, all--perhaps not surprisingly--on networks that aren't doing so well.
.
Yeah, low-hanging fruits.
Oh, wait. People,
...
Probably not considering the cast of incompetents, malcontents and crooks we have in both parties, but she has some nerve calling the Tea Party protests "despicable" as if being a Congresswoman gives her the sovereign right to pillage the national treasury.
, so perhaps she does honestly think she's entitled to both your money and her "let them eat cake" attitude.
Schakowsky's antipathy for America's taxpayers is all too common from our elected officials.
Of course, if people keep electing people like her by wide margins, there is no reason for them to feel otherwise.
As you may expect, it picked up on the White House's favorite faux talking points:
As it so often does, existing BATF rules and regulations disprove the media’s assertions. Simply put, The BATF does not allow the manufacture or importation of firearms that can easily be modified into machine guns, and those drop-in parts which can quickly change a semi-automatic design are treated and as strictly monitored and regulated as machine guns themselves under U.S. law.
If there are conversions going on in Mexico, it means that the parts that make a machine gun a machine gun already exist in Mexico, meaning no additional laws targeting U.S. guns would make a difference.
And when you come down to it, I'm tired of government officials that favor gun control
us that these conversions are taking place. I want them to
us specific conversions they have captured, making the serial numbers and manufacturing details of their parts public record so that we can determine for ourselves where these parts are coming from.
As for the .50 caliber rifles "capable of stopping a car," well, a typical car can be stopped with just about any centerfire rifle you would use for deer hunting, or with a typical shotgun. Implying that .50 caliber bullets have magical properties is rhetorically disingenuous. Yes, the .50 BMG cartridge produces far more energy than a typical rifle bullet, but the bullet isn't explosive, which is just what most pro-gun control stories stop just short of stating when they imply such firearms are threats to train cars, airplanes, and armored vehicles.
As for the .50 rifles being recovered in Mexico, commenters have remarked before how the .50-caliber rifles being recovered by the Mexican police look suspiciously like those sold to the Mexican military, right down to the same brand of scope and back-up iron sights (BUIS). Once again, that is not a problem that would be resolved by more restrictions in the United States.
As for the "Belgian pistols able to fire rifle rounds that will penetrate body armor," the authors are peddling yet another statement that is a
.
The round in question is the 5.7x28, and it is not remotely a rifle cartridge.
It is chambered for pistols and personal defense weapons that falls into the submachine class of weapons , but that
shoot bullet designed for armor penetration. What the
won't tell you is that armor-piercing bullets are highly-restricted under U.S law, for sale only to the military and police. Nor will the
tell their readers that even when these pistols are loaded with the heavily-restricted "armor piercing" bullets, these bullets utterly fail to penetrate the more advanced body armor used by police and military units, and work reliably only on lesser armor classes.
neglects to mention that their rhetorical whipping boy 5.7x28 cartridge is failing to catch on in many circles, because while it does possess some armor penetration capabilities if using the restricted ammunition, it always uses a tiny bullet, and does not have a record of reliably causing incapacitating wounds.
for efficiency, though; they packed so many half-truths and lies in two sentences that it took seven paragraphs to detail them all.
isn't quite does just yet.
If you read this quickly as most newspaper readers would, you'd come away with the distinct impression that 90-percent of the guns recovered from drug dealers in Mexico came from the United States, which is exactly what the author wants you to understand.
It is only upon reading the sentence deeper that you would recognize that the the phrase "and asked to be traced" is the key.
Mexican authorities only ask American authorities to track the small fraction of those guns that it suspects comes from the United States. The do not ask us to trace the majority of the guns they capture that are clearly not of U.S. origin. Of the
number of guns recovered from cartels, just 17-percent came from the United States--quite a big difference from the 90-percent the y
tried to trick readers into accepting.
It is really quite sad that so many journalists feel they have the right to publisher such clearly biased information as fact, but their reporting is no more pathetic than the editors and publishers that allow journalists to publish advocacy instead of news.
News organizations are dying on the vine in the United States, and the media loves to claim that the Internet is to blame. That may be true, but if it is, it is because the Internet allows the media’s favorite fictions to be exposed, leaving their reputations—arguably their most important product" irrevocably damaged.
People won’t knowing buy damaged goods, and why should they?
Day by day, story by story, the Times justifies ever dollar it loses with another fiction that turns away another reader, and when they are gone, they will not be missed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:19 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As one of my college professors used to say..."There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics!"
Posted by: Lone Cactus In AZ at April 16, 2009 01:46 PM (5sGLG)
2
They're certainly right that the internet is partially to blame, but to a much larger extent the problem is themselves. The mistake the MSM made was to begin thinking of themselves as an institution, rather than as a business. They have lost sight of what it is their customers are buying their product for. Their readers have always gone to them for information, but throughout their entire history they have been able to present a lopsided watered down product (all narrative and minimal substance) to the reader. They've been able to do that because they were the only convenient source of information. It may just be an unfortunate habit, picked up through exposure to an existing professional culture, but many of them seem to feel that watered down crap is the important part of their product, and the information just gets in the way.
So yeah, the Internet provides an alternative, and higher quality source of information; selling newspapers in the information age is going to require a substantially better product than they have ever had to produce in the past. So far it doesn't look like they have it in them, or even to have realized the need.
Posted by: dmoss at April 16, 2009 05:10 PM (z17GE)
3
The NYT is a model of fairness compared to UPI's flat out lies. UPI omits the "of those traced" part entirely and says that 90% of all guns seized were from the US and then goes on to lie again saying that gun dealers are selling military assault rifles, not even bothering with "military style" or some such sleight of hand.
"Mexican authorities say that about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles they recovered from drug dealers last year came from dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona, with officials saying the cartels have been stocking up on U.S.-bought military assault rifles."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/Mexican-cartels-buy-guns-from-US-dealers/UPI-32471239795150/
Posted by: Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com at April 16, 2009 06:10 PM (PJyLt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 15, 2009
Hmmm... where was the DHS Report on These Guys?
Left-wing fascism is alive and well and violent in Chapel Hill:
Campus police used pepper spray on student protesters angry over immigration issues who disrupted a speech by former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Hundreds of protesters denouncing Tancredo's tough stances against illegal immigration gathered at Bingham Hall on Tuesday evening, shouting profanities at the former Colorado congressman, who tried to speak about his opposition to in-state tuition for unauthorized immigrants.
Tancredo left after a protester broke a window and police shut down the event. He had been invited by a student group that opposes mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Sadly, there were some pro-immigration UNC students that wanted to hear Tancredo if only to debate his points, but the violence, profanity, and threats forced the cancellation of his speech.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:39 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Some students need to re-read the student handbook. UNC should dismiss the protestors, but they will not, and this will happen again and again until someone grows a spine and arrest some students.
Posted by: Picric at April 15, 2009 02:10 PM (oKOn9)
2
What do you expect? More liberal hypocrisy.
http://afrocityblog.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Afrocity at April 15, 2009 03:50 PM (DvUJn)
3
Leftists trashing a joint == justifiable rage
Posted by: PA at April 15, 2009 07:31 PM (ysoZG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Uh, No
The Mexican police have captured another cache of weapons from a drug cartel, and their apparent instinct was to hype their find as being something more than what they captured, which the Daily Mail bought into entirely.
The "anti-aircraft gun" in the picture is an old M1919 in what appears to be an A4 configuration, and is mounted on a low-tripod for its designed use, allowing infantry to take on ground targets, not aircraft.
Far from the 800-rounds-per-minute claim in the Daily Mail, the cyclic rate of fire was rate of 400-600 rounds per minute, but because the gun was air-cooled and would overheat if fired continuously, it was fired in short bursts, resulting in a rate of fire that was much less.
This is as much an anti-aircraft gun as Margaret Thatcher is a Victoria's Secret model. Sure, all the basic parts are there, but pressing this configuration into a role it was never designed for is a recipe for disaster, and the over-hyping Mexican Police should be ashamed of themselves.
(Via Instapundit.)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:57 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I will grant all your points and thank you for pointing them out. But the most terrible thing I can see from the picture is that the terrorist stands boldly and openly while the government agents are masked. It is far more dangerous in Mexico to be a cop than a criminal.
In both Pakistan and Mexico, the government has lost control and if either of those states fails, it will make Somalia look like Disneyland.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 15, 2009 01:24 PM (dmMtD)
2
We need to make it illegal to own an anti-aircraft weapon.
Posted by: david at April 15, 2009 02:09 PM (dccG2)
3
As a physician I have been on both sides of the thought process of drugs. Now, after over 30 years of observation and treatment I feel we are creating a significant problem with the "war on drugs". We fund terrorist and gangs with making illegal substance people want illegal. They get these wether the law permits or not. If the government just steppecd out of the picture, then people could go to Walgreens and buy what they want without a doctors ok. If they want medical help they could get it. This would reduce the cost of medicine and medical care and substantially save us tax money that we spend on the DEA and prison system. It would even reduce the incidence of AIDS, hep C and bacterial endocarditis for which we spend billions every year. The cost would be addicts who are addicts already.
Posted by: david at April 15, 2009 02:17 PM (dccG2)
4
The news article doesn't show all the pictures of the arsenal.
Here is the M2 they are referring to.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4062312&postcount=20
Posted by: Alpheus at April 15, 2009 06:47 PM (Jrj8d)
5
Still not an "antiaircraft" gun. That's an M2 .50-caliber heavy machine gun, a general-purpose weapon originally designed for use against unarmored and lightly armored vehicles. True, you can shoot at airplanes with it, but that isn't what it was designed for. Nor, it would appear, is it what this one was meant for. The mounting suggests that somebody used it to turn an SUV into a gun-truck, for use against vehicles and personnel.
Traditionally, antiaircraft identifies a gun that fires explosive shells at least 20mm in diameter and can kill or severely damage an aircraft with one or two hits.
Posted by: wolfwalker at April 15, 2009 08:03 PM (1eyqK)
6
Margaret Thatcher as a VS model... Yikes. Anyone got any "brain bleach" handy??
Posted by: S.Logan at April 16, 2009 02:27 AM (KjOfg)
7
In any event, those are not things anyone bought at a gun show in Texas or Arizona or anywhere else in the US. The most likely source of such weapons is the Mexican army or international weapons smugglers.
Posted by: George Bruce at April 16, 2009 05:25 PM (v4XVE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
TEA Party Protests Today
Via What Bubba Knows, a letter from a British blogger regarding the hundreds of TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party protests that are taking place today across the United States:
To all of my dear and beloved American friends;
Tomorrow is a day which shall be remembered as the day when Americans decided to retake their country from the left, from Marxism, from appeasement and cowardice. It especially should be a day when Americans finally stand up and take back their country from the thieves who sought not only their money, but their freedom as well. I expect nothing less from Americans who have proven time and time again that they cannot be beaten or intimidated.
For those of you here locally, there is a Raleigh Tea Party from 6:30PM to 8:30PM in downtown Raleigh at the state Capitol, and if you are one of the 299 million Americans that live outside of Wake County, you can find your local protest here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:38 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It’s not out-of-the-question that the 2009 Tea Party participants could someday be regarded by history as patriots who made a difference- same as 1773. This sort of public outrage might be just what’s needed to break through the media’s manufactured reality.
And you can believe that Obama and the left are plenty scared of the TEA party movement- how else to explain the dubious timing of his "everything is under control" speech on the economy, and (on the same day before the protests) the DHS report warning of "right-wing" radicals and their propensity to violence?
Barack Obama is rapidly liquidating everything that made this country great… and needs to be put back-on-his-heels with a major embarrassment that puts an end to the myth that everybody just loves Barack and his wacked-out agenda… because millions of us DON’T.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Reaganite Republican Resistance at April 15, 2009 09:02 AM (X9Xsv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 14, 2009
20/20 Blows Another Gun Story
No, ABC News didn't put explosives in a gas tank, but they certainly stacked the deck in creating Diane Sawyer's "guns are bad, guns are useless" self-fulfilling prophecy, which AWR Hawkins deftly exposes at Pajamas Media.
The scenario is worth watching, if only to point out the flaws in the contrived scenario, starting with neophytes playing the role of CCH holders, the CCHs being forced to wear a holster in a position where they could not draw their weapon in a sitting postion (and would not think of carrying a weapon in real life simply for reasons of comfort).
And of course, ABC rigged an outcome where the only possible outcome was the death of students in the scenario, with the only question being "how many?"
In real life, of course, there is never just one possible scenario or possible outcome.
As I noted in a comment at PJM, what ABC News pointedly didn't run is what I would dub the "Virginia Tech" scenario.
Have a student with a concealed weapons hear shots in another classroom, draw his weapon, and cover the door. Then tell me how far the shooter gets through that classroom door, compared to rooms without a CCH.
Alternately, think about the possible reaction of CCH to seeing an agitated man pull a weapon or enter the hallway brandishing the weapon on the way to a classroom. Frankly, if I was a student or faculty member with a CCH and saw an agitated man pull a weapon as he entered a class room in front of me, my immediate reaction would be to draw my sidearm and draw a bead on the back of his skull and close the distance.
It isn’t always that the CCH closest to the threat is immediately on top of it, or that in a mass shooting, the perp will always have the element of surprise on his side.
People who legally carry concealed weapons are not going to magically prevent attempted mass murders. There are simply too few of us in the general population, and well-meaning but ignorant people in positions of power make it far too difficult to carry in the very settings (schools, businesses, civic buildings) where such attacks are most likely to occur.
But just because a concealed carry permit holder can't be everywhere a shooting takes place or prevent people from always getting killed in these rampages doesn't negate their potential to alter or terminate a threat in some scenarios.
It's funny, but the same people who rail against concealed weapons because they are concerned about the rare instances of CCH permit holders becoming violent never seem to want to talk about the possible lives that could be saved by them.
It's almost as if they have an agenda...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:56 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There are no second amendment protections in Mexico. And now that the government and the drug cartels have merged into a single business unit, there is nothing that the average Mexican can do - even to protect his own family.
Perhaps Diane Sawyer would like to live there?
Posted by: MAS1916 at April 14, 2009 11:14 AM (EjR/1)
2
My guess: it's because liberals simply don't believe guns can save lives. Ever. Their view of guns is very simple: Guns! Kill! People! Whether the dead person is an innocent victim or a would-be killer, all they see is the body.
On a tangent, related to a previous post: like Instapundit says, I'd like to see some media jerk claim that this arsenal was bought in the US. In passing, I noted that the reporter botched the story as usual: the big gun on the tripod, identified as "an anti-aircraft gun," is no such thing. It's an air-cooled machine gun, I think a .30-caliber Browning M1919. Made primarily for ground targets, like enemy soldiers and unarmored vehicles.
Posted by: wolfwalker at April 15, 2009 07:10 AM (1eyqK)
3
"But just because a concealed carry permit holder can't be everywhere a shooting takes place or prevent people from always getting killed in these rampages doesn't negate their potential to alter or terminate a threat in some scenarios."
The same can be said about the Police. They can't be everywhere, nor can they prevent all crimes. That is not an argument to abolish police forces.
Posted by: George Bruce at April 16, 2009 05:30 PM (v4XVE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2009
Drowning Man
I was rather startled to pull up Memeorandum this morning to see that it was apparently Barack Obama, and not Captain Richard Phillips who benefited most from the sharpshooting skills of Navy SEALS off the African coast yesterday.
In the Washington Post, Michael D. Shear gushed in an article headlined An Early Military Victory for Obama:
For President Obama, last week's confrontation with Somali pirates posed similar political risks to a young commander in chief who had yet to prove himself to his generals or his public.
But the result -- a dramatic and successful rescue operation by U.S. Special Operations forces -- left Obama with an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad.
Throughout the past four days, White House officials played down Obama's role in the hostage drama. Until yesterday, he made no public statements about the pirates.
In fact, aides said yesterday, Obama had been briefed 17 times since he returned from his trip abroad, including several times from the White House Situation Room. And without giving too many details, senior White House officials made it clear that Obama had provided the authority for the rescue.
"The president's focus was on saving and protecting the life of the captain," one adviser said. Friday evening, after a National Security Council telephone update, Obama granted U.S. forces what aides called "the authority to use appropriate force to save the life of the captain." On Saturday at 9:20 a.m., Obama went further, giving authority to an "additional set of U.S. forces to engage in potential emergency actions."
One of President Obama's favored cheerleaders in the Associated Press, Jennifer Loven, teamed up with Phillip Elliott to also sing Obama's praises in an article headlined Obama twice approved force to rescue hostage:
President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration officials said after Sunday's rescue.
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
If is sounds like President Obama is being painted as a heroic leader for his role in this incident by his supporters in the media... well, yes, that's exactly what they are doing.
But as former Green Beret Master Sergeant Jim Hanson noted, Obama's heroic sign-offs were simple and perfunctory:
The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger.
In other words, the decision to fire was an understood reactive measure by the on-scene commander to a provocative act taken by the pirates, not a proactive measure taken by the President.
In a crisis where an American citizen's life was on the line, President Obama got out of the way and let the professionals do their jobs. It's a nice change of pace from his Presidency thus far, but not screwing up shouldn't be grounds for exhorting him as if he had just planned and executed Operation Overlord.
So why is the media so eager to puff up the President's role in a matter in which he had no direct role or immediate authority?
It could simply be that the American media is hoping to latch on to a victory—no matter how tangential— for a President mocked overseas for non-scripted weaknesses, continuous gaffes of protocol, and his artless foreign policy naivety.
Barack Obama opted against the political suicide of not allowing the military to use deadly force to save the life of an American threatened by armed pirates. That doesn't make him Nimitz.
Instead, this too-eager response paints him him look like a politician drowning in a sea of incompetence, with his fawning press desperately tosses him anything they can to help him stay afloat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:01 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Alas, the difference between reactive and proactive will be lost on the cheering section. Unless Hilary gives him a red box with a button on it labeled "FIRE," of course.
Don't worry, though. His not-Nimitzness is clear to many, and will become clear to more soon enough.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 13, 2009 01:05 PM (upUQP)
2
They shouldn't need Presidential approval at all. Those should be standing orders requiring no "upstairs" inquiries..
Posted by: Tully at April 13, 2009 01:19 PM (tUyDE)
3
Obama did worse than nothing. Instead of giving a clear signal that the US will deal harshly and decisively with pirates and other scumballs he decided to send an FBI hostage negotiation team to try and talk with the pirates.
Had the US Navy and/or Marines not acted on standing policy that no doubt was enacted by Bush (or more likely has been in effect since the days of the Barbary wars) Obama'd now be negotiating a ransom amount with those pirates.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at April 14, 2009 02:46 AM (oU0J/)
4
Until this becomes the standard response and crisis resolution assets are in place in the region, this incident will be repeated. There is no legitimate reason to consult outside of DOD. The FBI had no business there as negotiations with Terrorists are never fruitful. The Navy sent their best while Obama sat in the WH pressing his reset button.
Posted by: Old Trooper at April 14, 2009 07:58 AM (oNzU6)
5
Seems that a good business would be to go into piracy. Beats anything legitimate.
Posted by: david at April 14, 2009 12:44 PM (dccG2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 12, 2009
As Only Clowns Can
Captain Richard Phillips escaped from his Somali captors and threw himself off the lifeboat once more, and this time, Navy SEALS were lurking in the water to receive him.
The results were predictable:
Three of the pirates were killed and one was in custody after what appeared to be a swift firefight off the Somali coast, the official said.
Initial reports indicate Phillips jumped overboard for a second time and the military was able to take advantage of the situation.
With cartoonish predictability, the "progressives" at Think Progress found common cause and sympathy not with the Captain, but the pirates.
For the Children!
And of course, if it's evil, you-know-who must have been involved:
I think it's more than just a little bit funny that Bush is at the root of all the evil in the world and yet is a knuckle-dragging moron, but then, what passes for progressive thought these days is more about innuendo and groupthink than anything resembling logic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:34 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Look at it this way. There are now 3, soon to be 4, less mouths to feed in Somalia. If these pirates do not learn to bypass ships flying the American flag, there is going to be a lot more food available "for the children."
Posted by: Tregonsee at April 12, 2009 03:16 PM (bWe8L)
2
The last commenter you quote, Sayre, must use the same history book as Joe Biden and John Kerry. Biden talked about President FDR going on TV in 1929 to talk about the stock market crash. Kerry talked about going into Cambodia under President Nixon before Nixon was in office. Bush didn't come into office until Jan. 2001. How did Bush order the Ethiopians to invade Somalia four years before he took office?
Ah, the stoopid is strong in that bunch.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at April 12, 2009 03:27 PM (tm2uO)
3
This is what it's all about. US Navy SEALS doing their job and a very brave merchant Captain doing his. Kudos to the SEALS and to Captain Phillips. As to the pirates, as they say in the deep south,
ya'll have a nice day now, heah.
Posted by: Useful Noise at April 12, 2009 04:13 PM (EAhxE)
4
reading the comments on thinkprogress is repugnant, they've all setup a straw man of wingnuts that justifies saying things that so stupid and insulting. they have no introspection or ability to see things from any other direction then superior hippie.
Posted by: joe at April 12, 2009 04:34 PM (hUSia)
5
Correct, it was Slick Willy who sent us into Somalia, it was Slick Willy who refused the on ground commanders the needed resorces, hence Blackhawk Down. As the only current, China thanks to Bill Clinton is fast on our heals, Super Power not only should we attack and kill every pirate attacking a U.S. flagged ship but every other vessel as well. International good will.
Posted by: Greg at April 12, 2009 08:32 PM (dT2+/)
6
Greg: "Slick Willy" did not sent the Marines into Somalia. The Marine landing was ordered by George "big daddy" Bush when he had only 7 days left in office. The crisis was his idea of a Housewarming gift to the Clintons. Clinton had enough faults without blaming him for for something he did not start.
Posted by: Robert at April 12, 2009 10:06 PM (iM6ML)
7
The MSM's fan-mag approach to reporting on Mr. Obama gets more and more ridiculous. Obama didn't rescue Captain Phillips. Our Navy SEALs did. And they already had authorization to do so under the rules of warfare. The DOD asked Obama to verify that authorization three times before he stopped waffling and said OK. But it was a courtesy to Obama not a necessity in order to act.
Secondly, we have got to stop thinking that we have to rescue every nation in the world from the results of its own depravity and foolishness. Somalia has descended into its present non-functional state on its own. Let them get themselves out of it.
As far as pirates go, we have a long record as a nation of protecting American citizens from pirates. Think Tripoli, and "Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli dead," those of you who actually studied American history instead of wasting your time on "Gender Studies." Mr. Obama seems curiously uninformed about American history. He should remedy that.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at April 13, 2009 12:28 PM (doHlr)
8
History has a strange way of of coming full circle. The only good pirate is a dead pirate:
From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli; {to kill pirates}
...
Muslim pirates have harassed European merchants for centuries, do a quick search on Barbary pirates and you’ll see a history going back to the sacking of Rome in 846. In our early American history, ransom and tribute payments to the Barbary states amounted to more than twenty percent of the U.S. government tax dollars.
I believe as did, President Thomas Jefferson*, that our American temperament makes use physically, emotionally, and mentally resistant to blackmail. That we would rather destroy our property and fight pirates than pay bribes. Tyrants never fulfill their obligations under any treaty. President Jefferson sought to instill "an erect and independent attitude" into American foreign policy -- an attitude that was inconsistent with paying tribute because he had the intuition to know that the more Americans try to appease tyrants the more tyrants will sense weakness and demand more.
It took the capture of more than a dozen American merchant ships and more than a decade of enslavement of the crews to strengthen our resolve and wean us from dependence on various European navies. The birth of The United States Navy marked the beginning of the end of tribute payments which were draining us of our life blood. We actually fought two Barbary Wars along the North African coast: the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805 and the Second Barbary War in 1815. Our naval victories ended tribute payments by the United States.
Bullies, cowards, and tyrants are cut from the same cloth.
With Utmost Respect ~ Semper Fi, Hank
* The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815 by Speech by Michael B. Oren, Senior Fellow, The Shalem Center delivered at Columbia University, 3 November 2005.
** The Mariners' Museum : The Barbary Wars, 1801-1805
Posted by: Hank at April 13, 2009 01:20 PM (vLFF+)
9
Vice Admiral Bill Gortney on the topic:
On NBC, he said the United States was trying to "disincentivize" pirates from attacking US-flagged ships, but added the United States hopes "that the tribal elders in Somalia would encourage young men to look for other livelihoods, realizing that the lack of opportunity is what drives them to piracy in the first place."
Someone please make fun of the Vice Admiral for talking about the underlying causes of the piracy.
As for the standing orders bit, yes they've had standing orders since Feb 2009 to use force to protect sailors lives, standing orders they did not have during the Bush admin. Credit and blame where credit and blame are due please.
Posted by: Jim at April 13, 2009 04:01 PM (3GzXA)
10
Jim said "they've had standing orders since Feb 2009 - - - standing orders they did not have during the Bush admin"
Jim, please direct me to the area indicating this information to be true.
I find it fascinating that Bush is now blamed for being too dovish.
Posted by: Rick at April 13, 2009 04:54 PM (FWmwx)
11
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/02/us-navy-apprehe.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKTRE4AI6M520081119
It's not a matter of blaming Bush for being too dovish it's simply pointing out the fact that the Bush admin took the pirate matter under consideration and then consulted with the UN before doing, nothing. In other words, Bush did exactly what folks on the right are complaining Obama would do. Except of course this administration acted, and acted before any US flagged ship was seized.
Posted by: Jim at April 13, 2009 05:32 PM (3GzXA)
12
Thanks Jim, I was only able to access the ABC item. It said nothing about standing orders to use force to protect sailors lives. I would think, at least hope, the military has continual standing orders to use force to protect sailors lives. That was my only issue.
Posted by: Rick at April 13, 2009 06:36 PM (FWmwx)
13
Sorry for the confusion Rick, I should have made my inital post more clear by saying "standing orders since Feb 09 to use force to protect sailors from the Somali pirates..." or something like that. Obama gave the US Navy to go to take action in the area.
The Reuters link has some hilarious Bush admin quotes, things that if said by the Obama admin would get all sorts of negative response here. Things like:
Calling it a "a very complicated issue," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino gave no hint of what, if any, action the United States might take following the hijacking earlier this week of a Saudi supertanker with a $100 million oil cargo.
But she told reporters, "The goal would be to try to help get this ship to safety, secure the crew and then work with our international partners to try to alleviate the piracy problem, full stop."
and
But Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the piracy problem requires a larger international effort to bring political stability and economic aid to poverty-stricken Somalia.
"You could have all the navies in the world having all their ships out there, you know, it's not going to ever solve this problem. It requires a holistic approach," he told reporters.
Even a systematic attempt to capture pirates in international waters would require "a more global, systematic agreement on how to deal with pirates once caught," Morrell said. At present, it is unclear who would hold or try them.
and
The president has been briefed about it, and ensuring the safety and well-being of the crew is of paramount importance in preventing or dealing with issues of piracy," Perino said when asked whether any unilateral or concerted response was planned for dealing with the problem.
"We're working with other members of the Security Council, right now, to see if there are actions that we can do to more effectively fight against piracy and prevent it," she said.
Perino said a key problem is that modern-day piracy is "much more dangerous, and they have ... a lot more weapons."
CY would be going nuts if Obama talked about a holistic approach to the pirate problem!
Posted by: Jim at April 13, 2009 06:55 PM (3GzXA)
14
For the Liberals who want to know what might be causing Somalians to be desperate?
European Shipping companies dumping toxic and radioactive wastes in their fishing waters might have something to do with it.
But since you can't blame the US for that and the EU IS responsible, they won;t mention that little tidbit
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at April 14, 2009 02:37 AM (5ZsaL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2009
Meanwhile, In The Free (Less Beholden Media) Countries...
With the noted exception of (nearly real) libertarian flamethrower Glenn Beck and a gaggle of significant conservative critics I can count on my fingers, the American media that helped elect Barack Obama continues to act as his greatest support system. They filter out missteps, explain away gaffes, bury calamities and write disastrous choices out of history so that Americans that view the news with an uncritical eye may be forgiven for thinking that our President is somehow competent.
After all the media says he's doing such a great job, right?
The foreign press, however, did not tie their credibility to playing up Obama as a leg-tingling "lightworker" as the American press did, and the salvos directed against Obama's ineptitude, his classlessness, and his arrogance have been epic.
The latest bombs dropped on Obama from Gerald Warner in the UK Telegraph is an example of the kind of commentary that are becoming all too common:
President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.
Make sure to read to the final paragraphs for Warner's new nickname for our President.
Our oldest allies have taken the measure of our President, and find him sorely lacking. I'm sure our enemies noticed that even quicker than our allies. We can only hope that our foolish November decision to elect a slogan instead of a leader won't be a moral mistake.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:01 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's so nice to know that if we need some information about the American president, we can check out the British press.
And the newspapers wonder why they're going out of business.
Maybe it's because they are so very full of FAIL.
Posted by: jana at April 10, 2009 12:44 PM (vSRlG)
2
Can you imagine what the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Turks are saying about him in their private conferences? I mean, after they stop laughing.
Posted by: zhombre at April 10, 2009 05:34 PM (4VfWK)
3
This is why I've been reading UK news more and more!
Posted by: Sif at April 11, 2009 12:10 PM (od0G0)
4
This guy would be fired the day after this came out in the good old freedom loving USA. Not that any paper would ever dare print it. It's all Bush's fault anyway........
Posted by: Bill at April 12, 2009 06:00 PM (MFQJZ)
5
gwhrbvqjipeg preteen nude girls gwggpruoqkhbrg free gay sex clips
Posted by: Agonoy at April 14, 2009 05:40 AM (IWYV7)
6
ewgurqrgtoqkj4r anal sex 2qgrukjnq4rgw free nude pics
Posted by: Ltnjxrf at April 14, 2009 09:10 AM (OlaSD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Ugly Beast and Fallen Knight
The falsehoods and untruths in Sir Harold Evans unhinged rant that I first noted earlier this week are even worse than thought, with him apparently making up statistics and attributing them to a Department of Justice study.
Can we call him Sir Beauchamp?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:48 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
April 09, 2009
New Anti-Gun Meme: Cheap Ammo Causes Massacres
Say Uncle pointed me this morning to the an absurd new meme that ABC's William Kates is attempting to spin, that massacres could be prevented if we just listened to comedians.
Yeah, really.
Ballistics reports showed Jiverly Wong fired 87 times from a 9mm Beretta and 11 times from a .45-caliber handgun. If he bought the ammunition online, he could have paid as little as $40 for the rounds he fired.
Friends say Wong complained that he only received $200 a week in unemployment benefits.
"Chris Rock says in one of his routines — have all the guns you want but charge like $1,000 for every bullet," said Jackie Hilly of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "I think if you raised the price, you would probably discourage the violence, but I don't think you would prevent it."
In other news, Eddie Murphy suggested that raising the price of cars to a minimum of $300,000 would increase carpooling while decreasing the number of people picking up transvestite streetwalkers.
But that's neither here nor there.
What I really want to know from ABC's Kates is just how much a massacre is supposed to cost. If Kates thinks the cost of the ammunition used in the massacre was too inexpensive, what would be an appropriate price to pay for the slaughter? If Wong paid $98,000 for the bullets he used in his massacre ($1,000/bullet x 98 bullets) would Mr. Kates have then found the cost in human lives acceptable?
Of course, we know that Kates and his allies couldn't care less about the specific cost of bullets used in this shooting or other gun crimes, because the cost is only secondary to their primary goal of establishing control over gun owners.
Gun laws have always been about establishing political control over a population and forcing them to rely on the government to protect them.
Can we think of any reason why typically left-leaning journalists and politicians might want to advocate for people being forced to rely on the government?
Yes we can.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:21 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh I can. They want old soviet style socialism, and the only way to keep American's from force ably stopping it is England style gun control. Where only the criminals have firearms, and law abiding citizens (the ones that will stand up and stop it) to not have them.
Posted by: Frank at April 09, 2009 11:59 PM (6pjXt)
2
Oh I can. They want old soviet style socialism, and the only way to keep American's from force ably stopping it is England style gun control. Where only the criminals have firearms, and law abiding citizens (the ones that will stand up and stop it) to not have them.
Posted by: Frank at April 10, 2009 12:00 AM (6pjXt)
3
Raising tax rates on ammo fits with Obama's gouging of smokers.
Nice little racket, they can take more and more money from gun owners and use to to fund anti-gun efforts.
Another logical flaw is the idea that criminals and murderers respect laws. Drugs are quite illegal and quite expensive, hasn't exactly made them impossible to get. And would an insane person plotting a spree be concerned about a budget?
Of course, central to this meme is fear. They want to get the public afraid of how cheap it all is. Why the masses could almost afford these things!
I'm sure the civil rights groups would complain about regressive taxes being used to strip rights away from the poor. After all if the poor wanted protection, they should just hire bodyguards.
Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2009 04:57 AM (eYyL2)
4
Which would be nice and all, but which part would actually cost the most?
I can get lead from tire stores, melt it down, and cast my own bullets. Gun powder is $20 for a pound. Brass can be picked up at a shooting range. Primers run $25 or so for 1000.
While not exactly the easiest thing in the world, you can make your own smokeless powder using basic chemicals. When the cost of a single round is $1000, there's a lot of incentive to learn a bit of chemistry and make them for $10 each.
These people live in a fantasy world.
Posted by: Robb Allen at April 10, 2009 09:47 AM (MPhK9)
5
When bullets get too expensive, bad people will still be able to turn to dropping rocks off highway overpasses at oncoming traffic.
And I haven't seen any 45ACP ammo in Wally World for quite some time; the clerk at the gun counter says whenever he puts some up, it is gone within moments, usually purchased in as much bulk as is available, along with all the other popular calibers of ammunition. Apparently some folks are using the current ammo shortages to their advantage - buying whatever is cheap and reselling it dear.
Posted by: Mikee at April 11, 2009 09:38 AM (ZKsJQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 06, 2009
FBI Lab Raises More Questions Than Answers About Nisoor Square Shooting
Frankly, it sounds like crap science geared towards a predetermined political verdict.
I think both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration would consider a show trial that results in across-the-board convictions to be in their best diplomatic interests in dealing with the Iraqi government, who have rather foolishly (IMHO) decided to push the issue as a matter of national pride.
It takes only a layman's understanding of ballistics and metallurgy to see the obvious questions that the FBI laboratory seems to have failed to adequately answer.
I'm not giving Blackwater blanket immunity for their actions in Iraq by any stretch of the imagination, but there are certainly enough questions about the quality of the investigation and the forensic research thus far released, the forensic evidence being withheld under the rubric of religious customs, the chain of evidence, and prosecutorial political influence to cast serious doubt on whether there can be a fair trail for the accused.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:14 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you want to see what's going on, rent a copy of Breaker Morant.
Posted by: Joe Hooker at April 07, 2009 10:46 AM (Qw6g3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Beastly Lies
Harold Evans, editor and historian according to his bio, can now added "discredited crank" to his list of accomplishments, all thanks to a rant he published in Tina Brown's The Daily Beast.
The rant, Accomplices to Murder, attacks, well, nearly everyone as being an accomplice in the recent spate of mass shootings.
Indeed, Evans may have something when he accuses the society at large for creating an environment where such barbaric events are too commonplace. But Evans goes over the line in attempting to fix blame to certain people and groups in a rant howled into type.
Unencumbered by his former roles as a historian and editor, Evans has now descended to printing blatant falsehoods to support his position, acts which should result in a retraction of his article, and perhaps a re-evaluation of his relationship with the Beast.
He rants:
All these gun killings—43 in total—occurred over the last 26 days. All harvest profuse expressions of sympathy and prayers for the families and the communities. The detestation for the killers is universal. How could it not be? These are crazed and evil people. They merit our detestation.
But they are not alone in their guilt. The people who put guns into the hands have a share of that ignominy. Who are they?
The guilty are the gun dealers at flea markets and state shows who will sell any number of weapons to anyone—juveniles, criminals, nuts—without any background check or records.
By federal law, licensed gun dealers must have perspective purchasers fill out ATF Form 4473. Dealers then must check a government issued photo ID and then must call the FBI-run NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) for a background check of the buyer.
This background check must be performed by gun dealers for all firearms transactions, at their primary business front location in a guns store, a flea market, or a gun show. There are no exceptions, and form 4473 specifically includes question #17 on the form that asks "Location of sale if at a gun show. (city, state)".
Only individuals who are not gun dealers may sell their private firearms without a background check according to federal law, though that varies according to the laws of individual states.
Mr. Evans flatly lies when he says dealers are not required to perform a background check, as direct links to the government web sites and documents above clearly shows. This lie is pervasive enough throughout his screed, and forms enough of the underlying thesis, to demand that the rant be retracted in its entirety.
But Evans is just warming up, and he is likewise deceptive when he implies the Mexican cartels are heavily-armed because of lax U.S. gun laws.
83% of the firearms captured by Mexican law enforcement in the past two years –more than 20,000—came from sources other than the U.S civilian market, and most come primarily from the international black market.
Mexican cartels are often armed with hand grenades, automatic weapons, and anti-tank rockets—weapons unavailable on the U.S market at any price.
But nowhere does Mr. Evans display his ignorance more than when he discusses the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
The assault weapons "ban" did not ban assault weapons. The popularity, sale, and ownership of semi-automatic military-style weapons grew over the ten-year course of the ban, all quite legally. Several American gun companies that build "assault weapons" exclusively grew over the course of the ban, and the already low rate of crimes committed with such weapons never deviated substantially from the roughly 2% that it was before, during, and after the ban.
The actual net effect of the ban was no reduction in crimes committed with the class of firearms covered in the ban, an actual increase in the distribution and popularity of so-called "assault weapons," and the creation of an entirely new class of ultra-compact and powerful handguns designed for concealed carry, which brought even more specialized gun manufacturers into existence.
The Department of Justice study Evans sought to cite as evidence of a drop in gun crime as a result of the ban also seems utterly irrelevant to his argument, and a bit of a purposeful red herring. We don't know precisely which report he refers to because he omits that detail, but by Evans' own description, the DOJ study was for automatic weapons, not the semi-automatics covered in the ban. Evans can't even plead ignorance of the difference in the terms, as he explains the difference between automatic and semi-automatic himself:
...semi-automatic fire (one trigger pull per shot but with magazines enabling the user to fire hundreds of rounds in a minute).
He knows the difference, but appears intent on conflating the terms on purpose. Is he being purposefully deceptive? It would appear so.
The only person "guilty" in this shameful display of collapsed ethics is one Mr. Harold Evans, who commits the journalistic sin of deceiving and misleading his readers, massacring truth along the way.
Update—A Nepotistic Beast? As "happyfeet" points out in the comments, the head of the Daily Beast, Tina Brown is married to Harold Evans.
Will she chose to retract her husband's sloppy rant, or risk the integrity of her latest venture and her life's work as an editor, along with Barry Diller's investment in her leadership?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:40 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Isn't that Tina's husband?
Posted by: happyfeet at April 06, 2009 05:54 PM (qXYKO)
2
You mean there are people out there who can pull a trigger >3 times per second and keep it up for at least a minute? I want to meet them! And I want some of the multi-hundred round mags they use.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at April 06, 2009 08:17 PM (g9neE)
3
So you caught this dufus being dishonest. Think it will make any difference? Retraction? I don't think so. Today's liberals are far too dishonest to be interested in facts, they would prefer to deal in 'feelings'.
The more I deal with Liberals, the more I wish duels were still in fashion. Keeps honesty and integrity at a maximum.
Posted by: Mephitis at April 07, 2009 12:09 AM (ehXLT)
4
The man was clearly nuts. Specfically schizophrenic. Now the reason he is on the street is that the liberals do not see a problem with violent crazy people mixing with the general population. Thus they did away with all the nut houses many years ago. When these were in place we did not have a homeless problem and incidents of this nature were rare.
Posted by: david at April 07, 2009 11:40 AM (dccG2)
5
"The gunshow loophole" is one of those things everybody knows and shrug off any statement to the contrary.
Hey, all they want is "reasonable restrictions." Just like they kept saying during Heller when they called those DC laws/regs "reasonable."
Posted by: teqjack at April 07, 2009 12:37 PM (CEphM)
6
Only individuals who are not gun dealers may sell their private firearms without a background check according to federal law, though that varies according to the laws of individual states.
What specifically differentiates a private individual from a dealer? How many guns am I allowed to sell before having to register as a dealer, and how can the government track this if I'm not running checks? Isn't this the loophole that Evans is talking about?
Honest questions, I'm not clear on the specifics here.
Posted by: trizzlor at April 08, 2009 04:11 AM (Ig5az)
7
Notice that the picture chosen for the piece shows two young men holding "assault weapons". Also notice that the two weapons on the left (to the left on the wall and the 2-toned rifle held by the guy in the white shirt) are XM-8 battle rifles, a weapon that was never actually produced by HK (program canceled in 2005) other than a few hundred prototypes. They are certainly NOT available on the civilian market.
My guess is these guns aren't even real, but airsoft copies. Civilians (or even law enforcement) simply cannot buy a XM-8, so if the XM-8 pictured is real, it must be from a SHOT Show or some other expo, not from a gun shop/show.
The gun held by the guy in blue appears to be a HK UMP with a short barrel which is civilian legal only as a semi-auto SBR, requiring the same form 4 and extra background checks as civilian transferable full-autos. A short barreled MP5 (on wall to right) is available as a semi-auto SBR or transferable full-auto but again, with the extra red tape that goes with any form 4 transfer.
The picture implies that anyone can walk into a gun show and buy up short-barreled UMPs and MP5s (and prototype weapons never actually produced for either military or civilian market) which is flatly untrue. Just like Bob pointed out in his post about the picture of LAW rockets and rifle-grenades in the article about US guns being used by cartels in Mexico, this is yet another example of how the media uses misleading images to perpetrate their anti-gun agenda.
Posted by: Eric at April 08, 2009 12:17 PM (0VpIm)
8
Excellent eyes, Eric.
That exact photo is from one of the recent SHOT shows... 2006, I think.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 08, 2009 12:43 PM (gAi9Z)
9
What differentiates them? A federal felony. Anyone who is in the business of buying and selling firearms must obtain a federal firearms license. This includes every Walmart, sporting goods store, individual, pawn shop and dealer at a gun show or flea market. Even gunsmiths must obtain a license. Failure to do so subjects the violator to imprisonment for a federal felony. Moreover, you cannot obtain guns from a manufacturer, importer, distributor, wholesaler or other licensed dealer without having an original signed copy of your license on file with them in advance. Theoretically, an individual might buy guns from individuals to sell to other individuals, but that seems very impractical and in any event would be a federal crime.
All licensed dealers must do a background check to sell to a non-dealer individual. The ATF actively cruises gun shows and gun shops looking for someone foolish enough to sell a gun off the books. Also, dealers must keep a license of all guns acquired and disposed of. The ATF checks these books. Any guns not recorded can result in loss of the license and maybe jail time.
How many guns? Just one if you are in the business.
How can the government track this? You can't buy from distributors, etc without the license. You can be sure the ATF prowls gun shows and flea markets just looking for a junk merchant who might carelessly offer an old .22 for sale among their other crap. There are no store front, flea market or gun shows unlicensed dealers out there. No for more than a day or two, at most.
Of course, none of this keeps criminals from buying stolen or smuggled guns from other criminals to furtively sell to criminals. Gun laws do little or nothing to disarm criminals.
Posted by: George Bruce at April 09, 2009 03:33 PM (v4XVE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 05, 2009
Kos Has a Short Memory
Treacher and Hot Air have caught the face of the liberal blogosphere with a bad case of foot-in-mouth, and a serious case of amnesia.
First, the cringeworthy tweet:
When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparent, prefer to talk "revolution" and kill cops.
Last I checked, radical neo-Nazi conspiracy theorists aren't exactly in the conservative mainstream.
Kos' amnesia?
Left-wing progressive and Indymedia contributor Andrew Mickel is currently on death row for his 2002 assassination of Red Bluff Police Officer David Mobilio.
But unlike yesterday's reactionary murder of three Pittsburgh, PA policemen who responded to a domestic violence call that escalated into an ambush, Mickel purposefully planned his murder in advance, picking the time, the place, and the victim.
He was caught for the murder because of his desire to promote his crime in hopes of starting a violent revolution against the government.
Six days after the shooting, a manifesto appeared on more than a dozen Web sites operated by the left-leaning Independent Media Center.
It began: "Hello Everyone, my name's Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I'm coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility."
Mickel, whom his parents compared him the Unabomber according to Wikipedia went to school at Evergreen State College, the same radical leftist institution that produced Rachel Corrie, an International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist. The ISM works closely with terrorist organizations in Gaza, and Corrie was killed while apparently defending a terrorist smuggling tunnel.
Kos can make sweeping condemnations based upon alleged ties between his political opponents and criminals, but conveniently forgets the blood his direct peers spill.
I guess we should just be thankful Kos didn't tweet that he felt the same way about Pittsburgh police officers as he did contractors in Fallujah.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:56 PM
| Comments (53)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Whacked out lefty blogger Andrew Sullivan has joined in, asserting that it's all the fault of Fox News and Second Amendment supporters:
"Many of us have worried that the heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces might spill over at some point into violence in the hands of individuals prone to lashing out. We now have what seems to be a clear instance of that and three dead police officers. One wonders whether Fox News or the Second Amendment fanatics will chill it out a little. And then one realizes who we're talking about."
Posted by: Joel C. at April 05, 2009 05:30 PM (mxAK2)
2
Would be nice if Andrew Sullivan and his ilk could simply tell the truth about gun owners.
All of this had its origin in a lie, the lie of gun control and AS and his cohorts are responsible for seeding this meme.
Posted by: Mark Turner at April 05, 2009 05:35 PM (bb9Lw)
3
One thing the everyone knows, especially Europe, NAZIs, Fascists, Communists, Socialist are all strains of the same Statist-tyranny philosophy. Even if you put 'neo' in the front. NAZIs are as far from conservatives as you can get.
Here is a video which makes it quite clear ...
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Good thing to keep around.
Democrats, raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control. Connect the dots.
Posted by: bill-tb at April 05, 2009 06:25 PM (7evkT)
4
It seems he did tweet something similar. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/05/kos-conservatives-like-to-shoot-cops/
Posted by: karlj at April 05, 2009 07:45 PM (dvO8e)
5
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Prescient.
Thank God we have Obama in charge and not McSame and the Wasilla wingnut. Though if they were I guess those cops might well be still alive, so there's that.
Posted by: RedstateBlue at April 05, 2009 09:09 PM (V0rOj)
6
Dear RedstateBlue: Which right-wing pundit instructed Lovell Mixon to kill?
Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 06, 2009 04:58 AM (cvmgB)
7
order levitra
buy cialis
Posted by: jgy at April 06, 2009 06:21 AM (Wuhwz)
8
Yes, the crazed Vietnamese man who thought "America Sucks" would have been remarkably pacified by a McCain victory............
The reality-based community.
Posted by: Teche at April 06, 2009 09:27 AM (QYuCD)
9
Speaking of short memories, I noticed you never followed up on the Knoxville shootings. I'm sure by now you've read Adkisson's "suicide" note, right? Why haven't you commented? If by some remote chance you haven't read Adkisson's note, you should really google it. Then read the whole thing. I'd be very interested in reading your spin.
Posted by: Cathy at April 06, 2009 02:45 PM (a5ujw)
10
And how did Nazis and neo-Nazis become "right wingers" anyway? Nazi is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Since when did socialists become right-wing? The two biggest killers of the 20th Century were far-leftists (Communists) and leftists (Nazis).
Posted by: dan at April 06, 2009 02:51 PM (Jr2NW)
11
dan
Pants before shoes, you know the drill.
Posted by: RedstateBlue at April 06, 2009 04:47 PM (x/mwd)
12
Since when have the lefties been down on cop killers? The give them tenure, don't they?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at April 06, 2009 05:38 PM (d6iMX)
13
diet fact phentermine pill go diet fact phentermine pill or over the counter phentermine go over the counter phentermine or cheap phentermine overnight go cheap phentermine overnight or phentermine md consultation go phentermine md consultation or phentermine blue go phentermine blue
Posted by: ambien_next_day_delivery at April 08, 2009 07:13 PM (JCbbg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Right Wing Paranoia That Drove Richard Polawski To Commit Murder
The best minds progressive politics has to offer have apparently met on their little list and determined that—eureka!—it is the fault of the evil right wing neocon media that an unemployed sociopath ambushed and killed three police officers in Pittsburgh that were responding to a domestic violence call placed by his mother.
Explains the Neiwert:
We're gathering more information about Richard Polawski, the 23-year-old man who decided to kill three Pittsburgh police officers and wound three others because it appears he was afraid they -- at the behest of the Obama administration -- were going to take his guns away. (Dude, they definitely are now.)
Seems he was laying in wait in a carefully planned ambush:
Richard Poplawski, 23, met officers at the doorway and shot two of them in the head immediately, Harper said. An officer who tried to help the two also was killed.
Poplawski, armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, then held police at bay for four hours as the fallen officers were left bleeding nearby, their colleagues unable to reach them, according to police and witnesses. More than 100 rounds were fired by the SWAT teams and Poplawski, Harper said.
And he was paranoid about the Obama administration taking people's guns away -- even though, of course, there have been no indications of any such plans beyond NRA rantings:
Of course there have been no indications that the Administration wants to put in place additional restrictions or bans.
Not here, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
All of those plans to further restrict the rights of Americans—and threaten the safety of police officers— on President Obama's official Presidential agenda have been previously been debunked. Police groups are against the repeal of Tiahrt Amendment, the gun show loophole is a myth, and the net result of the Assault Weapons Ban was to create and entirely new class of ultra-compact centerfire handguns, with no measurable impact on crime and an increase in gun availability and popularity.
The only reason to favor any of the measures Obama does above is the incremental encroachment of the Second Amendment, which has been a constant theme of his entire political career.
More of those "NRA rantings" have come from Attorney General Eric Holder, who said:
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
Holder's statement was immediately downplayed by the White House, but it was never disavowed, as it an accurate reflection of Obama's official policy.
As for the story being spread by the Administration—including President Obama, AG Holder, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—that 90% of guns recovered from the Mexican cartels had their origins in the United States and therefore justify more gun control, that has also been exposed as a total lie.
The Mexican government only turns over to the U.S. government guns that they think had the possibility of being traced to America. The vast majority of the weapons they've recovered from the cartels in the past two years—more than 20,000—were from other sources including the Mexican military, and included weapons not available on the U.S. gun market at any price.
None of this, of course, is an excuse for this thug's ambush of police officers trying to uphold the peace. Not his job loss, nor his dishonorable discharge in Marine Corps boot camp, nor his Klannish (nearly progressive) hatred of Zionism, nor his psychological defects or fears.
Anger, is an emotion. It is apolitical and amoral, neither right nor wrong nor identifiable with a party affiliation. It is how a person choses to channel anger into action that defines him as good or evil or benign.
A person could channel his anger and fear of an Administration's clear desire to restrict Constitutional rights in a good way by becoming politically active and working to make sure others know of the infringements the President desires.
Or a person could use his anger and channel them into evil actions, such as murdering police officers... or use the story about those murders, along with willful lies and half truths, to attack others for a momentary political advantage.
Both are evil acts.
It's simply a matter of degree.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:22 AM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Poor misdirected guy - the anger should be toward Congress & the rest of this administration, not the poor cops (& other LEO's)!! Turn your guns, letters, whatever else that way. Not the poor guy doing yoeman's work for little pay!!
Posted by: pops1911 at April 05, 2009 04:05 PM (+NfEU)
2
Appears the shooting was the result of dog piss.
Fight over urinating dog got police to Pa. ambush
By JOE MANDAK – 2 hours ago
PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 911 call that brought two police officers to a home where they were ambushed, and where a third was also later killed during a four-hour siege, was precipitated by a fight between the gunman and his mother over a dog urinating in the house.
The Saturday argument between Margaret and Richard Poplawski escalated to the point that she threatened to kick him out and she called police to do it, according to a 12-page criminal complaint and affidavit filed late Saturday.
When officers Paul Sciullo III and Stephen Mayhle arrived, Margaret Poplawski opened the door and told them to come in and take her 23-year-old son, apparently unaware he was standing behind her with a rifle, the affidavit said. Hearing gunshots, she spun around to see her son with the gun and ran to the basement.
"What the hell have you done?" she shouted.
The mother told police her son had been stockpiling guns and ammunition "because he believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society," the affidavit said.
Friends have said Poplawski was concerned about his weapons being seized during Barack Obama's presidency, and friends said he owned several handguns and an AK-47 assault rifle. Police have not said, specifically, what weapons were used to kill the officers.
Posted by: edh at April 05, 2009 05:25 PM (YRcxH)
3
I'm probably wrong but I thought dishonorable discharge disqualified you from voting, owning firearms, etc. because it is awarded at a Court-Martial. Is this right?
Posted by: CRScott at April 05, 2009 05:34 PM (KVAGP)
4
For as little as we know so far I'd throw out that his mom sounds like a terrible person, really.
Posted by: happyfeet at April 05, 2009 05:38 PM (qXYKO)
5
Awfully chatty lady, leastways.
Posted by: happyfeet at April 05, 2009 05:51 PM (qXYKO)
6
It is extremely unlikely that this individual had a Dishonorable Discharge, which is a punitive discharge awarded by a general court-martial for serious, felony-grade offenses, such as murder and rape, or weighty military offenses such as espionage. Reports indicate that he washed out of boot camp after some act of insubordination. He might have gotten a Bad Conduct Discharge, more comparable to a misdemeanor conviction, but I doubt that. An administrative Other Than
Honorable discharge is most likely.
These are terms of art, set forth in military law and regulations.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 05, 2009 06:09 PM (q3zES)
7
Of course, the fact that the vast majority of police officers are conservative means nothing to them. How would they know? The only one the ever met arrested them for dope, and they pled out so they never saw that cop again.
I was a cop for 12 years. Crazy people do crazy things and if they allow themselves to be taken alive they are far more likely to play the victim card handed out en masse by the left than to quote Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich.
Posted by: karlj at April 05, 2009 07:39 PM (dvO8e)
8
Dishonorable Discharge and Bad Conduct Discharge can only be awarded after a court-martial. Every court-martial (even a Summary Court) resulting in a guilty verdict counts as a felony conviction, but individual state laws govern which felonies abrogate which civil rights.
Posted by: Rex at April 05, 2009 07:54 PM (W309r)
9
Today, it's a bit of domestic violence that got way out of control. She has conflict resolution issues, while he may have been a section 8.
Two years from now, men who stand up against government in such a fashion will be called 'heroes' and 'patriots' by one side...by the other, they'll be called 'traitors' and 'criminals.'
Which will you be called...and by whom?
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at April 05, 2009 08:01 PM (g80kM)
10
I absolutely agree that using these horrific incidents to slander an entire group of people or a political ideology is repulsive. However, it is important to look at the way a message is being delivered and the kind of impact it can have on unstable people, especially now that heightened unemployment seems to be the subtext for a lot of these incidents.
In this very thread you have comments calling for "standing up to government in such a fashion", or turning guns on congress. More frightening, however, have been the pronouncements of side-stream conservative voices like RedState or Glenn Beck tacitly approving of this behavior (Erikson: beating your state legislator to a bloody pulp, cleaning his gun for the impending riots) and calling for armed revolution. Or the main-stream calls of republican congressmen for their constituents to be "armed and dangerous," or to adopt the practices of the Taliban.
You and I gloss over this as hyperbole or sensationalism, but is it absurd to suggest that these incitements can light the fuse under a deranged individual? Is it justified because the left has similar outbursts?
Posted by: trizzlor at April 05, 2009 09:12 PM (kY2+0)
11
Unfortunately for you right-wingers, it's accurate. You have blatantly appealed to paranoia and weak minds, and you knew damned well that some folks would take your most over-the-top pronouncement seriously, and would act on them.
This is part of your pattern.
And for too long we’ve accepted your verbal diarrhea and your incitements to violence as though it was something other than the total insanity and the ravings of violent minds that it obviously is.
Posted by: Ignatz at April 05, 2009 09:35 PM (0ZfYV)
12
Me I think I will be called that guy what don't shoot cops. It's just a.) really hard to see what that would accomplish and b.) not how my mama brought me up.
Posted by: happyefeet at April 05, 2009 11:14 PM (/GZus)
13
What are you going to be called, Mr. Bonesteel?
Posted by: happyfeet at April 05, 2009 11:15 PM (/GZus)
14
"You have blatantly appealed to paranoia and weak minds, and you knew damned well that some folks would take your most over-the-top pronouncement seriously, and would act on them."
You mean like the left's endless declarations of the eminent End of Life on Earth because of economic activity? Or is the left utterly innocent of the political violence committed by environmentalist terrorists while the right is utterly responsible for the spur-of-the-moment, emotional violence of people like Powlaski?
How about the left's endless excuse-making for race riots when committed by the "right" races?
Or the stoking of anger towards the AIG executives, bankers, investors, and anyone else considered part of the "moneyed" classes?
Or the near immunity organized labor has for "strike-related" violence?
Or the utter blindness the left has towards race-based crime when committed by certain races?
Posted by: Rob Crawford at April 05, 2009 11:37 PM (hZJT9)
15
Dear Ignatz: Which wingnut talking head told Jiverly Wong to kill those people?
Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 06, 2009 05:02 AM (cvmgB)
16
Since when do liberals care if cops get killed? last time I checked they were marching in the streets to support them. From the San Fransisco Chronicle:
"Oakland -- About 60 people marched and rallied in Oakland tonight to condemn the police and honor Lovelle Mixon, who was killed by Oakland police after he fatally shot four officers Saturday.
'OPD you can't hide - we charge you with genocide,' chanted the demonstrators as they marched along MacArthur Blvd., near the intersection with 74th Avenue where Mixon, 26, a fugitive parolee, gunned down two motorcycle officers who had pulled him over in a traffic stop. He then killed two more officers who had tried to capture him where he was hiding in sister's apartment nearby.
The protest was organized by the Oakland branch of the radical Uhuru Movement, whose flyers for the march declared, "Stop Police Terror." Many marchers wore t-shirts featuring Mixon's photo, including a woman identified by march organizers as Mixon's mother. The woman declined to comment and gave her name only as Athena."
Posted by: Jack Savage at April 06, 2009 09:51 AM (5zs5M)
17
Huh. So that's the way the game is played now? RFK was shot and killed by a Palestinian. Progressives fall all over themselves supporting the Palestinians no matter what. The question must be asked. Why do Progressives support and encourage the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy?
Posted by: buzz at April 06, 2009 12:07 PM (GmELZ)
18
Your first comment suggested that the shooter's rage and GUNS should have been pointed toward congress?? Do you agree with this?? Better scrub your comments because if anyone in congress is harmed it won't look real good for you guys.
Posted by: calm down at April 06, 2009 12:09 PM (mTCOX)
19
I think it was pretty clear that the anger against Congress should be turned into letters to Congress, not into violence against police officers who don't make the laws.
I think that any attempt to find reason behind the crazy acts of a crazy person will tell you more about the speaker than about the crazy person.
Posted by: Don Meaker at April 06, 2009 10:51 PM (y2oBR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 04, 2009
How Many People Died Because of the Binghamton Police Response?
By all accounts, there were 14 dead (including the shooter) and four wounded when police finally entered the American Civic Association in Binghampton, NY yesterday, at least an hour after a three-minute rampage had ended with the death of the shooter.
If autopsies determine that even one of the 13 victims died after the "golden hour" and could have been saved by police immediately entering the building and getting them medical care, instead of forming a perimeter and just waiting, then I hope the citizens if Binghampton call for Chief Joseph Zikuski's ouster.
Why do I have a CCH permit? Because when seconds count, police are just seconds 25 yards and several hours away.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:27 AM
| Comments (42)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What are the chances that the American Civic Association proudly proclaims itself as a "gun free area?" Even in the South where I live, such signs are becoming more prevalent. Whether the ACA indeed has one, I bet there are several places learning the lesson from this and putting up bigger signs.
Posted by: Tregonsee at April 04, 2009 09:49 AM (Gnv3p)
2
Gun free, should just be easy pickings.
Posted by: bill-tb at April 04, 2009 10:33 AM (7evkT)
3
I'll go you one better: if autopsies prove even one of the dead victims was still alive and could have been saved by immediate action, I want to see Chief Zikuski prosecuted for second-degree murder under the "depraved indifference" section of New York's murder statute.
Posted by: wolfwalker at April 04, 2009 11:59 AM (1eyqK)
4
Interesting question. Here we have the real differences between the 80's model of shooter/terrorist response and the contemporary response.
In the 80's model, it was assumed that time was on the side of the police and that the longer a terrorist or shooter was in contact with those he had taken hostage the more likely he was to see them as human beings and the less likely he was to harm them irrespective of his motivations or demands. This model also assumes that such shooters are essentially American criminals who do not wish to die, and who are motivated by greed and self interest. In application, this model required that no mere civilians, all of whom would be unarmed, try to resist--they're just not qualified!--that the patrol officers who initially respond do nothing but contain and control--keep anyone from getting in and the shooter from getting out--and call the professionals, a SWAT team and police administrators who would establish a perimeter, establish a command post complete with refreshments, establish contact with the shooter so negotiations can begin, and conduct recon so that a plan can be formulated if many hours of negotiations fail. In this model, despite the number of initial deaths, the police generally would not employ deadly force against the shooter unless and until he had executed at least one hostage after negotiations had been underway for some time. This was the model employed at Columbine where a teacher who could have been saved bled to death over many hours while the police vainly dithered trying to establish contact with the shooters who were many hours dead while trying to come up with a plan. With this model, if the shooter is not a common criminal, tens, even hundreds will die in the hours required for this response to manifest.
The more contemporary model requires that the first officers on the scene immediately assault and engage the shooters in the hope of saving lives. This model recognizes that shooters are not common criminals, intend to die by their own hands or by forcing the police to kill them, and will kill as many innocents as possible until they are stopped or choose to kill themselves. In this model, time is not on the side of the police. In this model, even with the fastest possible police response, tens will die if the shooter is not a common criminal.
While the contemporary model is unquestionably the most potentially effective model in terms of saving innocent lives, it requires courage, daring, and most importantly, it requires that police administrators give substantial authority and power to the lowest ranking members of their forces. It also requires substantial training and a sea change in mindset. It is clear that not every America law enforcement agency has recognized the need to make this change, or having recognized it, has yet to surrender authority, do the necessary training, or fully implement it.
In virtually every active shooter case in American history, the police, no matter the rapidity of their response (the police responded relatively rapidly at Virginia Tech), had no effect whatsoever on the death toll. Most of the attacks have taken place in "gun free" zones where the killers were certain that their intended victims could not effectively resist them.
The only effective responses, responses that have stopped the killers and saved innocent lives, have been mounted by armed citizens, and in a few cases, intended victims who overpowered the shooters.
So what are the lessons we should learn? They are few and simple. The police cannot protect us and have no legal obligation to do so; they will almost always be a non-factor in stopping these attacks (no one is responsible for my personal safety but me). "Gun Free" zones only invite attacks and must be abolished. Concealed carry by those in high risk facilities such as schools is the only effective means to immediately stop assaults when they occur.
Posted by: Mike at April 04, 2009 12:21 PM (WZZfS)
5
When I showed my wife the article i saw online, i higlighted the same line. Police waited for hours to go in?
YOU'RE THE FRIGGING COPS. Its your JOB to go in there. Protect and serve, indeed. But protect and serve who?
Posted by: John at April 04, 2009 03:06 PM (PS5rK)
6
It is easy to sit back at a safe distance after the fact and dictate what these cops should have done. But how many among you would have just rushed into this building not knowing where the shooter was? This action could have caused more deaths, to policemen as well as to civilians. The shooter might have been captured or killed by policemen, unfortunately we will never know.
I would love to have some type of device that would render any handgun completely useless. This would guarantee that neither policemen nor others would be harmed, at least by a handgun. That isn’t reality. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if every police officer could wear the mantel of hero simply by possessing some magical ability to be completely immune to whatever a maniac bent on destruction could throw at them. Then maybe these police officers would never be bogged down by that very human instinct that we all have called fear for your own safety.
Posted by: Greg W at April 05, 2009 08:40 AM (VE3ma)
7
I took the liberty of using your post (and comment #4) to launch a discussion.
During the 10:00 PM newscasts here in Milwaukee, a Milwaukee Police Department spokesman specifically stated that the MPD was using the "new model" referred to by your commenter--IOW, they were trained to go in aggressively to stop the "active shooter."
In contrast to Binghamton...
Posted by: dad29 at April 05, 2009 08:47 AM (7ohF2)
8
Dear Greg W:
You'll notice that my comments did not disparage the police, but merely outlined police tactics and facts regarding active shooter incidents. As a police and SWAT veteran, I do have some experience in these matters.
Monday morning quarterbacking is indeed easy, and no officer should ever recklessly throw their life away or recklessly endanger others. However, every police officer knows that by taking the oath of office, he or she is voluntarily putting themself in the line of fire, and that when the sound of gunfire is heard, they are duty and honor bound to run to it rather than away from it.
In active shooter situations, doing nothing is far more likely to result in additional deaths than immediately assaulting the shooter. In fact, the courts understand this principal well, and should an officer accidently injure an innocent in the process of stopping an active shooter, they are not held liable for such injury because the alternative is much, much worse.
Indeed, police officers experience fear, but because they experience it so often, in so many different ways, they are much better at dealing with it and doing what needs to be done than are most people. This is what the public expects of them, and what the police expect of themselves.
Posted by: MIke at April 05, 2009 04:31 PM (WZZfS)
9
and that when the sound of gunfire is heard, they are duty and honor bound to run to it rather than away from it.
Fair enough. But it's important to note that when the Binghamton police showed up, there was no sound of gunfire. The gunman was, in fact, dead.
Your points above about the new model of active shooter response are well taken (I'm a patrol officer in a mid-sized department in the South). However, it's important to note that they apply ONLY in known active shooter scenarios.
The reports I've seen indicate that the first 911 calls that came in were patchy, panicked, and in broken English, understandably so. My guess is that the police responding did not have a clear idea what they were dealing with.
Posted by: Mars vs Hollywood at April 05, 2009 05:14 PM (K0KSk)
10
I agree that something's not right about slow police response. There should be an outside investigation.
I've commented on this here:
http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
Posted by: John Burke at April 06, 2009 01:54 AM (Drgr1)
11
Thank you for this view of true madness.
The solution to the problem of guns is more guns?? What happens when one of you decides he's having a "poor life" and decides to shoot up some "liberal" institution?
What about the three good Pittsburgh cops, shot in the head in the prime of life by some sniveling punk who was afraid the police would take his guns away [if only they had!]? Note that the third of these was a black officer who was actually off duty and headed home but turned around and rushed to the aid of his white comrades, only to be shot dead himself.
We need to start seizing all handguns--and most long guns--in the possession of anyone not a sworn police officer.
Second Amendment? No problem! That amendment was written in the 1790's. You can have all the flintlock pistols and single shot muskets you can buy. But a military weapon capable of firing fifteen shots in five seconds? No way, Beauregard!
Posted by: Randolph at April 07, 2009 09:36 PM (MhZ5c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2009
Binghamton Shooter Recently Laid Off From IBM Shop Vac
More information is already coming out about the man who went on a shooting spree inside the American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY today.
Jiverly Voong, 42, was a nationalized naturalized Vietnamese-American who has been in the United States for 28 years. He began his rampage at 10:31 AM, killing 13 others and himself by 10:33 AM. There is still some uncertainty about the number of people who were wounded during the shooting who are in area hospitals.
Voong is said to have used a pair of semi-automatic handguns in his assault, once chambered in 9mm and one chambered for 45 ACP (Kudos to the ABC News staff for using my rewrite of that paragraph to report the story more accurately; they had originally used a sentence that described the weapons used inaccurately as heavy caliber automatic pistols).
Police have no known motive for Voong's attack, but some media are suggesting that his recent layoff from IBM may have been part of the reason for the for the shooting. An account of last week's layoffs from WBNG suggests a thin motive for attacking the Civic Association:
Big Blue plans to layoff 5-thousand U.S. Employees today.
IBM headquarters has not responded to calls about whether there are cuts at the Endicott site.
Conrad says Alliance has been told layoffs are taking place in Global Business Services, Systems Technology Group, and Global Technology Services.
"We are hearing that these jobs will be eliminated here in the United States and the work shifted to India, China, Asia-Pacific and Latin America." says Conrad.
It is thin and perhaps irrational reasoning that would lead an immigrant to attack other immigrants for jobs that are leaving this country, if this was indeed Voong's motive. Sadly, that is all the motive we have at this time, and no motive could every justify such a senseless act.
I would caution Americans on the left not to use this senseless tragedy to push for more gun control (New York has restrictive gun laws that obviously failed here), just as I'd advise my fellow citizens on the middle and right not to blame the current or former Presidential Administrations for the recession that led to IBM's layoffs. Congress?
That's a point that may well be worth discussing...
Update: As they so often are, earlier media reports were wrong. Voong (formerly Wong) hated America, was obsessed with guns, and hated having poor English skills.
Illiteracy kills?
Zikuski said Wong was depressed about his poor English-speaking skills, which he was teased about, and his recent unemployment.
"He was terminated from his job at a place called Shop Vac, and he was very upset about that also," Zikuski said.
Zikuski told NBC's "Today" show that people "degraded and disrespected" the gunman over his inability to speak English well.
As a result, said Mayor Matthew Ryan on ABC's "Good Morning America," he was upset about his problems with the language.
This makes his decision to attack a room full of recent immigrants, many who we can assume also faced the challenge of adopting to a new language, even less understandable.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:00 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Do you mean he was a naturalized citizen? I'm not sure what a nationalized citizen is. Is that like a nationalized bank? taken over by the government?
Posted by: southernliberty at April 03, 2009 06:16 PM (s/505)
2
Considering the cost of all the government expansion and crushing multi-generational debt our Congress and President have shoved down our throats in just over two months, "nationalized" seems to be accidentally accurate.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 03, 2009 06:30 PM (Fe6uK)
3
Clearly, the only viable solution is to give all immigrants concealed-carry permits.
Posted by: Mike's Dumbmerica at April 03, 2009 09:50 PM (kDMLr)
4
I can understand how someone laid off at IBM to be replaced with foreigners would take it out on foreigners.
The entire sector has seen US and western European jobs being replaced with Asian and easter European cheap labour for a decade, leading to massive frustration and angst among US and western Europeans who still do have jobs.
So now IBM fires thousands of Americans (never mind that some were themselves immigrants at one point, they're Americans now) and replaces them with Asians, while Asians working for them on H-1b permits they attained fraudulently (the process is well known, the majority of H-1b permits going to India especially are fraudulent) keep their jobs.
His motives may be flawed, but his target is quite understandable.
He took it out on foreigners, those taking his job.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at April 04, 2009 02:40 AM (hrLyN)
5
Libs believe that if 'gun laws fail' its because law abiding citizens still have guns in their possession, and that more stringent gun laws must be enacted to remove such weapons from the citizenry in order to 'avoid' these murders.
It's back handed logic, but it's the only kind most liberals are capable of.
Oh, and don't you know libs were calling for such additional gun laws while the siege was still ongoing. Why waste time.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at April 04, 2009 11:15 AM (RdRrk)
6
update: IBM says they have no record of anyone by that name ever working for them. Could of course have been an alias, but why use an alias when you're intent on killing yourself?
update: Al Qaeda (Pakistan branch) blames responsibility.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at April 04, 2009 01:35 PM (hrLyN)
7
You'd think that 28 years in America would be long enough to pick up the language.
Posted by: Tim at April 05, 2009 12:16 PM (3Wewy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Massacre at American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY
Breaking news is that the American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY today has been attacked. Casualty accounts vary depending on source, but it appears a minimum of 13 people have been killed and more than 20 have been wounded.
ABC News reports that the shooter committed suicide.
Please remember to take all early media accounts (including this blog entry) with a grain of salt until details are confirmed, and pray for the victims and their families.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:36 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If that had happened in Texas, because of our concealed carry law, there would have been more than one armed citizen to stop that guy. When is NY going to move into the new Century?
Posted by: Marc Boyd at April 03, 2009 03:21 PM (Zoziv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Call to Arms in Mexico
The solution to the expanding drug cartel violence in Mexico isn't for our anti-gun President and Attorney General to pass even more restrictive gun laws in the United States, but instead change Mexican laws to increase the flow of guns into the right hands in Mexico, paralleling the success of the Sawa or "Awakening" movement in Iraq that drove a similarly violent Sunni insurgency out of al-Anbar.
Read my latest, A Call to Arms in Mexico, at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:24 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Or better yet. Actually secure our borders. It will not help Mexico, but it will force them to shift the blame elsewhere while helping us help ourselves with a serious problem.
My solution?
Burning river of gas.
It will create a lot of jobs.
Posted by: Matt at April 03, 2009 07:46 AM (2pU+Y)
2
comment2
recipe for rice crispy squares
recipe for sausage bread
asparagus wrapped in bacon recipe
quick baby back ribs recipe
bagel bread machine recipe
cherry cha cha recipe
recipe for chicken scallopini
potato sausage recipe
cake recipe by betty crocker
express 101 recipe book
florence guacamole recipe
regular pancake recipe
recipe using bananas
protein shake recipe
million dollar fudge recipe
ruths chris creamed spinach recipe
ranch dipping sauce recipe
light banana pudding recipe
oatmeal raisin cookies and recipe
grill chicken scallopine recipe
ribbon jello recipe
dominican rice and beans recipe
fluffy pikelet recipe
ginataang kuhol recipe
old italian recipe
recipe for bavarian
dosa chutney recipe
recipe for beef and noodles
best soup recipe for
new england clam chouder recipe
steamed asparagas recipe
original red velvet cake recipe
recipe for sweet italian sausage
ultimate chocolate cake recipe
diabetic pumpkin pie recipe
recipe sunbeam bread maker
egg souffles recipe
no rise pizza dough recipe
vegetarian eggplant recipe
recipe for vegimite
apple vodka recipe
thai recipe incline village
honey almond cake recipe
scottish haggis recipe
strawbeery jam recipe
recipe for sugar free vanilla
recipe for bread pudding with
home made ranch dressing recipe
cocktail party food recipe
orange mint recipe
healthy cake recipe
vegetable side dish recipe
salmon cream cheese recipe
paella recipe without
recipe seafood gumbo
frosting recipe powdered
bahama rum mojito recipe
asparagus tips recipe
mint mojitos recipe
profiterole filling recipe
macaroni casserole recipe
chicken picatta recipe
jerk chicken seasoning recipe
brocalli soup recipe
navratna kurma recipe
roast beef recipe uk
key lime torte recipe
canard a lorange recipe
easter cupcakes recipe
vanilla butter cake recipe
recipe for egg sandwich
baked carrots recipe
lemon pepper marinade recipe
pork snitzel recipe
banana cake recipe from
roast silverside recipe
sponge filling recipe
shepherds pie recipe gordon
chicken curry and recipe
recipe for spinach casserole
boil cabbage recipe
grandmas meatloaf recipe
vegetable medley recipe
recipe for vegetable spring rolls
tripe recipe tomatoes
skippers clam chowder recipe
banana bread recipe from
recipe for pumpkin ice cream
gingerbread house icing recipe
secret recipe in webkinz
rice crispee treat recipe
cauliflower and broccoli salad recipe
emeril pot roast recipe
gluten free oatmeal cookies recipe
indian pilau recipe
smith pumpkin pie recipe
make a cake recipe
spicy hot tomato oil recipe
pickled shallots recipe
cilantro mint recipe
lofthouse cookie recipe
recipe for apple sauce
razor clams recipe
gourmet pancake recipe
chocolate toffee recipe
velveeta dip recipe
bisquick apple crisp recipe
vegan chocolate pie recipe
frozen margarita machine recipe
sunday roast recipe
italian seasoning recipe
venison jerky recipe
pineapple topping recipe
recipe ingredient substitutions
liquid castile soap recipe
artichoke dipping sauce recipe
pickling salt recipe
pan lasagna recipe
crisp recipe paula
mirchi bajji recipe
Posted by: Dxfgvgxp at April 03, 2009 02:06 PM (Ph2KE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 94 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1202 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0978 seconds, 142 records returned.
Page size 138 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
