Confederate Yankee
June 24, 2009
Democrats and Their Lobbyists Pack Pork into Cap-and-Trade in Backroom Deals
Not content with passing the multi-generational financial rape—AKA, stimulus bill—that was flush with economy-crippling pork projects that have actually damaged the economy, House Democrats are presently attempting to rush through their global warming hysteria-fueled cap and trade energy bill H.R. 2454.
The bill, which will provide a profit to a handful of heavily Democratic states at the expense of the rest of the country measured in
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, has now come under fire for growing an additional 300 pages in the proverbial
dead of night:
So, where along the line does the bill suddenly expand by 300 pages? According to the New York Times, the various committee chairs held behind the scenes meetings and hashed out a compromise with no allowance for public input. (What lobbyists were involved in those meetings?) And now we are expecting a Friday vote on a bill that has had no public hearing in a committee with jurisdiction over it and that is not yet available in the main engine of public disclosure, THOMAS.
This raises serious questions about how we expect Congress to disclose their activities to the public. Is a bill posted to the House Rules Committee and not THOMAS truly publicly available? While the bill may be available for 72 hours prior to consideration, the public does not have reasonable access to it. Nor does the public know how the final details were reached.
And that isn't even the worst part. This, apparently, isn't even the final bill. The final bill will be a manager's amendment that will be drafted later this week! From a posting on the House Rules Committee, we know that the deadline to submit amendments is Thursday at 9:30am. And there is talk that this will be voted on on Friday. Thus, the final version of this bill will likely only be available for less than 24 hours.
As we all know, the $787 billion dollar "stimulus" bill has been an utter failure. Unemployment is higher now than the projections estimated they would have been if the government had done nothing at all.
The Democratic pipe-dream of cap and trade will do
nothing to impact the overall global climate while simultaneously increasing the cost of energy for all Americans and wrecking the economy.
Democratic politicians will get richer, their lobbyists will get richer, and the rest of us will get poorer.
How many hundreds millions are you willing to spend on a lie? How much deeper in an economic depression are you will to fall because of destructive pipe dreams?
It's time to
contact your Representatives folks, and demand they stop ruining your lives to chase fantasies based upon junk science and nonexistent viable alternative energy sources.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:57 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
i live in vermont if it weren't for global warming i guess,we would be having blizzards
Posted by: poppi at June 24, 2009 12:24 PM (WKxxI)
2
Thank you for this post! The earth has been cooling since '98. Does that matter at all anymore??
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. Link Exchange??
Posted by: Steve at June 24, 2009 12:39 PM (rpU0M)
3
The chart is a bit misleading.
It shows where the taxes are collected, not where the tax are passed along to consumers.
You folks in CA and NY will be paying too.
Posted by: Neo at June 24, 2009 11:52 PM (5d1ix)
4
I've been on this, and the EPA coverup, forever, it seems, and every hour it gets more insane. Waxman--about half an hour ago, sent the bill down with a placeholder in it. They just don't give a rat's ass.
The only prayer is that, as they usually do, they will overreach and kill it through stupidity.
Posted by: cbullitt at June 26, 2009 03:07 PM (M/WbE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2009
Empty and Green
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, urged on by President Barack Obama, announced progress on Tuesday toward quick passage of legislation to fight global warming by reducing industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
At a midday White House press conference, Obama said the "historic" climate change bill moving through the House would "transform the way we produce and use energy in America."
With incentives to encourage utilities, manufacturers and other companies to switch from higher-polluting oil and coal to cleaner energy alternatives, Obama said the legislation would spark a "transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet."
God bless 'em, the
President and his cute little Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change believers mean well.
He honestly and wholly believes with the sincerity of a child that carbon—
the building block of life—is a Very Bad Thing.
The undeniable fact that dear old Gaia herself has pumped out far higher amounts of carbon into the air than we presently see, without any long-term ill effects, is something of an inconvenient truth. Of course, the entire history of the global climate freakout movement over the past 40 years is based upon inconvenient truths, half-truths, and hysterical ignorance being used to stir up irrational fears.
Here are some hard truths for the President.
The earth has been far, far hotter than it currently is. We had nothing to do with that one way or the other, and the Earth did just fine in moderating itself without bloviating bipeds passing empty resolutions.
The earth has also been far, far cooler than it currently is. We had nothing to do with that one way or the other, and the Earth did just fine in moderating itself without shivering, bloviating bipeds passing prevaricating laws as if they were of significance.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in Mr. Obama's background to convince us he have any idea what he is talking about on this matter. We don't know if he's had so much as a basic college science course, much less anything of more substance.
But I'm open to being convinced h are on the right path, if he can answer a few basic questions.
For starters, I'd like for him to explain when the last time was the planet wasn't changing. When he finishes, perhaps he can also explain why—for the very first time—the constant change is suddenly bad.
I suspect we know the answer. Obama is about changing
others, finding ways to control and alter their lives. That's how he and his cronies can justify pushing for the dismantling of proven energy technologies that power this country (and directly and indirectly, tens of millions of jobs) in favor of more costly and unproven technologies that they claim are better for the environment.
But it's a pretty bold claim, considering none of the "clean energy" sources you support can economically provide enough energy to support a moderately sized town, much a city, metropolitan region, state, or an entire nation. Frankly, it's preposterous.
He's asking us to believe that something in his unknown and unexplored academic past can provide answers to questions that have baffled green energy proponents for years.
Pardon my if I don't buy the empty hype.
Update: Powerline has a
state-by-state map that show just how much pointless environmental zealotry is going to cost you, and it isn't pretty. For those of us here in North Carolina, it's going to cost us $241 million
in 2012 alone.
The Left Coast states—California, Washington and Oregon—actually make money off the deal, while New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont profit on the East Coast.
The rest of the country—and the country's overall economy— gets screwed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:40 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This whole global-climate-warming-cooling-weather-change-thing has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with generating a revenue stream with which to pay-off the supporters of the dhimmosocialst party.
Posted by: emdfl at June 24, 2009 07:37 AM (blNMI)
2
"The Left Coast states—California, Washington and Oregon—actually make money off the deal, while New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont profit on the East Coast.
The rest of the country—and the country's overall economy— gets screwed"
What? Obama hath no love for Illinois? Or has he thrown his most recent home state under that proverbial bus? (It's really getting crowded under there ...)
Posted by: DoorHold at June 28, 2009 02:16 PM (M7V2r)
3
this could be the catalyst for Texas secession .
Posted by: William at June 29, 2009 12:29 AM (MZN6L)
4
Blinded by ideology, you and many like you horrendously misinterpret subjective (at the most) ideas and obsess over details to the loss of your own potency and sense. But that's not the point. The point is, the hard-core Dems did it when Bush was in office, now it's obviously your turn. Back and forth we go. Don't you get tired? Last, if you feel anger reading these words, take that as a sign of a needed change, not necessarily in your political beliefs, but in your intense belief that you're right/smart/good and everyone else is wrong/stupid/evil. We can talk about this.
Posted by: Chris at June 30, 2009 03:18 AM (WEHga)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Our Athletic President
No matter the sport, no matter the venue, he always finds a way to punt.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:09 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Iranian "Moderate" Mousavi Belongs in Gitmo
Via Hot Air comes the news that the "moderate" Iranian opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi is the Butcher of Beirut, responsible for the terrorist attack on the U.S. Marine Corps barracks that killed 241 servicemen.
I
said it before, and I'll say it again:
No matter who eventually prevails, the Iranian government will still continue their drive to build nuclear weapons. They will still fund terrorists. They will still train terrorists in their country to kill civilians in Israel. They will still train terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
What I didn't know at the time is that the Iranian opposition leader
already had gallons of U.S. blood on his hands, and is by any rational measure is a terrorist.
Please tell me once again why which despot they put in power really matters to me... or you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:51 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great point. I've been on the same tack as well. The thing is, I think that if you read between the lines as far as what the youth are saying, it seems like they're offering the presidency in return for dismantling a large part of the religious structure. That doesn't go away entirely in a Muslim nation, particularly one with a traditionalist Shi'ite majority, but hopefully Mousavi wants an office more than he wants to carry on Iran's failures. Either way, he is certainly only the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: GS at June 23, 2009 01:14 PM (BuYri)
2
I agree entirely with GS.Nothing more to really add.
Posted by: Drider at June 23, 2009 02:51 PM (HaJD9)
3
Oh poop! Come one! These kinds of statements are what gives the internet a bad name. At some point you must rise above the riffraff else you will always be a child squawking at every stimulus no matter how absurd.
BTW - the gov of S Carolina is really Hugo Chavez on stilts.
Posted by: CommonSenseMan at June 23, 2009 04:55 PM (WvWZO)
4
At this point it's not who is in power, but who puts him there. Will it be the people, or the Assembly of (gah) Experts? Just standing up to the Mullahs is a good start. Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was the U.S., but you have to start somewhere, and you may as well start as soon as possible.
Posted by: Tim at June 23, 2009 05:36 PM (eVbuF)
5
In America, there are increasingly no differences between Republicans and Democrats. So would that make voter fraud here in the US acceptable?
Does the fact the Europeans liked Obama more than McCain make the National Guard shooting McCain supporters or Tea Party speakers/organizers acceptable?
Posted by: Adriane at June 23, 2009 07:10 PM (W7nzI)
6
You actually talking about events in the real world here, Adriane? Has the National Guard been slaughtering citizens of whichever fantasy land you inhabit?
If so, you have my condolences but I assure you that here in reality it isn't happening. Go back and ride your unicorn.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 24, 2009 02:20 PM (Vcyz0)
7
I guess Mousavi is "just" a terrorist and not that "special kind" of crazy the mullahs require.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 28, 2009 02:20 PM (M7V2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Presumably, They Pay This Guy
If we needed to point out the failures of today's educational system, we don't need to look much further than historically ignorant reporter Josh Krahshaar:
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio is the latest to make his own curious comparison drawn from the Iranian demonstrations — that the protesters would have more success if they had a constitutional right to bear arms.
"I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours," Rubio tweeted on Sunday.
Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters, but his follow-up tweet was a bit more dovish: "Hoping police and military in Iran will refuse to attack unarmed civilians if ordered to do so."
God forbid! Citizens should never use arms to revolt against a tyrannical government that is trying to suppress their natural rights.
Why, its unAmerican.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:39 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, it made perfect sense to me when I read his tweet, and I re-tweeted (re-twote?) it.
Posted by: Stoutcat at June 23, 2009 11:00 AM (kKdtK)
2
I've heard these arguments before, but I don't really buy them. our average Joe with a 20 gauge or a 30-30 does not stand much of a chance against well-armed and combat-trained soldiers. Even hardened veteran insurgents find it tough going. Sure it's better than being unarmed, but at best you take a couple down with you.
Posted by: Brian at June 23, 2009 08:17 PM (znAs1)
3
Obviously Brian, you don't understand the argument.
It isn't one or two average Joes against squads of soldiers, it's legion of armed civilians capable of guerilla warfare--including tens of millions of military veterans--that makes the Second Amendment so vital in opposing tyranny.
Armed civilians dwarf the standing U.S. Army (especially the tiny fraction that are actually combat-experienced infantry, and not support forces) by tens-of-thousands-to-one. That makes the US civilian population fighting on their own soil on their own terms a nearly insurmountable adversary.
Sure the professional military has tanks and bombs with which civilians cannot compete, but no one ever suggested a slugfest. It would be a war of attrition that military forces could not hope to win. There simply aren't members of the military to control a country this size or maintain their own supply lines (which originate in civilian hands).
Further, anecdotes suggesting that much of the current military would either refuse to engage against American civilians or would actually chose to engage on their side against tyrannical forces.
There have been others, however, that have in the past shared your view that civilian rabble cannot beat the most advanced and powerful military in the world.
I think they were called Loyalists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 23, 2009 08:35 PM (WjpSC)
4
Brian I am sure glad you were not around in the late 1700's consulting with George W. With that "positive" attitude we would all be eating "fish & chips"(yuk) and speaking with a wierd accent. Sometimes a man has to do what he has to do - the desire to be free is all consuming and as they say: "FREEDOM ISN'T FREE."
You would be very surprised what an under armed group of protestors can do against your "well trained military." Lets all hope and pray that the population in Iran is successful. If not this time, maby the next, or the next, or.....
Posted by: mixitup at June 23, 2009 08:39 PM (Z21cb)
5
CY - you beat me by 4 minutes - yet we are on the same plane - Thanks - Sadly,I think Brian represents so many people in America today.
Posted by: mixitup at June 23, 2009 08:47 PM (Z21cb)
6
Sorry guys, it's not Red Dawn and none of you are Chuck Norris. Bubba's with deer rifles are just not going to overthrow a professional force. if you believe the myth that the American Revolution was won by hardy frontiersmen and milita in buckskin you are sadly misinformed. The American militia was essentially useless in battle and prone to pissing off home every 3 months. The continental army won the war after a hard winter of drilling with von steuben, where they learned to fight like professional European armies. You're also assuming that most people armed or not would be willing to fight in the first place. Given the passive reactions to the bailouts and the economic crisis in general, I think not.
Posted by: Brian at June 23, 2009 09:21 PM (znAs1)
7
Just an aside, no reason to malign the Loyalists, there were many fine Loyalist units during the Revolution, including Butler's Rangers, Tarleton's Legion and the Queen's Rangers. They fought bravely to the end of the war. Sure they lost, but so did the confederates... oh and no offense meant with the Bubba comment, I'm a proud Bubba myself.
Posted by: Brian at June 23, 2009 09:33 PM (znAs1)
8
Brain, nobody but you made any sort of Red Dawn nor Chuck Norris references. We just understand simple things, like math and logistics.
The active duty U.S. military is just under 1.5 million strong. 700,000 of them are Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. There are about 550,00 soldiers and just over 200,000 Marines. Nor more than a small fraction of those forces are combat units like armor or infantry, maybe 10-20 percent. Factor in that roughly half will refuse to take up arms against their countrymen, or will defect.
Even if Guard and Reserve forces join in in like numbers, you're talking about about tens of thousands trying to control 300 million, without external support. You seem to forget that an army marches on its stomach, and those that remain loyal to the regime can simply be negated by refusing to supply them. Soldiers don't make their own bullets; civilians do that. Soldiers don't make their uniforms or grow their own food or refine their own fuel, either.
Civilians can largely negate a despotic regime by starving it. If necessary, however, they can pick off Loyalists, force them to use their reserves, and eventually break them with what is essentially low-level but pervasive siege warfare where getting so much as clean drinking water consistently is a battle.
You don't seem to grasp the simple facts. It's about supply and numbers, not what you understand of cheap action movie theatrics.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 23, 2009 10:03 PM (WjpSC)
9
Brian, you are being deliberately obtuse.
Unless you're merely stupid.
The real point is, brutal government action against a free and armed populace is a much more difficult proposition than against a gaggle of sheeplike morons such as yourself. Nobody's arguing that citizens "overthrow" the US Army, they're suggesting that the unorganized militia (the one referenced in the Second Amendment) is an obstacle to totalitarnianism.
Now before you get huffy at my tone, I'm not really addressing you, cowardly waste of sperm that you are. I am writing for the benefit of others reading who might actually want to think about the implications of the right to keep and bear arms. Apparently you can't be bothered to think about anything but your own contempt for your fellow citizens.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 24, 2009 02:27 PM (Vcyz0)
10
It's not just the potential for a full-blown violent revolution that's at stake with the issue of civilian firearm ownership. As others have stated, an armed revolution is unlikely. Once started, legal access to firearms would end anyway and you'd have to rely on illicit trade to supply your revolution.
It's also about the restraint civilian firearm ownership places on the government (unless your AG is Janet Reno), or, at least it gives civilians the psychological comfort that they are physically protected from intrusion by the government (unless your AG is Janet Reno).
Posted by: DoorHold at June 28, 2009 02:33 PM (M7V2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 22, 2009
Location. Location. Location.
I think that most people would think that this production still of the new Ruger SR-556 is a very nice photo.
I personally feel that this one is slightly more appealing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:56 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I may have to start liking Ruger again...
Posted by: MJN1957 at June 22, 2009 10:06 PM (0iOWD)
2
OK, now I'm bitter and jealous...
Marc
Posted by: Armed Liberal at June 22, 2009 10:22 PM (ZpvCR)
3
Greenhorn to Texas Ranger with model 1911 stuck cocked in his belt:
"Isn't that dangerous?"
Ranger: "I wouldn't carry the so* ** * B***h if it wasn't dangerous!"
It looks good there against the wall.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 22, 2009 10:30 PM (pAUxf)
4
What makes this different than my CAR-15?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 22, 2009 10:31 PM (Slx41)
5
P.A.
Your CAR-15 is a gas gun. The SR-556 is a piston gun, and in theory, stays cool, is more reliable/less prone to fouling, and can be adjusted to fire different quality ammunition reliably.
Once I get my ammo in and have a chance to burn some rounds, I'll let you know if it lives up to what it is designed to do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 22, 2009 10:46 PM (WjpSC)
6
I'm proud of you, even though I am a .30 fanatic, and don't need any .22 rifles beyond what I have.
But OMG, them rails! What are you going to hang on them that will not weigh you down? Sorry, but give me a Garand, or an FAL, or an AK, or a Dragunov, or whatever.
But it's a whole lot better than a pointy stick, Sir, and if you like it and can hit with it, you should just stockpile ammo and be happy.
A 5.56 is a whole lot better than nothing, and we all can't shoot the .30 Magnum calibers.
I applaud you for going for it. And we all should. If you have the rifle(s), buy more ammo!
Posted by: jefferson101 at June 22, 2009 10:48 PM (hym18)
7
Purp,
Let's see...besides the piston upper, and Troy Industries babbles and baubles probably not much.
...but, a piston upper and Troy Industries accouterments from the OEM, can mean a lot.
My only concern would be Ruger's propensity to use precision investment casting for parts others forge or machine from billet.
Still, decent specs and, as always, time will tell...
Posted by: MJN1957 at June 22, 2009 10:52 PM (0iOWD)
8
I think you owe everyone a range report ASAP.
Just sayin'.
Marcus
Posted by: Marcus at June 23, 2009 01:01 AM (6jrcj)
9
Damn show-off butthead! ;-)
Posted by: Billiam at June 23, 2009 04:39 AM (XULFo)
10
Second picture could have used a little better lighting.
Posted by: DPir1320 at June 23, 2009 11:31 AM (vWY/u)
11
My only real objection to the AR is the direct impingement gas system. Too hot and dirty. A piston AR makes a lot of sense, not that Ruger is the first to come up with one. Still, an idea I'd like to see other manufacturers implement.
If I could get it in a 20" barrel and a stock with an adjustable comb I'd be very interested. As it is, I'll probably have to shell out the bucks for a SIG 556 DMR.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 23, 2009 02:51 PM (Vcyz0)
12
That bottom one is not in the least appealing; it looks nothing at all like my house.
Posted by: Mike at June 23, 2009 06:24 PM (wYAjP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothin' Left to Lose
I noted in my previous post that the Iranian protester called Neda who had her shooting death captured in vivid detail should not be celebrated as a martyr for liberty and freedom. She is instead a martyr for a lesser evil, but an evil and repressive regime all the same.
Via Michelle Malkin's BuzzWorthy links this morning I came across the Founding Bloggers revelation of some very disturbing passages from the opposition that indicate my reaction was probably correct. Mousavi is advocating "'a reformation that returns us to the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution." Protestors in Iran call for freedom in their desperation, but they only ask for the freedom to celebrate a different despotism.
Someone please tell me why the brand of the Islamic Revolution that kept Americans hostage for 444 days is preferable to Ahmadinejad's special brand of crazy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:18 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I keep asking myself the question ... what would happen if this, "over voting" in a large number of cities, happened in this country ? What would I do ?
There have been cases of (documented by John Fund) of more registered voters than population by the census folks in St. Louis and Philadelphia, and more votes than registered voters in Milwaukee, but, given the 2000 Florida "games" as a backdrop, this would mean civil war.
All the more reason to go out and buy a gun or 2 or 3 or .....
Posted by: Neo at June 22, 2009 12:10 PM (5d1ix)
2
Because it makes the ayatollahs admit that they made a mistake. That they aren't infalliable. That they are just another Shah.
The next revolution becomes easier.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at June 22, 2009 01:07 PM (O9Cc8)
3
There isn't really any choice between the initial Islamic Revolution and Ahmadinejad's current version, they're one and the same. Remember the incumbent has been credibly linked to the embassy takeover. What we see is just window dressing.
Which is what prevents me from understanding why the mullahs clamped down as they did - Mousavi would not have been a moderate or a reformer, but their creature just as surely as Dinner jacket is. Anyone in that office is just their puppet, however hip and trendy our leftists find them (recall how the American left swooned over Ahmadinejad just because he trash talked Bush). So far I can only assume they miscalculated and hadn't thought it would have any meaning to the population, and that the population would dare object.
Mind you, ignoring the will of the people, and then being astonished when it manifests itself, is common to "progressive" thinking.
In common with the so-called "realists" or pragmatists, I don't believe the US should intervene where we do not have a strategic interest, combined with the ability and will to do so. Where we part company is my rejection of their fetish for stability. I'll take an Iran in turmoil any day over a stable one under the mullahs. When confronted with a choice between two evils, you can sometimes refuse to make the choice. Kick over the table and make them redeal.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 22, 2009 02:51 PM (Vcyz0)
4
I agree with Mikey - even if they only succeed in changing dictators, the Iranian people will have gotten a taste of self determination. However flawed the result it's a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 22, 2009 03:09 PM (UquFN)
5
There's apparently a proposal afloat in Iran to change the whole government structure, eliminating the position of Supreme Leader altogether. Its proponents have even consulted the Ayatollah al-Sistani of Iraq. I pass on the rumor for what it's worth:
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/regime-change-iran-movement-se/
Members of the assembly are reportedly considering forming a collective ruling body and scrapping the model of Ayatollah Khomeini as a way out of the civil crisis that has engulfed Tehran in a series of protests--The discussions have taken place in a series of secret meetings convened in the holy city of Qom and included Jawad al-Shahristani, the supreme representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is the foremost Shiite leader in Iraq.
Posted by: micropotamus at June 22, 2009 08:34 PM (xhI7V)
6
My understanding is that her fiance stated she did not support any of the candidates, including Mousavi -- just "freedom for all":
info on Neda fiance's BBC interview
Posted by: Eve M. at June 23, 2009 12:15 PM (/Oi/Z)
7
@Eve M.: "My understanding is that her fiance stated she did not support any of the candidates, including Mousavi -- just "freedom for all""
An Iranian hippie?
I'm more inclined to believe the reports that she held specific ideas as to what "freedom" meant to her.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 28, 2009 02:37 PM (M7V2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2009
Neda: A Lesser Evil is Still Evil
It seems like the talk of the blogosphere today is the death of an Iranian protestor, apparently gunned down with a shot to the heart by a Basij militiaman. It appears she is being prepared for martyrdom by the media for having her death captured on video [warning: graphic]:
She has been tentatively identified as Neda Agha Soltan, a 27-year-old philosophy student.
Perhaps Neda will become the symbolic martyr that Iranian opposition desires, but I'd caution the western media and my peers in the blogosphere. She is not a martyr for liberty and freedom. Neda is a martyr for a lesser evil.
No matter who eventually prevails, the Iranian government will still continue their drive to build nuclear weapons. They will still fund terrorists. They will still train terrorists in their country to kill civilians in Israel. They will still train terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
I'll say a prayer tonight for Neda and the other Iranians who were killed today, but pardon me if I refuse to fall into the trap of projecting my values onto a culture that all too often cheers when Americans die.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:09 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Do you know, after reading Spengler's post today, I almost have to agree.
And yet, when you hear the roar of so many in the streets --it's hard to ignore the visceral impact of -- you wonder how to interpret that primal urgency. Are we guilty of projection? Likely so.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at June 21, 2009 10:29 PM (/RNEi)
2
I'll take the lesser of two evils, Bob.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at June 21, 2009 10:56 PM (euXjQ)
3
True dat!
Only people who agree with me deserve to have their votes counted.
Posted by: Adriane at June 22, 2009 12:18 AM (W7nzI)
4
I don’t agree with you on this.
Our principles about freedom of expression and freedom of the press should be applicable to everybody, even to people who do not think like us.
If we are going to demand them for us we should be ready to demand the same thing for other people.
Don’t forget that the free exchange of ideas bring about reform and more freedom.
Posted by: TF at June 22, 2009 12:30 AM (UICYs)
5
from what I have read, the "other guy" who may or may not have won the vote (and it's unclear that there was a stolen election) was the Ayotollah's (sp?) crony back in the the day of the Iranian Revolution. Another radical, just a different radical - so yes, you are correct and bold to state that the martyrdom is shallow - my words, not yours.
This is not a protest between freedom and tyranny, but tyranny and another tyranny. Much ado about nothing it seems.
Posted by: Jayne at June 22, 2009 01:16 AM (dwIL0)
6
Perhaps Mousavi will be someone who can begin the process of opening up the Iranian nation to the bigger world of ideas. Sure, many hate the U.S. and have some good justification for that emotion. But when you are educated in an Islamic Republic, how balanced can that education be? Lets give them the benefit of the doubt. By the videos, photos, and blog comments, I don't think there is that big a divide with these brave young indpendent thinkers and the American youth.
The government of Iran is the problem, not the common man. The propaganda fed to the people does not give them any reason to trust or connect with Americans, or the West. Do not hold that against them!! These people are rebelling against the shackles of fundamental Islam, which they probably feel is excessive. That is not to say they are rejecting Islam, just not wanting to be subjected to an extreme government enforced version of it.
Posted by: bl at June 22, 2009 01:53 AM (EG0zA)
7
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/22/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Posted by: UNRR at June 22, 2009 08:36 AM (2D++g)
8
You're right, Bob, in that Mousavi might be the lesser of two evils, at least domestically. Internationally, there seems to be little difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, especially with the mullahs in the background. Khatami is the guy, sort of, that people should be looking to as a "reformer."
At this point, the protests may be taking on a life of much more freedom, rather then just as one backing Mousavi. We'll have to wait and see.
Posted by: William Teach at June 22, 2009 08:47 AM (7yTel)
9
This uprising transcends Mousavi. It is a demand that their vote count. And it is a direct challenge to Iran’s dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who provides this choice between "evil and a lesser evil."
By standing up to Khamenei, I contend that Mousavi is far better than just a lesser evil. His action has tipped the scales. The jig is up for Khamenei. No Iranian believes he is divinely inspired, and every Iranian knows no one elected him king.
Posted by: George at June 22, 2009 09:28 AM (WA19M)
10
I'm with CY on this one. We'll have to wait to see how this all plays out. Personally, I think it's very difficult for the western mind to wrap its head around the mindset of a fundamentalist islamic society. Like Bob says, if I understand him correctly, the protesters don't seem to be fighting for the same concept of "freedom and exchange of free ideas" that we westerners value so highly.
Think about the wars that have been fought in the name of "religion" in Europe in past centuries. Most of those wars weren't about "freedom". They were about which brand of Religious zealots would control the population.
As a Christian, I thank God that our nation's founders had the foresight to include in our Constitution provisions that clearly separate the roles of the Church and the state in our society. I realize that some people will argue with me on that topic. Nevertheless, it's a fact.
There are people in our very own country who would impose their brand of "religion" on all of us if they could and make their particular religious beliefs the law of the land.
Again, I think that the struggle that we're seeing today in Iran cannot be compared to what we think of as a struggle for "freedom". We have to face the fact that many parts of the world don't think like we do nor do their societies want our brand of freedom.
I suppose time will tell what the Iranian people, as a whole, really want. At this point, I'm not sure.
Posted by: Dude at June 22, 2009 11:01 AM (byA+E)
11
Two main things come to mind.
The straw that broke the camels back.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
The situation is at boiling point, this may be the catalyst needed to gain the all important first step towards a better freedom. Will it be all enclusive? No, will it be what we consider total freedom? No, but it will be the beginning. We can't let our guard down eiter way but it is a start.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 22, 2009 11:25 AM (y67bA)
12
And it is good to remember folks, Gorbachov didn't think his set of little reforms to calm the people would lead to the end of the Soviet Empire, but it did. With support from the U.S. of course.
Posted by: Tyrconnell at June 22, 2009 12:13 PM (12g1Z)
13
We can't know what if anything Neda stood for. Perhaps she left some writings that might tell us what she believed, but until then her death belongs to those who will make what they wish of it. She's now a symbol, for better or worse (and I suspect it will get much worse).
What we do know is the nature of those who murdered her - sheer evil. I'm not talking the bang-the-high-chair, piss-your-diapers tantrum lefties like to throw while denouncing their infantile view of evil, i.e. a Republican holding public office. Her killers are the kind of evil that means nobody holds public office, that no citizens have any rights because there are no citizens, only subjects. She was killed by the same state that dispatched children into Iraq killing zones to clear minefields. Actual evil, not "OMG somebody on teh Int4rw3bz disagrees with me! Fascist!" That is probably why Obama took so long to state thay maybe, just maybe (and I'm not meddling here, understand) it's not the best course for a government to murder its people. At the most basic level Obama and his socialist circle have no real quarrel with the underlying assumptions of the mullahcracy, only "concern" over a few of its tactics.
It isn't necessary to support whatever kind of twisted anti-semitic terror sponsoring state rises from the ashes to denounce the present one that randomly kills its own people to hold on to absolute power.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 22, 2009 02:39 PM (Vcyz0)
14
According to her fiancee, who was interviewed by the BBC, she was not even political and had just gotten out of her car for some fresh air after being stuck in a traffic jam. We don't know her values of course, but it should not matter.
Just to play devil's advocate . What would this blog post be like if she had been shot by an Israeli soldier in Gaza or an American in Fallujah. Would you be trying to expose it as fake or even ridiculing the victim as was done with Rachel Corrie?
Posted by: Brian at June 22, 2009 08:02 PM (znAs1)
15
It is a mistake to assume that all people in Iran share the values of kililng Americans, building nuclear weapons and funding terrorism. Every county's citizens share diverse and conflicting views. I am sure Bob that you don't share the same values as Obama.
Posted by: Bob at June 22, 2009 08:11 PM (4Nh8T)
16
Y4waDI mtcuytviaxxt, [url=http://rhbbmoqdftox.com/]rhbbmoqdftox[/url], [link=http://qyuebtwuwktv.com/]qyuebtwuwktv[/link], http://rcupwozkbohe.com/
Posted by: mbvfruwm at June 24, 2009 07:32 AM (gnwwA)
Posted by: Kutcholis at June 27, 2009 11:35 AM (hUVY6)
18
I suspect if you dissect any historical "martyr" you'd find they would not agree with their eventual place in history. Whatever her actual beliefs, it's what her death sparks that will ultimately matter (which, at this point, looks like nothing much as government goons have slaughtered enough of citizens to crush any further protests).
Posted by: DoorHold at June 28, 2009 02:42 PM (M7V2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2009
Obama's Conditional Respect for Fatherhood
Barack Obama will speak about the "importance of fatherhood" today.
I can only assume he means conditional fatherhood.
After all it's difficult to square his support of infanticide and the idea of mistaken babies that are, after all, just a punishment, with the responsibilities of being a father through good times and bad.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:32 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Barack Hussein Obama is not the "leader of the free world". He is the Feuhrer of the death camps and is personally responsible for genocide.
Yes, I will "lay that on him". He doesn't deserve the title "leader of the free world". He is the "leader of genocide".
Infants are people, too. Infanticide at the level of 50,000,000 American lives is American genocide. The buck stops with Obama. He's in the White House now.
Posted by: laura at June 19, 2009 12:54 PM (JFvHi)
2
I promise to be a good father and be there for my children so that they don't grow up to be as messed up as Mr. Obama. Like him I also did not have a father but I will take care of my children and always respect there right to life.
Posted by: James at June 19, 2009 01:26 PM (hLgY7)
3
I suppose a baby can be considered a punishment...
So explain to me again why our executive leader dislikes punishing irresponsible behavior? Teach the consequences of the actions, and let that be a deterrent--don't just excuse the behavior as a mistake if they're informed and do it anyway!
How can a president ever discipline a bureaucracy if he dislikes 'punishing' slackers with the just and reasonable consequences of their actions???
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 19, 2009 02:39 PM (ESqOI)
4
Bristol Palin does not think her baby is punishment.
And neither does Levi Johnston it appears.
Posted by: Roger Knight at June 19, 2009 03:49 PM (WwcoK)
5
Will Obama speak about "The Bitter Alcoholic Philandering Socialist African Father I Never Knew But Who I Wrote a Book About Anyway to Advance My Brilliant Career"?
Posted by: zhombre at June 19, 2009 05:03 PM (BaaTP)
6
I don't know if it is ironic or not that Obama's policies lead directly to the deaths of tens of millions of African Americans. A rather disproportionate number of blacks in America have abortions than others, and like the first post alludes, such deaths are assuring that the number of blacks will dwindle, and inevitably be destroyed.
Barack Obama has the "Black Community" in his back pocket, yet his policies (both societal and fiscal) are ruining it. If people would sit down and THINK about what this man is doing, and how his agenda leads to despotism and tyranny, they'd be calling for his head. Unfortunately, liberal "education" and media propaganda have made a huge portion of our population into helpless waifs.
Posted by: John at June 19, 2009 06:43 PM (gCbiR)
7
It is unfortunate that some people just cannot seem to differentiate gametes, embryos, foetuses, dead foetuses, newborns, and infants into their proper categories with the proper/appropriate characteristics allied thereunto.
Equivocation is NOT your friend, folks!
Posted by: Diogenes at June 20, 2009 01:45 AM (SdFiI)
8
"It is unfortunate that some people just cannot seem to differentiate gametes, embryos, foetuses, dead foetuses, newborns, and infants into their proper categories with the proper/appropriate characteristics allied thereunto.
Equivocation is NOT your friend, folks!"
It is Obama who does not differentiate. They are all sacrificed at the door of the woman's right to choose.
What is the difference between a new born and an infant?
Posted by: davod at June 20, 2009 03:54 AM (GUZAT)
9
I feel that one of the problems with the conservative movement and the right is the issue of abortion. It seems that a portion of conservatives can not seem to get off the subject and move on. As a result, the rest of us conservatives who feel that a woman's decision to have a child is none of the states business find it hard to form a colition with the religious that think otherwise. I feel that government should be so small that it would not have a voice in personal affairs of this nature. Abortion, except in the the third trimester is nothing but a loss of lifeless tissue. I know as I have had to order a number of abortions to save that life of a mother. In the same respect I have seen a number of children that were unwanted and the parents made no attempt to hide their feels, particularly as their feels were violent in nature. I would say that if any of you want to round with me and see what happens to a child that is not wanted by the parents, then contact me and I will arrage it. I can promise you that you would make abortion number one on your accepted things to do. Taking of birth control pills is nothing more than a form of abortion. How many of your wives of girl friends do that? If abortion had anything to do with killing a child then I would find it against the law. As it is it is only stopping a pregunancy before life can occur.
But keep up the abortion rhetoric and lets watch as the country moves more to the left and is socialized. I for one feel that your emphasis on trying to get laws passed to control women and couples difficult decisions as one of the main reasons for the increasing powere of the left as you are chasing off a larger proportion of conservatives that feel it is ok for women to take control of themselves and not rely on the state to do so. Thus we can never be organized to repel the socialist as we must always worry that the religious right is going to be placed in power. Abortion is out of the box, it is not going back in not matter what you do or say, so get off it. As to Obama, he sucks and the only thing that is good about his administration is that we might have a split in the country and can once again be free.
Posted by: David at June 20, 2009 06:07 PM (i0TVe)
10
I can imagine Davey-boy in 1859:
"But keep up the abolitionist rhetoric and lets watch as the country moves more to the slave-state side."
Pretty stupid reasoning, even for an abortion-worshipping Moby. Does he honestly think anyone is falling for his token "Obama sucks line?" Probably gets off looking at pictures of aborted fetuses, or something.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at June 21, 2009 03:11 PM (6XMIC)
11
David: you feel?
Trying thinking instead.
Posted by: Cindi at June 21, 2009 06:41 PM (/8Bs3)
12
"Abortion, except in the the third trimester is nothing but a loss of lifeless tissue. I know as I have had to order a number of abortions to save that life of a mother."
David, who are you that you have the power to "order" abortions? By your illiterate writing 'skills' I can see you lack sufficient education to be a doctor. Also no doctor would ever refer to living cells as "lifeless tissue" even if they doubt sentience.
I smell a lie. You're claiming to have experience that should give you authority but your ethos simply fails: your ignorance gives you away.
Stop polluting the libertarian argument with your ineptitude.
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 21, 2009 07:06 PM (6H6xG)
13
Folks, I'm not going to ask you to agree with David, but I considering I know who he is, what his speciality is, and where he practices medicine, I'd strongly advise against doubting what he does for a living, even if you disagree with his personal feelings on the subject of abortion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 21, 2009 07:37 PM (WjpSC)
14
http://www.catholic.org/video/?v=13
Dave should watch this video and then try to explain that what you see being pulled out of the womb is actually "lifeless tissue"..
Posted by: SparkyOreily at June 22, 2009 11:47 AM (JbDFp)
15
Ok, to respond to the critics. My grammar in writing for a blog is very poor as I write as I think, not the proper Queen’s English. This makes for more stream on conscious and thus might not be appropriate for you elementary school training.
I found the video that you recommended to be interesting in its propaganda style. Note that it is sponsored by the Catholic Church which has long used sex to control its advocates. Most of the fetuses were in the late second trimester to early third trimester stages. Most abortions are first to early trimester. After that many doctor’s with counsel having the child. As to the dismemberment, ask yourself why the church would do that. This is their video and is obviously staged. Unless there is a problem in dilating the cervix, the material usually comes out much more intact. As you can see in the video the tissue is human formed but lifeless as there is no breathing or heart action. Thus does not meet the criteria for life as we define it. You will note that no one post the pictures of children that have been tortured by their parents and loved ones because they were a burden. Believe me that you do not want to see that.
As to the comparison to slavery issues in 1860, I do have a problem with the actions of the Federal government at that time. Slavery was a legitimate enterprise that the whole country was participating in. It was a substantial economic investment in the South and certain Yankee cities that provided the finances, ships, markets, insurance and every other aspect of the business that was necessary. The Federal government tried to make it part of their agenda even though they did not have the constitutional power to do so, thus one of the first intrusions into our lives and business that has progressively escalated to this day. Without this intrusion, slavery would have peacefully gone its way and Blacks would have been accepted into our society in a much better manner than has occurred. As it is, the religious of the day wanted their way and pushed until the country was torn apart and has not mended to this day.
But my point is that a large proportion of people feel uncomfortable with religion and morals should not be in the government any more than socialism. They feel that abortion is the rallying point for the religious and their attempts to push an agenda down our throats like the socialist; all of this without constitutional authority. We are all conservatives and want a different path for the country than the one being mapped out in Washington now. The problem is that those of us who do not have a religious agenda feel that by joining with the church groups, we are only trading one overbearing group for another. To beat Obama we need a united front that everyone can live with. If you harp on abortion, you are going to drive away people like myself who want the government out of all my affairs. Of course, if the country should split, I can live with that too. If you want to limit abortion, get your preachers to do their jobs and increase the moral content of the country, don’t try and legislate it.
Posted by: David at June 22, 2009 04:13 PM (i0TVe)
16
Yada friggen yada...Bottom line is abortion is murder and those that perform abortions are murderers...It wouldn't break my heart if abortionists met with the same fate as Tiller...
Posted by: SparkyOreily at June 25, 2009 02:58 PM (JbDFp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 17, 2009
PeaGate
There are many, many legitimate news stories that need to be written criticizing the arrogance, missteps, and outright lies of the Obama Administration, but Matt Drudge's attempt to drum up "PeaGate"—insinuating that Michelle Obama faked her White House garden, is really reaching...
... and more than just a little incompetent.
You'll note that there are two links in the photo, the first goes to the press release about the March 20th planting of the garden,and the second links to the press release about the June 16 harvest.
That's 88 days... well within normal boundaries for many plants grown as early-season vegetables, including those mention in the harvest press release.
Peas? They can be ready in 60 days. Lettuce? Looseleaf, butterhead, and romaine, range between 40-75 days.
It took maybe 20 seconds on Google to look that up. That's 20 seconds that could have saved Drudge from making a complete ass out of himself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:49 AM
| Comments (55)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What bothers me more is every time we see Michelle, why does she have that tight-lipped death look on her face?
Posted by: WK at June 17, 2009 12:06 PM (ipimG)
2
Great post, well put, please fix that bizarre (but understandable) typo about "20 seasons"...and then delete this comment, if you like.
Posted by: AGuy at June 17, 2009 12:07 PM (8kQ8M)
3
Yeah, but we should appoint a Special Prosecutor just in case.
/sarc
Posted by: JayC at June 17, 2009 12:07 PM (H5zz/)
4
Also, Michelle honey? You might want to re-think that low cut scoop-necked shirt when you're doing a lot of bending over, especially when there are lots of cameras taking photos of you.
Class will out.
Posted by: Stoutcat at June 17, 2009 12:11 PM (kKdtK)
5
Lettuce hope and change. We know they can raise money. Drudge is getting a bit like the MSM, too busy to check facts.
Posted by: Joe Buzz at June 17, 2009 12:13 PM (jbXDH)
6
Yes, but what about arugula?
Posted by: lorien1973 at June 17, 2009 12:15 PM (IhQuA)
7
"...why does she have that tight-lipped death look on her face?"
I'm not a Michelle fan, but some people just have that kind of neutral expression. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I say this as a light-hearted optimist who is asked many times "What's wrong?" because my natural countenance happens to be solemn.
I've also known very serious people who constantly appear on the verge of laughter.
No need to read things into her face absent other evidence.
Posted by: Mateo at June 17, 2009 12:17 PM (vLSfO)
8
All Drudge did was link to the planting and the harvesting. Why does this make Drudge an "ass?" The "Miracle Grow" comment? My guess is that he doesn't care how long it took. Why do you? I mean, they're just photo-ops for Michelle, for pete's sake.
Posted by: Will Cate at June 17, 2009 12:18 PM (qsHtW)
9
They didn't grow nearly as fast as Hillary's investments in Global Crossing or Cow futures.
Posted by: TexasRainmaker at June 17, 2009 12:25 PM (YA02n)
10
Bob,
You forget. The White House Magic Veggie Organic Garden was created for a total cost of, per Michelle Obama, $200,
The WHMVO garden is 1,100 square feet. It has about a dozen different plants. The plan for the WHMVO is available on the White House web site.
Also, keep in mind that three weeks after the garden was planted Michelle made a point of saying that the First family had eaten salad made from greens planted in the WHMVO garden.
All this is No.Big.Deal --- except that it's easily recognized by people who actually garden, as a Big Lie.
Either the garden cost around $1,500-2,000 which pays for pre-started plants and organic soil ammendments for the 1,100sqft plot or else they planted seeds and brought in stunt plants for the photo op.
or the total cost was $200 because garden plants with a total value of $1000 were donated by an unnamed person. In which case we can file an FOIA request. Andy by "we", I mean "you".
But no matter how it's parse mere humans can't get an 1,100sqft garden for $200 that produces the way that the WHMVO garden apparently does.
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 17, 2009 12:26 PM (ruzrP)
11
Of course peas can grow in 60 days, starting on March 20, that is if you live in Florida. Unfortunately for Michelle (and us) her husband took a job in Washington D.C. where March is WAY to early to plant. Just check what the temperatures were in D.C. in March and April. Too much manure here.
Posted by: Ken D at June 17, 2009 12:42 PM (DXXrm)
12
I live about 20 miles east of the White House and I've been harvesting my peas and lettuce for about three weeks now. I started both peas and lettuce from seed. The peas were planted March 1st. The lettuce was planted at the end of March.
No scandal, move along.
Posted by: Vivian Louise at June 17, 2009 12:45 PM (8j5r/)
13
She has that expression because she hates what she is doing. And I don't blame her. Gardening sucks.
Posted by: Jack at June 17, 2009 12:46 PM (Ss83y)
14
Ah, we need a veggie garden Czar, and many more garden workers to weed, fertilize, water etc. who require good health care benefits and great pensions after all, gardening is backbreaking work, so disability should kick in early as bad backs and knees will occur with all the bending and kneeling. Maybe an oversite commission to make sure all is being accomplished in a fair manner so no one is left out...Ha...I love fresh picked produce and veggies myself.
Posted by: Grace D at June 17, 2009 12:47 PM (gxlpn)
15
Bumperstickerist -- they're not counting the cost of the White House groundskeeping staff fertilizing and weeding the garden.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 17, 2009 12:47 PM (ZJ/un)
16
Bob is right this is nothing about nothing. I'm in Philadelphia and I planted lettuce and arugula (the presidential vegetable) from seed around May 1st, and I've been eating them both Since before the end of May. 3 weeks for babby lettuce? Not a problem. Made arugula pesto last week.
Posted by: Eric Blair at June 17, 2009 01:07 PM (89LlU)
17
The author is right about the grow times... I left some letuce in the ground a little longer and its already going to seed / past its prime... also I could set up a 1,100 foot garden for $200 if it didn't have a wall around it... which I don't see one in the pictures... but if you don't live at the white house, you should build a wall and cover it with bird netting to keep out animals...
Posted by: Thomass at June 17, 2009 01:15 PM (Ecv78)
18
I do believe that it's the first time in history that peas have grown this fast.
Posted by: Rosie O'Donnell at June 17, 2009 01:19 PM (W+Ux7)
19
Nice garden. Nice plants, too.
Must have used a lot of pesticides.
Posted by: Dusty at June 17, 2009 01:33 PM (fFk/c)
20
Even at $200, she's a piker as manager of the Olde Plantation. I plant a larger plot for far less, exotic salad greens included. And we kulaks lack her access to subsidized field hands and child labor.
The peas are ready, though. She's got that in her favor.
Next season I hope to see pygmy goats and some of those cute little mini-steers.
Posted by: comatus at June 17, 2009 01:34 PM (XTm8J)
21
Good to see Confederate Yankee has the "courage" to defend our wookie marxist first lady against the baseless charges leveled by a right wing extremist with a "don't tread on me" sticker on his Jetta Turbo Diesel. Probably has a copy of the "Turner diaries" in the trunk.
I nominate Confederate Yankee for the Noam Chomsky award for journalistic integrity.
Posted by: Karl at June 17, 2009 04:47 PM (L+sIK)
22
Those aren't peas* in that second photo, guys, so snark about pea growth rates won't help.
* I'm no master gardener, but I've grown peas. And those? Not peas. Lettuce, looks like.
Posted by: Sigivald at June 17, 2009 06:24 PM (WIejT)
23
1) Plant seeds
2) ???
3) Profit!
I'd like to know about step 2. Who did the weeding, fertilizing and watering? How many man-hours of gardening did Michelle personally do, and how many man-hours of gardening were done by other people, be it volunteers or professionals.
She seems to be promoting subsistence farming to the general public, which is an insanely inefficient way for modern Americans to get their food.
Posted by: jms at June 17, 2009 07:00 PM (x/fYw)
24
I think you meant to say, "That's 20 seconds that could have saved Drudge from making a complete ass out of himself AGAIN."
One of the things that has really amazed me the last six months is the way Drudge has dropped off the radar. Virtually nobody seems to care what he says any more, except where we can get a little bit of innocent fun out of his posts. Sorry, Matt, I think you're over.
Posted by: Green Eagle at June 17, 2009 09:39 PM (KL7aG)
25
Green Eagle, whatever you're smoking, I want some of it.
Drudgereport.com has received more than 24 million hits in the past 24 hours, and 634 million in the past month.
He may not be on _your_ radar, but clearly that's not true for a lot of people.
Posted by: Will Cate at June 17, 2009 09:51 PM (qsHtW)
Posted by: jdb at June 17, 2009 10:47 PM (Dj4BX)
27
Fact is, you can grow a LOT of food in 200-300 square feet of raised bed gardens.
jms says: "She seems to be promoting subsistence farming to the general public, which is an insanely inefficient way for modern Americans to get their food."
I would equate that statement with the more commonly used term for bovine brown organic garden supplements.
Growing a family garden is most certainly a very efficient way to produce food for one's family and to enjoy the fruits of one's labor. I suppose that your concept of modern Americans is quite different than the millions of us actually ENJOY gardening.
To each their own.........
Dude
My hat's off to you for this thread CY.
Posted by: Dude at June 17, 2009 11:30 PM (byA+E)
28
Jeez, guys, it's like you've never gardened before. Lighten up.
Considering that there's Iran, DOMA, the IG scandal and the Treasury's printing presses sinking our economy, there's a shitload of problems to highlight. This shouldn't even be on the radar.
Posted by: Bill at June 18, 2009 10:47 AM (FTx1w)
29
BumperStickerist says she only spent $200 of her own money to plant this garden. Well, bravo!! That's certainly less than those $540 shoes she wore to the food bank in May. (Now that's irony, folks.)
And how much are we footing the bill for Michelle’s mother to live in the White House... even though she never lived with them before he was elected President. A recent NYT article said “she entertains visitors from Chicago.” So are we paying for all of them to eat and stay at the White House, too? Maybe Barak should go ahead and invite his auntie in Boston and half brother in Kenya to join them.
And finally, what was the final bill for their date night to New York a few weeks ago? Did they pay for the transportation cost? Any which way you look at it, that entire episode (like the first six months of his presidency) was just pure arrogance!
Posted by: Uri at June 18, 2009 11:42 AM (pclnw)
30
Haha thank you BumperStickerist and Uri for getting to the heart of the matter.
Whether the Obamas can garden or not is not the issue. The question is, what are they doing with our tax money? This may seem inconsequential when compared to the horrors of the national debt, socialist health care costs, and bail-out plans, but it still points out what kind of people we're stuck with running our country!
The kind of people who will lie about the cost of a small garden or any donations contributing to it will have NO compunctions deceiving us about the national spending projects illegally forced upon us already.
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 18, 2009 11:57 AM (ESqOI)
31
Lettuce? Looseleaf, butterhead, and romaine, range between 40-75 days
And that's if you are allowing them to grow to maturity. If you want mixed baby greens you can have a harvest two to three weeks after sowing.
Posted by: ThomasD at June 19, 2009 01:44 PM (21H5U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
North Carolina Legislature Poised to Kill Amazon Associates Program
This was in my inbox this morning. If you are part of the Amazon Associates program in North Carolina, you won't be for long, thanks to the insatiable greed of tax-and-spend Democrats.
We regret to inform you that the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) appears ready to enact an unconstitutional tax collection scheme that would leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationships with North Carolina-based Associates. You are receiving this e-mail because our records indicate that you are an Amazon Associate and resident of North Carolina.
Please note that this is not an immediate termination notice and you are still a valued participant in the Associates Program. All referral fees earned on qualified traffic will continue to be paid as planned.
But because the new law is drafted to go into effect once enacted – which could happen in the next two weeks – we will have to terminate the participation of all North Carolina residents in the Amazon Associates program on or before that same day. After the termination day, we will no longer pay any referral fees for customers referred to Amazon.com or Endless.com nor will we accept new applications for the Associates program from North Carolina residents.
The unfortunate consequences of this legislation on North Carolina residents like you were explained in detail to key senators and representatives in Raleigh, including the leadership of the Senate, House, and both chambers’ finance committees. Other states, including Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee, considered nearly identical schemes, but rejected these proposals largely because of the adverse impact on their states’ residents.
The North Carolina General Assembly’s website is http://www.ncleg.net/, and additional information may be obtained from the Performance Marketing Alliance at http://www.performancemarketingalliance.com/.
We thank you for being part of the Amazon Associates program, and we will apprise you of the General Assembly’s action on this matter.
Sincerely,
Amazon.com
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:50 AM
| Comments (53)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes, this is really fun again. Would really like to know more about this and if there is some kind of "uprising" against this law. Surely would like to join the cause.
Posted by: Tomcat at June 17, 2009 08:11 AM (6nEVZ)
2
Yes, with this bill and everything that happened in the last election here in NC I and my wife have come to the conclusion that NC is not much different than Kalicornia were we left two years ago. There are some really nice people here along with to many progressives. So we are leaving. We are taking our family and our small businesses to Georgia. We are hoping that we will find a more hospitable environment but if that does not work we will move again to Wyoming. With what is happening at the federal level we need to believe that our state will want to protect us and I am sorry to say that NC is not going to.
Posted by: ken at June 17, 2009 09:57 AM (xlVT+)
3
Just disgusting -- and at a time when people have lost their jobs and increasingly need creative ways to make income.
On a related note, Amazon Associates pays ZERO for any Kindle book an Associate sells through his or her links. I've talked to the Kindle Team about this (at LA Times Festival of Books) and to an exec who works for Bezos (after I wrote him a letter, snail mail). I urge all Associates to get on Amazon and complain about this.
I told them I had a whole Kindle book store planned -- I did -- and scrapped it totally when I found out I'd be sending them customers and getting ZERO in return. Pretty disgusting.
Please do complain -- they're considering this policy -- maybe changing it. If enough Associates complain and if it gets into the press, they might.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 17, 2009 12:34 PM (P6ALH)
4
I recently listened to the owner of Overstock on C-Span. He mentioned that New York and California tried the same thing. He said in New York he had 300 associates. These 300 associates gave New York the right to tax $60 million in sales to New York. He dropped the associates program for New York.
He said in California they quietly dropped the idea after realizing they would have 300,000 upset California associates(voters) when Overstock dropped the associates program.
This is why the ratbags want the Feds to bring in a tax.
He also had a pretty good answer to the callers who said he was a leech (My word) by not paying state taxes - Overstock takes no services from the state. The deliveries are handled through a third party.
Posted by: davod at June 17, 2009 01:19 PM (GUZAT)
5
Got the same mail.
Is there anything they won't tax? I mean really, is there some rule somewhere that says every aspect of our lives has to have a tax associated with it?
Land of the free, my ass.
Posted by: Russ at June 17, 2009 02:46 PM (QH1SN)
6
"Land of the free, my ass."
You have an ass? It's ours now, buddy, plus penalties.
Posted by: The Taxman at June 17, 2009 04:08 PM (nTM50)
7
Got what they voted for. Elections have consequences - as Charles Krauthammer says.
Posted by: Don Ciccio at June 17, 2009 04:53 PM (3Vika)
8
NC used to be a little more conservative until all the New Yawkers and other northeastern liberals moved into the tech Triangle area and made the urban populations mostly Democrat. As in Illinois with Chicago and other states, the large urban metro areas outweigh the countyside.
Posted by: John at June 17, 2009 05:16 PM (QKlMf)
9
Well, North Carolina had to raise the money somehow to pay the governor's wife's $170,000 salary.
Hmm, those tea parties are looking better every day.
Posted by: Bob at June 17, 2009 05:17 PM (NSv/n)
10
Sales tax is not on the business it's on your posession of the item. Don't expect to escape the current administration without paying sales tax on your online purchases. It will be same demogogic method as in other tax reforms "those rich guys with credit cards get to skate on their sales tax while you have to pay."
Posted by: GRW3 at June 17, 2009 05:30 PM (LF9Js)
11
Ken, no need to move to Wyoming. Tn is just next door, come on over. No income tax (well, there is one, but anybody with a little brains and an IRA can avoid it), better weather, and fairly reasonable rules (not perfect, but then, we don't have 50 inches of snow, either). Heck, you can even stay in the same time zone.
Posted by: exNC_Vol at June 17, 2009 05:37 PM (oBcvL)
12
So I take it the state scheme is that if Amazon has a single affiliate sale in the state, no matter how small, the state is entitled to impose a sales tax on all other Amazon sales to residents of the state, affiliated or direct?
Posted by: Kasmir at June 17, 2009 05:40 PM (jbQl7)
13
I have lived in both NC and GA and love both states. I have great friends in each. With that said, there is ZERO chance I would ever choose to live in NC again given the political and business climate of the state.
Georgia isn't perfect but I think there is an effort to at least try and fix problems. North Carolina on the hand seems to treat its mistakes like money earning compounded interest; it isn't enough to just do something stupid, the next iteration takes stupid to a new level.
Posted by: Tom in GA at June 17, 2009 06:38 PM (VmACN)
14
I live in NC and I'll tell you that the pols have an insatiable appetite for taxes and will tax a fart once they figure out how to legislate, regulate, and collect. I'm leaving as soon as I can!
Posted by: Rusty at June 17, 2009 06:50 PM (dq4yG)
15
Rusty's absolutely correct. Now more than ever, with a $4+ billion budget deficit, NC is grubbing around for every buck they can find.
For various personal reasons, I can't pull up stakes and bail right now, but I'm thinking very seriously about the FL panhandle in a few years....
Posted by: The Freeholder at June 17, 2009 07:39 PM (d68o+)
16
Florida? You have to think one step ahead of the liberal carpet baggers. Look at the last two elections. FL is a clear target. The lefties will flock there, become a majority and then start to tax so they can salve their consciences, all the while clueless that THEY are the ones who moved in and ruined it because they didn't adopt the local culture; they brought their moral bankruptcy and zero common sense with them. I'd say come to my state but the libs are making a try here. It will take longer but with all they ruin, it's simply a matter of time before they find us and bring us down.
Posted by: rrr at June 17, 2009 08:32 PM (RbDw2)
17
So, Ken, you fled California and now find yourself trapped in an Alien versus Predator flick with tax collectors playing all the roles 'cept yours. Ha ha.
Should'a stayed and you'd now be living in the first state contemplating wiping out welfare. Such irony.
Posted by: Micha Elyi at June 17, 2009 08:38 PM (6j2L1)
18
Micha, Thanks but I lived threw 2 riots in Los Angeles and have now wish to go threw the next one possible this summer when you "wipe out welfare"! I want my child to speak english while he grows up.
Florida is out, it is not just taxes but the progressive attitude and lack of morals.
Tn is a good place but have you seen the police looking for revenue lately? I do like the fact that Tn is calling the article 10 issue which could be very important to me and my family if my prototype works. Think under 5k to go off grid and now look at what is going on in Washington and I have a really big problem! I am looking for a state that will allow me innovate and not have to worry about the feds coming after me and/or my family. After all if i am successful then my company is now "to important" and I could be forced to give up everything (or worse it could now be taken from me, or worse ....) and have it given to those who will be able to "help" the administration more than me...
This is were we are now. We are Americans we can innovate out of this mess but our government at both the fed and in NC the state don't want that! They want an emergency to grab control. So again, I am looking for a safe harbor but it is getting hard to find!
Posted by: ken at June 17, 2009 09:34 PM (xlVT+)
19
Hey Ken:
Give Oklahoma a look. I heard today that a Brookings Institute study has rated Oklahoma City the #2 economy during these troubled times (our unemployment rate is around 5.2% or so). Tulsa came in at #9. We are the real deal, conservative-wise. Y'all would be welcome here.
Posted by: Jack Okie at June 17, 2009 10:05 PM (a+Q5X)
20
Hi Jack,
I have looked at Oklahoma and again some of the politicians really show promise. I did my basic training at Fort Sill years ago. I am waiting to see if y'all will take the next step and move for real article 10 protection and to put integrity back into the local and state police force.
I am really looking for the state I end up in to stand on it's own feet and not take direction from the federal government. Did you know that your state has signed on to accept the new federal mandates for UN developed school curriculum and policies? There are only five states that have not signed on so far: Alaska (you go Palin!), Texas , Montana, South Carolina, and Missouri. Next year my son will be going to a Christian school and if they even start to go down this road I will be home schooling!
Look, the economy is bad and is going to get worse (they can't get any more power unless it does) and taxes are part of this. The real kicker is I need to feel safe for my family and that I am using my remaining years to rebuild the community I live in. I am tired of having to look over my shoulder (which is what I had to do for the last almost thirty years in Kalifornia).
At this point the first state/region that moves for either full article 10 rights or secession I am there! until then I am looking for the safest state to hang my families hat in.
Posted by: ken at June 18, 2009 12:21 AM (xlVT+)
21
What do you expect? Bush's tax cuts for the rich bankrupted our country and caused massive economic problems that still resonate today. Had Bush not decided to take care of his rich buddies, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Posted by: Vinny B. at June 18, 2009 01:18 AM (TI25/)
22
You're kidding, right, Vinny? Sarcasm, isn't it? Because not even a lefty would be as stupid as you sound.
No, you're only pretending to be a cretin for laughs.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 18, 2009 05:13 AM (Vcyz0)
23
> Bush's tax cuts for the rich bankrupted our country and caused massive economic problems that still resonate today.
*Bush's* tax cuts????!!!
Somebody is not paying attention. Obama's first-year deficit is bigger than all of Bush's deficits put together.
If Bush's $500 billion deficit (in his last year) was bad, and at the time I thought so, how can Obama's $2 trillion deficit not be at least four times as bad? By what standard do we attack a Republican for a big deficit, and not attack a Democrat for a gargantuan deficit?
Ooops. I think I answered the question. Republican - bad. Democrat - good. Regardless of the policies themselves.
Posted by: Lee at June 18, 2009 07:31 AM (7HPu5)
24
Yet another reason I'm so glad I "weighed my options" and moved across the border to SC. Like Tom said above about GA, it ain't perfect, but it's a sight better than what I was leaving.
Posted by: jdb at June 18, 2009 08:43 AM (XxxR5)
25
Hi Everyone,
I own mgecom, inc., which is an affiliate program management firm in Cary, NC. We have been putting together an organized push against the tax laws. I would greatly appreciate any support anyone here is able to contribute.
(Note to moderators: I'm posting a few links, if that is not permitted, I apologize and ask that you please contact me.)
Petition against the NC Affiliate Tax: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ncaffiliatetax/
Plan to meet on Monday and Tuesday in Cary: http://www.mgecom.com/affiliateblog/corporate-news/fighting-the-affiliate-tax-in-north-carolina/
Representative list to contact: http://www.mgecom.com/affiliateblog/corporate-news/nc-legislators-to-contact-in-the-affiliate-tax-fight/
Posted by: Matt Enders at June 19, 2009 09:28 AM (bOq5i)
26
The argument behind the "Amazon Tax" is that Amazon's associates, also known as "affiliates" or "publishers" represent tax nexus. This means that Amazon and other out of state retailers have a physical presence in North Carolina and therefore must collect and remit the sales tax as if they had a physical store.
One problem with this is that Amazon can simply sever the relationship to avoid nexus. When this happens Amazon's affiliates lose out and the state gets no additional sales tax.
This move is an unconstitutional linguistic sleight of hand (calling affiliates sales agents allegedly makes them the same as a store or office). Affiliate marketing is a form of advertising. The absurdity is that Amazon's affiliates could still advertise for Amazon if they charged differently, such as per impression. So this is basically a burden on a specific form of advertising.
Hopefully these initiatives will lose in court in the future but in the meantime they are threatening many thousands of small businesses around the country.
Posted by: Brook Schaaf at June 19, 2009 11:47 AM (/HE1c)
27
The lefties will flock there
They're already here in FL. Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties are solidly blue.
Another good hurricane will chase a lot of them away again though.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 21, 2009 01:36 AM (Slx41)
28
California re-inserted the "Amazon Tax" language into its budget bill; Amazon responded today by promising to terminate its advertising relationships with all California web publishers if the law passes (and thus it still won't collect sales tax, but California would LOSE income taxes).
Posted by: Mark Welch at June 22, 2009 07:24 PM (56mYv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Collusion
The Drudge Report posted earlier today that ABC News will be producing a broadcast for the Obama Administration's socialized health care plan from within the White House. Predictably, that has caused my peers in the blogosphere some consternation.
Bloggers on the left find that the idea of a Democratic Administration getting a prime time infomercial to extol the virtues of a controversial policy prescription that they are championing quite appealing. The broadcast features only those questions screened by the network, and is designed to provide the Administration a format devoid of rebuttals from libertarian, conservative, and moderate politicians who may have other and perhaps more sustainable ideas. Such unchallenged propaganda is understandably accepted with bliss among the conformist left.
Many of us on the center-right, however, find the increasingly incestuous relationship between the media and a President very alarming. Some are going so far to suggest that such a relationship a significant threat to our Republic. The reason for such concern is simple: a media so enthralled with a politician (or group of politicians) has cannot perform the watchdog role that is required of it in a free nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:52 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I wouldn't be too concerned about it at this point. Folks over reacting to suggest that this is a threat to the Republic. After all, we endured the same sort of thing during the 8 years of the Bush administration with their so called "town hall meetings", etc.
However, I would agree with you that there should be absolutely no vetting of questions in this upcoming broadcast nor in any other format of questions and answers posed by journalists and citizens to elected officials. None.
Furthermore, while we're on this topic, I would suggest that all future election cycle debates be patterned after the format of the now famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Now, there was real debating!
For those of you who aren't familiar with the format, simply do a web search of "Lincoln Douglas Debates". Regardless of one's politics, you'll surely enjoy reading and learning what REAL political discourse should be.
Best Wishes to All,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at June 17, 2009 06:31 AM (byA+E)
2
Lincoln-Douglas, yeah. Sarah will mop the floor with the mullah's little buddy.
Posted by: Gary Ogletree at June 17, 2009 07:02 AM (1ddkS)
3
To compare ABC programming inside the White House presenting only the Administration point of view to "town hall meetings", as Dude did, is foolish.
Fortunately, and finally, the MSM has competition. The citizens are voting with their clickers, radio dials, and keyboards for other reliable news sources.
Posted by: Rick at June 17, 2009 08:46 AM (FWmwx)
4
I fail to see how Bush's "Town Hall meetings" can be even remotely compared to this "Ministry of Truth" style takeover of a major news outlet by the very people they should be commenting on.
See "1984" by George Orwell for "Ministry of Truth" reference.
Posted by: Walt at June 17, 2009 12:17 PM (YLm8s)
5
Just curious, but what if they broadcast their after-school special but no one watched?
Seriously, can we not boycott the program?
And to really stress our displeasure at ABC's dropping of any pretense of being the Administration's lapdog, why don't we go ahead and boycott ALL of ABC's sponsors?
Not just the ABC News sponsors - all of the network's sponsors.
If we take down one network, the others will take notice.
Posted by: wheatley at June 17, 2009 04:51 PM (DMSyb)
6
I hardly ever watch the alphabet networks, so my cott of their programming doesn't change any of their metrics. Althought, the reason I quit watching them was (a) the bias and (b) the lack of good programming.
However, if I write the network's advertisers and threaten to boycott products advertised on ABC - - money talks!
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at June 17, 2009 08:25 PM (EAESv)
7
I've come to believe that the media have squarely taken on the role of Blanche Maxwell
Posted by: Neo at June 18, 2009 05:32 PM (5d1ix)
8
I now refer to the former "MSM" as the SRM (State Run Media).
Posted by: laura at June 19, 2009 01:03 PM (JFvHi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 16, 2009
Fundraising for the Permanent Campaign
Kim Priestap of Wizbang is no doubt one of millions that got the following email from "President Barack Obama" this morning, begging for money to campaign for his destructive health care reform.
The email is replicated below, with the "To:" line filtered out.
The "donate" links in the page are to the following page on democrats.org, the web site of the Democratic National Committee:
http://www.democrats.org/page/m2/4052b1ac/5fe40d6/5a3a28bc/74b97e3f/1316167425/VEsH/
That link redirects to the following page on barackobama.com, another project of the Democratic National Committee:
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08ObamaHealthCare?returnlink=false&source=20090616_BO_HC_DNC_ND
So the email purports to come from the President, and redirects to a web site that bears his name and campaign imagery in order to collect money on a (presumably) secure server... so how can they put the following disclaimer on their fundraising?
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Is this legal and ethical?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:17 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One more example of a runaway train on a steep downhill drag...nearly out of control. And, the president said it himself; universal health care (with or without bipartisan debate/input) MUST be passed by the congress THIS year. Otherwise, the country just might wake up. Every socialist program is being lined up and rammed through congress at breakneck speed...and for the very same reason. With 90% of the MSM in the tank (and they have been since day one), the Union of Socialist States is rapidly replacing these United States.
Posted by: Dell at June 16, 2009 01:58 PM (dqxDw)
2
"Is this legal and ethical?"
This is a Democrat President so it doesn't matter. You should understand that by now.
Posted by: Rick at June 16, 2009 02:12 PM (FWmwx)
3
>Is this legal and ethical?
Using the Office of the President of the United States for political party financial gain is problematic at a minimum.
Consider if the CEO of General Electric sent out an email to all warning of the pending energy crisis that, according GE's estimate, will plummet the nation into darkness. Nuclear power plants might explode, coal plants will crumble and nobody will have electricity.
But by clicking here, you can donate critically needed money to solve the problem (link connects you to the RNC website).
Ethical? Certainly not. In most corporations, the code of conduct provisions would probably result in Obama's dismissal. Of course, Obama personifies Agamben's State of Exception - he is a man above law. He defines law in his thought and speech. So like any other dictator, there's nothing you all are going to do about it.
Get used to it. Malpractice suits are going to go away shortly, to the glee of giddy doctors. Of course, that's because you won't be permitted to sue the government. Oh and by the way, do you know how many Democratic activists are excited at finally putting an end to fat-cat doctor salaries? $100K or more a year is considered excessively rich. I've heard from several high school teachers that a doctor should make no more than a public school teacher. Say hello to $40K to $60K max.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at June 16, 2009 03:59 PM (7r7wy)
4
And a postscript to you attorneys out there. Don't think for a moment your DNC activism will keep you safe. Look at all those before you that have been backstabbed by Obama.
Honestly, I don't know that a single non-attorney American will shed a tear at seeing attorneys converted into public defenders. "Everyone has a right to the law" will be the justification. You'll work at an office much akin to the DMV, answering to long lines of applicants for service. The majority of your job will consist of explaining the new legal process of governmental appeal. When your Government Motors car only lasts 3 months before its transmission seizes, your government warranty will require you to visit the Office of Legal Services and fill out paperwork submitting a request for assistance. Many months later, you will receive your unappealable determination from a panel chartered with liability evaluation. Those panels will also keep numerous banks of former attorneys employed at competitive legal union wages of $15 to $22/hour.
Don't think for a moment that I'm joking. Attorneys and doctors as a collective are despised. You've made too much money while so many others have been left behind, in their eyes. Time to pay.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at June 16, 2009 04:04 PM (7r7wy)
5
In the system administration business we call that "spam", and "spam" is always unethical and dishonest.
For example it says in part "Paid for ... by the Democratic...".
That is simply dishonest nonsense--it is paid for by the recipients.
I am going to forward this to a couple of fora for people dealing with spam and the blocking thereof. One is a mailing list (spam-l) and the other is a news group (news.admin.net-abuse.email).
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at June 16, 2009 04:58 PM (OmeRL)
6
Although I have never ever donated a penny to their 'cause' nor ever clicked on their website, I received an e-mail letter the other day in the same line "signed" by Joe Biden. They are doing some real nefarious Internet mining.
Here is the beginning of their text:
" Henry --
President Obama and Congressional leaders have made it clear: Health care reform will happen this year or it won't happen at all. If we want to finally ensure quality care for every American, this is our chance.
It won't be easy. Our opponents -- including the same folks behind the notorious swift boat ads of 2004 -- are already flooding the airwaves with distortions. Just like on the campaign, we can only win if we get out the facts, bring real people's voices into Washington, and never let up.
We won the election because millions of ordinary people chipped in, and that's exactly what it will take to win this campaign for health care reform..."
and it continues further down with:
"...We can make this all happen, but we need to know how big we can go. How many cities will have volunteers ready to spread the word? How many stories can we collect to put a human face on the health care crisis? How many people will know when to weigh in, and how to be heard? The answer depends on the resources we start with. And that depends on you..."
Posted by: Henry Ratz at June 16, 2009 05:07 PM (joNUC)
7
Upon closer examination, I think that is probably just an ordinary scam where the spammer wants you to think it is connected with the DNC, put probably is more interested in collecting your credit card info.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at June 16, 2009 05:26 PM (OmeRL)
8
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to the President, but was the the staffer who actually wrote the email a government employee, and were they either on-duty or "in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States," 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a), at the time/
Posted by: Simon at June 16, 2009 06:07 PM (o+ba9)
9
How about posting that with full headers? Before jumping to conclusions, consider that it could likely be a forgery.
Posted by: Nobody Atoll at June 16, 2009 07:06 PM (4j4to)
10
"This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."
He's not a candidate - He won. Don't you know that means He can do as He wishes? You guys are sooo 2008 when the Constitution still mattered.
Posted by: Tim at June 16, 2009 11:17 PM (eVbuF)
11
--- "Is this legal and ethical?" ---
Should I laugh and cry?
Posted by: scituate_tgr at June 19, 2009 04:51 PM (OQFFO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Brits Debut "Stab-Proof" Knives
According to the industrial designer who created them, he did so because saw a documentary where British doctors advocated a ban on traditional kitchen knives because they had the potential to be used as stabbing weapons in crime.
Seriously.
I have no idea if the design of the knife will prevent it from being used as a stabbing weapon, but it is apparently sharp enough to geld an entire nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:39 AM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Someone should introduce them to the concept of the spatulate point, and inform them that it doesn't have to be pointy to thrust through flesh quite efficiently.
http://www.hammaborg.de/en/archiv/cuts_and_thrusts.php
Mkae make certain kitchen and household tasks quite difficult, though.
Posted by: Grey Fox at June 16, 2009 09:52 AM (dc0ib)
Posted by: Ed Flinn at June 16, 2009 10:01 AM (RRq7w)
3
Being an American of largely Anglo-European stock, I now know how Lisa Simpsons feels everytime she looks at her dad, Homer!
DO'H!
Posted by: GEJ at June 16, 2009 10:31 AM (wAvOg)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at June 16, 2009 11:37 AM (OmeRL)
5
Hahahaha, this is just too rich.
So what kind of person actually buys this product for its non functionally.
Never berng an stab proof knife to a sharpened pencil fight.
Posted by: Drider at June 16, 2009 12:06 PM (HaJD9)
6
A fool and their money are soon parted...
Those things are going to cost $65-85 USD, some how I don't think criminals will be rushing to spend their cash on them. I can see it now, some yuppie Brit buys these things and he grabs one to fend off a burglar only to find the burglar is armed with a pointy knife...
Even if the UK Government went nuts and forced such a thing on the populace a few minutes with a grinder will return it to a "stabbing" knife.
Weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: Scott at June 16, 2009 01:03 PM (sQmd1)
7
Another socialist country beclowns itself.
Posted by: democratsarefascists at June 16, 2009 02:59 PM (GdalM)
8
Interesting factoid for British bureaucrats gleaned from 200 years of penal history:
You can make crude but lethal "shanks" from anything including plastic toothbrushes, dinner spoons, metal rulers, and pieces of plexiglass:
http://www.designobserver.com/archives/shiv1.html
Posted by: MarkJ at June 16, 2009 04:31 PM (ZFVlP)
9
Nimrod, are you for real? Of course nobody wants anybody stabbing anyone. But how does this help? What, are the police really going to make the criminals and yobs exchange their flick knives for these things?
Stop hating America so much, it's made you raving mad.
Posted by: PsychoDad at June 16, 2009 05:04 PM (Rzi8h)
10
Some may remember the film The Krays where the brother/thugs took over England with war surplus, meeting switchblades with bayonets and pistols with machine guns. I wonder how legal that arsenal was? Even without piles of war material laying about, where there is a will there will be a way. Could yobboes be poking each other with clovis points in Lundinium again?
Posted by: megapotamus at June 16, 2009 05:18 PM (HC8BN)
11
Most knife wounds are slashes. Smart!
Posted by: david at June 16, 2009 05:22 PM (dccG2)
12
Posted by Nimrod Gently at June 16, 2009 04:58 PM
Poor dear. Never got over the fact that our Founding Fathers fled your part of the world for freedom from tyranny. Now look at your country. Over run by Muslims and their demands, rarely a man with fortitude can be seen in your county.The once Great Britain is no longer Great, a shell of it's former self. Pity that. Pity you. See my name. Understand that.
Posted by: Percy now Pierce at June 16, 2009 06:39 PM (fssBB)
13
But can then come up with a "stab proof" pointy stick ?
Posted by: Neo at June 17, 2009 12:19 AM (5d1ix)
14
What about scissors? What about knitting needles? What about forks? What about uprooted fence posts? What about sharpened pencils? What about satay skewers? What about fence pickets?
I wouldn't be too smug about the hapless Limeys swaddling themselves in cotton wool and bubble wrap, we have a President, Senate and Congress, and media hell bent on doing the same to us. Let our sad sorry overseas cousins ride the handcart to hell, but do what we can to stop it happening here.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 17, 2009 05:31 AM (Vcyz0)
15
I am sure someone has written this. Amateurs stab experienced knife users slash. Being sliced by a competent knife user would not be very pleasant. Of course having the consolation of knowing that you won't be stabbed will make all the difference I am sure.
Posted by: JimC at June 18, 2009 03:59 AM (Mz/Dt)
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 18, 2009 01:34 PM (4zaX+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 15, 2009
Obama Got His 3:00 AM Call...
and refused to pick up the phone:
The White House has not issued a statement expressing support for the protestors declaring the election illegitimate. But neither has anyone in the Obama administration said a public word accepting the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection.
"We're reacting to concrete facts," a White House official tells ABC News. "We're collecting them still."
Via Hot Air.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:58 PM
| Comments (60)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"We're reacting to concrete facts. We're collecting them still". In other words, We're voting "present".
Posted by: Tim at June 15, 2009 01:07 PM (3Wewy)
2
He missed the call...he was out on another "date night" with Michelle.
Posted by: Steve at June 15, 2009 01:38 PM (b/AeN)
3
I don't see how this helps Michelles kids......
Posted by: zipity at June 15, 2009 01:39 PM (y1mCr)
4
Maybe you can check with David Letterman for a quote.
Posted by: jdflorida at June 15, 2009 01:40 PM (GDmMB)
5
The union contract for the Teleprompter scriptwriter specifically says that no scripts shall be produced without 24 hours prior notice.
Posted by: Micropotamus at June 15, 2009 01:42 PM (xhI7V)
Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2009 01:46 PM (zTZGo)
7
I wonder if he will manage to craft a response more quickly than he did when Russia invaded Georgia?
I'm betting the over on this one.
Posted by: moqui at June 15, 2009 01:55 PM (wdR5K)
8
The problem is that for both of the Obamas and many of their followers US support for the people on the streets of Tehran would somehow delegitimize their cause. If you haven't figured it out yet our new genius President is a Franz Fanon disciple. This is why his speech to the Muslim world spent so much time decrying colonialism. Fanon-ism, if you will, is the kind of communism that was popular when Obama's parents would have gotten together to make the One.
Posted by: Frege at June 15, 2009 02:05 PM (lP3s4)
9
Yeah, it's all fun and puns until Israel gets nuked. Hell, it's not like Ahmenidijad is hiding his intentions. He's kinda of like Hitler in that way.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 15, 2009 02:08 PM (bOrzM)
10
While my heart is with the protestors, I wonder if Obama is not playing it smart here. If he comes out too strongly in support of the opposition, the regime can play the protestors as tools of the West.
Posted by: Anthony at June 15, 2009 02:08 PM (zUQzG)
11
Anthony,
He is playing it" smart".
He doesn't want to encourage the protesters because he supports his fellow totalitarian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He does not want the Iranians to "Hope" for a "Change" from their Islamofascist regime to something less totalitarian.
The only thing lacking in this whole sorry mess is St. Jimmah (I never met a dictator I didn't like) of Plains declaring the Iranian "election" "fair".
Posted by: Nahanni at June 15, 2009 02:20 PM (S4wMM)
12
Anthony, about what regime can that not be said?
Would you have said that about South Africa under apartheid? Czechoslovakia under the Soviets?
Czechoslovakia under Hitler?
Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 15, 2009 02:20 PM (LjNwi)
13
And if he doesn't say anything at all (especially after his push for "a new start with Muslims"), he will appear weak, indecisive and full of hot air.
A truly smart President would come out strongly for free and fair elections.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 15, 2009 02:31 PM (bOrzM)
14
Except he's not in favor of free and fair elections, Roy. 2008 was probably our last. Acorn will see to that. By 2012 we'll be where the Iranians are now. Obama's probably waiting to see how Ahmadinejad handles it. Nothing like a dry run on someone else's dime.
Give him points for honesty on this one.
Posted by: Bob Young at June 15, 2009 03:35 PM (xb8HU)
15
Roy ~ Who says Obama is "smart," anyway?
He refuses to release undergrad transcripts as Bush and Kerry did. No one from his class at Columbia even remembers him being there.
As Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he published only one - one! - nondescript article, and ZERO publications in scholarly journals as a "constitutional law professor" at Chicago.
This fellow has never shown any particular intelligence, and the only ability he has evidenced is in making speeches with a teleprompter.
It is hardly surprising that an Affirmative Action President is about as effective as an Affirmative Action brain surgeon.
Posted by: Adjoran at June 15, 2009 03:49 PM (n5JQT)
16
Barry al Hussein is a marketing strategy - nothing more. With Soros's and Oprah's money and marketing advice, al Hussein now sits in the White House.
And our country is now aligning with the jihad movement around the world, while it insults our real allies.
How pathetic.
Posted by: rgg at June 15, 2009 04:28 PM (HH3AB)
17
It doesn't matter that he doesn't have any executive experience. What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: The 53% at June 15, 2009 04:54 PM (uymlc)
18
There is good reason on the spending/domestic front to say that we are well rid of W, given his precedential aid to Barack's socialist aspirations, but can anyone doubt that he would be handling Iran properly? And by properly of course I mean with a hard line to A-jad et al and a helping hand, at least rhetorical, to the Iranian resistance? Another genius speech is shown to be obsolete even on its own terms just as soon as it rolls off the teleprompter. Truly, as C Krauthammer described, this was the Cairo Disaster.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 15, 2009 05:09 PM (9w0RI)
19
Bob Young, why do you think our 2008 election was "free and fair"?
Posted by: MikeM at June 15, 2009 05:59 PM (DKZAR)
20
What's a "concrete fact" vs a 'non-concrete fact'?
What if the fact was stainless-steel? Would that be better or worse than a concrete fact?
Posted by: Old Weird Ken at June 15, 2009 06:56 PM (3Y1yo)
21
This whole Iran thing seems to be "above Obama's paygrade"...
I'd be less than honest if I said I was surprised!
Posted by: GEJ at June 15, 2009 07:33 PM (wAvOg)
22
Unfortunately, 53%, it's not about experience. Obama just doesn't care about human rights in Iran. He just wants everyone to love him. All he did in his speech in Cairo was pander to the worst aspects of Islam.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at June 15, 2009 08:47 PM (r0yU3)
23
Amazing how Iran could count 40 million votes manually as quickly as they did.
Posted by: Paul at June 15, 2009 10:55 PM (rCmYM)
24
The One will do nothing to advance the cause of liberty and freedom. Why fight for a a cause he clearly does not believe in?
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 16, 2009 07:11 AM (R7LgM)
25
From GatewayPundit:
Last year George Bush told the Iranian people:
My message to the young in Iran is that someday your society will be free. And it will be a blessed time for you. My message to the women of Iran is that the women of America share your deep desire for children to grow up in a hopeful society and to live in peace.
This from the "fascist" Bushitler. And from Obama?
"This is an issue for the Iranian people to decide".
Not much of a comparison between the fighter pilot and the illegitimate Indonesian community worker....
Posted by: iconoclast at June 16, 2009 12:47 PM (O8ebz)
26
From GatewayPundit:
Last year George Bush told the Iranian people:
My message to the young in Iran is that someday your society will be free. And it will be a blessed time for you. My message to the women of Iran is that the women of America share your deep desire for children to grow up in a hopeful society and to live in peace.
This from the "fascist" Bushitler. And from Obama?
"This is an issue for the Iranian people to decide".
Not much of a comparison between the fighter pilot and the illegitimate Indonesian community worker....
Posted by: iconoclast at June 16, 2009 12:48 PM (O8ebz)
27
cue the stuttering....
Posted by: DownWithTheFoe! at June 16, 2009 01:14 PM (g6H+U)
28
I'm confused, are you guys now in favor of expressing support for the Iranian people, or do you still want us to bomb them?
Posted by: Jim at June 16, 2009 01:32 PM (3GzXA)
29
Apparently Jim is the only person posting here too dim to tell the difference between bombing civilians and targeting systems designed for nuclear weapons proliferation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 16, 2009 01:42 PM (gAi9Z)
30
Please educate me then CY, where are these "systems" - the CIA had a list of 1500 nuclear program sites to target - and who works in them and lives near them?
One would hope Belgrade, Iraq, and Afghanistan would taught you the reality of "surgical strikes" but I guess hope springs eternal when it's other peoples lives.
Posted by: Jim at June 16, 2009 02:09 PM (3GzXA)
31
Typical leftard troll, trying to use a fallacious argument to discredit support for the Iranian people. Of course Jim recognizes that any government risks its own people with its actions. This is abundantly true when governments like Iran use their own civilians as human shields.
It is disgusting that the leftards in our country don't even rise to the idealism of France in this matter. Instead, their version of the 100 years war is to use every pretext to discredit the domestic political opposition.
Their hunger for political power is too great to come together for any reason. Treason in war, betrayal in peace--the leftard way.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 16, 2009 06:37 PM (FGCRY)
32
"the CIA had a list of 1500 nuclear program sites to target" ... This sounds like one of those made-up facts. I noticed he didn't back it up with references.
And who here doesn't think that any list made public is disinformation? We're not going to use that list anyways. We'll use the Mossad list.
And what if it is 1,500 target sites? What difference does that make? We should do whatever it takes to eliminate the nuclear capacity if we do decide to remove nuclear sites. Better safe than sorry.
And thanks President Bush for having a military presence in 2 countries surrounding Iran. Way to cut Iran off! Nice strategic move. Makes it a lot easier to bomb Iran if we decide to.
Posted by: Old Weird Ken at June 16, 2009 07:04 PM (1OdWO)
33
Um yeah, iconoclast, I didn't say anything at all about discrediting the Iranian people, I asked if you guys still want us to blow them up.
I'm sure you've spent a great deal of time prior to this election talking about the wonderful majority of Iranians who are peace loving, pro-Western folks - people we should reach out to rather than demonize as faceless Islamofascists. Yep, I'm oh so very sure that's been your take on the situation.
And shorter Old Weird Ken
"the 1500 number is made up, and who cares if it is we should blow it up any way. Thank goodness Bush gave us the ability to do so - if we decide to do so - and we should - although, strangely, he never did...."
Where to even begin with you, I guess this is a start:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,5419188.story?coll=la-home-commentary
Posted by: Jim at June 17, 2009 12:27 AM (P7Vw+)
34
Jimmuh
You have no idea what I talked about before this regarding Iran. So stuff your attempt to change the subject where the sun doesn't shine, troll.
While you were sniffing unicorn f@rts, the rest of the educated world recognized that (1) citizens always are responsible for the actions of their government, and (2) those same citizens are doubly at risk when their government intentionally use them as human shields. Neither of which should prevent necessary action from being taken.
Which you already know. Heck, leftard trolls like yourself would be the first to wipe out an entire city if it threatened your grip on power. And the first to hand over your country and your freedom if it gained you a speck more of political power.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 17, 2009 04:35 PM (FGCRY)
Posted by: Jim at June 18, 2009 12:27 PM (3GzXA)
36
Sorry, that was unfair to 12 year olds.
The idea that individuals are responsible for the actions of their leaders is ludicrous, especially in a dictatorship like Iran.
And the line about people like me being willing to "hand over my country, and my freedom if it gained me a speck more political power" is an instant classic of idiocy. Let's hope you never fall for the trick of handing over your freedom for more power.
Posted by: Jim at June 18, 2009 12:39 PM (3GzXA)
37
Ignoring this thread's devolution into infantile mudslinging on the part of the illiterate Jim...
Did anyone really expect our new Hussein Hitler to take a stand against tyranny? Surely not. It would never occur to the liberals to support freedom of speech and representation (far too conservative an idea for those who loathe an autonomous populous) and no conservatives could hope so highly for our new anti-Constitutional dictator.
So why are we acting surprised here? The fact that Obama claims socialism as his cause and our recurrent Iranian 'president' claims fanatic Islam as his does nothing to differentiate between their positions on ultimate 'presidential' power.
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 18, 2009 01:00 PM (4zaX+)
38
Shorter LaMagalena:
I like democracy except when it results in the election of someone I don't like here at home. In that case I'll call our duly elected President a tyrant and toss in some references to Hitler and socialism.
Posted by: Jim at June 18, 2009 03:30 PM (3GzXA)
39
Dear Jim,
Thank you with your concern over the comments on the Confederate Yankee's posting. Your continued interest proves there may be hope for you yet.
If you wish to understand why I call the current president a tyrant, you may follow the link to my blog and read the entries there that explain the failure of the American attempt at bypassing regional democracy. Or you may simply examine Acorn, should you prefer.
I respect freedom and self-defense above all else, and the situation in Iran stifles both for its populous. However, Obama's political record demonstrates a fanatic belief in truly socialist policies, and his recent actions (particularly involving the nationalization of key industries and health care) do NOTHING to reassure me about his commitment to American rights or Constitutional legality. Furthermore he commands equally fanatic loyalty that escapes the realm of sanity.
This is why I call him a socialist and a tyrant. This is why I compare him to Hitler.
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 18, 2009 06:14 PM (4zaX+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 13, 2009
National Organization for
Talk show host David Letterman won't apologize for suggesting the statutory rape of Sarah Palin's 14-year-old daughter Willow, beyond a half-ass attempt to claim that the rape of 18-year-old Bristol Palin was his actual intention.
I have peers in the blogosphere that would like to see the aging hack boycotted and fired for his comments... I don't see the effort being worthwhile. Letterman's sagging rating would only be buoyed by continuing to low-boil the saga, and his fellow liberals—the real problem—would only support him more in political solidarity by assigning more relevance to him than a late night talk show host with a worn-out and increasingly bitter schtick is worth.
But the biggest argument against boycotting Letterman is that he simply isn't that big a fish. If people who are disgusted by Letterman's misogyny really want to make a difference, they'll target those that do the most in allowing the degradation of women.
They can do no worse than starting with the National Organization for Women.
NOW was silent about Letterman's advocacy of statutory rape until they were forced to speak. Ignoring women's issues that are not politically advantageous for the organization has been NOW's most defining characteristic since the Clinton era. If women are abused by Democrats—especially liberal Democrats—then NOW has little or nothing to say unless pushed out on stage like a recalcitrant four-grader. Even then, ideologically battered, they never take a more forceful stand than they absolutely must, and then they quickly retreat.
Like liberal abusers of women, Muslims don't exist in NOW's universe. Though their women have few if any rights, and can be beaten or slaughtered under sharia law for vague offenses to the honor of a savage and often primitive culture, NOW simply prefers to pretend the problem doesn't exist. The fierce urgency of NOW no longer even pretends to represent all women. It protects only the ideology of liberal women... and only when they aren't being attacked by useful liberal men.
No, it seems that the primary goal of NOW—and other left wing organizations—is to demand conformity from those they claim to represent, not liberty or independence. They exist to best serve themselves, like the government they champion.
This world would be a lot better off if there actually was an organization that cared about the rights of all women, and who had the courage to stand against brutally and abuse, and for equality, no matter where it originated.
But it certainly isn't NOW, who can't even stand up against a bitter old comedian that thinks that the public statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl makes for a great punchline.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:38 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Like so many other new lows, this is an astonishing decent even from the Clinton era. At least then they had the bad justification of maintaining their President in office despite his known sexual violence, even in the workplace. Now what does NOW have to excuse their complicity (by their own definitions) in the most gruesome regime of sexual exploitation in today's world? Not incidentally, that exploitation also includes boys which any root causer will tell you guarantees it will perseverate throughout the Muslim world.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 13, 2009 09:39 AM (B+5Lg)
2
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
I thought I saw something about a Conservative Womens group. The link above is the one I found for them. Maybe they can start taking NO(L)W's place. We'll see.
Posted by: Jim at June 13, 2009 10:35 AM (/7GND)
3
Organizations such as NOW are simply ideological front groups for advancing leftist ideas. In that way they are no different from the global warming crowd.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 13, 2009 10:54 AM (R7LgM)
4
Bob
I think you are mistaken in saying that evicting Letterman isn't worth the trouble. The leftards have used this tactic--amongst many others--as a way to eliminate their enemies in the media. Letterman is clearly an enemy of both conservative/classic liberals such as ourselves as well as the numbnuts party that claims to represent us (GOP). So hounding Letterman out of the media will do all of us a valuable service. First, it will eliminate an enemy. Second--and more important-even the effort will serve notice on the rest of the leftards in the media that this kind of filth is unacceptable to the majority of the country.
So go ahead and write to CBS and tell them you are done with Letterman. And inform CBS that you will advise your friends to do the same. But also write to the advertisers who place their products on CBS. Tell the advertisers that you will avoid their products whenever possible and let as many friends as possible know why you are doing so. Advertisers love controversy (not).
It will do good even if this sad, old, bore remains on TV. A number of people, Letterman included, will have been notified that this kind of below-the-belt insult of their political opponents will come at a cost from now on.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 13, 2009 01:06 PM (O8ebz)
5
Eh, if it was the 18 year old, as there was no intimation of coercion, it wouldn't have been rape. In extremely poor taste? Yup. Still worth complaining about? You betcha. At some point the women of the US will notice which party the misogynists are most comfortable in, and that will make a difference, and protesting will help bring that about. But only if we don't overstate the case.
Posted by: Skip at June 13, 2009 02:04 PM (Ur3O5)
6
Except, Skip, it wasn't the 18 year old. She was back home, across the continent. 14 year old Willow is the one that attended the game with her parents, and the one targeted by Letterman.
His "excuse" that he meant another daughter is a red herring. No he didn't.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 13, 2009 06:36 PM (Vcyz0)
7
I remember back when Rush had his T.V. show, he did a thing where he was talking about the Clintons in a "news reader" type skit and when he mentioned Chelsea's name the control room "accidentally" put up a picture of Bert Lahr as the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz! He took all kinds of grief for that. In fact, even though that was some 15 years or so ago, I have a liberal friend who STILL brings that up!
Letterman needs to make a sincere apology, but I really don't think he is capable of it! He doesn't have a sincere bone in his body.
One of the things that keeps me from going into the entertainment industry (other than lack of talent) is that I would have to rub shoulders with people like him!
Posted by: GEJ at June 13, 2009 07:09 PM (5OKij)
8
"Organizations such as NOW are simply ideological front groups for advancing leftist ideas. In that way they are no different from the global warming crowd."
+1
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 13, 2009 07:21 PM (MxQFN)
9
Why are you so convinced it was the 14-year-old? Do you really think Letterman's writers carefully fact-check their jokes? Honestly, there's enough genuinely outrageous things in the world that this faux outrage just looks dumb.
Posted by: Mike at June 14, 2009 09:11 PM (HfCto)
10
Mike, because she was the one with Sarah at the game. That was the entire joke.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 15, 2009 07:21 AM (MxQFN)
11
They can do no worse than starting with the National Organization for Women.
Hmmm.... is that evaluation somehow reversed? There may be better organizations than NOW to address with castigation, but I can't think of any.
Posted by: Micropotamus at June 15, 2009 11:43 AM (xhI7V)
12
Mike, because she was the one with Sarah at the game.
That's what I said in the first place: you're assuming that his joke-writers knew that. I didn't. Neither did you, until this whole thing because a cause celebre. But you're convinced that a couple of guys sitting around a table going "Let's see, Palin. Winks a lot. Shoots moose. Wears too much makeup. Can see Russia." were in command of all the facts.
Posted by: Mike at June 15, 2009 11:05 PM (fSvnw)
13
Plain and simple .. it's the National Organization for .. Abortion
Posted by: Neo at June 17, 2009 12:22 AM (5d1ix)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 12, 2009
Krugman's Article on Andrew Mickel
It seems the sage of the New York Times has deemed to weigh in on the dangers of right wing extremism.
I'm sure his column on the dangers of left wing extremism highlighting Indymedia's Death Row representative Andrew Mickel will be even more thorough, since he's had years to work on it.
More here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:12 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As a conservative, I am feeling the effects of the Kingfish's administration. I don't listen to Rush, I don't watch Fox. Instead, I watch the markets closely and read the WSJ. I can see for myself what is happening to my country. I am not pleased with the direction it has been going since 1865. Certainly the effects of Wilson, Roosevelt, LBJ, Bush and now the Kingfish have all caused me to feel that the government is taking the country in a direction that is not where I want to go. I voted for the Republicans and supported the movement in the 1980's to have less government, only to be sabotaged by the Christians who inserted a religious agenda that is trying to shove morality down my throat like the left is trying to shove socialism, both are the same to me. I feel there are many more like me out in this world and it would take very little for violence to errupt, after all, how else can we change when neither party seems to get the point--leave us alone, little government, fewer regulations, little tax, elimiantion of the DEA, war on poverty, war on terrorism, constant concern for my safety that I don't appreciate, and I could go on.
Posted by: David at June 12, 2009 11:57 AM (i0TVe)
2
Those darn Christianists. They tried to force their religion down your throat in the Bush 43 days. And how! I mean, there was...
Um....
Er...
Terry Schiavo? Well, they failed that one.
Hmmm...
I'll get back to you on the rest. I'm sure there's got to be something. After all, Andrew Sullivan said they were doing it, right, David?
Posted by: jdb at June 12, 2009 10:47 PM (Dj4BX)
3
I guess I'm the only Atheist who thinks morality is a good thing. By the way David what does Socialism and Christianity have to do with each other? I'm against abortion because the slaughter of babies disgusts me not because I'm religious. What kind of "morals" being shoved down your throat would effect you? I actually agree with most of the Conservative Christian agenda and like I said I'm an Atheist.
As for the smaller government I totally agree. Unfortunately as we lose our liberty it's almost impossible to get it back.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 12, 2009 11:33 PM (MxQFN)
4
I am concerned that people can not differentiate between those who don't believe in God and those that don't believe in religion. I feel that the practice of religion in the US has little to do with belief in God. Abortion is the rallying cry of the religious. It is the principal point on a candidates platform that determines wether Christians as a group are going to vote for the person. Even it that person is a total slime.
Terry Schiavo was a situation in which the Christians tried to shove their views down the throat of a man who was obviously trying to do the best for his wife. As to abortion, that is the choice of a woman who must bring that baby into the world and provide for it. No one else has the ability to make that decision for that person. If you are so ready to accept socialism, why don't you give up the fight on abortion? You will never get that cat back in the bag no matter how many laws you pass. As to other issues in which religion has tried to intefer with people, remember the little issue of making alcohol illegal. It takes nothing more than looking back to the middle ages to see what religion can do to society when they have the upper hand.
To correct the problem with socialism, the Republicans will have to eliminate the Christian moral issues on the platform. That will get people like me more on board. And there are a lot of people like me.
I find it amazing that people are ready to give up there freedoms just because the Kingfish and his group are making a power grab.
Posted by: David at June 13, 2009 04:31 PM (i0TVe)
5
I forgot to mention all the other issues that the religious feel they have to have in place:
The war on drugs- just let people have what they want, results in a major reduction of people going to the doctor, decrease in cost of drugs and medicine, safer usage of drugs for those that feel they have to use illegal drugs (you pay a considerable amount to care for them with the present system), I could go on. Prostitution- it is going to happen but could occur in a safer manner with control of infection. Alcohol- even now rediculous, expensive laws are on the books to try and control the issue. The list goes on but you get the idea that Christians and their false morality do cause problems.
Posted by: David at June 13, 2009 04:38 PM (i0TVe)
6
So, in other words it wouldn't do anything to you.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 13, 2009 07:16 PM (MxQFN)
7
You mean "deigned," right?
Posted by: Michael at June 14, 2009 01:10 PM (qSYS8)
8
Capitalist,
Thanks, you made my point. Government should not be in our lives.
Posted by: David at June 14, 2009 03:21 PM (i0TVe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 10, 2009
White Supremacist Attacks Holocaust Museum; Guard Killed, Shooter in Critical Condition
Left wing blogosphere filled with smug satisfaction.
By now I'm sure you have heard the news that 88-year-old white supremacist James W. von Brunn attacked the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC today. Security officer Stephen Tyrone Johns died confronting Brunn, who was in turn struck down by return fire from another security officer. Because of the professionalism and quick response from the Museum's security team, no patrons were injured in the attack.
I'd ask you to please consider praying for the Johns family and the soul of Officer Johns, who gave his life protecting his fellow citizens.
Sadly, and with tedious predictability, opportunistic left-wing bloggers triumphantly rushed to use the attack as a political bludgeon.
Taylor Marsh's response was typical, proclaiming the attack as vindication for a shoddily-written document released by the Department of Homeland Security and initially defended by DHS Janet Napolitano before she was forced to retract it in embarrassment.
Marsh began gloating before Officer Johns was even cold:
We have a real escalation of domestic terrorism unfolding in the United States. Something Janet Napolitano warned about in her homeland security report, for which Republicans eviscerated her. She was ringing the warning bell, which as we've seen lately was fully warranted.
Of course, Marsh's hopeful vindication of Napolitano is based upon wishful thinking, and bears little resemblance to reality.
The DHS report was panned—and later withdrawn—because the report was heavily political in nature, unfairly tarring a broad set of conservative and libertarian values as being indicators of terrorist intentions, as exposed by Roger Hedgecock and Stephen Gordon, who cited offending passages including this one:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
It was the broad generalization of this report that earned it criticism, for casting a net so wide that it ensnared Americans with patently mainstream ideas, such as thinking that the government exists to serve the people, or that a government needs to control its borders and favor its citizens over illegal aliens, or for believing that Constitutional Amendments are actually important.
The report cast a net broad enough that it encompassed both museum shooter von Brunn and infanticide doctor killer Scott Roeder. It was also broad enough that it would include almost every adherent of a mainstream religion, a significant portion of Congress, most of middle America, the entire Border Patrol, and the father of the 35th President, just to name a few.
Broad incompetence is not something to crow victoriously about as if were a virtue.
Except, perhaps, for certain apologists for incompetence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:51 PM
| Comments (63)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We on the right condemn these acts of violence regardless of where on the political spectrum the perpetrator places himself.
The left celbrate "their" murderers and terrorists, or at most will play the moral equivalence waffle ("Yes, this was a heinous act, however..."). My response the next time some lefty throws this in my face will to ask "Aren't you late for the Free Mumia rally? I hear both Leonard Peltier and Bill Ayers are speaking!"
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 10, 2009 09:33 PM (Vcyz0)
2
"Sadly, and with tedious predictability, opportunistic left-wing bloggers triumphantly rushed to use the attack as a political bludgeon."
I'm sorry you have fallen victim to the "tedious predictability" of the truth. You have no one to speak for you except unelected and unelectable white, right-wing hate mongers.
America is so utterly bored with the right, it is a wonder you all haven't moved to Mogadishu or somewhere you would feel more welcome. America is tired of your racist lies and your phony whining. You ruined this country and America and the rest of the world hates you and all you stand for.
Posted by: gustav at June 11, 2009 02:48 AM (DGZBc)
3
Mogadishu? You're getting your talking points mixed up Gustav. Remember: we're all racist and anti-Muslim, so we'd hate living in Somalia.
Make sure to wipe the spittle off your screen.
Posted by: Britt at June 11, 2009 03:28 AM (ubai0)
4
Sadly, it was not just the bloggers who were quick with the "I told you so." The marginalized and underwatched MSNBC anchors Olbermann and Maddow both used the sacrifice of officer Johns to bring up the Homeland Security memo. They smiled as they told their two or three viewers the memo was right after all.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at June 11, 2009 08:02 AM (+LRPE)
5
It would seem now is a good time to re-release one of Rev. Wright's anti-semetic sermons (such as this one) or of President Obama's treatment of Israel (here) and ask again who is the party of anti-semetism?
Honestly I wonder if the Republican party is in need of new PR people. It is obvious the Obama and the Dems hate Israel, yet they try to tie this murderer to the Right while pretending that Army recruiters in Little Rock aren't getting killed by jihadists.
-Bri
Posted by: Bri at June 11, 2009 08:15 AM (VPZsn)
6
gustav you need to get your fatcs strate befor you open your mouth and stick your foot in it,as a gust on Glenn Beck stated last night James W. von Brunn's racest white supremacist anti-semitism views are more inline with the far left then the right.you stuped twit
Posted by: Rich in KC at June 11, 2009 08:21 AM (siQqy)
7
Well Gustav, this guy hated neocons, just like you do. He hated Bill O'Reilly, just as you do. How many more points of convergence do we need to find between you and this guy?
Face it, hatester, he's one of you.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 11, 2009 08:38 AM (Vcyz0)
8
This guy was what I tend to refer to as a plain old "nut job". However from what I've read his views converge more with the rabid Left than us "right wing hate mongers".
His military service was so long ago that it has little bearing on the "returning veteran" phrase in the DHS memo. Add to that the fact that several million people were surviving veterans of WWII you're bound to be able to pick a few nuts out of the the bunch.
And since when does refusing to apologize for being a white male or participate in the self loathing and guilt the Left teaches connect me to white supremacy and hate mongering? Personally I think the left is just too stupid to see the the fact that there are racial/religious/sexual supremacists and preferences but as long as they aren't white (male especially) or Christian its fine and accepted. Talk about double standards.
Personally I'm all for MLK's "judged by the content of their character and not the color of our skin." I don't hate anyone, and if I dislike you its cause you're an asshat not because of skin color, religion, sex, or sexual preference.
I find I generally don't like Liberals...
Posted by: Scott at June 11, 2009 12:07 PM (sQmd1)
9
Before the Progressive blogs get themselves in too deep, consider that with the simple juxtaposition of "white" and "black" in the resume of von Brunn, it reads much like that of former Georgian Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's resume.
Posted by: Neo at June 11, 2009 04:05 PM (5d1ix)
10
He also targeted Fox News and The Weekly Standard. He's solely owned by the left, no matter how much they want him to be right wing, no matter how much they lie, the fact remains the same. He's a far left wing fanatical nut job
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 11, 2009 05:28 PM (MxQFN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
38 Injured, Two Dead, One Missing in Garner, NC ConAgra Blast
A fire at a nearby ConAgra plant led to explosions late yesterday morning that collapsed large sections of the building's roof and caused an ammonia leak that was responsible for a large number of the injuries. Two bodies have been located within the wreckage of the building, but rescuers were forced to abandon overnight recovery efforts because of intense lightning and heavy rains as violent thunderstorms passed through the area. Another person is listed as missing.
Someone had called the plant over the course of the preceding weekend and threatened to start a fire, but authorities are officially downplaying the possibility of arson at this time.
Please say a prayer for the victims of this tragedy and the their families, and also for the first responders and search teams who risked their own lives to save others.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:23 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Amen. My heart goes out all who were lost and to their families.
Posted by: Dude at June 10, 2009 11:15 PM (byA+E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 09, 2009
Tomorrow Belongs To Me: Obama Administration Claims They Are Above The Law
Hope and chains:
The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of "bailout" (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.
Once again, the leftists who cried about the rise of fascism and the police state during the Bush Administration lay strangely silent as Dear Leader's minions attempt to claim powers not remotely theirs to claim under the Constitution. Government lawyers are so full of themselves that one labeled the pension fundlawyer acting on behalf of his clients as a "terrorist."
Luckily Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't agree with the Administration's challenge to the court system's authority, and issued a temporary stay, halting what may be an illegal shotgun marriage being pushed by the President's team despite ominous warnings that Fiat itself may not be financially stable enough for the deal:
The Obama administration rushed an alliance between Chrysler LLC and Fiat SpA despite Chrysler's worries about Fiat's financial health and its willingness to share technology, according to internal company emails.
The emails show Fiat ignoring requests for documents and trying to change contract terms late in the talks. A Chrysler adviser at one point said the deal risked looking as if the U.S. auto maker and the Treasury Department, which helped broker the pact, were "in bed with a shady partner." In another note, an official referred to the Treasury Department as "God."
The Obama Administration is following a common path to tyranny, claiming the extraordinary temporary need of emergency powers to forestall a catastrophe.
Emergency "needs" cascade from one crisis into another, power is usurped, until the people are the servants of the government instead of the government serving the citizens. It is at this point of social realization that creeping tyranny is finally forcefully challenged, or people are crushed under the boot of a police state.
I wonder how often these would-be tyrants can be thwarted, however, by simply refusing to give in to their hysteria.
How much better off this nation would be right now if a few Democrats had the maturity to stand up against the massive $787 billion stimulus bill that not one of them read, or the leviathan of a federal budget seemingly designed with the express purpose of bankrupting the nation.
Obama's Administration cries for now-more-faster at a breakneck pace, never intending on giving Congress or the courts time to think about what they are trying to force down the throat of American citizens.
Barack Obama doesn't want to give Americans the time to think about what he is doing.
He wants them rocked back on their heels, weak and defensive, so he can push through bills, orders, and demands that would never stand a chance of passing upon reasoned reflection.
You've been had. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled Led astray. Run amok.
This is what He does....
Update: SCOTUS punts. Here comes Enron with biscotti.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:33 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
supremes have overruled ginsberg. The king is now empowered to do whatever he wants to anybody. Me, I suspect that the next civil war just got a whole lot closer to happening....
Posted by: Emdfl at June 09, 2009 09:53 PM (Mkonf)
2
The libs just squeeze their eyes shut and think about baseball instead of dealing with reality.
Posted by: not blind at June 09, 2009 09:58 PM (0kbTl)
3
Bobo, this was awesome. And you are right I seem to recall some other tyrants that came to power through "emergency" needs.
Posted by: Grady Strickland at June 10, 2009 12:35 PM (Dam6K)
4
If you read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence I think it rings very true today. Also if it happens it will be the true American Civil War and not a misnamed conflict over State Sovereignty.
Posted by: Scot at June 10, 2009 05:36 PM (sQmd1)
5
You know who this belongs to: "They told me that if I voted for Republicans, we'd have a dictatorship that ignores the law, morality, and good sense."
Thanks God nobody has been killed in any terrorist attacks.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at June 10, 2009 05:41 PM (OmeRL)
Posted by: jen at June 10, 2009 10:51 PM (J53OY)
7
Also--
Doesn't SCOTUS have to supply a reason? WHY does no one have the right to challenge BO's decision?
Is it like the birth certificate thing, where no one has STANDING? Or is it just "because I said so?" (or because Obama said so?)
WHY??
Posted by: jen at June 10, 2009 10:54 PM (J53OY)
8
Great post Bob... Really hit the nail right on the head with this one...
Posted by: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at June 10, 2009 11:35 PM (X4M8m)
9
The guy hasn't been in 6 months yet and there's already significant backlash building. 2010 is going to be rough on the democrats.
Posted by: PA at June 11, 2009 10:38 PM (etW8c)
10
This is what happens when you elect a deicated, discipline Marxist with no experience whatsover but dogmatic belief in himself.
Posted by: john lorenz at June 12, 2009 12:45 PM (BD91o)
11
The War of Northern Agression (or "Civil War" as some call it) was not lost. Its not finished. This is only half-time, and the show is almost over.
Posted by: Walt at June 14, 2009 12:30 PM (YLm8s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 90 >>
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.1218 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0815 seconds, 280 records returned.
Page size 194 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
