
13
We don't currently "exclude coverage" from illegals. Anybody is welcome to purchase whatever insurance they like. That doesn't seem to be headed for a change, and unless you want insurers to require some kind of proof of citizenship, say, a national ID card, it can't change. What the President was talking about was that the plan will not use federal funds to pay for any illegal's insurance, which doesn't sound bad to me. Wilson was inaccurate as well as out of line.
Yes, we already pay for their emergency room care, and I don't really see any good ways around that which wouldn't impact citizens negatively as well. It's kind of hard to answer citizenship questions if you have just been hit by a truck or have been robbed of your ID and shot. Unless there's somebody here advocating a national DNA or fingerprint database to keep track of who is a citizen, that sort of filtering is going to be unrealistic. I don't even like the "national ID card" idea, much less something more extreme.
Perhaps reducing the scope of emergency rooms to, well, emergencies would stop their being used as ridiculously expensive primary care by the uninsured. Of course, then you need to figure out how to provide that primary care more effectively. Gee, this health care stuff gets complicated.
Posted by: Professor Plum at September 10, 2009 02:32 PM (sv9E5)
14
I guess the fact that Obama's plan specifically excludes illegals isn't good enough to make his statement that his reforms do not cover illegal immigrants true in the eyes of the Far Right; it must specifically state "wetbacks must be left to die in the streets, and hospital employees will be imprisoned for treating the undocumented seriously ill" in order for a simple statement of fact to become "true" in the eyes of birthers, DeathPanelistas and other assorted wingnuts.
Posted by: Alex at September 10, 2009 02:36 PM (UO1NL)
15
Wetbacks, huh?
Alex, You're racism's showing.
Be better.
Posted by: brando at September 10, 2009 03:00 PM (IPGju)
16
Wetbacks, huh?
Alex, Your racism's showing.
Be better on your character.
And I'll be better on my syntax.
Well, I'll be better on my syntax either way, but I don't know if you're going to be able to shake being a racist.
Posted by: brando at September 10, 2009 03:03 PM (IPGju)
17
Alex, You're[sic] racism's [sic] showing.
My use of the term was intended to mock the xenophobic and racist use of illegal immigrants as a dishonest prop with which to bash health care reform while simultaneously being used to dishonestly call Obama a liar by Joey and now Bobby here.
What's your excuse for being unable to use standard English?
Posted by: Alex at September 10, 2009 03:23 PM (UO1NL)
18
Alex, although 'you're' was incorrect, 'racism's' is perfectly fine. Expand it out as "You're[sic] racism is showing." I think you're the one that can't parse English properly.
Posted by: Patrick at September 10, 2009 03:47 PM (wpXjr)
19
David said "The only problem that I know of with medical care is the insurance agencies that can do whatever they desire"
David, you are being taken in by Obama when he demonizes insurance companies as he has done with many other industries. Insurance companies and their agents are regulated and supervised by very stringent State laws. They cannot do whatever they desire. There is always a valid reason when you hear the spin about cancelling while sick or cancelling the coverage after issuance. Regarding pre-existing condition exclusions, insurance companies cannot offer insurance to someone after they have a sickness as you must purchase the insurance before you are sick. The insurance industry is supporting Obama's plan of insuring all with no pre-existing condition exclusions as long as everyone is compelled to purchase insurance.
Obama is calling health reform insurance reform knowing insurance companies are unpopular. This he hopes will help him in the polls. Don't buy it!
Posted by: Rick at September 10, 2009 04:01 PM (FWmwx)
20
Alex, although 'you're' was incorrect, 'racism's' is perfectly fine.
Maybe at or whatever school you went to it is "perfectly fine," but his use of an apostrophe that way in written prose is both sloppy and ambiguous.
I think you're the one that can't parse English properly.
What you think's not very significant's it then?
Posted by: Alex at September 10, 2009 04:03 PM (UO1NL)
21
Many illegals are covered by their employer's health plans. How do we address that? Heh.
That's an employment issue, not a health issue. It's already illegal to hire a noncitizen without a valid work visa, and the way to address it (which happens on a daily basis) is to enforce the existing laws, not fret about health insurance.
But that aside, it's hard to see what you're really concerned about by making that statement. If a person is covered by their employer's health insurance, then by definition they're paying their share. Hence there's no issue with funding. So what's the problem? Are you just unhappy that someone -- probably with brown skin -- might get access to health care they need (and paid for)? Nice little racial undertone going on there.
Posted by: James at September 10, 2009 04:31 PM (2uytA)
22
@NewEnglandDevil:
Current law prohibits medical providers from asking whether a patient is a legal resident.
Yeah, they threw in that language knowing that it was completely unenforceable.
What are you worried about? Providing health care, or paying for it? Unless I'm mistaken, the debate is over paying for it -- the usual refrain being that if our taxes are being used for a public option, then we need to ensure that only those paying in get coverage, i.e. citizens and resident aliens (valid visa-holders). Right?
Seems like that's completely enforceable. Just require proof of legal residency when signing someone up for the public option. Medical providers may not ask about residency status, but they definitely inquire pretty strongly about proof of insurance.
Posted by: James at September 10, 2009 04:39 PM (2uytA)
23
>>"Wilson was inaccurate as well as out of line."
Wilson was both accurate and in line. The Congressional Research Service agrees that the Dems bill will cover illegals. It's hard to believe that anybody would try to argue otherwise.
>>"We don't currently "exclude coverage" from illegals."
We currently exclude a range of government services from illegals. What you mean to say is that private insurance companies are free to cover them or not as they wish. Ths is true, but besides the point.
>>"What the President was talking about was that the plan will not use federal funds to pay for any illegal's insurance"
And what we are talking about is that his plan will use federal funds to provide health care for illegals. You can't deny that so you engage in silly parsing and hair-splitting.
Posted by: Steve at September 10, 2009 04:40 PM (4gJLP)
24
>>"I guess the fact that Obama's plan specifically excludes illegals isn't good enough"
"Obama's plan", which is actually the Democrats in Congress' plan, does not exclude illegals. Why do you people keep lying like tis?
Posted by: Steve at September 10, 2009 04:42 PM (4gJLP)
25
Wetbacks? Ha...that is the common name for illegals down here. Even the illegals call themselves wetbacks.
Except it ain't been too wet the last couple of years and you can just walk across the river getting nothing wet but your boots.
BTW, here is something worthy of a post I believe.
Exposing Acorn In Child Prostitution Sting
And yes, Obama is a lier, you can tell by his record.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at September 10, 2009 04:47 PM (JpVJn)
26
"Obama's plan", which is actually the Democrats in Congress' plan, does not exclude illegals. Why do you people keep lying like tis?
Why are you people unable to understand simple words like, "“No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits.” or Titles such as “NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS" or “Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
Or do you simply ignore all words which conflict with the Teachings of Chairman Rush or those of Secretary General Hannity?
Posted by: Alex at September 10, 2009 04:49 PM (UO1NL)
27
"Argue With Neighbors, Get In Their Face"
Posted by: Neo at September 10, 2009 05:31 PM (tE8FB)
28
Half a million dollars raised for Rob Miller the Democrat running against Joe Wilson next year.
Posted by: Money Talks at September 10, 2009 05:58 PM (5AdLq)
29
I've never called a Mexican a wetback. I think that's a racist term used by racists like Alex.
Racist.
Posted by: brando at September 10, 2009 07:02 PM (LjEkE)
30
Just require proof of legal residency when signing someone up for the public option
Sounds like a great idea. Why is it that the TWO amendments to require just that were defeated in committee by Democrats.
In the end, as noted, there is no penalty for an illegal to use the public option, and NO WAY to determine they are illegal when they sign up for it.
Posted by: XBradTC at September 10, 2009 07:04 PM (NimeM)
31
Oh go watch Maggie Thatcher and her unruly Parliament in action to get a feel for "public discourse" and the proper protocol for hammering out the national dialogue.
Obama's only power is in controlling the dialogue at every turn.
Pomp and circumstance is for graduates from institutes of higher learning and lower understanding. And monarchies.
WE, the people. Not, OBAMA, the one.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at September 10, 2009 09:17 PM (xjLcH)
32
600 thousand dollars and counting raised to defeat Lyin' Joe Wilson. "Old Yeller" is wishing he had kept his mouth shut.
Posted by: MONEY TALKS at September 10, 2009 09:47 PM (5AdLq)
33
apparently, it comes to light, there was a "loophole" in the law old lyin' Joe knew about the Dems have had to fix because of his truthful statement. More people should call Obama out for what he does daily and continuously. His health care plan will destroy the greatest life saving machine ever created. I hope all you clowns who supported him get what you so richly deserve when your number is called to see the robot assigned to your "care".
Posted by: mytralman at September 10, 2009 11:21 PM (26p91)
34
Ahem.
Bernard has already been schooled, but let's hammer the point in further. Bernard, when you pass a piece of legislation, or promulgate a law, you must ensure the *means of enforcement* are included in it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke up someone's ass.
For example, suppose you intend on banning sales of alcohol to persons under the age of 15. Therefore, you pass a law stating that stores must not sell alcohol to persons under the age of 15.
Included in that law *must* be the provision that the store can (a) post the relevant warning notices, (b) that the store can check the ID for verification purposes (c) that the store clerk/owner can call the police or initiate citizen's arrest if felt necessary and (d) the appropriate law enforcement bodies are empowered to investigate and prosecute. If these are not included or otherwise implied, then the law is USELESS. Therefore meaningless as well. Hence, President BHOmbastic was blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
Think about it.
"You aren't allowed to sell alcohol to persons under the age of 15."
"Okay, can I put up a sign to that effect?"
"No."
"Er, right. How about checking their ID if I think they're well below 15?"
"Can't do that either."
"Okay, how about simply refusing the sale?"
"Nope, you must sell alcohol to everyone else."
"How about if you let me have a cop who can then check the ID?"
"Not enough cops."
"Right, so what penalty do the under-15s get if someone catches them in the act?"
"Nothing."
Still wanna call that a law?
Alex, however, requires more schooling. Especially in grammatical rules.
Your phrase
"What you think's not very significant's it then?"
is incorrectly contracted. The correctly constructed sentence should read
"What you think is not very significant, is it then?"
and correctly contracted
"What you think isn't very significant, is it then?"
The reason being that you have misplaced a comma, and that comma prevents the 'is' from being contracted.
Posted by: Gregory at September 11, 2009 12:16 AM (cjwF0)
35
Good points made by many here. I'd like to point out that the language does not prohibit benefits for those here Illegally.
“Nothing in this subtitle,” it says, “shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
Only means that nothing in THAT subtitle will allow for AFFORDABILITY CREDITS for those here Illegally. Nothing in there about any of the other subtitles in the bill (there are more than 50). Nothing about any other benefit in the bill.
How sure can we be that even this restriction will survive reconciliation? ACLU lawsuit? The 9th circuit?
In other words not very reassuring.
Posted by: SporkLift Driver at September 11, 2009 12:27 AM (/roHQ)
36
Of course the phrase was improperly contracted, Gregory. On purpose, to mock the inept grammarian to whom the reply was addressed.
Y'all's gotta be the dullest bunch o' knives I's ever encountered.
Posted by: Alex at September 11, 2009 01:12 AM (eW1PF)
37
And if someone had stood up during one of Pres. Bush's speeches to congress as he lied us into a war of choice, let's say Hillary, and yelled, "That's bullshit George!", you would have supported her?
Posted by: flarbuse at September 11, 2009 01:42 AM (gDAOv)
38
The Congressional Research Service has indicated that, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation.
Posted by: Neo at September 11, 2009 10:34 AM (tE8FB)
39
The major health care reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains a Section 246, which is called, “NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.”
Posted by: Just Me at September 11, 2009 10:38 AM (ysIH+)
40
Yes, I would have supported her, if there had been any credible evidence (from the Congressional Research Service, say) that Bush had lied us into anything.
Posted by: SDN at September 11, 2009 04:40 PM (F3wAI)
41
Perhaps reducing the scope of emergency rooms to, well, emergencies would stop their being used as ridiculously expensive primary care by the uninsured.
Unfortunately, according to the CDC, the group most likely to use emergency rooms for primary care is those on Medicaid, followed by Medicare and THEN the uninsured.
The reason why is pretty obvious. Medicare and Medicaid have no emergency copayments, meaning it costs more to go to the doctor, which does require a copayment, versus going to the emergency room.
One would think that the Obama Party would have realized this already -- that is, if you assume that the Obama Party has any interest in controlling health care costs, rather than simply trying to nationalize the entire health care industry and get their greedy hands on trillions more dollars for them to waste.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 12, 2009 02:45 AM (ABFN0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 09, 2009
29 Times Later: The Definition of Insanity is...
I must have read someone who miscounted earlier; the speech that President Obama is planning to give in just a few moments is his 29th attempt to sell the American people on the idea that the steaming pile of crap healthcare he's pimping is actually a bouquet of roses.
Based upon the
excerpts already released, his delivery could run the gamut of emotions from angry and exasperated to shrill and preachy.
Don't you bitter clingers get it?
Yeah, I think I might just live blog this. Almost showtime...
8:03--Someone turn down the volume of Hillary's suit.
8:09--I can't recall ever seeing so many false smiles in one place. Well, since the last time Congress was on TV, at least.
8:11--The Won walks in. The camera flashes to Michelle, and quickly cuts away from the sour expression on her face. Wonder what her issue was?
8:14--Michelle again as Barack takes the podium. She's irritated at someone or something... doubt we'll ever find out what.
8:16--Pelosi officially presents Obama. And it begins...
8:17--Proudly claims we have "pulled this economy back from the brink." I hope he's not counting his chickens.
8:19--to the meat, and first of his pre-released comments about health care reform.
8:20--the scolding begins. Not doing too bad in his tone just yet. Think he can keep it under wraps for long?
8:22--Did Pelosi have more work done to her face? It looks like a too-tight mask.
8:23--They cut again, briefly, to the First Lady. Scowling. Again.
8:26--"Build on what works, and fix what doesn't." Who can disagree with that? Apparently, those writing the bills...
8:27--He's not doing bad with the tone of his delivery, but the message itself sounds week.
8:28--Spoke too soon. Got preachy, but settled back down after the applause line.
8:30--Going into his promises, starting to get a bit of attitude... not bad, but you can see the frustration.
8:32--Making all sorts of promises that make private insurance tough, if not untenable when competing against the government. He's not offering anything substantially different that what the American people have already decided that they don't want.
8:37--Spend 8 hours in a project management class today. Now I'm watching what some claim is a very smart man attempting to lie to the American people, claiming that a series of goals is a plan. There is no plan. I repeat. HE ISN"T OFFERING A PLAN. HE'S JUST A OFFERING A WISHLIST.
8:38--Someone shouted out "LIE!" when he claimed his plan wouldn't insure illegal aliens. I didn't know the GAO was being represented here tonight...
8:41--tuned out for a minute. sorry.
8:43--health care is somehow like college... McCain is looking at Obama like he's an idiot.
8:44--Claims he won't sign a plan that adds "one dime" to our deficits, now or in the future. Ballsy, to lie that boldly. And yes, Obots, the GAO agrees that this is a blatant lie.
8:48--Won't touch (or reform) Medicare... and wants an additional system? Why? Are Social Security and Medicare not inefficient or bankrupting what is left of the economy fast enough?
8:54--Can't focus...claims "my door is always open, though he hasn't asked a Republican to come through it to work on Health care since April.
8:56--cue violins... here comes Ted Kennedy's body being propped up on top of Paul Wellstone.
8:58--still pimping the bloated corpse.
8:59--still pimping the bloated corpse.
9:00--tries to compare Social Security and Medicare to his plan. Utterly ignores that both of those plans had popular public support, and this plan is in the negative and losing ground every day.
9:01--Claims more government is the answer to our problems. And he was serious.
9:03. Finally, mercifully, over.
29 times, and still sounding the same flat note. President Obama is still lying and claiming he has a plan. A laundry list of unsupportable wishes is not a plan.
What a waste of time.
What a waste of an Administration.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:00 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yeah, having a plan means invading a nation that was of no threat for us and then staying for six years with ... no plan. Nothing like reading the nutter blogs. If it aint about a birfer, a death panel or a teleprompter, you guys pretty much are out of ammunition.
Posted by: HumboldtBlue at September 09, 2009 09:24 PM (GGSii)
2
Staying in Iraq WAS the plan. It is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the heart of the Middle East. And we won't be out of it before The One (PBUH) is long gone from the White House.
Posted by: m at September 09, 2009 09:39 PM (tTufe)
3
I watched it... he was in his "lecturing Dad" mode for the most part, occasionally slipping into "condescending know-it-all", and finishing up with "sincere preacher man".
I laughed, I cried... it was phenomenal.
Posted by: jana at September 09, 2009 09:44 PM (vSRlG)
4
humbert humboldt, how about sticking with the topic which is Obama pushing health care/health insurance changes on a country that needs jobs and economic resuscitation. And don't try that lame line about fixing health care with government intervention will fix the economy. It's a stupid argument and even if it were not, health care is 1/6th of the economy, we need the other 5/6ths to get cranking.
Posted by: Jayne at September 09, 2009 09:46 PM (dwIL0)
5
Comparing his plan-that-isn't to two entitlement programs that are trillions of dollars in the red? I guess that's appropriate.
I liked how he claimed the "public option" wouldn't need any subsidies, then bragged it up by comparing it to public colleges, some of the most subsidized institutions in existence.
I said it all last year after hearing him speak, with this simple observation:
Obama will give you everything you ever want or need. And a pony! Unless you're rich or Bush, then we're going to eat you because you're evil.
But he had no suggestions as to how to actually PAY for giving everybody everything they want. Other than eating the rich. And Bush. (News flash from reality--there aren't nearly enough rich to go around, nor, despite their fecundity, enough Bushes.) At a ballpark guess, tripling the discretionary federal budget would be insufficient to fulfill the promises made. But he shore do talk purty.
The Reader's Digest version of the speech: America needs to come together. Our bitter divisions are everyone else's fault. Especially Bush and the rich. We'll eat them, Obama will wave his magic Hope-Change™ leadership unity wand as we dance around the bloody bonepiles singing Kumbayah, and then we can all have everything we want and live happily ever after.
I wrote that a year ago last February, BEFORE The Won doubled the national debt. Nothing has changed.
Posted by: Tully at September 09, 2009 09:48 PM (tUyDE)
6
I knew you'd all have sour faces over here.
What the president is saying is that our system is broken. We pay more and get less than any system in the developed world. To do nothing is disaster. To lie about what has been proposed, and there are bald-faced lies, is counter-productive.
I know Republicans don't want to give this president the biggest progressive advance in health care since 1946, but some of their claims should make them hang their heads in shame.
And yet, Republicans lost all sense of shame years ago.
Still, for Tully to bring up doubling our national debt, after Reagan, Bush and Bush, reaches new lows.
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 09, 2009 10:13 PM (Bx4FB)
7
So Lipiwitz, what is causing the high cost of health insurance? Government already runs half the nation's health care between medicare, medicaid and schip, and they pay too low, so the costs get raised for everyone else, then there's the expensive malpractice insurance that the lawyers like John Edwards have caused to increase astronomically due to their junk science astronomical lawsuits, and add to that the government regulations on insurance - not allowing across state lines, and mandating all kinds of coverage people don't need. And what is going to help get the costs down while maintaining quality and money for research and development? More government? Not!
Posted by: Jayne at September 09, 2009 10:57 PM (dwIL0)
8
Having checked a number of blogs tonight I really must say that the astroturf crowd is out in force right now.
Posted by: john at September 09, 2009 11:01 PM (VHuhG)
9
Jayne,
I'm for tort reform. I believe if you bring a suit and lose you should pay the other person's legal fees, etc.
But in places where malpractice claims have been limited (see Texas), costs have not come down.
Insurance companies use malpractice as the boogeyman without ever addressing their systemic flaws.
Do the research and you'll see this isn't the silver bullet.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at September 09, 2009 11:11 PM (Bx4FB)
10
David L Terrenoire! I remember that guy. What was your thing? Timetravel, or urine or something? It was something weird like that. You and Dude would get along just great.
As for the topic at hand, I don't think that our government should steal from citizens. That's just me.
Posted by: brando at September 09, 2009 11:22 PM (LjEkE)
11
brando,
Very nice. Urine and time travel. Yeah, that's me. I'm crazy. And yet, I'm the one who is trying to discuss this from an adult place.
As far as the government stealing from us, that makes a nice teabag slogan, but what does it mean? Do you object to all taxes? Should your police and fire departments be private businesses or should they be there for all of us, regardless?
Do you think our soldiers should be paid and provided for according to the whim of our individual citizens?
Do you think the Bush tax of 36 percent is OK but 39 percent is treason?
If you think Social Security is stealing from you, are you prepared to put up Grandma in the spare room? Because my tax money is most likely supporting people in your family and, frankly, I'm OK with that.
So let's try to move on beyond bumper stickers, brando, and I'll hold back on the urine and time travel.
Now, which one of us sounds like a loon?
Posted by: David Terrenoire at September 09, 2009 11:34 PM (Bx4FB)
12
Actually, you sound like a couple of little kids on a playground.
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at September 09, 2009 11:41 PM (EEy2h)
13
Obama: Forced collectivism is the only answer to any problem.
Posted by: BR at September 10, 2009 12:04 AM (VDzyK)
14
No David. I meat that literally. Not as a slogan. I know you think that such a position is loony, but it isn't.
I literally mean that I don't think it would be good if the United States Government seized all goods and wealth from the free citizens of our country. Could we at least agree on that?
Nope, we can't. Cause you stated it's loony.
Agree to disagree, I guess. You can't agree now.
As for the Teabag fixation you're stuck on. Um. Cut out the weirdness. I've heard about this behavior from some other Liberals, but I don't understand the need to proclaim that private stuff on a forum about socialism/healthcare/the President/insurance.
Posted by: brando at September 10, 2009 12:24 AM (LjEkE)
15
Of Course Michelle is scowling mad. Wednesday at 8PM is the conga line dance at the White House. You know, the weekly party where they eat one hundred dollar a pound beef on the peoples dime while whining about the serf taxpayers and how stingy they are with 'their' money.
Posted by: SirKnob at September 10, 2009 12:41 AM (YtqX/)
16
Can lawyers be sued for malpractice?
IMHO, the highest cost of lawsuits isn't in the awards themselves. The cost is in the insurance and the added tests and procedures to provide CYA for doctors and hospitals.
Reduce the potential for ruination and these costs may come down, but until tort reform is seriously addressed, these costs will remain high. One big jury award and the premiums will go up and additional tests will be ordered.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at September 10, 2009 01:08 AM (FJRFk)
17
There is a fundamental lapse in the logic of conservatives who claim on the one hand that the government is inefficient and cannot deliver services as well as private industry and, yet, argue that virtually any form of "public option" in health care will kill off private health insurance. If a government supported or run health care option will be as poorly run as is claimed, how can it possibly be so much better than private health insurance options that it will kill off private insurance?
What the whole debate comes down to is the fact that private insurance companies, being for profit businesses, are skimming as much as 14% off the top to cover administrative costs, executive salaries and create profits for their stockholders. To do this they must ration care and charge their customers significantly more than they pay out to doctors and hospitals. You can eliminate waste and reduce malpractice lawsuits all you want, but there is no way to substantially reduce the cost of health care and make it possible for those who are uninsured to get health care coverage without the amount that is being taken out of the system off the top by insurers. And there is no incentive for private insurers to reduce how much they take off the top without there being an alternative in the marketplace that will cost less.
If a government run or supported option or co-op cannot provide health care more efficiently or effectively than private insurance companies, it will fail-which will serve to prove the point that conservatives have been making for years and open the door for them to reform health care to their liking. If, on the other hand, a public option is able to provide health care effectively for less, either private insurance companies will have to adjust to compete with that option or they will fail-which conservative, who constantly talk about letting "the marketplace" determine economic outcomes, should also welcome.
It is strange, then, that conservatives, who constantly harp about trusting "the marketplace" are so reluctant to trust "the marketplace" when it comes to dealing with any form of public option being introduced into the health care marketplace.
Is some sort of tort reform necessary to relieve good doctors of the onerous burden that malpractice insurance has become? Yes. Should waste and abuse be rooted out of the entire health care system. Of course. Should the AMA be required to allow more doctors to be educated in US medical schools? Certainly.
But until the amount that is being taken out of the system off the top that has nothing to do with the actual delivery of health care is reduced and the growth of that amount is limited, it will be impossible to reduce the costs that Americans have to pay for health care, let alone extend basic health care to those who presently cannot afford to pay for coverage and rely on services that those who have health insurance are currently paying for.
I know that the very notion of limiting the profits that can be made by any area of private industry is painful for conservatives, but the rising cost of health care must be controlled if the rest of the economy is to be allowed to grow. And the way to bring about the biggest savings is to offer a lower-cost alternative that is presently not available in the marketplace. If private industry is not willing to provide that alternative, then there is no alternative but for the government to arrange for one to be created before costs get even more out of control.
Posted by: masters2cents at September 10, 2009 01:34 AM (+KhZ1)
18
wow: not only does Ear Leader lie, but so do his minions......
i never saw that coming. %-)
Posted by: redc1c4 at September 10, 2009 01:50 AM (d1FhN)
19
What is clear is that the fate of the “public option” seems painfully unclear.
Posted by: Neo at September 10, 2009 01:56 AM (tE8FB)
20
master2cents said:There is a fundamental lapse in the logic of conservatives who claim on the one hand that the government is inefficient and cannot deliver services as well as private industry and, yet, argue that virtually any form of "public option" in health care will kill off private health insurance. If a government supported or run health care option will be as poorly run as is claimed, how can it possibly be so much better than private health insurance options that it will kill off private insurance?
Ok, for the umteenth time we'll explain this to the Obamabots how it will work. A subsidized government option will offer coverage at lower rates than comparable private policies. Employers will be told that if they don't provide insurance coverage meeting certain government guidelines they will be penalized; a way to avoid this is to cease offering private coverage and just pay a government penalty estimated to be 8% of payroll costs - a cost typically less than offering private insurance policies to employees. So, the government incents employers to abandon private coverage in favor of dropping that benefit and forcing its employees to buy into the government option.
As to saving money by shifting to a government bureaucracy, you must be kidding. Perhaps you have missed the reports that show government employees are paid a premium wage and higher benefits than comparable private sector workers. Whatever "profit factor" is removed will be made up for in higher wages and bonuses for the government managers. As for advertising costs, the state of California paid a firm $500MM for a 4 year contract in essence to market S-CHIP healthcare policies to potential customers.
Pointing to the expertise demonstrated by government run operations such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA hospitals, the post office, Amtrack, etc. doesn't exactly make taxpayers confident the "won't cost taxpayers a dime more" promises will hold up.
Posted by: in_awe at September 10, 2009 02:37 AM (/NIOg)
21
I literally mean that I don't think it would be good if the United States Government seized all goods and wealth from the free citizens of our country.
brando,
Sorry. I shouldn't have said you sounded loony. No, this sounds more like paranoid delusional.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at September 10, 2009 05:00 AM (Bx4FB)
22
We're expected to believe a Democrat-controlled Congress, with deep divisions in its ranks, will put together a bill that will keep everything the same for those who have health insurance through their jobs, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA; mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions; ban caps on coverage; mandate coverage of routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies; offer health insurance to 30 million uninsured; provide tax credits for small businesses; painlessly mandate coverage for the young healthy uninsured; provide hardship waivers; provide choice and competition; keep insurance companies honest; avoid taxpayer subsidies for public option plans; keep out illegal immigrants; not pay for abortions; and not deny care to the elderly because of cost-benefit analyses, all while not adding one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.
Buckle up, folks, and prepare for Government-run utopia!
Posted by: Badnewzbearz at September 10, 2009 05:55 AM (lX87e)
23
"Sorry. I shouldn't have said you sounded loony. No, this sounds more like paranoid delusional."
Mental health insult? This is... how did you put it in an earlier comment... "discussing in an adult place"?
You lose. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Balthar at September 10, 2009 08:52 AM (wYTGF)
24
"Sorry. I shouldn't have said you sounded loony. No, this sounds more like paranoid delusional."
Mental health insult? This is... how did you put it in an earlier comment... "discussing in an adult place"?
You lose, David. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Balthar at September 10, 2009 08:53 AM (wYTGF)
25
Apparently to the LibTurfer I'm reaching "new lows" by pointing out that I predicted a full year and a half ago that a President Obama would spend in a way to make drunken sailors look penurious, and was right about that. Not sure why detaling inconvenient reality is a low, much less a new one, at least to anyone but True Believer who has already substituted their zealotry for any critical thinking skills. Fact remains, Obama is still following his campaign strategy instead of switching to the messy business of actually governing.
CY nails it -- the President did not offer a plan, just a wishlist phrased as promises, just as he did during the campaign. He's going to achieve these miracles with fairy dust and a magic wand.
If there's so much waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for all of this, why isn't he taking on that waste regardless of his wishlist?
If preventative care is such a cost-saver, why do study after study show that 80% or more of preventative care fails cost-benefit testing, and actually costs more in the long run? (Oh never mind, once we get a rationing board in place we can fix THAT!)
Where'd those other 17 million uninsured go, back over the border?
If we're going to pump up demand for health care services by covering everybody, where's the extra supply going to come from to meet that demand? We're already woefully short of primary care physicians, and they don't appear overnight. The high cost of medical care and most of the excess cost growth in in the US is directly due to inelastic demand and limited supply, so where's that new supply going to come from? Without it increased demand can have only two effects, shortages and/or price boosts.
One could go on, but arguing with LibTurfers is pointless. They can't deviate from their programming and accept no input from anyone but their programmers.
Posted by: Tully at September 10, 2009 09:40 AM (tUyDE)
26
Balthar,
Mr. brando brings out a time travel and urine attack, I suggest that if he thinks Obama is out to steal all his stuff he's may suffer from paranoia and you find equivalent maturity in those two statements, am I reading that right?
And then you cap it off with "Thanks for playing?"
Tell me, Balthar, do you actually read these comments or do you have quips circa 1994 just on hand at Control V? Because "Thanks for playing" was mildly amusing back when the Internet ran on gerbil-power, but today it suggests a laziness, maybe even a deficiency in wit, sir.
I suggest you try harder.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at September 10, 2009 10:00 PM (Bx4FB)
27
"time travel and urine attack" What? It's not an attack to disagree with your fixations. And if you really feel it was an attack, then why did you agree that's what you're about?
Is this not your confession? "Urine and time travel. Yeah, that's me. I'm crazy."
I know.
You're an integrity violator to say that I have a mental illnes. It's objectively false. At least you can admit that you're crazy. Just don't forget it.
I suppose it's a catch-22, trying to get a full-blown admitted crazy to understand. But you can't blame me for trying. I'm a giver.
Posted by: brando at September 11, 2009 10:37 AM (IPGju)
28
It is strange, then, that conservatives, who constantly harp about trusting "the marketplace" are so reluctant to trust "the marketplace" when it comes to dealing with any form of public option being introduced into the health care marketplace.
There would be no problem with the "public option" if four basic rules were followed:
-- The public option must not receive any taxpayer money whatsoever
-- The public option must pay its own bills from its own revenue, rather than "borrowing" buildings, utilities, collections, administration, and other functions from the Federal government
-- The public option cannot write off any debt or deficit to the Federal government; if it doesn't make enough on premiums, it has to raise them.
-- The public option itself must pay taxes on its revenue
In other words, the "public option" would be forced to abide by the same rules as private insurers and pay the same expenses.
It would tip over and die within a year.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 12, 2009 02:52 AM (ABFN0)
29
"Yeah, having a plan means invading a nation that was of no threat for us and then staying for six years with ... no plan."
Did you try to defend stupid with something you think is stupid?
Stupid!
Posted by: Matt at September 12, 2009 08:06 AM (54Fjx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
We Elected the Wrong Leader
Tonight, Barack Obama will take to the airwaves to make what I've read is his 28th public attempt to sell a fundamentally-flawed, fiscally irresponsible and morally bankrupt health-care plan to the American people.
It is probable that despite his much-discussed charisma, the President's plan is likely to
lose support tomorrow.
It will lose support because former Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin wrote a cogent, intelligent and concise op-ed in the
Wall Street Journal that
utterly eviscerates Democratic plans to control medical insurance and ration health-care.
Further, Palin provides a clear path towards real health-care reform.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
Palin has written one Facebook entry and (now an editorial) staking an articulate direction in which to move on providing health-care reform. Our President, plummeting in the polls, will attempt yet another droning, self-referential speech to convince us that a bad idea is a good idea... because he says so.
We have before us a leader with vision.
And then we have the President.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:31 AM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The trolls on other sites are trying desperately to paint Sarah Palin as an idiot who has no idea what she's talking about.
Ha ha. Try as they might, she is still the one leading this debate. Bambi wants so badly to regain control of the narrative, but his speech tomorrow will be nothing more than a reaction to Palin's op-ed.
Posted by: jana at September 09, 2009 12:43 AM (vSRlG)
2
You go, Sarah! The troll army has been turned out in force (including Ambinder at The Atlantic) and they have nothing to say besides "Sarah is dumb!!!!!"
Obama pwned again.
Good job at taking her off the Alaska stage and putting her on the national stage, libs! How's that working out for you?
Posted by: Tim at September 09, 2009 02:14 AM (tngZx)
3
I continue to be amazed that anyone STILL supports this POTUS. How? Why? WHY?
Posted by: Nancy in Texas at September 09, 2009 02:52 AM (HlChO)
4
Didn't you hear? The left WANTS her to run for President because she can't win. Oh Really? Maybe in their own circles they've talked themselves into a reality where she doesn't stand a chance. In the real world she's the only one out there with the gonads to take the fight to them head on. That's why they sweat bullets every time she's on the national stage and feel the need to attack her every chance they get... because they WANT her to run. Hey Lefties! She's a quitter, remember? Keep saying that to yourselves every time you sh.t blood when she makes your guy look like the testically challenged "leader" he really is, the narcissistic "me" man he has always been, an outright liar and deceiver that doesn't have it in his makeup to be straightforward as the radical agenda and radicals he supports gets exposed to the rest of us. The President is such a great leader and cultive personality that he can't possibly lose... despite the fact he's pissed off white independents, cops, soldiers, CIA, FBI, legal immigrants, small business owners, and patriotic god loving, hardworking, taxpaying citizens while we watched him tank our economy. Hey Lefties! All these tea parties and an eventual march on Washington means nothing! Keep repeating "Yes We Can." Go buy an Obama souvenier at the NBC store. History will judge politicians like Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and the other idiots as the appeasing weaklings that tried to ruin our country for their own benefit and nothing more. If they lived in the late 1700's the history books wouldn't even record their names. The women that is a "quitter" would have been one of the founding "mothers" of our country. She gets it. The more you ridicule her the more we rally behind her. Keep it up!
Posted by: Dave B at September 09, 2009 03:31 AM (Qt/uN)
5
I think Sarah Palin could take ol' Big Ears in single combat anytime! The Pampered Prince of Kenya is a limp-wristed wimp.
Posted by: BTW at September 09, 2009 05:50 AM (HH3AB)
6
I love the Freudian-typo in the 4th para, substituting Pain for Palin.
Other than that, I agree with this article...and that says a lot, as someone who didn't vote for McCain because of my personal disdain for Palin and her early inability to speak cogently.
Live and learn...hopefully withOUT the Pain!
---pam
Posted by: pamela howell at September 09, 2009 07:19 AM (lyRVo)
7
Sarah Palin never was "dumb" or "stupid" during the presidential campaign season. She was rushed. I didn't vote for McCain or Obama (I voted for Bob Barr since I'm a life-long third-partier), but I liked Sarah Palin because she was so different. She reminded me of the mothers I serve on the PTA with down here in rural suburban Georgia. And I'm a black dude!
As far as her op-ed, she presents some damn solid plans. President Obama's best bet would be to deliver a speech that scales back the "public option" and acknowledges additional lower cost plans. Notice I said "acknowledges" because that's all you can expect from most politicians. And then he needs to walk out there on September 12th during the Tea Party March on Washington and TALK to the Americans he leads (whether accept that or not). He has to, but will probably not, moderate the health care position.
Posted by: T-Steel at September 09, 2009 08:10 AM (wPMox)
8
Welcome aboard Pam.
It's entirely reasonable that folks had reservations about Palin. Though to be fair those same folks needed to consider that any governor of a smaller state (re; populace) was going to have an orientation period in which to get up to speed. Unfortunately for Palin, the warp speed pace of a presidential campaign and a fawning media in the tank for the "One" fused to make her first missteps the lasting impression.
However what those who support her saw beneath that narrative was, and is, a natural leadership ability. Combined with a fearlessness and a grounding in basic principles this woman speaks, using a phrase the Dems love, "truth to power". Ironic.
Posted by: A. Stephens at September 09, 2009 08:13 AM (rPqxQ)
9
For all his raving that Republicans have no plan, where is HIS plan?
I see a huge stack of paper from Congressional Democrats, but no plan from POTUS.
Dear Mr. President, will you (can you) lead us?
Posted by: DavidB at September 09, 2009 10:27 AM (xmuv/)
10
Palin Rocks - What a Women ....
Posted by: Jack at September 09, 2009 10:40 AM (OShmH)
11
A small correction here. A. Stephens refers to Sarah Palin as the governor of "a small state." Alaska is the largest state in the Union in sheer landmass, exceeding even Texas, which was at one point in our history the largest state. In population, of course, Alaska is one of the smaller states, partly because it is still a frontier state in many ways, and because it is so much further north than our other states that there are large portions of it which are unfriendly to large settlements. It does, however, have many strategic natural assets such as large deposits of oil and natural gas, so it is a complex area to govern efficiently.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at September 09, 2009 10:53 AM (VbbNx)
12
Marianne,
No slight to Alaska was intended. I was referring strictly to population #'s.
I refer to Governor Palin as a natural leader and I think one can look to her overall accomplishments as chief executive of Alaska (a complex state, as you point out) as confirmation.
Posted by: A. Stephens at September 09, 2009 11:22 AM (rPqxQ)
13
Now was I right, or what, about a month or two ago,
Posted by: narciso at September 09, 2009 12:04 PM (eXdIs)
14
'Death Panels' are a lie. The government has been encouraging living wills for 20 years and nobody has objected. The provision Ms. Palin is lying about was inserted by two Republicans so she's not even attacking the right party. Sarah Palin is the same monger who told us we were in "end times" and it's curious that she is so obsessed with death. It's a good thing Republicans weren't able to flip the vote electronically and get this political clown in office. But, can we finally flip the switch on her and retire her as lying laughing stock embarassment she really is?
Posted by: raaa at September 09, 2009 12:11 PM (FNaqL)
15
No, the House provision was written by Blumenauer of Oregon, where they did institutionalize euthanasia, where life saying treatments are denied on a fairly common basis
Posted by: narciso at September 09, 2009 12:26 PM (eXdIs)
16
Sarah Palin running for President would be a challenge to say the least, for a number of reasons that need not be re-listed here.
But the perfect role for her? Head of the GOP. Not ot go after Michael Steele, I like him, but the word "inspiring" rarely appears in the same sentence with his name.
But if Palin were in that chair, she have enormous influence on every race out there, she would still be a private citizen (which I think she would find appealing), and, though she cannot admit it, but I believe it, it would let her put some serious political hurt on a whole lot of people in the media et al, whom she quite correctly thinks richly deserve it.
Perfect role for her.
Posted by: Andrew X at September 09, 2009 12:59 PM (E46Ts)
17
A. Stephens .. Thanks for the clarification; we see to be in agreement.
My goodness, the trolls seem to be out in force today. Some folks don't seem to be able to witness beauty and truth without committing ugliness and anger.
Andrew X ...I think your idea about Sarah becoming head of the GOP is an interesting one. She has a rare ability to encapsulate complicated ideas in simple terms which would work well in that spot, while she organizes and directs the growth and maturing of her kids for the next few years, and also matures her knowledge of our country and its problems. I would like to see her as President one day, although I think she needs some seasoning. But any person who can sum up a complicated conflict of ideas in two words that resonate throughout the country is someone to be respected.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at September 09, 2009 04:39 PM (VbbNx)
18
Obama is not a leader in any sense of the word. He's a nice-looking, prompter-reading, smooth sounding megaphone and tool for the ugly unwashed geeks of the Marxist far-left.
If an original thought found its way into his brain, it would die from lack of company.
The lowliest of platoon leaders from a supply brigade out of North Dakota has more leadership skill in his little finger than Obama could ever hope to amass.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at September 09, 2009 06:29 PM (Fnr44)
19
Obama is the first President that the media created from nothing. He was a nothing when they started swooning over him and pushed him into the national spotlight, and he still has nothing to offer but camera presence and a focus for celebrity worshippers.
Sarah Palin, however, has substance, and she has a track record to provide evidence of what she would be able to accomplish if elected to a national post.
Posted by: Ken R at September 09, 2009 08:05 PM (i5V4J)
20
The lowliest of platoon leaders from a supply brigade out of North Dakota has more leadership skill in his little finger than Obama could ever hope to amass.
That's how he won, a black man named Barack Hussein Obama,over a genuine war hero with a military pedigree that goes back three generations.
Yeah, Junk Science, he's no leader. No leader at all.
/sarcasm
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 09, 2009 10:38 PM (Bx4FB)
21
raaa
You calling the Mayans liars too?
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 10, 2009 05:40 AM (aRm4V)
22
Mr. ScorchedEarth
McCain was ahead until he pulled that stupid suspending the campaign stunt.
Obama won because McCain did what he does best-crash.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 10, 2009 06:01 AM (aRm4V)
23
Pinandpuller,
He does crash well, better than any other pilot I know.
But I would suggest Palin was his downfall, not the desperate suspension of his campaign.
Once people saw her bobble softballs like "what dio you read?" they started wondering if McCain had all of his brain cells working as a team.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at September 10, 2009 11:34 PM (Bx4FB)
24
Sorry DT, I think you need a HUD worse than "The Crasher".
She's the only reason I voted for McLame.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 11, 2009 03:05 AM (aRm4V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 08, 2009
Tomorrow Belongs to ZZZzzz...
Like most parents, I was fine with my daughter listening to President Obama's speech today. Several of my fellow bloggers got reactions from their children as well, and they are worth reading as well.
When I asked my fifth-grader how it was, she told me simply, "It was good."
"It was good," is typically her tween shorthand for "I don't know because I wasn't really paying attention/was listening.doing/daydreaming about something else," and so having my suspicions about how much she actually got out of it, I asked her about various parts of the speech.
Beyond the introduction and some of the more interesting non-Obama anecdotes, she had mostly tuned it out. It was far too long, and I'm sure before he was halfway through his self-referential bloviating that her eyes were more glazed than a Krispy Kreme doughnut.
If today's ramble was written to inspire a generation of schoolchildren, it failed miserably. But then, I suspect that this wasn't a speech targeted to inspire children.
The speech was pabulum, a mundane, forgettable effort targeted at parents. It aspired to merely generate some small measure of goodwill to get the President's plummeting approval ratings out of a flat spin before he pitches Obamacare for the 28th time tomorrow night.
Our children could not be indoctrinated by Obama's effort today, but some may have ended up catatonic. But at least nobody died... which is more that can be said for the effects of the health disaster he'll attempt to resurrect (again) tomorrow night.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:30 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Excellent post! Two thumbs up! 28th time--lol, gosh his teleprompter is taking a beating.
Posted by: Al at September 08, 2009 08:28 PM (j/BDH)
2
It was just a test of his teleprompter for the big one tomorrow to the sheeples.
Posted by: Leonard at September 08, 2009 08:33 PM (kTk1I)
3
My middle school daughter didn't see the speech because she "...was busy doing school stuff." My 4th grade boy did see it, but all he said was that it was boring.
Posted by: Larry Anderson at September 08, 2009 09:08 PM (kBYbI)
4
This speech was for his number one fans, the NEA. The turned out and raises money, made calls, and knocked on doors for him. He knows that to get re-elected he needs to cosset this group. All they demand or require is a little attention ( and a ton of stimulus $), and they swoon and will turn out for him again. The more teachers he brings to his cause , the more votes he creates.
Posted by: Paddy at September 08, 2009 09:12 PM (ajVFw)
5
That is supposed to be, " They turn out and raised money..."
darn "smart phone".
Posted by: Paddy at September 08, 2009 09:21 PM (DK5Ps)
6
I'm sorry, but the speech he gave today just doesn't match the lesson plan that was presented earlier. Did they botch the lesson plan, or did they redo the speech? Of course, it's possible that both happened, but that seems less likely.
Posted by: OneDay at September 08, 2009 10:25 PM (2hV3N)
7
pablum = pabulum (yeah, it's kind of a silent 'u')
Posted by: kcom at September 08, 2009 10:46 PM (mMBiP)
8
He's giving another speech tomorrow? I'll be too busy watching young Melanie Oudin play in the quarter finals of the US Open.
Posted by: jules at September 08, 2009 11:29 PM (yDHji)
9
Little known paragraph in Obama's speech:
"If you plan to turn in your parents to the government machine for thinking outside the socialist box, when they ask you about this speech, say 'it was good'."
Just a head's up, CY
Posted by: Kevin at September 09, 2009 12:18 AM (PzKl+)
10
Pablum = Pabulum
Pabulum:
comestible: any substance that can be used as food.
Pablum:
Pablum is a processed cereal for infants originally marketed by the Mead Johnson Company in 1931. The trademarked name is a contracted form of the Latin word , meaning "foodstuff". ...
Yup, I remember Pablum. Utterly tasteless.
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at September 09, 2009 12:40 AM (Aa3wK)
11
I'm sorry, but the speech he gave today just doesn't match the lesson plan that was presented earlier.
By that, do you mean there will be no democrat congressional hearings into it, as happened when Bush v1.0 gave a similar speech during his term?
If so, I suspect you're correct. I don't think Pelosi will be holding hearings over this speech.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 09, 2009 12:42 AM (3XNVo)
12
The origin of the speech is obvious. With Barry in a flat spin the resident geniuses think, "Okay, the trogs are out there thinking and saying that we are bad. Hmmm. What is good? Come on people, I want some ideas here!" And thus the least offensive and most saddleable meme is recruited. Just tell 'em it is for the kids. Someday perhaps we shall see the original text. Whatever socialist footsoldier that wrote it is no doubt mightily steamed that it never got to the ears of the moppets where certainly it would have ushered in a New Age... heck, with a new shameless vanguard of Obamist snitches in every kitchen the re-education could have begun in weeks. Dang. But the pushback forced a major readjustment and here perhaps the Lefties who now chime "This did nothing good for you guys... " have a point. The shock of the reaction kept Barry from letting his Ayers approved freak flag fly. It would have been better to have a little more sunlight in here but it matters little. One thing you can be sure of with this crowd, they ALWAYS double down. Always.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 09, 2009 01:15 AM (XhOZ1)
13
It was boring because all the good bits were removed.
Posted by: davod at September 09, 2009 06:45 AM (GUZAT)
14
My daughter said it was "interesting" since it was the first time she had heard the president speak. But clarified the experience as "not exciting".
She was basically underwhelmed...
Posted by: GaMOngrel at September 09, 2009 08:26 AM (0JM7b)
15
My 6th grader said she tuned out after he started talking about how hard it was for him to go to school and all his problems.
I think she got the drift, it essentially was all about Obama.
My middle schooler hears it today so I encouraged her to ask the teacher if she knows what grades Obama got at Yale. Also, did Obama say "No" to drugs?
Posted by: MarkoNW at September 09, 2009 12:41 PM (dxxkS)
16
Maybe the kids weren't impressed, but I understand Chris Matthews spent the speech dreamily writing "Chris Obama" on his PeeChee folder, surrounding it with little hearts. After the speech when he and David Brooks and Keith Olbermann compared folders there was a terrific catfight and all three had to be sent to the girls' vice principal.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 09, 2009 01:48 PM (Vcyz0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
After a While, You Have To Accept That These Are The President's Beliefs On Display
When asked for an opinion about government-run health care, guess which Obama mentor answered this way?
I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.
If you guessed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, you would be
correct.
I know that people on the left are tired of having Wright, terrorist Bill Ayers, and other Obama mentors and allies thrown back in their faces repeatedly, but the influence these and like-minded figures had over the President in their long associations with him are very germane to how the President views the world. Wright's comments—and the twisted hatred and paranoia that underlie them—are the same sort of conspiratorial rants we've come to associate with another Obama ally that just stepped down from the Administration this weekend,
Van Jones.
The simple fact of the matter is that all of these people were close to the President because they share the same core beliefs. While every person is an individual and they do differ on specific points, when a belief is endemic to a group and permeates it as a majority view, it is folly to think that that view is not commonly held
and accepted by members of that group.
Barack Obama has a track record more than two decades long of walking arm-in-arm with radicals and racists that propagate these theories of conspiratorial oppression.
Perhaps Glenn Beck was right. Maybe President Obama is a racist. It certainly seems more likely every time one of his allies opens his mouth to spit forth another theory of conspiratorial oppression.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:23 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One reason I am amused at the perplexed questions of "who vetted Jones, anyway" is my certainty that nobody bothered to vet him because they knew all about him, and it wasn't a problem. Jones wasn't some goofy nut who slipped past the system - he represented what this particular system was looking for.
Remember how Obama was blindsided that anyone had a problem with him chumming around with Ayers and Wright for most of his adult life? It's one of his blind spots. America is so alien to him that he can't tell when somebody is not just out of the mainstream, but beyond the pale.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 08, 2009 12:23 PM (Vcyz0)
2
"I know that people on the left are tired of having Wright, terrorist Bill Ayers, and other Obama mentors and allies thrown back in their faces repeatedly, but the influence these and like-minded figures had over the President in their long associations with him are very germane to how the President views the world."
Yep.
udge+me+b&aqi=g-p1">'Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.' ---Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign
Rev Wright, Billy Ayers, Henry Gates, Van Jones, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, John Holdren, Eric Holder...
Posted by: Michael in MI at September 08, 2009 12:38 PM (ObTcs)
3
I just don't understand why people couldn't see this from the get go... the only explanation is willful blindness.... at least people are beginning to open their eyes.. finally.. Obama is a racist and a very hard core one.. in my opinion his hate toward white people has a direct relationship to the fact that he's half white and half black.. I don't care how much black people rail against whitey.. they wish they were whitey.. that is their problem.. they are full of self hatred for being black. I know of no other race with as much self hatred.. none.
Posted by: hogtrashhd at September 08, 2009 01:06 PM (P0VeU)
4
Perhaps people are waking to find, Hussein Obama is a radical too. Could it be? Or is he simply an innocent who just happens to have hung around and still hangs around radicals?
Posted by: rssg at September 08, 2009 01:09 PM (HH3AB)
5
Exactly. Jonah Golberg is still saying that he does not believe that Obama is racist. But any white person with similar types of friends would be considered a racist, case closed.
Try to imagine a white Republican who spent twenty years going to a white supremacist church, was friends with David Duke, and appointed neo-Nazis to his staff.
Would there be even the slightest debate over whether such a person was racist?
Posted by: Steve at September 08, 2009 01:21 PM (spneQ)
6
Obama has some sympathies for Marxism, some sympathies for Islam. The news media hid this from the American people last year.
He befriends our traditional adversaries (Iran, Syria, Chavez, Castro) and he turns a cold shoulder to our traditional allies (England, Israel, Australia, Canada).
In my humble opinion, he is unfit to be the US President.
Posted by: rssg at September 08, 2009 01:58 PM (HH3AB)
7
Van Jones said a mouthful about white polluters dumping pollution on people of color. What a crock. I grew up in Sayreville NJ. It’s not without its superfund sites and it’s a known cancer center. It also happens to have been mostly white for a long long time. Van Jones CHOSE to have this debate in terms of race, WHEN HE DIDN’T HAVE TO. He could have chosen to have it in terms of class and money, but he chose race. What does that say about Obama being “post racial”? HE’S NOT POST RACIAL. Period. He’s a race baiter who surrounds himself with race baiters, to his own detriment! He’s only in the process of being found out!
To anyone who paid attention, none of this should come as any sort of shock. Barry and Michelle jive with every word Van Jones ever uttered. Believe it because it’s a fact.
Posted by: Xerocky at September 08, 2009 05:53 PM (Ue3lr)
8
Dude and Lipschitz got scarce here with the Van wreck. What's up with that?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 08, 2009 07:11 PM (3O5/e)
9
Obama is a neo-marxist
But Van Jones was a Paleo-Marxist so proud of his beliefshe called communism the hope of the world.
Posted by: James at September 08, 2009 07:18 PM (qJbSo)
10
CY, I dont't think it is a maby - that Obama is a racist. Like some famous judge said a long time ago about pornography - "I know it when I see it." I have known some black racists, some yellow man racists, and some white racists - our president is a "black racist" through and through. He has demonstrated it in many ways and in many circumstances over a very long time.
I, like many saw it a long time ago - well before the election. I only had one vote though to try and stop him. As for Glenn Beck, I would say that he was/is the only TV media personality who had the STONES to say it. Everyone else tries to "tip Toe" around it on the air. Rush saw it too, and wasn't fearfull of calling him out on his show.
We can only pray that he can be slowed down. Stopped will take another 3 and 1/2 yars - a very long time to do a great deal of damage. "OH WOE IS ME, OH WOE IS ME."
Posted by: slimedog at September 08, 2009 07:39 PM (QELkb)
11
We need to do everything in our power to make sure this man's Ideological goal is defeated. We have no other choice. He can RUIN our America. I think time is short. We are well on our way to ruin. God help us I pray.
We have now gone Gault.
Posted by: Marc at September 08, 2009 11:48 PM (Zoziv)
12
The simple fact of Barry's marxist and racist views are a tough, tough pill to swallow for the Lefties, especially the youn 'uns but circumstances are forcing the issue. It is easy to forget that this disaster is barely nine months old at this point. The political tides are turning faster than we have ever seen in modern politics. In the end this will be a salutory event; the race card will be worthless for offense and suspect for defense once the dust settles. Of course it is going to be pretty dusty for a while.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 09, 2009 12:58 AM (XhOZ1)
13
I take issue with the association angle. I used to be a card-carrying member of the far left via "black nationalism" in my late teens to mid-twenties. It's been over a decade since I dropped that worldview (since it was pointless and way too many white folks helped me in various aspects of my life to be a "whitey hater"). But I had parents who were Black Panthers, two Uncles in the Nation of Islam, and various cousins in fringe left groups that are near and dear to me. I appreciate some of their advice, especially the brilliant mathematical mind of one of my uncles. But those associations don't taint me since I reject those views.
I highly doubt President Obama is a racist. Just like I don't believe Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh are racists. I've met racists before and believe me, they can't function well in public without giving up the goods. But I do believe President Obama has the "far left romance" thing going on. LOL!
Posted by: T-Steel at September 09, 2009 08:18 AM (wPMox)
14
John Calhoun last words the poor south the poor south.
Posted by: Autis at September 12, 2009 03:23 AM (BflrV)
15
In other words, they want to talk everybody into going along with their global agenda willingly. , bigdawgtattoos.com, [url="http://sriwcog.javabien.fr/bigdawgtattoos.com.html"]bigdawgtattoos.com[/url], http://sriwcog.javabien.fr/bigdawgtattoos.com.html bigdawgtattoos.com, 042718, www.niemanninteriors.com, [url="http://ztfeeul.javabien.fr/www.niemanninteriors.com.html"]www.niemanninteriors.com[/url], http://ztfeeul.javabien.fr/www.niemanninteriors.com.html www.niemanninteriors.com, =-DDD, whimit., [url="http://xtxznib.thewomanizer.net/whimit..html"]whimit.[/url], http://xtxznib.thewomanizer.net/whimit..html whimit., >:-PPP, silencehealth.com, [url="http://dahdlkp.calimerou.fr/silencehealth.com.html"]silencehealth.com[/url], http://dahdlkp.calimerou.fr/silencehealth.com.html silencehealth.com, 644091, pitatebay.org, [url="http://hqneesy.bestinternetdancer.com/pitatebay.org.html"]pitatebay.org[/url], http://hqneesy.bestinternetdancer.com/pitatebay.org.html pitatebay.org, =-DD, www.denhartogindustries.com, [url="http://ezaomsf.javabien.fr/www.denhartogindustries.com.html"]www.denhartogindustries.com[/url], http://ezaomsf.javabien.fr/www.denhartogindustries.com.html www.denhartogindustries.com, =OO, electrolux.na, [url="http://axuoymb.has-the-best-website.com/electrolux.na.html"]electrolux.na[/url], http://axuoymb.has-the-best-website.com/electrolux.na.html electrolux.na, :-], www.usa-corparate.com, [url="http://mdpuoui.thewomanizer.net/www.usa-corparate.com.html"]www.usa-corparate.com[/url], http://mdpuoui.thewomanizer.net/www.usa-corparate.com.html www.usa-corparate.com, >:-PPP, thenortonagency.com, [url="http://ocltuzx.thewomanizer.net/thenortonagency.com.html"]thenortonagency.com[/url], http://ocltuzx.thewomanizer.net/thenortonagency.com.html thenortonagency.com, 611, www.trinidadchroniclenews.com, [url="http://yrwedoz.angelfire.com/www.trinidadchroniclenews.com.html"]www.trinidadchroniclenews.com[/url], http://yrwedoz.angelfire.com/www.trinidadchroniclenews.com.html www.trinidadchroniclenews.com, 509545, www.box-pirates.net, [url="http://ocltuzx.thewomanizer.net/www.box-pirates.net.html"]www.box-pirates.net[/url], http://ocltuzx.thewomanizer.net/www.box-pirates.net.html www.box-pirates.net,

D, radiciusa.com, [url="http://mahohse.angelfire.com/radiciusa.com.html"]radiciusa.com[/url], http://mahohse.angelfire.com/radiciusa.com.html radiciusa.com, zgnd,
Posted by: apple.maclogin.com at September 13, 2009 05:06 PM (i9eKE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 07, 2009
Last Second Surprise
My daughter's school just robo-called to announce that they will carry President Obama's speech tomorrow, and that parents who did not want their children to see the speech should send a note to the teacher, so that the student can be separated from the rest of his class. Nothing like a little grade-school ostracism, is there?
I've read
the speech and there is absolutely nothing offensive in it (other than Obama's inability to deliver a speech without referencing himself repeatedly), but my larger question is this: if the school's adminstration feel that there is sufficient controversy to necessitate robo-calling, then why did they chose to carry the speech in the first place?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:29 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And for the record, I'm not opposed to this or any other President speaking to our children, I'm just not thrilled with the gutless last second actions of the school.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 07, 2009 08:36 PM (WjpSC)
2
Most likely b/c the school admin's just read the copy of the speech and made the decision following that reading.
Posted by: dad29 at September 07, 2009 08:48 PM (4PciU)
3
The speech seems all right but I do appreciate being given the option to opt out.
Posted by: James at September 07, 2009 09:41 PM (qJbSo)
4
So letting children "opt out" of school prayer would have a chilling effect on their freedom of expression, but there are no conceivable consequences to letting them opt out of the President's speech?
Riiiiight.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 07, 2009 09:53 PM (Vcyz0)
5
Nothing objectionable in him claiming he is Great Benefactor who provides your little tykes with books, computers, and rainbows?
Posted by: mockmook at September 07, 2009 10:30 PM (xMO+c)
6
This guy has no business speaking directly to kids. His goal is self aggrandizement, to give a captive audience a good impression. Many 17 year olds will be voting age in 2010. If he wants to give a speech do it in prime time so parents decide - not teachers - a majority of whom are democrats. This whole thing was a rope-a-dope. The lesson plans first put out asked kids to help Obama, then they pulled back on that. Now they put out the speech text and say see what were those crazy conservatives talking about? All governmental takeovers start in an innocuous, innocent, we only want to help, manner. Stick to your duties Obama, leave the kids alone. If you really wanted kids to stay in school you would have done something for Chicago's inner city kids while you were community rabble rousing.
Posted by: Jayne at September 07, 2009 11:28 PM (dwIL0)
7
I don't get it that there is no problem with the text of his speech. Was it that "social justice" and "fairer world" were so far down on the text that you missed it? Those very words are anathema to what he tells our children to do in the earlier part of his speech. Unless, of course, he means work hard so you, too, can give to those who do not.
Posted by: Laura at September 08, 2009 12:24 AM (2aW+D)
8
The speech is totaly innocuous because it was massively rewritten over the weekend. I, for one, would like to see the original draft, before general knowledge of the content of the educational notes became public. I bet it was full of ways that kids could help the president.
Posted by: garretc at September 08, 2009 12:22 PM (DQjJA)
9
And for the record, I'm not opposed to this or any other President speaking to our children, I'm just not thrilled with the gutless last second actions of the school.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 7, 2009 08:36 PM
I don't see how you can square this comment with your next post on who is Obama (based on his associations, colleagues, etc).
You basically acknowledge that Obama is a radical racist and Communist. Yet, you say, simply because he holds the title of "President", that you have no problem with a radical racist and Communist speaking to your kids.
Huh?
Posted by: Michael in MI at September 08, 2009 12:44 PM (ObTcs)
10
It isn't very difficult at all, Michael.
First, his speech today isn't promoting his ideas; Rush was on the radio saying it was a speech againsthis ideas. He is trying to build back up his approval rating ahead of tomorrow night, his 28th (I think) attempt to salvage Obamacare.
If my daughter actually listens to the speech, she's only getting reinforcement of the same work ethic we drill at home. If she ignores him and tunes out after a while--as I suspect most kids will--Obama will have lost some of his luster among the younger set as just another politician in love with the sound of his own voice.
Either way, this is a win-win for us
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 08, 2009 01:06 PM (WjpSC)
11
What, my God, is wrong with the right in this country?
I'm 59 years old. I've lived through Republican admnistrations, from Ike to Bush.Every one of those men was the president. My president. That doesn't mean I agreed with them. Most, I didn't. But they were my president.
Eisenhower. Nixon. Ford. Reagan. Bush. Bush.
As a student in middle school, I was allowed to campaign for Goldwater in '64.
The president was respected, regardless of party. If he came to our school to speak, he was given due respect of his office.
Hell, I was given the day off from second grade to watch the VP, Richard Nixon, drive by in his motorcvade. That was just to drive by and this was before his campaign for president.
My daughter grew up with Reagan and Bush. She listened to them. We talked. She learned. That's how things work.
Have some faith in your children.
Every administration needs a vigorous opposition, but one of grown-ups, not petulant, whining children.
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 09, 2009 10:33 PM (Bx4FB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Resignation and Reality
If you follow the political blogosphere, you likely know about the various controversial statements and associations that eventually led to Obama's "green czar" Van Jones resigning.
Jones signed his name to a
petition saying that he thought the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen; earlier documentation links him to other publicized "truther" activities
as early as January of 2002. Jones is also a supporter of convicted Black Panther
cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal, and buys into the theory that the murderer was framed. Jones also maintains that a shadowy entity of white Americans polluters is
shipping poison into "people of color communities."
None of these allegations are debatable. None have been taken out of context or "spun." They accurately reflect what Van Jones himself said, felt, or subscribed to as a man and an activist. Because none of these beliefs are defensible to rational people, Jones had little choice but to resign. The fact that the did so in the dead of night on a holiday weekend only proves how indefensible his positions were.
But the most fascinating aspect of this entire affair is the left's response to Jones being called to the carpet for his beliefs.
Peer into the links on Memeorandum for
yesterday or
this afternoon and you will see a near-uniform claim that Jones was somehow unfairly smeared.
They try to focus attention elsewhere, on various irrelevant claims. They claim that Jones was targeted because he went after Glenn Beck of Fox News (utterly untrue; Beck had targeted Jones well in advance of Jones' organization going after Beck).
They state there must be collusion between Fox News and the center-right blogosphere in trying to bring Jones down... and of course, there is no evidence at all to suggest such an alliance exists. Perhaps they're
projecting.
And of course, some claim that Jones was targeted because he made inflammatory statements, such as calling Republicans "a--holes," a belief that many Democrats share (and conservatives, truth be told, often reciprocate the sentiment).
None of those claims are relevant, and they are replete with denial.
How Van Jones feels about Republicans isn't relevant to his job, nor was his use of coarse language to describe those feelings. It did not play a role in his resignation. Fox News, while certainly influential, doesn't have nearly enough power to bring down a presidential appointee. Nor does Glenn Beck, or Matt Drudge, or the conservative blogosphere.
One thing and one thing only brought down Van Jones, and the political left cannot bring itself to face the truth.
Van Jones was laid low by the truthful, unembellished and accurate accounting of the many radical beliefs he shares with both President Obama and the far left progressive movement from which he came.
Cop-killer Mumia has long been a living martyr for the radical left, just as mass murderer Che Guevara has long been a celebrated dead hero in liberal enclaves.
Beliefs that the Bush Administration let the 9/11 terror attacks occur are closely tied to the mainstream progressive belief that Bush used the attacks to fabricate an "illegal war for oil" in Iraq. The theory that Bush falsified reasons to invade Iraq for some sort of profit is so commonly accepted on the far left as to be beyond debate.
Jones' theory that white polluters were attempting to poison ethic communities fits hand-in-glove with long-running left wing conspiracy theories that crack cocaine was created by government agencies to destroy/oppress minority neighborhoods.
Whether they call themselves liberals or progressives, radical leftists cannot admit the obvious fact that Van Jones was forced to resign from Obama's White House for being too open in his support of common left-wing beliefs. These tenuous theories are accepted and repeated in radical leftist populations as fact, but like the "theft" of the 2000 election, the
significance of the so-called Downing Street Memos and delusions of the previous President plotting a
military coup, they are theories that non-radicalized Americans easily recognized as the ranting of fevered minds.
Van Jones is just the first casualty of the collision between objective reality and an insular community-based reality woven from a tapestry of delusions, conspiracy theories, and impotent rage. Very likely, he will not be the last radical to fall, and that probability scares the crap out of them.
Update Via
Hot Air Headlines, Dan Calabrese
concurs:
The real reason Jones had to go was not his ideas per se. He thinks the way President Obama thinks. Jones had to go because his presence in the administration revealed so much about how the left operates – and these are supposed to be closely guarded family secrets.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:00 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Spot on. While the libs would like people to think he was let go because of a few unwise statements, he clearly got the boot for his far left Anti-American activities and associations.
The media would have us all believe in addition to fox news, the internet was also responsibile because it does not have a filter. Yet, again another lie. When there is ample audio and video proof of what this guy is, there simply is no way to dismiss them as a "smear" campaign.
We have reached a point where the media is outright lying to us, and openly providing us with misinformation in their attempts to protect their fellow lib, and as you said, are projecting that.
Posted by: citizenofmanassas at September 07, 2009 02:57 PM (3oza6)
2
Smeared using his own words. My, that's certainly hitting below the belt!
Posted by: mj at September 07, 2009 03:04 PM (S7CtZ)
3
Interesting disconnect between the White House and the left on this. The WH clearly understood the time bomb, especially with 9/11 around the corner, and didn't offer Van Jones the slightest amount of support or defense.
Normally the WH would be happy to use this fight as a stick to beat Glenn Beck and Rush with, thereby energizing the base. The fact that they wouldn't touch Jones with a 50 foot poll seems to indicate some reality-based thinking at the top, perhaps out of desperation, that the base does not understand.
So this is another recent case where the non-left gets a win and Obama takes yet another hit in his base.
Posted by: Ronald Hayden at September 07, 2009 03:26 PM (sM/6W)
4
No one should be surprrised by this defense. No body should have expected anything other than this.
The Media and Pundits have recieved their marching orders and talking points and are just carring out their orders. Waiting for the day when they will be bailed out by Obama and they can say..."Look at how we have supported you for the last few years."
Supported? Lied through their teeth, spun so fast for Obama that he should be dizzy and they should have not only a headache but real fear that they are all going straight to Hell.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at September 07, 2009 07:07 PM (JpVJn)
5
I just wonder how many of those whacked out ideas Obama himself quietly believes.
Posted by: Shoprat at September 07, 2009 07:42 PM (6YxXS)
6
I can't believe I had forgotten about Downing Street. Have you read the memo? the bumperstickers asked, presuming that at least you would know, what memo? Jones made it so that this would not, could not be over for the admin by blaming "lies and distortions" for what still was, after all, a resignation. What lie are you refering to, kemosabe? What distortion? Of course there was no such thing. What is happening now is an astonishing event and it is impacting Dems and the so called Indies above all. The simple fact has been so since Carter at least that the Democrats are socialist. Now, the Reps are too socialist for me but the fact remains that the Dems, in their policies and in their hearts are socialists. How many times has this been denied to your face? How many times has it been laughed at, the very proposition that a major American political party could actually be socialist? What an absurdity! Yet fact it is and it is the Dems and the Indie Dem leaners that are getting the rug pulled out. Sorry gents and ladies but it just had to be.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 07, 2009 09:58 PM (wJMs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 84 >>
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.8594 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.8126 seconds, 344 records returned.
Page size 247 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.