December 31, 2008
Ending Gaza
Let's put this bluntly: the Gaza Strip is a failed non-state run by terrorists pledged to genocide and dreaming of a second Holocaust. It has no discernible reason to exist other than to hate; no notable exports greater than the crude rockets and mortars targeting Israeli civilians for merely daring to exist.
Lets end it. It was a mistake. It's time to close Gaza.
Empty the 1.4 million Gazans living in squalor into the surrounding Arab nations who helped make it a modern Hell. Send them to Egypt. Syria. Jordan. Lebanon. Let these nations deal with the extremism they've midwifed by absorbing the bastard Arabs of the Middle East into their own societies.
Granted, such a repatriation will be welcomed by neither the Arabs of Gaza nor the nations who have to host the violent illiteracy and religious extremism they helped create.
But it is the only viable long-term solution for peace.
And an idea long overdue.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I agree, Gaza should become a buffer zone with nothing allowed to grow or be build over ankle high. A massive carpet bombing campaign should do the trick and close the rat holes the Mooslimes have dug all over the land of murder and rape.
Posted by: Scrapiron at December 31, 2008 11:49 AM (I4yBD)
2
I second the carpet bombing idea. . . I am just not sure they should let them out of the area first. The terrorists living there will just fight from their new home if given a chance. . ..
Posted by: JD at December 31, 2008 12:20 PM (VyXDV)
3
Good idea, but I think all those countries will resist violently. They know what has been created and will resist. But that would be nice to see.
Posted by: Federale at December 31, 2008 12:54 PM (H1JJq)
4
lots of empty land in Saudi Arabia......
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 31, 2008 01:06 PM (vLw7K)
5
With one small difference I will agree totally. Just substitute "palestine" for Gaza.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at December 31, 2008 01:18 PM (nHlbs)
6
One Israeli nuke-- send those
chernozhopi straight to Hell.
Posted by: Ivan Ivanovich Renko at December 31, 2008 01:23 PM (RABxQ)
7
Proposal for a durable cease-fire: Give the Hammies one week. Count the number of rockets fired over the border in that week. Destroy everything, animate or otherwise, starting from the boarder and proceeding one meter west for every rocket during the baseline week. Repeat as necessary with a multiplier of two, then three and so on. Even if no one has the stomach for that (yet) stop feeding these scum as well as providing them energy, medical care and whatever else is the largess of Israel, the US and the UN. These pukes are pirates at best. Anyone with a claim to being a "moderate" Palastinian had best demonstrate that through deeds, pronto.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 31, 2008 02:06 PM (LF+qW)
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 31, 2008 02:38 PM (HG6DM)
9
While we're at it, make sure we deal with the Cynthia McKinneys attempting to aid the terrorists.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 31, 2008 02:51 PM (M+Vfm)
10
Yeah, did McKinney's canoe get searched? I wonder if it was all baby-milk and Band-Aids.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 31, 2008 03:10 PM (LF+qW)
11
"But it is the only viable long-term solution for peace"
Indeed. It could almost be called the "Final Solution" to the "Palestinian Problem".
Cheers
Posted by: Oyka at December 31, 2008 03:38 PM (qb2YA)
12
Oh, I know I know hear me out...Maybe you should suggest that we round up all these Gazans...perhaps COCENTRATE them all together in one spot (a camp or camps if you will) or in several places.
Genius!!!!
Posted by: Oyka at December 31, 2008 03:48 PM (qb2YA)
13
Oyka -
Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan already do just that. And since they have no birthright citizenship laws, children born in the CONCENTRATEs have no Lebabon, Syrian, or Jordanian citizenship.
Boy that sucks, huh?
Posted by: Adriane at December 31, 2008 04:05 PM (W7nzI)
14
Mega, makes no difference to me if it IS all baby milk and bandaids. Aiding and abetting the terrorists, is aiding and abetting, no matter what it is you're shipping to them.
Cynthia McKinney should be IMMEDIATELY placed under arrest upon touching US soil.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 31, 2008 04:18 PM (M+Vfm)
15
Cato the Elder had the right idea:
"Carthage must be destroyed."
The words are supposed to be have been repeated by Cato at the end of every speech he made in the senate, after his visit to Carthage in 175 B.C., when he became obsessed by the military threat posed by the city. It was eventually destroyed by Rome at the end of the Third Punic War in 146 B.C.
Contrary to legend, the soil of Carthage was not sown with salt.
The Palis should suffer Carthage's fate. But it won't happen.
Posted by: miriam at December 31, 2008 05:16 PM (p7QDM)
16
Kill everybody and let god sort them out seems to be your line.
No wonder the rest of the world things you are crazy, still as Bush has the man from Manchuria has wrecked your economy you wont be able to kill as many people in 2009 as 2008.
Posted by: Derek Wall at December 31, 2008 07:12 PM (EWJ1+)
17
Great idea, but won't work because the presnt situation is exactly what the Arabs states want it to be. They invented the notion of "Palestine" as a proxy for their continuously failed wars of extermiantion against Israel. Not only do the hapless Palis do all the bleeding and suffering and dying on their behalf, but Israel gets transformed from David into Goliath and instantly becomes a bully in world opinion, for the heinous crime of defending itself.
Derek, we don't give a rat's ass for the opinion of what you delusionally claim is "the rest of the world." You're a bloody handed accessory to genocide, feel free to STFU - or better yet, go stand in front of a Hamas missile factory as a subhuman shield.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 31, 2008 07:32 PM (Vcyz0)
18
Killing the Palestinians won't solve the problem. It will only infuriate the Arabs, who will then become an even greater problem than the Palestinians.
No, the only solution is to kill them all, Palestinians and Israeli's alike - just sterilize the whole area and start over with the Amish.
Posted by: M. Onan Batterload at December 31, 2008 10:07 PM (bV7Pv)
19
Kill everybody and let god sort them out seems to be your line.
Did you read that somewhere, Derek? Did you read the post? What does it say? As for your second sentence, don't drink and type. It never works out well.
Posted by: Pablo at December 31, 2008 11:13 PM (yTndK)
Posted by: UNRR at January 01, 2009 11:21 AM (uKBSQ)
21
The great irony is that the Palestinians could be rich if they wanted to be. If they took all the aid money they receive and used it to build an infrastructure and businesses instead of spending it on munitions and feathering the nests of Hamas leaders, they'd be leading very comfortable lives. Consider Gaza - that is prime beachfront property. And the Pals took it over and trashed it.
But peace and prosperity isn't what they're interested in - not when there are Jews around to kill.
Never have a people been so undeserving of sympathy - and yet the murderous SOB's get it from moronic tools the world over. Why? Well, let's put it this way - the Palis are very, very fortunate to have the enemies they do. If other Arabs were killing them, nobody would pay attention or give a damn.
Posted by: Donna V. at January 01, 2009 10:14 PM (rTyiR)
22
Saudi Arabia needs foreign workers....half of the O/S foreigners could then be released to return to their homes.....problem is, the koran forbids having muslims as slaves and that messes up the Saudi plan. Guess they'll have to send them all to Lebanon. Lebanon is a palestinian controlled Iranian puppet now anyway and the thugs from Gaza and the West Bank would fit right in(after, of course, a bunch of gangland style killings and suicide bombings to sort out the heirarchy). The remaining Labanese that haven't yet moved to Dearborn, Michigan or Chicago will have to hash out living arrangements for the rest of the palestinians. That will give Israel a couple years of respite to salt the borders with minefields and resettle Gaza and West Bank with settlers. Cool plan eh?
Posted by: Tonto at January 02, 2009 11:53 AM (Qv1xF)
23
Tonto,
As a 2nd generation American whose paternal grandfather (and his father and grandfather) emigrated from northern Lebanon, I take exception to sending more murderous blankety-blanks to one of my ancestral homelands.
Of course, if it leads those blankety-blanks to their ultimate doom I'm all for it
Posted by: PhyCon at January 02, 2009 12:19 PM (4od5C)
24
Prior to the 1967 war, Gaza was part of Egypt (or at least administered by Egypt) and the West Bank was administered by Jordan. In the Camp David accords, Egypt wanted the Sinai back (minus settlers) but didn't demand/ask for Gaza as far as I can tell.
So whose fault is it the arabs in West Bank and Gaza don't have a country?
Posted by: iconoclast at January 02, 2009 01:15 PM (ddU4M)
25
The funny thing, iconoclast, is the timeline.
So, in 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt, and the West Bank was part of Jordan.
But when was the Palestine Liberation Organization (dedicated to liberating Palestine) founded?
1965!
So, what, exactly, was the PLO seeking to liberate?
All of a sudden, it would seem that the PLO, and the Palestinians in general as well as their Arab backers, weren't so much interested in liberating Gaza and the West Bank, as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all the other parts of Israel,
pre-1967.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at January 02, 2009 01:34 PM (6FBvO)
26
Your sense of justice might work if your reasoning wasn't so skewed. Too bad Palestinians have higher literacy rates than some U.S. cities. Too bad Hamas was supported by Israel to counterbalance the PLO - the same Israel that bombed US and UK targets in Egypt to gain support in the Lavon Affair. I tip my hat off to you Neo-Nazis, er I mean Neo-Cons, nevertheless.
Posted by: b at January 02, 2009 11:11 PM (JoSSB)
27
So you want a genocide? Stay classy, should get you back into power real soon.
Posted by: WOW at January 03, 2009 11:50 AM (6oxG5)
28
WOW, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Everyone "knows" that civilians are just packed into Gaza, right? And the Israelis are armed with a full arsenal of modern weapons, from F-16s and cluster munitions to multiple launch rocket systems.
So, how many casualties have there been in the past five days? Five hundred? A thousand?
This must mean that the Jews are some of the most incompetent genocidal murderers out there, because with this massive arsenal of weapons, they can't kill more than 100-200 people a day! And this, with minimal anti-aircraft barrages and no SAMs from Hamas.
It almost raises the question, given this incredible level of incompetence, why Hamas hasn't liberated all of Israel by now!
That, or maybe your terms and concepts are wildly out of whack.
Naaaahhhhh.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at January 03, 2009 12:45 PM (6FBvO)
29
Moderate Palestinians?
I think they all left for more stable, secure places long ago. Only the terrorists and those too poor to leave are left now.
Posted by: AngryConservative at January 03, 2009 09:01 PM (jSsV8)
30
Nice try, Oyka. Sorry, but I for one refuse to play this game of goal-post shifting.
You start the fight, you're gonna have to pay for it.
The Palestinians fire rockets at the Israelis, they're going to pay for it. To throw the first punch (or several dozen or several hundred over several years) and then to cry "Foul!" because the other side shellacks you is nonsense.
If you break my little finger every week, does this mean that I am not allowed, after a year, to do more than break your little finger?
That is neither just, nor supporting the concept of deterrence.
That's just the philosophical problem w/ your "argument." That doesn't touch on just how many of those "civilians"
are Hamas (at least you admit that many of them are). That doesn't touch on how Hamas is based AMONG civilians. That doesn't touch on how Hamas refuses to allow wounded Gazans to get medical care
even in Egypt. (Whose fault is that, Oyka? The Zionists?)
By this "logic," the US should have stopped after the several thousand sailors killed at Pearl Harbor had been equaled by the number of Japanese killed?
But somehow, from your previous comments, I suspect you don't actually give a fig about the sons of apes and pigs. I don't think you give a fig about how Hamas brought the fire down upon Gazans, nor about how they have had no regard for Gazan casualties.
Which is why I won't bother wasting time with you.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at January 04, 2009 12:41 AM (Wrs4H)
31
Oyka,
Lurking is correct. If one country starts a war, no sane individual is going to listen to them when they complain about losing the very war they started.
If Mexico was shelling El Paso on a daily basis, I would expect that the USA would do more than just lob a few grenades back over the Rio Grande.
Posted by: Angry Conservative at January 04, 2009 06:40 AM (jSsV8)
32
Oyka, what would a "proportional" Israeli response look like? Should they just fire back into Gaza, rocket for rocket, mortar for mortar? Or should they just kill/maim a Gaza civilian for each Israeli that suffers the same fate?
Posted by: Pablo at January 04, 2009 12:45 PM (yTndK)
33
The only problem with the idea of putting the Palestinians elsewhere is that there is no Arab government that would be willing to accept them. They have already been booted out of Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt because they became involved in those countries internal political processes. Their purpose was to de-stabilize those countries, and install a Pro-Palestinian government. Needless to say, the rulers of those countries had some issues with such plans.
The fact that that Hamas-led Palestinians are openly associated with and backed by Iran (Persians, not Arabs), makes Arab nations even less likely to accept them.
Posted by: Dan at January 05, 2009 06:34 AM (bEM7/)
34
The Arabs in the other countries don't give a rat's arse for Palestinians...if they did, they would simply repatriate them willingly, but they don't care.
I say Israel goes all the way, wipes out Hamas and Fatah, and whoever wants to live in peace can live under Israeli rule. Their life will be astronomically better under their care than under the current terrorist regime who have done nothing to promote the well-being of Palestinians.
Posted by: Richard Romano at January 05, 2009 04:17 PM (kycO9)
35
"Hamas launches simple rockets that manage to kill few over a few years"
No doubt, a foolish, university educated leftist, taught well by his/her professors.
Posted by: Richard Romano at January 05, 2009 04:19 PM (kycO9)
Posted by: Henry at January 07, 2009 09:11 AM (2wkck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 30, 2008
IDF Starts Gaza YouTube Channel; Already Hit With Terms of Use Violations
The Isael Defense forces have
started a YouTube channel to show the precision and care they are taking in destroying Hamas terrorist weapons dumps smuggling tunnels, and rocket launching sites located in residential areas by the terrorists. Hamas places the sites among homes and school in hopes that innocent civilians—particularly children—will be killed. Hamas can then use Palestinian and Arab cameramen with sympathies towards their cause to take pictures of the dead and wounded civilians for Hamas' propaganda war, which is typically waged via cameramen from Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press.
Typically, as in the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, these photos are stage managed to varying degrees, while a few are occasionally staged.
Some photos are staged by physically manipulating scenes for news photographers to photograph, though the primary way Hamas manipulates the media is to tightly control their access, limiting photographers to areas where they can take generally only take pictures of dead and wounded civilians and Hamas &qout;police," never allowing them access to photograph bombed weapons smuggling tunnels, missile launching sites, and other legitimate military targets.
The IDF YouTube channel is a vital dissemination tool to counter the propaganda photos staged by Hamas and willingly participated in by the world's media outlets, and so it is perhaps no real surprise that the channel itself is already under attack.
Several of the videos showing the Isreali Air Force hitting Hamas rocket launching sites with GBU-39 precision-guided bombs have been flagged by pro-Hamas (or at least anti-Israeli) users and momentarily removed for terms of use violations before being restored. Some have been removed and have not been restored. Expect this online battle to continue, and perhaps intensify.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:57 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The American press has been doing the same thing to us for years, working the message till it no longer resembles the truth. The MSM is the counterpart to Hamas, Conservative websites are the counterpart to the IDF.
We have to teach our children how to go find the truth now. It does not appear at the simple flip of a TV on button.
Posted by: JK at December 30, 2008 12:37 PM (Z7PN0)
2
Seems like a "TrueTube" service is needed.
Posted by: Kevin at December 30, 2008 12:48 PM (roJck)
3
The IDF should start a channel at LiveLeak instead.
Posted by: Craig at December 30, 2008 12:51 PM (mEJO6)
4
As a beginning, you see the shortcomings of you tube.
The IDF needs to start a site owned by the Israeli government, hosted on hardware they own, and hooked up to backbone they control (leased to Israeli government)(, and protected from hackers by Israeli employees (government or contract)
If they can find reliable hosting elsewhere, they can always redirect the links later. (and if the hosting doesn't prove reliable they can take it back "inhouse").
Probably a distributed node network architecture, but all the hardware should be in Israel or Israel's embassies.
yanking utility service to embassies because you don't like what they are saying violates "international law".
Posted by: J'hn1 at December 30, 2008 12:55 PM (+A1UB)
5
Good to see the IDF following MNFIRAQ into cyberspace!
Posted by: desertdweller at December 30, 2008 12:58 PM (26nvS)
6
The IDF should start a channel at LiveLeak instead.
No, use both.
Demonstrating what YouTube won't show is just as important as the video itself.
Posted by: edh at December 30, 2008 12:59 PM (OjT5k)
7
Why doesn't the IDF just buy YouTube or start their own video hosting site. They could call it "JewTube"
(don't flame me, folks, it's just a joke. OK?)
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM (9UpXS)
8
there's an MIT website which features all video that's been deleted by YouTube -- called YouTomb -- available at youtube.mit.edu (I haven't yet checked the YouTomb site for any youtube deleted IDF videos).
Posted by: J.S. at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM (P7eMS)
9
correction: make that "youtomb.mit.edu" (for deleted YouTube videos).
Posted by: J.S. at December 30, 2008 01:03 PM (P7eMS)
10
"it's just a joke. OK"
and a funny one at that.
Posted by: Boyd at December 30, 2008 01:05 PM (0hVL5)
11
Ralph, it was a lousy joke.
Posted by: Graham at December 30, 2008 01:05 PM (lxgQ7)
12
That's what they did to me too. Censored by the Obamabots. This is a big problem that Google needs to figure out ASAP.
Posted by: cakesecret at December 30, 2008 01:05 PM (uUGtX)
13
The IDF YouTube channel will be back up and running momentarily.
The AP is now reporting that beautiful Mossad agents have infiltrated YouTube HQ, seduced the staff, and incapacitated them all with poisoned lipstick.
Posted by: driver at December 30, 2008 01:50 PM (25C9v)
14
They could also try Blip.tv
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at December 30, 2008 02:42 PM (UrQ4c)
15
What? The media is allowing itself to be manipulated by one side of a political argument? I'm shocked, shocked! What are professional journalists doing to maintain their independence? They are professionals, aren't they? Hello? Hello? Anyone there? Hello? Oh, boy....
Posted by: Ed at December 30, 2008 02:51 PM (PCF7a)
16
RE
don't flame me, folks, it's just a joke. OK?)
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM
It's a type of joke that an antisemite would make.
Posted by: TT at December 30, 2008 02:55 PM (1IhU+)
17
So much for "don't be evil".
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 30, 2008 03:21 PM (HG6DM)
18
It could also be a comment that a Jew might make. I see no harm.
Posted by: Eric at December 30, 2008 03:28 PM (rawx6)
19
the problem with the suggestions of other video hosting sites is that they don't get the traffic Youtube does. If the IDF wants a lot of people to see its material, especially people who aren't already pro-Israel, Youtube is the place to be.
On Youtube you can post a video as a response to another video. The IDF should do that with every jihadi video.
Posted by: Yehudit at December 30, 2008 03:33 PM (0Tzs7)
20
I agree with Yehudit. I think the public relations war is almost as important as the real war against Hamas.
The IDF cannot rely on the international media since they are being led by the nose and are only reporting one side.
So you will always get stories where the IDF are commiting atrocities while Hamas are freedom fighters. So the IDF needs to counterattack on land as well as in cyberspace.
Posted by: Joemama at December 30, 2008 04:30 PM (MIJuy)
21
I worked at Youtube owner Google for a year as a contractor. The political leanings of the majority of the employees was so extremely leftist that it was a bit uncomfortable for a moderate such as myself.
I am completely not surprised that the politics of the employees affects what is considered acceptable.
Posted by: Ogre at December 30, 2008 04:46 PM (mqYab)
22
There IS a website called "Jewtube.com" and it appears to have Jewish and Israeli related video content on it.
Posted by: Bob in Houston at December 30, 2008 05:08 PM (sSr5k)
23
I occasionally post vidblogs, and the most recent one I posted on YouTube was posted to be seen, but for some reason the "email" option was shut off (not because I did it...I tried to change it and it wouldn't let me). It was about the dangers of gun control. Friends had to pass it around the long way because YouTube deliberately shut off that feature for that particular vidblog.
Censorship takes many faces.
Posted by: MelMaguire at December 30, 2008 06:39 PM (sBm2i)
24
How would someone in their right mind still believe they would get a fair shake from youtube?
Is this an example of Israeli intelligence?
Posted by: papertiger at December 30, 2008 06:52 PM (VFSPG)
25
Does anyone know the link to the IDF channel?
Posted by: Jax at December 30, 2008 10:09 PM (evI68)
26
Two of the deleted IDF YouTube videos are now available via
Powerline. The site is sluggish and the videos load v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, probably because of the number of users attempting to view them.
The videos show the degree of care the IDF exercises in singling out active Hamas members, especially when compared to the indiscriminate rocket attacks by the terrorists.
Posted by: Just Askin' at December 30, 2008 10:11 PM (esv00)
27
I suspect that if you look at the terms of use very closely, you'll find that being a zionist, advocating zionism, and portraying zionism in a positive light are per se terms of use violations.
But there's nothing in there about chopping off heads.
Posted by: Deuce Geary at December 30, 2008 10:27 PM (rZoaz)
28
I saw something very interesting today on
current TV. That's Al Gore's network where they play homemade (and otherwise) videos that pass the youtube filters. Only 100% AP, Google, Youtube, DNC, approved content, all the time.
What I saw was a twenty minute spot devoted to a masked Hamas fellow building a rocket, then shooting it at Israel.
It was produced by Collective Media.
Posted by: papertiger at December 31, 2008 10:05 AM (8lx0N)
29
Videos of IDF striking Hamas
Here are some videos of the IDF bombing Hamas military targets. Reportedly, some of these videos have been removed from youtube.
Posted by: The Intellectual Redneck at December 31, 2008 10:27 AM (FMXM9)
30
Jihadi videos and antisemitic videos ok on you tube, pro Israel truthful videos verboten. Google should be ashamed of itself, but that would require a conscience.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at December 31, 2008 11:24 AM (qh8b9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 29, 2008
Meanwhile, Back in Iraq...
While everyone seems to have shifted their gaze to track Gazans reaping what they've sown, CY commenter
Big Country has been busy in Iraq, explaining to State Department VIPS how not to kill themselves and getting bombed... on tequila.
Kinda reminds me of a sandy version of Robert Earl Keen's Merry Christmas From the Family, with body armor.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:10 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Robert Earl is at least funny, this isn't. Maybe they do need tampons. Or something. I'm thinking Bloody Marys, because we all want one!
Posted by: Aubrey at December 30, 2008 12:01 AM (fir31)
2
Thanks for the link Bob... we're doing GREAT here in Baghdad, and the Morale is FANTASTIC!! The grunts KNOW we won, and it shows... email me when you can...
Posted by: Big Country at December 30, 2008 11:19 AM (vuy4X)
Posted by: buy soma at December 31, 2008 03:02 PM (EEaJJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 28, 2008
Because Monsters Are Always Monsters
From the "a zebra can't change its stripes" department comes
this lovely story.
Hamas officials say 271 Palestinians have been killed and 600 wounded since Israel began its aerial assault on the Gaza Strip on Saturday, but none of the injured have yet left via Rafah.
Egypt has helicopters and doctors on standby at the Rafah crossing.
There are also up to 40 ambulances waiting to go into Gaza to bring out the most seriously wounded. Tonnes of medical supplies have arrived at the nearby airport of El-Arish.
But the Egyptian authorities say that, at the moment, they have no-one to treat.
Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the wounded were "barred from crossing" and he blamed "those in control of Gaza" for putting the lives of the injured at risk.
The same terrorist organization that Palestinians and leftists worldwide cheer for targeting innocent Israelis for death on a daily basis is now barring their own civilians from getting medical care in hopes of converting their wounded into dead—wailing processions for the media's cameras are the only effective anti-aircraft weapons in Hamas arsenal.
Gazans fail at killing, and when the are killed in response, they kill the survivors. If there has ever been an entire population that is pathological than this one, I'd be interested in knowing who they were. Various Palestinian factions seem intent on this conflict continuing until one side or the other is completely wiped out.
And most times, they don't even seem to care which side.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:48 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Who is more pathological? Try the US Congress, who after damaged the economy by throwing good money after bad in Social Security, ruined the economy by doing the same thing in the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae mortgage scam. But don't worry, they have a cure; They will throw good money after bad in a trillion dollar stimulus package.
But they will, of course, increase taxes, because they need the money...
In the defense of congress they are merely co-opting the government to commit random acts of theft, rather than random acts of murder. Alas, the progression from lies, to theft, to enslavement, to torture, to murder will continue as we continue on the path of socialism.
Posted by: Don Meaker at December 28, 2008 11:02 AM (y2oBR)
2
Non sequitor in the house. So Don's argument is that Hamas isn't preventing their wounded from being treated, because he doesn't like US Congres?
That doesn't follow.
The mindset of Gaza is just insane. They were pretty boastful about throwing away the cease-fire, but I don't think they considered that cease-fires restrict both sides.
Posted by: brando at December 28, 2008 11:25 AM (gNIlp)
3
Hamas asked for it and now they're getting it. They really want to raise casualties amoung civilians to garner sympathy.....but at the rate muz have been pissing off the whole world, I wonder how much sympathy they'll get outside of liberal enclaves. Regular real people are cheering! Rock on Israel!!!
Posted by: Tonto at December 28, 2008 11:38 AM (Qv1xF)
4
Is it true that Hamas has legalized crucifiction???
Hamas is a group of cowardly terrorists who hide behind children and women, and they refuse to allow the injured civilians any medical aid, I am not surprised.
If crucification has been legalized then I must admit I am surprised and I wonder who they want to crucify.
My prayers are with Israel.
Posted by: duncan at December 28, 2008 01:44 PM (dmaed)
5
Not pathological, just evil. They chose to be led by evil, and they gave themselves over to hatred and violence. If there is ever a clearer line between good and evil than between Israel and the Palestinians, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 28, 2008 02:00 PM (HG6DM)
6
Am Digest links to a
Belmont Club piece saying what's said above ... only suggests there is a whole network of those who can't afford to see the conflicts end.
Perhaps so after watching this fiasco most of my life!
Posted by: John Gillmartin at December 28, 2008 04:47 PM (Vms1V)
7
Am Digest - http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AmericanDigest/~3/496837140/wretchard_on_mi.php - Belmont Club - http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/12/27/the-strike-on-hamas/#comment-50 - piece saying what's said above ... only suggests there is a whole network of those who can't afford to see the conflicts end.
Perhaps so after watching this fiasco most of my life!
Posted by: John Gillmartin at December 28, 2008 04:50 PM (Vms1V)
8
Few people today realize just who the so-called Paletstinians are. There is not now, nor has there ever existed a sovereign state known as Palestine.
The people who call themselves Palestinians today are the descendants of violent terrorists who refused (and still refuse) to accept Israel's right to exist. Most left Israel after its formation and sought refuge in places like Jordan. However, they turned out to be so violent and troublesome that Jordan didn't want anything to do with them and kicked them out.
Their former leader wasn't even from the Trans-Jordan (what eventually became Israel). Arafat was an Egyptian.
Golda Meier said it best, "When the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews, there will be peace".
Posted by: Da Possum at December 28, 2008 06:02 PM (g2f8B)
9
This just became news when Israel started defending itself. Where was the media when the terrorists were bombing Israel??
Posted by: Jeff of Peoria at December 29, 2008 07:10 AM (rSMKO)
10
Oh yeah...That's an easy one:
North Korea
Read Aquariums of Pyongyang and Reluctant Communist.
A well-sourced major motion picture about that screwed up nation would end up having credibility problems, because it would seem too much like fiction.
Really - read those books.
You'd think The Holocaust taught the world community some lessons --- I didn't...
Posted by: usinkorea at December 29, 2008 07:18 AM (O1meR)
11
One thing you can say for Hammas as opposed to Fatah or nearly any other gub in the ME, they were elected. And they did not conceal their nature from the electorate, nor was Fatah pitching Zionism or anything like it as an alternative. The Palistinians so-called did not merely vote for violence against Israel they chose the most violent faction of the jihadis on offer. To hell with the Palistinians, one and all. Let Israel bomb them from the border to the sea. When they have had enough of that let them demonstrate their good will by, say, declining to bomb Israel for six solid months. Failing this, drive them back where they came from; Jordan, Egypt and other dusty preserves of Islamic despoliation with lead and fire. They have aspired to nothing but the destruction of Israel, the murder of her babies, torture of her men and rape of her women. Kill them first. Kill them worse.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 29, 2008 12:20 PM (LF+qW)
12
"One thing you can say for Hammas as opposed to Fatah or nearly any other gub in the ME, they were elected."
So were Hitler and the National Socialist German's Workers Party (NAZIs)...
Posted by: Da Possum at December 29, 2008 01:09 PM (g2f8B)
13
I've been watching a lot of the main news channels and I noticed this didn't become news until Israel retaliated. Now it's a freakin' massacre? Where in the hell was the MSM when Hamas rained down rockets on Israel?
I just about can't stand it anymore- my grandma would say this right before she flung both hands in the air.
Posted by: southerngrace at December 29, 2008 01:55 PM (m+wgi)
14
>Who is more pathological? Try the US Congress
No, Hamas just legalized crucifixion.
Posted by: J.T. at December 31, 2008 04:06 PM (Iu0oa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bombed in 30 Minutes or Less, Or Your Next One's Free
Israel has finally responded to extensive rocket attacks targeting their civilians with a surprise series of air strikes yesterday against more than 100
Hamas terrorist targets. Air strikes are continuing today, and Israeli ground forces are
massing on the border with Gaza.
I'm sure that many people will think that an Israeli ground invasion is all but inevitable.
I also happen to think that Israel's next phase of strikes was banking on Hamas making just that supposition.
Israel's Saturday attacks went after overt Hamas targets in an effort to rattle their proverbial cages, hitting their most visible signs of power, Hamas security stations, armories, tunnels and training camps.
Hamas, trained and back by Iran just like Hezbollah was in 2006, was prepared and braced for a grinding ground war from fixed positions with concurrent and continuing rocket attacks on Israel, in hopes of winning the traditional Arab "victory," of not being utterly wiped off the face of the earth.
Hamas hoped to stall any Israeli ground invasion by making it as costly as possible by forcing Israeli units into ambushes. Overnight, Hamas rushed their terrorist drones to fighting positions along likely Israeli invasion routes to man tank traps and ambush zones. I strongly suspect IAF planners were counting on just that development.
If I'm right, Israeli Air Force planes have been hitting Hamas fortifications filled with eager young terrorists who died waiting for an invasion that will never come. Hamas was suckered into putting their fighters in combat positions while the IAF simply waited for them to show up for their pre-planned bombing runs.
If Gazans weren't part of a genocide-mad death cult I might feel sorry for them, but then I remember that these same terrorists purposefully target Israeli civilians, and that even their kids dance in the streets when Israeli woman and children are killed by Hamas rockets, and I don't feel too bad, at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:58 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.
1
War is cruelty; you cannot refine it. (General Sherman). The Gazans elected Hamas and cheered the deaths of innocent Israelis. They brought this on themselves.
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 28, 2008 01:39 AM (HG6DM)
2
"The Gazans elected Hamas and cheered the deaths of innocent Israelis. They brought this on themselves."
A real life example of: You get the government you deserve.
Posted by: firefirefire at December 28, 2008 06:18 AM (V8jYh)
3
This never ending conflict will go on and on and on. There simply is NO peaceful solution. Never has been, never will be.
Posted by: Dude at December 28, 2008 08:49 AM (byA+E)
4
It would be nice to wish that the Israelites would bomb the idiots into the stone age, but then I think, "it wouldn't be far to force them to modernize like that."
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 28, 2008 09:34 AM (OmeRL)
5
Who was the guy that said "The only thing dumber than a muz is two of 'em"? Brilliant! Hopefully, Israel will bomb, kill as many as possible that way and THEN march in and slaughter anything in their path like Joshua and his 40,000 did. That's the only answer to Hamas that makes sense. Unfortunately, good sense ain't PC, so they won't.....damn!
Posted by: Tonto at December 28, 2008 11:33 AM (Qv1xF)
6
Hamas is getting exactly what they wanted and then some. They are expecting their brothers in neighboring countries to attack Israel, especially Iran. Let's see if they are that stupid.
Posted by: Marc Boyd at December 28, 2008 02:18 PM (Zoziv)
7
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Today's lesson: War does indeed solve things and some people can only be dealt with by wiping them from the face of the Earth. In that category: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Al Queda, many of the Palestinians, North Korea, etc.
Posted by: Mike at December 28, 2008 04:08 PM (twYhW)
8
The Israelis are "presenting Darwin Awards" to all Hamas members willing to come forward and claim them. Pass the word.
Posted by: sherlock at January 02, 2009 03:32 PM (8V5Ut)
9
It continues to prove the famous quote when Israeli General Moshe Dayan was asked after the 1967 war what the secret of his succes was, and he responded "Fight Arabs".
Posted by: Georg Felis at January 02, 2009 11:02 PM (i5bRG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas, All
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:39 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
1
God bless us, every one. Boy do we need it.
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 25, 2008 03:09 AM (HG6DM)
Posted by: steveegg at December 25, 2008 09:27 AM (LvEFt)
3
Merry Christmas to all..God Bless the USA
Posted by: Dan Howell at December 25, 2008 10:20 AM (kgVKO)
4
To all the people whose blogs I follow and read... I just want you to really know that your blogs are absolutely life-changing. The Bible says, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". As you blog the truth and exercise free speech, you may think, "Oh, I'm just blogging. Other people out there are really making a difference in the world and changing lives." I have to tell you, quite honestly, reading the truth of your blogs has changed my life. It's changed my understanding, my perspective, and has really inspired change in me and in my life. I most truly and sincerely want to thank all of you... and I want you to know that your blogs are truly the power of truth that is lifechanging.
Thank you ever so much all of you. God bless you!! And I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and send you my love in Christ.
Love in Christ,
Merry Christmas,
Grace.
(aka Laura)
Posted by: l at December 25, 2008 01:10 PM (KquNY)
5
Merry Christmas CY, and a Happy New Year to you and yours.
Posted by: Dan Irving at December 26, 2008 09:19 AM (Kw4jM)
6
Thanks for calling it "Christmas", that's what it is. God bless all of you and a very Merry Christmas and PROSPEROUS New Year to you! God Bless America and God Damn the democrats!
Posted by: Tonto at December 26, 2008 01:37 PM (Qv1xF)
Posted by: tiffany jewelry at February 10, 2009 02:32 AM (zfzkt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 24, 2008
David Spade's Arms Deal
The former
Just Shoot Me star made a grand gesture to the Phoenix Police Department, giving them funds to equip their officers with AR-15 rifles to counter the firepower of increasingly violent Mexican drug cartels.
The thing is, Spade's donation doesn't seem to be going as far as it should.
The Phoenix Police Department has gotten some high-powered goodies courtesy of actor David Spade.
The one-time Phoenix resident donated $100,000 so that the department can buy approximately 50 AR-15 rifles.
Spade said he wanted to make the donation after seeing a TV news report about Phoenix officers having to buy their own rifles. Spade grew up in the Phoenix area and graduated from Arizona State University.
Phoenix Police Sgt. Alan Hill says the rifles will be given to patrol officers and that the agency was grateful for the gifts.
But how is Spade's donation of $100,000 leading to just 50 rifles for PPD patrol officers?
Even with the tremendous increase in demand due to the election of Barack Obama, the Phoenix Police should be able to get AR-15 carbines for far less than $2,000 a copy that the story seems to indicate.
The Bushmaster Patrolmans' Carbine, an M4-style AR-15 marketed to law enforcement, retails for less than $1,300, roughly the same as a similar version made by Smith & Wesson. And these are premium AR-style rifles at retail prices—there is no reason on the earth that a bulk agency purchase can't buy these rifles for less than a thousand dollars (the automatic M-16 has a replacement to the military of $586).
If Spade's donation is also helping purchase ammunition, magazines, cleaning kits, and/or officer training for these rifles as well, then he's not getting a bad value for his donated dollars. I would hope that his generous donation isn't being squandered on over-priced weapons, or the appearance of the same created by journalists guilty once again of not thoroughly covering a story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:21 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Bang for the buck aside (pun intended), that's a pretty cool bit of charitable work by Spade.
Posted by: Mike Gray at December 24, 2008 10:46 PM (fBnZs)
2
Will La Raza and MEChA now condemn Spade and call for a boycott of any movie in which he appears?
Posted by: zhombre at December 25, 2008 12:03 PM (w8VN7)
3
Phoenix PD should be able to get surplus M-16s from the DoD via DRMO, and the cost would be pennies compared to $2k a pop like I have seen reported.
Posted by: Mark at December 26, 2008 08:01 AM (lcisk)
4
More than likely this donation is being fleeced, as is often the case with govt. purchases.
Posted by: Dude at December 26, 2008 09:01 AM (byA+E)
5
...or maybe the rifles are equipped with some kind of scope or rail system. $2k doesn't sound unreasonable for a Patrolman's carbine + ACOG, for example. Let's hold off until we get the details.... and even if the money isn't being spent wisely, it's certainly not David Spade's fault.
Posted by: rosignol at December 26, 2008 07:42 PM (XMy8S)
6
Wouldn't Mini-14's be cheaper?
Posted by: PA at December 27, 2008 01:57 AM (Z0HFQ)
7
Let's hold off until we get the details....
Rots o' Ruck. That course of action doesn't seem to be the Right-Wing Echo Machine's strong suit.
The reporter undoubtedly asked the PPD public relations officer, "So what'll you get for $100,000?" And the guy said, "Approximately 50 AR-15 rifles." And now it's the reporter's fault. Why? Because he's a reporter. Nice, CY. And this New Media approach is better than the old one how...?
Posted by: Mike's Dumbmerica at December 27, 2008 08:56 AM (CwxZw)
8
And this New Media approach is better than the old one how...?
17.
Hey, ask a stupid question... ;-)
Posted by: Templar at December 28, 2008 05:53 PM (wfAl5)
9
Like Rosignol says, if they're getting models with multiple-rail forends and lights, etc., and good optical sights, they price goes up. Fast. Add in ammo, maintenance kits, spare parts(if they're smart), that cuts down on how many.
Of course, if they're getting basic rifles, that's WAY too expensive.
Posted by: Firehand at December 29, 2008 09:53 AM (oHcWz)
Posted by: tiffany jewelry at February 10, 2009 02:13 AM (zfzkt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Guns, More Jobs
Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economics professor and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan,
opines in the Wall Street Journal that an increase in defense spending would provide much-needed economic stimulus:
A temporary rise in DOD spending on supplies, equipment and manpower should be a significant part of that increase in overall government outlays. The same applies to the Department of Homeland Security, to the FBI, and to other parts of the national intelligence community.
The increase in government spending needs to be a short-term surge with greater outlays in 2009 and 2010 but then tailing off sharply in 2011 when the economy should be almost back to its prerecession level of activity. Buying military supplies and equipment, including a variety of off-the-shelf dual use items, can easily fit this surge pattern.
For the military, the increased spending will require an expanded supplemental budget for 2009 and an increased budget for 2010. A 10% increase in defense outlays for procurement and for research would contribute about $20 billion a year to the overall stimulus budget. A 5% rise in spending on operations and maintenance would add an additional $10 billion. That spending could create about 300,000 additional jobs. And raising the military's annual recruitment goal by 15% would provide jobs for an additional 30,000 young men and women in the first year.
Feldstein isn't pushing for the creation of radical complex new weapons systems with such a short-term spending increase, and so I'd encourage the incoming Obama Administration to use the proposal to stock up on upgrades in the small arms our frontline soldiers and Marines are using in the war against terrorism.
I'm not expert enough to try to sell any particular improvement as being any more important than another, but there are certainly several ideas worth considering one can come across without very much research at all.
In no particular order:
- Upgrading rifle and carbine magazines. A common reason our existing M16/M4 rifles experience jams is because of of magazine-related failures. Perhaps purchasing existing "off the shelf" magazines will work, or perhaps funding new R&D in this area is needed, but this seems like a good short-term project in-line with Feldstein's proposal.
- Upgrade the rifle and carbine operating systems. The M16/M4 has been knocked since it's inception for reliability issues due to its operating system, and multiple vendors have off-the-shelf upper receivers that are at least theoretically far more reliable, run cleaner, and cooler. While a program that is slated to end in 2011 won't (probably) give us enough time to make a revolutionary leap in small arms technology, such an evolutionary step seems warranted, could upgrade many front-line rifles, and be a good fit for the stimulus timeframe.
- Upgrade small arms ammunition. Advancements in small arms ammunition design means that we can field ammunition with bullets far more effective that that presently fielded as general issue. Special forces are using this ammunition and seem to be very impressed with its performance, so retooling and expanding production lines to take advantage of more effective cartridges seems a very wise use of stimulus money.
- R&D in news small arms systems. The M16/M4 design is older than the soldiers using it, and in this instance, older is not always better. Their is significant room for improvement creating a more compact, reliable, more accurate weapon with modular components that allow soldiers in the field to readily modify them for mission-specific requirements. The current 9mm M9 pistol simply bites, doing nothing well, so a more effective pistol is certainly needed. Non-frontline troops can become frontline troops in asymmetrical warfare in moments, so perhaps personal defensive weapon (PDW) systems with a rifle's range and armor-piercing capability and a submachinegun's compactness are certainly worthy looking at, and I can't believe existing first-generation MP7 and P90s are the only solution.
There are plenty of short-term small arms projects that can fit the proposal offered by Feldstein and serve as job-creating economic stimulus. Let's hope that incoming powers that be see the good-sense in his proposal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:35 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 5 kb.
1
There's a better chance of breathing in a vacuum, than Obama's administration increasing ANY spending in the defense field.
His known, vocal anti-gun stance, his videoed anti-defense spending speech all point exactly the other way with this idea.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 24, 2008 10:19 AM (M+Vfm)
2
A number of observers are equating Obama's attitude toward the military with that of Jimmy Carter's. Under Carter's administration, the military was allowed to languish--even atrophy--resulting in a significant decrease in capability and morale. It was only the coming of the Reagan administration that reinvigorated the service arms.
Provided he is true to his rhetoric--and this is questionable--Obama appears to be another Chamberlain, going the appeasement, let's talk, "peace in our time", route. Remember how well that worked out.
Unfortunately, those ignorant of history (and Obama has provided numerous illustrations of his capacity in this regard) are doomed to repeat it. They just don't believe the axiom applies to them.
I wish the new president success, since we're all on this ship together and there aren't enough lifeboats to go around. If he would take time to temper hope and change with a few good history books (Churchill's
History of the Second World War would be an excellent start) he might be a wiser and more successful president.
Here's "hoping".
Posted by: Just Askin' at December 24, 2008 11:01 AM (esv00)
3
It looks like Obama is ready to throw anything under the bus that might hinder his winning a second term. The left can be taken for granted but he will need new friends to secure a 60 seat Senate and more power. So we can't rule out anything he might do. He may be more Clinton than the Clintons.
Posted by: Gary Ogletree at December 25, 2008 07:00 AM (Ds+Q/)
4
I'm in agreement with all suggestions in the above list. I must, however, respectfully disagree with your assessment of the M9 pistol. I have the civilian version - Beretta 92 - and I find it to be a fine sidearm. Far better than the comparable Glock of the same era (late eighties) which I also own. I would advocate abandoning the 9mm cartridge in favor of the tried-and-true .45 caliber or the more modern 40mm round. Just don't make our soldiers use a Glock to fire it.
There's no accounting for taste, firearms-wise. It's like chocolate vs. vanilla. Or tase in women. Neither one is necessarily "Better" so much as just a matter of preference. Except when a chick has really big boobs. Nobody doesn't like that.
Posted by: Bryan Frymire at December 25, 2008 11:42 AM (2Nv0T)
5
"I would advocate abandoning the 9mm cartridge in favor of the tried-and-true .45 caliber or the more modern 40mm round. " 40mm ???
General timeline:
US adopts 9 mm. M9 pistol.
Later, government agencies adopt 10 mm/.40 calibers.
Still later, Special Ops adopts the "old fashioned" .45 caliber instead of the "more modern" 10 mm/.40 cal.
Posted by: jay stevens at December 25, 2008 01:08 PM (kdtAV)
6
Regarding M4 magazines: just adopt the steel ones the Brits made and put on the surplus market some years back. I have eight of them, none of which has ever malfunctioned.
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at December 25, 2008 01:33 PM (zoE1S)
7
I think a 40mm pistol would totally rock.
Nah. Not really. I just merged 10mm and .40 caliber rounds in my head and vomited forth the nonexistent "40mm pistol round". It is nonextistent - right?
Posted by: Bryan Frymire at December 25, 2008 04:44 PM (2Nv0T)
8
No, it exists, Bryan, it's just not generally available. I find mine an excellent backup for my phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 25, 2008 09:23 PM (Vcyz0)
9
A "new" military sidearm is an excellent idea. Last night after the kids left, I took apart my wife's grandfather's Colt Model 1911 - the one he was issued in world war one, serial No 259313. Complete disassembly requires no tools. The grip screw slots are concave rather than flat so that you can use the rim of a .45 caliber round to back them out. As you take parts off, they become tools! The hammer strut becomes a drift punch with which to remove the sear pin and mainspring housing pin. This 90 year old gun is accurate, simple, reliable and extremely effective.
I also have a Springfield Armory M1911-A1 Mil Spec that's fine except that they "improved" the design adding a kiddie lock in the back spring housing. I have parts on order to get rid of that annoyance. Fortunately, 1911 parts are pretty interchangeable.
John Moses Browning was a genius. If we gave the trigger pullers a choice between a Model 1911 and any 9 mm or .40 caliber handgun on the planet, I know what the smart ones would select.
Posted by: arch at December 26, 2008 01:38 PM (sWq1L)
Posted by: tiffany jewelry at February 10, 2009 01:35 AM (zfzkt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 23, 2008
What's the Difference Between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh?
Competence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:41 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
HAH! I linked to you here:
http://thewarpiper.blogspot.com/2008/12/to-point.html
Posted by: Warpiper at December 24, 2008 08:53 AM (AVokL)
2
The difference in the eyes of elite media is that Timothy McVeigh was a red neck, lived in a rural area, probably had a 4x4 with a gun rack and shot puppies. Bill Ayers, being from the city and left wing, my god he must be brilliant.
Posted by: Rick at December 24, 2008 09:42 AM (FWmwx)
3
McVeigh was honorable at one point in his life.
Posted by: Pablo at December 24, 2008 11:36 AM (yTndK)
4
Bill Ayers is alive and Tim McVeigh is dead.
Posted by: GEJ at December 24, 2008 03:53 PM (g2f8B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 22, 2008
Cowed by Sheep
Yes, we've read this elsewhere, but seeing it on the Fox News front page only makes it seem all that much more
pathetic:
President-elect Barack Obama has shown almost perfect pitch in crafting his new administration, aptly choosing old hands instead of fresh faces and bringing in the experience he lacks.
But there is one glaring void. Obama has yet to name key intelligence officials to manage the war against terrorism.
And one of the central reasons he hasn't come forward with a pick for one of the top jobs is because he's running into pressure from an unexpected source -- left-wing bloggers.
John Brennan, Obama's chief intelligence adviser and anticipated CIA chief, was recently forced to withdraw his name. There was no drumbeat of opposition to Brennan from the front pages or on cable. Rather, the pick was torpedoed by the blogosphere.
"Apparently there is a lot of pressure on the Obama team from a blog saying that Brennan couldn't be made the director of the CIA because he was involved in torture and renditions, which he wasn't," said Mark Lowenthal, former assistant CIA director.
The turn of events only emphasizes the influence of the Internet on the operation of a president-elect whose campaign was powered in large part by the Web.
It makes sense for politicians to hire staff that understand modern communications, but quite another to let themselves be cowed by the conventional wisdom of Ignorati who typically base their worldview upon carefully self-selected news and partisan half-truths that often shape the blogosphere.
As this report makes clear, Brennan had little or nothing to do with the interrogation methods that the far left has worked themselves into a hissing frenzy over. Nevertheless, the incoming Obama Administration cowered in the face of unreasoning mob rule and allowed fictional offenses to derail a candidates that actual experts felt was well-qualified and perhaps just the person needed at this specific position.
Our real enemies must certainly be licking their lips at the gift they were given by the American electorate.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:38 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ignorati who typically base their worldview upon carefully self-selected news and partisan half-truths that often shape the blogosphere.
Like taking the word of a former assistant CIA director for anything.
Posted by: Malignant Bouffant at December 22, 2008 11:58 PM (ZOEFb)
2
Licking their lips,do I hear another bitter repub, The American Electorate gave them 5 of the last 7 elections. The last I knew our Governments not smaller,and und er their expert management were ready for The Great Depression part 2. Also it's your side as usual that lies distorts and has hissy fits!!!
Posted by: D Casey at December 23, 2008 03:26 AM (qm1Mm)
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 23, 2008 06:44 AM (HG6DM)
4
I thought Obama was one who did not judge by rumours and innuendo, as he certainly did not like rumours about himself and made sure a website was created to counter any "lies". Now he deserts someone based on falsehoods? He listens to blogs? This is not a President but a puppet. Hard choices and representing all the people, and upholding the Constitution is his job - he has failed miserably. I did not vote for Obama because I felt he was more of a celebrity than a man of any conviction. He has now proved it.
Posted by: Krystal at December 23, 2008 07:46 AM (D2TAc)
5
"the incoming Obama Administration cowered in the face of unreasoning mob rule"
A preview of things to come? I'm afraid it is.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at December 23, 2008 12:10 PM (oba11)
6
Do you fools not understand that Allah (swt) is bringing humiliation and economic disaster upon you because you are warring against Him and His servants? Do you really not understand that your corrupt man-made economic and political systems have always been doomed to failure?
President Obama will convene a Constitutional Convention (only two more states must call for such a convention). He will replace the man-made and discredited Constitution by Allah's (swt) law (Sharia), thus establishing the United Islamic States of America. The recovery will then begin.
Stop oppressing Muslims. Stop opposing the inevitable triumph of Islam. Embrace Islam now and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Posted by: American Muslim at December 23, 2008 03:20 PM (HSBLY)
7
Unamerican Mohammedan:
Die in a fire. 3000 did so at your hands on 9/11; it's only fair that the favor is returned.
Posted by: salfter at December 23, 2008 04:23 PM (JBKww)
8
Mohammed or whatever it is you're calling yourself, know this:
The day you come to my house to attempt to force me to submit to Sharia law, is the day you die.
Just so you know, I'll have dipped all my bullets in hog fat.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 23, 2008 05:38 PM (M+Vfm)
9
D. Casey 12/23 3:26
Re: The Great Depression part 2
The credit crises prime mover was FannieMae & FreddieMac. Both government sponsored entities were created by Democrats who also obstructed stronger regulation. I assume you do remember Barack Obama's advisor, Franklin Raines, informing congress that these subprime investments were riskless. You remember that don't you?
Posted by: Rick at December 23, 2008 06:27 PM (FWmwx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 21, 2008
Good News: BB Guns Now Classified By Journalist as Assault Rifles
I sincerely hope than any journalist ignorant enough to write "BB-gun" and "snipers" in the same sentence doesn't have firearms of his own, or else he'll likely end up as another subject of my research at the
Media Violence Project (or a
Darwin Awards candidate).
Savor the idiocy:
Two alleged BB-gun snipers facing felony charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, used a laser scope and a BB gun that looks like a fully automatic AR-15 assault rifle, according to deputies with the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station.
The arrests Tuesday night capped a two-month shooting spree with more than two-dozen shootings investigated since Nov. 1.
Victims include a 53-year-old man shot in the head and a 13-year-old girl waiting for a bus, both shot with a BB.
Christian Morfin, 18, of Saugus, and a 17-year-old Canyon Country male were booked at the Sheriff's Station on felony charges of vandalism and assault with a deadly weapon in connection with several shootings.
BB guns are not toys and some air rifles can fire BBs or pellets with more velocity than common handgun calibers. They can indeed kill under certain circumstances. That said, BB guns are not assault rifles even under the already incorrect definition widely used by journalists; do we really need them to re-dumb it downward again?
Update: More evidence that many journalists are simply too incompetent to write about firearms.
In April, officials announced that the police force's 13,500 officers would be armed with the M4s. Chicago Police SWAT teams are already equipped with M4 carbines, but officials say pistol-carrying rank-and-file officers are out-gunned.
Used by the U.S. Marine Corps, the M4 is an assault rifle that fires more shots in less time than a conventional handgun.
The obvious problems with Donovan's story:
- M4 carbines are not commonly used by the U.S. Marine Corps. With the exception of Special Operations forces, the general issue selective combat rifle of the Marine Corps is the M16, a weapon with a barrel almost six inches longer that generates far more bullet velocity and killing power and has a far more effective practical range. The much shorter M4 is prevalent among mounted infantry in the U.S. Army.
- The M4 does not "fires more shots in less time than a conventional handgun." Both police pistols and the M4s used by the CPD are semi-automatic, meaning they have the exact same rate of fire, one shot per trigger pull, as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:45 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Good News: BB Guns Now Classified By Journalist as Assault Rifles
Well, not so much (emphasis mine):
a BB gun that
looks like a fully automatic AR-15 assault rifle
Posted by: Mike's Dumbmerica at December 21, 2008 04:22 PM (CwxZw)
2
You have got to be kidding me!
I have known a couple folks who were so rabidly anti gun and that they went so far as to ask neighbors if they were gun owners. Then they forbid their children from visiting or talking to the "offenders". They had a boy about my age, and my brother and I took him out shooting with us for a couple years, before they found out. They MOVED!
The offenders above were not supervised nor imparted with any moral values by their parents. My Dad did both with us boys. We had BB guns and a Pellet pistol when we were young. About Jr High, my Dad gave us a real gun. It was a .22 Remington single shot. My point is that the parents should have been taken to task.
I went on to score Marksman in the service.
Posted by: Marc Boyd at December 21, 2008 04:38 PM (Zoziv)
3
Well, you CAN shoot your eye out, you know. or so I've heard.
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 21, 2008 04:47 PM (HG6DM)
4
Can you tell what the media is blowing hot air up? Where it all headed?
The interesting thing is the Heller decision put those black rifles at the top of the protected list, ie the citizen militia's arms.
Posted by: bill-tb at December 21, 2008 06:05 PM (7evkT)
5
Damn. When I think of all the BB gun wars we used to have as kids, little suspecting we were actually shooting each other with assault weapons. I was hit numerous times being a little slower than some of the older kids and don't seem to have suffered any lasting injuries.
But seriously, if a writer is going to write on a subject, he should at least take some effort to do just a little research.
Posted by: Outrider at December 21, 2008 07:06 PM (eu/JN)
6
Bob:
Not to correct you per se, but the M-4, once the forte of SpecOps kids, is NOW the ubiquitous battle rifle here in Iraq.
Reason being is that the size of the full length M-16A2 variant was becoming a danger to the troops in the need for quick dismounting in firefight situations. The Shorty 14.5 Barrel and collapsable stock allows "Joe" to manuveur quickly out of a HMMWV as they are so encumbered by body armor and "Battle Rattle" that a full length "musket" as the A2 is jokingly refered to is a bit@h to get out of the truck with, as it can get hung up easier than a 14 inch 'Shorty.'
Otherwise, Live In Baghdad, Merry Christmas and God Bless the Troops!
Big Country
Posted by: Big Country at December 21, 2008 11:16 PM (vuy4X)
7
BB guns are not assault rifles even under the already incorrect definition widely used by journalists; do we really need them to re-dumb it downward again?
Well, you might try working on your reading comprehension first.
Two alleged BB-gun snipers facing felony charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, used a laser scope and a BB gun that looks like a fully automatic AR-15 assault rifle, according to deputies with the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station.
Notice that: (a) it doesn't say the gun
is an assault rifle, it says it
looks like an assault rifle, and (b) the description doesn't even come from the reporter but is attributed to the Sheriff's office. (I suppose you can quibble over whether a "fully automatic AR-15" is an AR-15 or an M-16, but, again, you'll have to take it up with the Sheriff.)
Posted by: Kevin T. Keith at December 21, 2008 11:47 PM (kIjU7)
8
Kevin, perhaps you shouldn't question the reading comprehension of others, when you can't grasp that the article's headline was "Alleged BB gunmen collared: Teens had assault rifle."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 22, 2008 12:35 AM (HcgFD)
9
Guns don't kill people. . . I lay my guns all the time and dare them to do so, but they just lay there and do nothing -
Posted by: Douglas V. Gibbs at December 22, 2008 12:36 AM (CPdDV)
10
Wadda ya expect? Libtards HATE (shudder) guns, so there is no surprise that the frantic jibbering of uninformed, ignorant journalists pops up in almost every media item out there. The problem is, they transfer that hysteria to that part of the equaly ignorant sheeple out there too.
Posted by: Tonto at December 22, 2008 01:17 AM (Qv1xF)
11
The media loves to whip people up in a frenzy over guns. There was a story printed on the Fox News website in the last few months reprinted from The Daily Mail (UK) that described a man being "gunned down" by a "gas-powered ball bearing pistol". Took me a second to realize they were talking about a BB gun.
Posted by: Mike Gray at December 22, 2008 01:43 AM (fBnZs)
12
I was raised around weapons, as were my siblings. A weapon is a tool, which, if improperly used can be harmful. No different than a circular saw.
I have two daughters, now grown, that I put through a 2 day handgun self defense - safety course while they were still teenagers. I also bought them each a 40 S&W sidearm.
My sister, like most anti gun people, felt that her son should be kept insulated from guns, which means he never had any training or contact with firearms.
A short time after my daughters took their firearms course, my sister left her 16 year old son at home while visiting relatives. A friend of her son brought over a revolver over to her house and they played Russian roulette.
He lost.
Sometimes it is simple stupidity or ignorance that kills people.
Posted by: ex-wyo at December 22, 2008 01:50 AM (otiKq)
13
If you look at what the Brady Gun Control advocates want, my Browning SA22 is an assault rifle because it is semi automatic, has a pistol grip and a 12 round 22 LR magazine.
The press are fanning the counterintuitive public hysteria over firearms and ignoring the facts. This month's American Rifleman has a piece about the 2007 FBI crime statistics - lowest in 30 years, lowest homicide rate in 40 years. Amazingly, there is a direct correlation between crime and gun bans. Where criminals know their victims have been disarmed by the law, they commit violent crimes with impunity. In states with right to carry laws, they are more cautious.
Posted by: arch at December 22, 2008 08:37 AM (sWq1L)
14
Today's so-called "journalists" are very careless with words. This was demonstrated recently in an on-line news story that featured a photograph of a U.S. Navy fleet oiler. The caption beneath the photo identified it as a "battleship".
My late father started my firearms instruction when I was six. Upon going through Navy boot camp firearms familiarization (I won't call it "training"), I hit the bullseye with every round. My instructor stared at me for a moment and then asked: "Who taught you to shoot?" When I told him my dad had trained me since I was a kid, he looked down the firing line for a moment and said: "We could use him here."
The majority of newspeople today have zero firearms experience. They
fear firearms, and it's easy to demonize what you fear. A few weekends on the range with a good instructor would change a lot of attitudes. Well, at least perhaps modify a few.
Posted by: Just Askin' at December 22, 2008 08:59 AM (esv00)
15
Kevin, perhaps you shouldn't question the reading comprehension of others, when you can't grasp that the article's headline was "Alleged BB gunmen collared: Teens had assault rifle."
Zing!
Headlines are those big bolded things at the top of the article.
That made my morning. I know a bunch of rabid anti-gun folks, and they have some weird logic.
Posted by: brando at December 22, 2008 09:31 AM (qzOby)
16
Window glass doesn't fare well under sustained BB gun fire...or so I've heard.
Posted by: torabora at December 22, 2008 10:02 AM (chZf8)
17
Essayons, that is actually true. Semiautomatic weapons have the exact same rate of fire.
If they're talking about the the number of BBs that can be fired before a "reload", well, that's just silly.
Cause that's what we're talking about isn't it? A BB gun. Nothing more. No, you really shouldn't shoot someone with a BB gun, but to get wrapped around the axle about what it looks like is goofy. It doesn't matter if it looks like a Dragunov. Or if it has 10 laser sights. It's just a BB gun.
You couldn't even call it "magizine capacity" when it comes to a BB gun. It's just however many you can pour in. "OMG, the BB gun has a magizine capacity of 42!"
Posted by: brando at December 22, 2008 12:07 PM (qzOby)
18
Actually I disagree Brando. Though you can not easily kill someone with a BB gun, it is still a very violent act and can send someone to the ER. We had a couple of kids here doing something like this and seriously hurt one of my friends. The kids should be put away.
Posted by: David Caskey at December 22, 2008 05:03 PM (7+boT)
19
From the description, this is not a standard BB gun, it is airsoft. While still painful and potentially dangerous, these shoot plastic bbs and not metal ones.
Yes, they still do damage but this is sheer sensationalism and irresponsible journalism. Something that seems to be the norm now.
Stupid kids doing stupid things but not something that requires a felony charge. Talk about overreaction!
Posted by: 6Kings at December 23, 2008 10:48 AM (5ghEP)
20
CY,
Firstly - Reporters, from what I understand, seldom write the headlines to their stories. To be accurate you should blame the headline editor for this stupid connections.
Second - You made your accusation in your headline but didn't provide evidence in your article as to the bb gun and assault weapon connection. IMO, you should put your evidence for your charge in your article and I think Kevin was correct to call you on it. I hardly ever click through to linked articles, I don't like to give them the traffic, so it comes off as you are the one with a connection problem.
Thirdly - Are you trying to say someone cannot snipe with a bb gun?
Posted by: Al at December 23, 2008 12:49 PM (ZGtxz)
21
You *think* that Kevin was correct? And you base it on the fact that *you* don't bother to read, and how it "comes off" to you? That's not how a logical argument is constructed.
That's just Appeal to Ignorance.
Well, Kevin was incorrect. The article was incorrect about the Assault Weapon. And you're incorrect to defend it. BB guns aren't assault weapons no matter how you slice it. CY knows it, I know it, and I think that even you know it.
Posted by: brando at December 23, 2008 02:08 PM (qzOby)
22
Icono,
Exactly my thoughts.
I have no qualms with CY calling the headline to task. In fact, more power to him. The part of the story quoted was clean, is all I'm saying.
If you are going to castigate someone, put the money quote in your article.
Brando,
I don't know what your problem is, but I did read CY's blog post/article. He just didn't back up his claim in his article with the money quote. So I agree with Kevin's read of the article. Go and try to insult me all you want but that won't change CY's problem with his article.
Merry Christmas
Posted by: al at December 24, 2008 09:48 PM (vx3qK)
23
6kings - If that's really an airsoft gun than a halfway decent lawyer will get the assault with a deadly weapon charge thrown out of court. The only way it's deadly is if you stick the barrel down someone's throat and force them to choke on the BBs or asphyxiate from the excess CO2.
Posted by: ravenshrike at December 26, 2008 12:34 PM (C63A/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 20, 2008
Name That Loon
Oh, I just love the paranoid.
A computer professional by the name of Mike Connell with close ties to the President died when the single-engine airplane he was piloting went down on final approach three miles short of the Akron-Canton Airport Friday. Connell played a key role in several conspiracy theories cherished by the far left, and his death immediately led to not-so-subtle claims that his death might not have been an accident.
Folks, there is nothing quite as amusing as the stone-crazy BDS-afflicted attempting to temper their psychosis with just enough deference towards sanity to avoid completely marginalizing themselves. And then there are those who see the line between sanity and insanity and charge leap over it with a hearty, "tally-ho!"
You can feast on all the frothing you want via Memeorandum, and it certainly is fun to watch the contortions. Ringleader of the Circus of Crazy is once again Larisa Alexandrovna, the same the same Raw Story "journalist" that insisted President Bush was plotting an imminent coup.
I feel sorry for these people. When January 20 rolls around and no one is left to oppress them, what will they have to live for?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:46 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I read it. He stated he was threatened and afraid to a judge?? I won't write it off immediately as just coincidence. Never know. Many politicians, quite basically, ARE organized crime at a certain level.
Posted by: l at December 21, 2008 12:45 AM (KquNY)
2
What will they have to live for? Easy. They'll simply transfer their hatred to Sarah Palin. She probably killed Connell with her Mind Rays of Eeeee-vil, dontcha know.
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 21, 2008 12:50 AM (HG6DM)
3
Connell has just tied the low altitude flying record.
Posted by: arch at December 21, 2008 09:21 AM (sWq1L)
4
thaks... I really needed a good laugh.
Posted by: atadoff at December 21, 2008 09:52 AM (CDlXe)
Posted by: atadoff at December 21, 2008 09:54 AM (CDlXe)
6
Is Larisa a Putin plant to undermine the President?
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at December 21, 2008 10:40 AM (qh8b9)
7
I love the one by Larisa Alexandrovna, who keeps repeating over and over that she is not speculating about any sort of conspiracy. She isn't saying it, but, she is thinking it loudly.
Posted by: William Teach at December 21, 2008 10:46 AM (7yTel)
8
Did Jason Leopold assist on Larisa's story or perhaps porky Scott Horton. Horton's alway's good for spreading baseless conspiracy theories which Congressional Democrats love to investigate and the news media splash on page one. These people have no shame.
Posted by: daleyrocks at December 21, 2008 12:33 PM (odYIP)
9
Did Jason Leopold assist on Larisa's story or perhaps porky Scott Horton. Horton's alway's good for spreading baseless conspiracy theories which Congressional Democrats love to investigate and the news media splash on page one. These people have no shame.
Posted by: daleyrocks at December 21, 2008 12:34 PM (odYIP)
10
Oh, man, I have run across this story all over the Left-o-sphere, and very few are saying "folks, there is no conspiracy." They all want some sort of extra special investigation, just to "make sure." I wouldn't be surprised if this story grows serious legs on the left side over the next week or 2.
Of course, since very few of them bother mentioning Christmas, it gives them something to talk about.
Posted by: William Teach at December 21, 2008 03:29 PM (7yTel)
11
Oh, you know it, Teach.
Why, all those liberal blogs have just killed X-mess, because it's certainly never mentioned in the liberal elite bias media, or any of their advertising.
And the libs aren't talking enough about unicorns & elves & fairies in the sky, either. What's wrong w/ those people?
Posted by: Malignant Bouffant at December 22, 2008 05:30 PM (ZOEFb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 16, 2008
Closure? Adam Walsh Murder Case Closed After 27 Years
Ottis Toole, always a suspect, has officially been
named as the murderer of Adam Walsh. Walsh was killed and decapitated in 1981, and Toole signed a confession in 1983 that he later recanted. Toole, a convicted serial killer, died in prison in 1996. The case is now finally closed after all these years.
If you're much younger than I am—say under 30—you may not know much about his disappearance and murder, but you still live in a world profoundly touched by the Adam's kidnapping and murder, in ways big and small.
Adam's death spurred his parents to help create the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
In addition, President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 to help track sex offenders.
John Walsh has helped put over a thousand fugitive behind bars as the host of America's Most Wanted. Copycat programs by local news media and law enforcement agencies have netted thousands of fugitives more.
Walmart named the nearly ubiquitous "Code Adam" missing child alert they created after him. If you've ever had a child wander away in a store, it is this procedure that locks the store down and hopefully keeps predators from being able to escape with them. Pictures of missing kids on milk cartons. Dedicated missing persons units in large police departments. Increased security in schools, malls, and elsewhere. All have their roots in the agony of the Walsh family, and their tireless advocacy to try to make sure that other families don't have to experience what they did.
I'm certain there is never real closure with the death of a child, but perhaps knowing that Adam's case is finally closed can bring some peace to a family that has done so much to keep others from feeling a similar loss.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.
1
For better or worse the Adam Walsh murder and John Walsh's crusade afterward were also a big part of creating the climate of much greater fear that parents and children live in today. Studies have shown that the control parents expect to maintain over their children's activities is vastly higher today than 30 years ago. Children are taught a high level of suspicion and fear of strangers as well. The loss of a child is a horrific thing - but I would argue that the cost to children in terms of cultural changes in order to avoid events that actually are extemely rare has been high.
Posted by: Gasminder at December 17, 2008 06:25 AM (sKYE9)
2
One thing was never in question with Toole - he was a sick pervert, one of the most disgusting characters to gain attention in the 20th century. My question is why suddenly have authorities decided a man who died in '96 who lied every chance he got, confessed and recanted to this crime and was partners to one of the biggest liar/recanters (Henry Lee Lucas) in the annals of murder... why do we suddenly decide "he's the one"? I've read numerous accounts of this "late breaking story" and not one has revealed what solid evidence finally brings them to this conclusion. I would think the only thing to ease my mind as a parent would be DNA evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt but all accounts I see say all DNA evidence was long gone. Any answers?
Posted by: Don Welles at December 17, 2008 06:53 AM (cbDKt)
3
Don Welles, that has been my question, too. No mention of why now, it has just been "case is closed."
Posted by: Stoutcat at December 17, 2008 09:43 AM (kKdtK)
4
From the reports I've seen/read, the closure of this case is due to a new police chief in the controlling jurisdiction (Hollywood, I think). He took a look at the still open case, read the file, and drew "obvious conclusions".
Posted by: PhyCon at December 17, 2008 10:27 AM (4od5C)
5
Aside from the closure the Walch family may be experiencing, the fact that the rate of murderers caught is even worse than it was in 1969. Even with all the techno advances we see on CSI TV programs, only 61% of murders are solved nowadays vs, 93% back in 1969. The numbers are troubling although I'm very happy that we still continue to get these bad guys off the street.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at December 17, 2008 12:49 PM (Qv1xF)
6
To say that John Walsh is responsible for the higher level of suspicion in today's culture is ridiculous. It's the evil that has arisen in this increasingly sex-obsessed and violent culture that has caused REASONABLE response of suspicion. Do you lock your doors at night?? Why?? Because of John Walsh?? Or because of the very REAL threat of someone committing a crime??
That's such a copout to blame the victims and the victim-advocates instead of the criminals for the rise in suspicion and awareness.
Maybe you could think it through and apologize. Please don't blame the victims. Blame the criminals.
God bless the Walsh family.
Posted by: l at December 17, 2008 08:58 PM (KquNY)
7
If anyone's interested, there's an account from someone who worked with John Walsh over at Grand Rants:
http://grandrants.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/adam-walsh-report-whats-wrong-with-this-story/
Posted by: Stoutcat at December 18, 2008 12:03 PM (kKdtK)
8
how can you close a case withiut the body of
the child? i would want to know where my childs
body is ,so i can put him to rest before
closing the case
Posted by: kelly mills at December 18, 2008 05:40 PM (xs+31)
9
"Maybe you could think it through and apologize. Please don't blame the victims. Blame the criminals."
Please try to read the comment before criticizing. I did not blame the victims, I said "For better or worse the Adam Walsh murder and John Walsh's crusade afterward were also a big part of creating the climate of much greater fear that parents and children live in today" and I stand by that statement.
Further - I'd argue that there is no greater risk today than there was 30 years ago - instead there is a greater PERCEPTION of risk due to the enhanced media coverage which was driven in SOME part by the events described.
And in answer to your question - no I do not lock my doors as night even though I reside in the 4th largest city in the nation. Never got in the habit due to a rural upbringing and haven't started it now due to my opinion that locks just keep honest people honest. If someone wants in your house they will enter it - however if I am at home they are quite unlikely to leave it in a vertical position.
Posted by: Gasminder at December 19, 2008 11:35 AM (sKYE9)
10
Sincerely,
I hope that the discovery of adam walsh"s killer will bring closer to that murder case, and that all the work that Americas most wanted has done over the years will be recognized, and that John Walsh can be seen as a crusader and a fighter for the rights of crime victims,
Truely,
Bob Cline
Posted by: bob at December 22, 2008 02:05 AM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 15, 2008
Proofers Dismissed Again
As they did last week, the U.S. Supreme Court today dismissed without comment a case challenging Barack Obama's citizenship based upon a claim that he was not born a U.S. citizen.
A blogger who knows a bit more about the Court than I explains why:
In his appeal, Wrotnowski claimed that because Obama's father was a Kenyan-born British subject, the president-elect does meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in the United States.
Many legal analysts questioned Wrotnowski's argument.
"The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen," said Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com Web site and a lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the high court. "And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother."
This dismissal is unlikely to dampen the hostility of those who oppose Obama based upon various citizenship conspiracies, some of which are represented in still active cases.
I'm sticking with the same position that I've held: I think Obama is a citizen, but that he could diffuse a lot of the Proofers if he worked with the State of Hawaii to release of his long-form vault copy birth certificate to a review by independent documentation experts. I'm also just as certain that Obama won't take that step for a multitude of reasons, most of which have to do with his arrogance, and not being somehow unqualified due to the circumstances of his birth.
For someone who cultivated a myth of being a post-partisan candidate, he sure seems intent on antagonizing the frazzled of fringe of both ends of the political spectrum.
Considering how slowly the Secret Service responded to events in Baghdad, that might not be such a wise idea.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:56 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.
1
LEROY JENKINS!!!11!
OK, the HI flunkies swear on a stack of bibles he was born there and are willing to poop out a COLB saying so, BFD. I don't trust their word as far as I can spit, but, ok for argument's sake, let's say He was born in HI and was a natural citizen in 1961. What about the claim he had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend public school there? Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship, raising the problem of renouncing/defaulting on US citizenship IOT attend school in Indonesia. Naturalizing upon return leaves one inelligable for the office of POTUS no? We deserve an answer.
How did he get a passport that would get him into Pakistan when US citizens were restricted from travel there? What is on that passport? We deserve an answer.
Renouncing US citizenship to go nancing about Indonesia, Pakistan and Kenya in a sheet with a towel on your head? Fine, knock yourself out. Want to be POTUS after that? FUCK YOU!! The rules say you can't. US citizenship is one of the most precious goals on this planet and if you want to take it that lightly, well, the risk is you can't be POTUS, DEAL.
What is going to happen in this country two years into his reign when Indonesia or Kenya begin pressuring the US president for military/taxpayer intervention in Africa based on his newly discovered dual citizenship and familial responsibilities to his half brother living in a mud hut on $12.00 a year? You geniuses thought about that yet?
This question should have been lined out months ago and our entire corps of corrupt lazy pols let it get to this point. It all starts with the long-form birth record.
OT, the state of HI does not accept the COLB for land purchase deals for indiginous peoples. Only the long form BC will do because only the long form establishes parental lineage.
I give in that the higher (slightly) percentage is on the side of HI birth legality. I think it likely that somewhere along the line he played loose with the rules and as a result it can be interpreted that he forfeited his natural born US rights. Somewhere in his long form BC, school records or passport trail may lay the answer. It may not. Either way, we deserve to know. It starts with the HI birth certificate.
And this makes me a Troofer? I don't think so.
Posted by: Smokin at December 16, 2008 07:43 PM (BZfBT)
2
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II "natural born citizen" based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a "citizen" born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II "natural born citizen".
Posted by: Ted at December 17, 2008 02:41 AM (5MSHI)
3
Ted,
Can't find the '.' on your keyboard?
Posted by: Todd at December 17, 2008 06:16 AM (AOW76)
4
"the people and/or the military will."
What??? You hoping for a coup???
Get some perspective, Ted. Barack Obama, natural born US citizen, born to a US citizen mother on US soil, has been duly elected President of the United States.
I think the voters made a big mistake, and I think Obama's an arrogant jerk, but, hey, that's how a democracy works, and now he's going to take office on January 20.
And there will be no military coup to remove him from office.
Posted by: notropis at December 17, 2008 11:16 PM (81VGH)
5
Bob, Obama won't produce this because he feels he doesn't have to answer silly questions that have been clearly adjudicated. This is quite similar to tax protestors who use the same arguments continually in federal court to "prove" why they shouldn't file a 1040. The same arguments are used, are slapped down repeatedly, and the plaintiffs get fined for frivolous lawsuits. The arguments still continue, though.
Posted by: Brad S at December 18, 2008 09:53 AM (X/d4D)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2008
Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush in Baghdad
The Secret Service was apparently
taking a nap:
Bush got a size-10 reminder of the fervent opposition to his policies when a man threw two shoes at him -- one after another -- during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"This is the end!" shouted the man, later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadiya television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.
Bush ducked both throws. Neither leader was hit. In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt; Iraqis whacked a statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes after U.S. Marines toppled it to the ground in 2003.
"All I can report," Bush joked of the incident, "is a size 10."
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, however, was hit in the eye with a microphone as security guards scrambled to restrain al-Zeidi.
I saw the video of the event in NBC in a breaking news report, and was stunned that the Secret Service was so slow in responding, allowing the journalist to hurl first one shoe, and then another, at least a full second and perhaps several seconds later.
Granted, shoes aren't know to be lethal projectiles, but my point is that from the angle shown, he seems like he would have had time to hurl a grenade before anyone intervened.
I'm sure progressives are having a good chuckle over this, but rather doubt they'll find similar security breaches amusing when Obama takes over in January.
Update: linked added to 2005 grenade attack on Bush, thanks to a reminder by Jeremy in the comments.
Hot Air now has the video.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:19 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Does anyone remember the grenade tossing incident when Bush was in Europe? I seem to recall that story disappeared rather rapidly and I never heard another word about it. I figured the Secret Service would run a tighter ship than that.
Posted by: Jeremy at December 14, 2008 02:25 PM (8wLQK)
2
The man will no doubt be praised by Olby, and send shivers up Chris' legs...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 14, 2008 03:43 PM (M+Vfm)
3
I took was shocked how long it to the SS to respond. I would think there would be at least 2 body men who covered bush even after a while only one guy made it to bush. Also I would think they would secure the prez to a safe room until it was clear it was not a 1st phase attack.
Posted by: BadMin at December 14, 2008 04:30 PM (nfppY)
4
Everyone was searched and stripped of all personal items prior to gaining entry. The shitbag threw his shoes because that was all he was able to get in there with.
Posted by: ccoffer at December 14, 2008 06:11 PM (NSX98)
5
And a "military" or strong SS appearance would have been "off-the-message".
I expect the LameStreamMedia to claim the whole thing was a plant.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 14, 2008 06:36 PM (OmeRL)
6
Heads should roll at the Secret Service.
Posted by: Federale at December 14, 2008 11:35 PM (H1JJq)
7
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I think the SS was doing what they were told to do.
And that what they were told to do was about right.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 15, 2008 10:29 AM (OmeRL)
8
Any "journalist" within Iraq was a paid member of the Baath under Saddam so, no, there was not much shoe throwing going on and family, friends and neighbors would all have paid the price if there were so there has been a modest improvement on that score. Also, we might recall that Saddam put a mosaic of Bush Sr on the floor of an airport so his mug would be constantly insulted by pedestrian traffic. Of course if you pay attention to what they walk on in that part of the world it is easy to understand why shoe assault is supposed to be a grave insult. Saddams images were shoed. Bush showed his usual calm, even keel under this moronic act. Even as the bailout BS makes me angry at him and his, the guy still knows how to handle himself under pressure. I wonder how Barry will respond to attack by shoe, eclair or truck bomb. As the guy has never met a serious challenge in his life I don't expect much.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 15, 2008 11:35 AM (LF+qW)
9
No doubt in my mind that the M/E media will make a big deal out of this.....because that is a very big insult. Bush should have marched his ass down there and punched the guy. Now that would be newsworthy.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at December 15, 2008 12:00 PM (Qv1xF)
10
The man is a Journalist, and is emblamatic of journalists.
It's a perfect example of how deeply rooted BDS is within the ranks of the media. And how much grace and adulthood they have. Most forums and threads feel that this behavior nearly perfectly represents them. Their only lament is that he wasn't struck.
Reason #4839 that nobody can say that the media is impartial.
Posted by: brando at December 15, 2008 03:07 PM (qzOby)
11
Did anybody else watching the videos of the incident get the idea that the other journalists in the area (yeah, the same ones brandi was prattling about) were beating on the perp pretty hard until the SS and others saved his ass for him?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 15, 2008 05:04 PM (OmeRL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 12, 2008
Granholm Calls Senate Refusal of Auto Bailout "un-American"
I don't think that word means what she thinks it means:
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) said it was "un-American" for senators to have voted against approving a bailout of troubled automakers last night, saying their vote may cause a recession to become a depression.
"It is unacceptable for this un-American, frankly, behavior of these U.S. senators to cause this country to go from a recession into a depression," Granholm said during a radio interview Friday morning.
"Un-American" is forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for the failures of corporations and unions to achieve a balance that allows them to compete on a level playing field, without asking the referee to cheat for them.
These companies will go bankrupt. This is not a bad thing.
A former President once said that "the business of America is business." Rewarding good business practices and allowing bad businesses to fail instead of leeching of the public teat is why the United States economy is—and remains— the most powerful economic engine in history of the human race.
Forcing American taxpayers to prop-up bad businesses is not an American value, and it is rather sad Gov. Granholm isn't aware of that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:56 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I do so wish she would go back to Canada.
Posted by: Jeremy at December 12, 2008 05:00 PM (PXq+l)
2
Buy a Hyundai, Jennifer.
Posted by: zhombre at December 12, 2008 05:14 PM (f34tO)
3
Isn't she holding a single state depression?
Posted by: tarpon at December 12, 2008 07:13 PM (7evkT)
4
I'm an American, and I don't approve of the government taking money extorted from me to give to companies flailing because of their own mismanagement coupled with uncontrolled union rapaciousness.
The banks I can see, as much as it stuck in my craw, since we have to keep credit liquid. The auto companies... well, where they are right now is precisely what Chapter 11 was designed for. They need to restructure, renegotiate labor contracts, jettison bad practices, and dump incompetent management. They don't need my money to do that.
The sad thing is, I'm about ready to buy a new car, which is what the automakers need to have happen a lot more times. GM and Ford are way down on the list for me.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 12, 2008 07:57 PM (mfdQL)
5
Funny how it is that the states in the worst shape, are all run by democrats...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 12, 2008 08:13 PM (M+Vfm)
6
Chapter 11 is the only long term salvation.
Posted by: PA at December 12, 2008 09:12 PM (Z0HFQ)
7
Gov. have you ever read THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UINITED STATES? These bailouts are totally unconstitutional. But what the H___ that doesn't matter to Democrats!
Posted by: Fearless at December 12, 2008 09:51 PM (iBQbQ)
8
As a resident of Michigan Jenny Granholm is the worst governor. She takes all the tax money from those of us on the west side of the state and sends it to Detroit. She singlehandly along with democrats in the state house are digging the recession deeper. The Democrats in this state have raised business taxes to the point buisinesses are leaving or closing in droves. One of her latest plans is to raise the state gas tax higher than what it is.
Those of us in Michigan keep hoping the Obamamessiah would take her to DC.
When she railed against the senate for not bailing out the big 3 it just shows how far in the pocket of the UAW she is. Someone please take her away before she totally destroys Michigan.
Posted by: Swede at December 13, 2008 09:17 AM (zP04/)
9
Granholm really believes what she is saying and, like most liberals, does not believe in the Laffer curve. Here's what I blogged about her back in May (based on a Wall Street Journal article) in a post that was actually devoted to slamming Mike Huckabee:
"MikeÂ’s solution, massive tax hikes and greater government control of the economy, is being tried out right now in Michigan, where Democrat governor Jennifer Granholm shut down the state government last year until the Legislature approved MichiganÂ’s biggest tax hike in a generation.
What are the results? Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the stateÂ’s economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the stateÂ’s transaction tax on home sales. Michigan is now in the 18th month of a state-wide recession, and the unemployment rate of 6.9% remains far above the national rate of 5%."
Posted by: Robert www.neolibertarian.com at December 13, 2008 12:06 PM (KF4ju)
10
I agree 100%.
At the same time I wish the government would stop trying to tell the automotive industry what it should make. Safety is one thing, but requiring a fleet mpg rating? The saying: "Too many cooks spoil the broth," has real meaning here.
I also wish the Big 3 had had a little larger cajones when they negotiated with the UAW. Having workers paid full salary to sit around and do nothing or work rules so strict that a worker can't be moved from one area of a plant ot another where he is needed more is beyond ridiculous. But then is 2200 pages of labor rules.
Posted by: joated at December 13, 2008 08:16 PM (I4yBD)
11
My sister worked in a non-union position (the Medical Dept.) of a GM plant which closed 2 years ago.
All you need to know is that the "right" to smoke on the assembly line and free tampons in the ladies' rooms were among the things included in the contract. If a worker came in with a scratch and demanded paid time off, my sister learned not to raise a fuss. If she did, the union rep would be in her office screaming in her face 10 minutes later. When the workers had to start paying a $5 co-pay for doctor's visits, they complained bitterly. People turned up to work drunk and stoned and weren't fired - because they couldn't be fired. These were high school graduates making $70,000 a year when you factored in the benes. My sister said they seemed to not have the slightest idea of how the rest of the country operated.
Fat-cat Wall Streeters running Ponzi schemes and corrupt pols are coming in for a well-deserved drubbing these days. But they're not the only ones with king-sized senses of entitlement. The members of the UAW were just as insulated from the realities of free-market economics.
Posted by: Donna V. at December 13, 2008 08:41 PM (o5sBi)
12
"As a resident of Michigan Jenny Granholm is the worst governor."
I'm in Illinois. Sorry, we have a lock on that position.
I'm a conservative but I say bail 'em out. Everybody whines about the union, and they have done their part, and supposedly poor decisions by management, and they have done their part too, but the government itself is partly to blame.
I don't think our government is smart enough to help them, temporarily, without creating another mess, but the fallout from a failed domestic auto industry would be FAR worse than whatever the government can cook up.
Sure, chapter 11 is designed to help a failing company restructure, so, where are all the successful companies that have gone through chapter 11? There are far less of those than companies that became irrelevant or eventually closed. Chapter 11 may keep you going for a little while longer, but for something as massive as the automobile industry the consequences would be dire.
The government eventually made a profit off of Chrysler's bailout a decade ago, there's hope (how's that for a buzzword?) that they can do something we won't regret this time.
Posted by: DoorHold at December 14, 2008 12:01 PM (DA32L)
13
Doorhold,
Sorry when I wrote that I was so sick of seeing Jenny G on all the local newscasts that I forgot about the Helmet-haired one. My condolences to you. Maybe you can take Jenny for your new governor. We just want her the hell out of office and preferably out of the state.
I have relatives who are yoopers in in da UP and Jenny totally ignores that part of the state. They live in Houghton and identify more with Wisconsin than Jenny and her Detroit only politics.
Posted by: Swede at December 14, 2008 01:57 PM (upace)
14
The bailouts will fail utterly. The only good things they could possibly achieve for the economy at large is to make the economic pain shallower but longer lasting. These things intervention can achieve only with the utmost skill, knowledge and virtuous intent. These necessities do not obtain. DO NOT support the bailouts; NONE of the 23-odd acts of piracy going by that name. They are a monstrosity and nothing else. If you know this now without having to be re-instructed in the facts of economic life you will lose less and earn more. If you must be instructed AGAIN in the poison of socialism you burden the nation at large with your stupidity. Looks like that is the way things are going across the board which is unsurprising given the state of ignorance today but if you think you are a conservative and are pro-bailout you are in total and systemic contradiction and will regret it terribly, the sooner the better.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 15, 2008 11:44 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Debunking the Proofers
I'd love to see Obama ask the state of Hawaii to produce his long-form birth certificate. While there is no procedural mechanism in place as some have noted before, that is merely a matter of process, not a legal hurdle.
Anyway, I took a stab at debunking the common "Proofer" claims in an article at Pajamas Media.
Do you think it sufficiently makes the case to the rational people who have been misled by the half-truths of the proofers? And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:48 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Do you think it sufficiently makes the case to the rational people who have been misled by the half-truths of the proofers?"
These "rational" people of which you speak, would that be the ones that buy into Gorbalwarming?
The ones that buy stuff from spam? That believe a bigger penis is the solution to all of life's problems?
The ones that buy junk cars every two years because their image would be damaged if they don't.
The ones that run up bills that they have no hope or intention of paying?
In a word, no I don't think the case has been made for those people. I don't think it is "makeable".
"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"
They elected Obama because Affirmative Action is SUCH a good thing. What else can I say.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 12, 2008 08:57 AM (OmeRL)
2
I am not one of those Bush lied men died, or Obama was born in TimBuckToo people. However I feel all candidates should prove where they were born, and most especially when requested to do so. I could care less if it would or would not convince conspirary theorists.
Posted by: Rick at December 12, 2008 11:40 AM (FWmwx)
3
There are only three consitutional qualifications to be president, all three are satisfied by proof of birth. I do not understand why the states do not ask for evidence prior to allowing a person on the state ballot.
Posted by: davod at December 12, 2008 01:30 PM (GUZAT)
4
Well I'd normally dismiss the conspiracy folks, but there's one very large elephant in this room. It's very easy to shut them up, get Hawaii to release the document, yet he spends money sealing his records. Why?
People are saying "but Hawaii doesn't do this for normal folks" however these aren't normal circumstances, this is the Constitutional requirements for the highest executive office in our nation.
I had to submit to all kinds requirements when I changed jobs, I had to fill out an I-9 proving my citizenship, undergo investigation into my past, etc. and I won't have anything close to the power and access to information that the President has.
Why is Obama exempt?
Also cfbleachers makes a good point:
"The second element here has to do with some of the rather “unique” ways in which the Obama campaign treated what Al Gore has coined as “inconvenient truths”. I haven’t the faintest clue or notion what is contained within the transcripts of the higher education institutions that might cause some discomfort. Nor do I have the faintest clue what would or could be contained within the medical records. I don’t know what we might find in the full and unfettered review of the documents that Stanley Kurtz went looking for and was blocked, impeded, stalled, hindered and delayed.
However, I do know thisÂ…if I had a witness on the stand who began to suddenly become evasive, clearly wanted me to move on to another subjectÂ…I knew I was on to something that needed further exploration."
Posted by: Scott at December 12, 2008 03:42 PM (z2S93)
5
You sure are taking some lumps there on PJM, CY. I agree with you in general that The One simply needs to make the request/demand of Hawaii to release the document(s). However, it is possible he is letting this fever run its course until it spikes highest. Then he will release the document(s) and gain even more marginalization of 'the right' in general instead of just the kooks.
The guy won an election that, by all rights, should have gone to Hillary. I wouldn't put it past him to use this approach to try and get Blago-gate off the news.
Posted by: PhyCon (formerly Mark) at December 12, 2008 04:04 PM (4od5C)
6
Ya just lost me, Bob.
I posted on your last attempt to raise this issue that I thought those that kept raising it on
both sides are akin to the 9/11 "truthers." Since you continue to bring it up, I have no alternative but to place you in that category.
It's been a lot of fun, and we've had some good discussions, but I've had enough wacko conspiracy theories.
Fare thee well.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at December 12, 2008 06:09 PM (oGgom)
7
So, Conservative Wanderer, those who attempt to debunk conspiracy theories are also guilty of spreading them? What other ingenious logical conclusions can you provide? That rape victims cause rape? That fire fighters promote arson? That FEMA enables natural disasters?
Bye bye. Door, ass, BOOM!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 12, 2008 08:24 PM (mfdQL)
8
Short answer: Nope you will never convince them.
Long version at my blog
Posted by: DaTechGuy at December 13, 2008 01:20 AM (rcakW)
9
CY,
To answer your question, no, your piece did not make a sufficient case that anyone’s been misled — other than yourself. Let me give you one example: You asserted, “The problem with this theory is that no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.” However, you failed to substantiate this assertion with empirical evidence. And if you point to the worn-out COLB as your proof, I would appreciate it if you could point me to the Hawaiian statute that authorizes the use of COLBs and I would ask you to explain why Obama sidestepped Hawaii’s statutory provision for verifying Hawaiian births. And when you cannot answer these two points, I would note that contrary to your assertion, no one has provided any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere. In fact, for all you and I know, pod people spawned him.
Let me make one more observation: your article is a bad rewrite of Malkin, Horowitz, and Moran, who, like you, resorted to abusive ad hominem arguments instead of advancing logical arguments grounded in established facts. And if you think about it, there are very few established facts in this controversy because Obama has not been forthcoming with primary-source documentation (I wonder why). Therefore, if I must believe that there’s a “conspiracy” at work here, then I am sorry to conclude that you belong to a conspiracy of ignoramuses who make the baseless charges of conspiracy-mongering, which among trained logicians is known as framing a strawman.
By the way, you’re dead wrong when you write, “I’d love to see Obama ask the state of Hawaii to produce his long-form birth certificate. While there is no procedural mechanism in place as some have noted before, that is merely a matter of process, not a legal hurdle.” You really should do some research.
Posted by: CTN at December 13, 2008 10:33 AM (1dn9O)
10
"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"
No. Any evidence you offer can be dismissed as fake, and any witness as a member of the conspiracy.
For example, suppose I have an INFINITE budget and my goal is to convince a conspiracy theorist that the Apollo missions really did land on the moon. It's already possible for scientists to prove this by shining sufficiently powerful lasers on the landing sites and measuring the coherent light that comes back from laser reflectors placed at the landing sites by the astronauts. But the conspiracy theorists (let's call them CTs for short) can either say the scientists are lying or claim that the reflectors were actually placed on the moon by probes last week as part of the conspiracy.
Well, then, I'll send a fleet of new unmanned probes to the moon to take high-resolution still pictures and video of the Apollo landing sites, showing the footprints and hardware left by the astronauts. Nope. The CTs will dismiss all of the pictures and video as computer-generated fakes.
OK, fine! I'll fly the CTs to the moon in person and SHOW them the landing sites. When they see the hardware and footprints with their own eyes, they'll have to believe, won't they?
Won't work. Some of them will refuse to believe that they are on the moon at all. They'll claim that I've drugged or tricked them, and they're seeing a set or a desert location somewhere in Nevada. Or maybe the whole thing is computer-generated video again. (How can I PROVE to them that what appears to be a window or a spacesuit faceplate is not actually a video screen?)
But even if they accept that they are actually on the moon in the year 2008, they will tell me that the Apollo hardware and footprints I show them are fakes, created for their benefit within the last few weeks, and proving nothing about what may or may not have happened in 1969-1972.
No, you can't convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong.
Posted by: Pat at December 13, 2008 03:32 PM (GhD9A)
11
As I said when people were running with the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme, are conservatives so demoralized and frightened they can longer fight the left on the level of issues and ideas and policies? Leftist ideas still suck as much as they ever did. Conservative principles are still as valid as they were in Reagan's time. Our job is to articulate those ideas better and to try and make sure they're heard (a rough battle when you consider the MSM.)
We have our work cut out for us. This crackpot obsession with Obama's birth certificate only makes the right look intellectually bankrupt and petty. And it's depressing to see self-described conservatives acting as irrational and goofy as 9/11 Troofers.
Bill Buckley performed a huge service to the conservative cause when he marginalized the anti-Semitic, racist, "floride is a Commie plot" people back in the '60's. Unfortunately, I don't see another Buckley on the horizon. Christopher Buckley obviously doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Donna V. at December 13, 2008 08:24 PM (o5sBi)
12
Can someone in this thread please show me where CY demonstrably proved that ANYONE has advanced a so-called “conspiracy theory”?
Please, I would appreciate it if anyone in this thread, including the host of this blog, could furnish a source that substantiates this strawman. Surely one of you, including the host, could substantiate this claim. And by “substantiate,” I mean provide a source that has outlined the specifics of this “conspiracy,” which includes the names of the persons who have “conspired.”
Posted by: CTN at December 14, 2008 08:10 AM (i7uNT)
13
Until BO produces his real certificate, it's all speculation. The fact that he has not, and has spent considerable cash and effort to conceal it only fuels the fire. It's dishonest and unacceptable from someone aspiring to be Commander in Chief. Voters deserve verifiable proof that the electorate is complying with the Constitution. Troofer accusations against any theories are premature. It's up to BO to lay this to rest and if he continues to refuse, he should not be sworn in.
The HI COLB does not suffice to prove Natural Born Citizenship so, no, your article did not debunk anything. You succeeded at calling the craziest of the troofer theories as crazy, but the fact remains, we still don't know if BO is a legal presidential candidate.
Posted by: Smokin at December 14, 2008 10:08 AM (BZfBT)
14
After reading several unambiguous replies in previous posts concerning Obama's birth certificate that make it clear enough he's met any reasonable standard of disclosure, I'd have to say nothing will shut some people up.
Posted by: DoorHold at December 14, 2008 12:44 PM (DA32L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 11, 2008
Westside Middle School Massacre Shooter Applies For Concealed Carry Permit
Denied. I'm amazed the idiot even made the attempt, and I hope they investigate whether or not he was in possession of a weapon and the apparent lies on his application and send him back to prison where he belongs.
(h/t Fred R.)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:22 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'd love to know how people delude themselves into thinking it's OK for two murderers to be released from prison at age 21 *with clean records* (according to the article), simply because they were juveniles at the time of the crimes. Are we so child-obsessed in this culture to think that a little prison time would set these two straight, after killing five people?
Posted by: Mike Gray at December 11, 2008 12:58 PM (5npD/)
2
The funny thing about your comment, Mike, is that, on the one hand, kids are too precious and child-like to be charged as adults, etc., for sickening crimes like murder but God help you if you suggest, in polite company that, since they're kids, they might want to wait until they're a bit older to begin having sex, using recreational drugs, etc. because you're stifling their development and that they're 'practically adults' anyway...
Posted by: ECM at December 11, 2008 04:00 PM (q3V+C)
3
I'm with you, ECM. It all seems pretty backward to me.
Posted by: Mike Gray at December 11, 2008 04:15 PM (5npD/)
4
God save us from the "it's not my fault genaration"
Posted by: Rich in KC at December 11, 2008 04:26 PM (siQqy)
5
"Essentially then he's got a life sentence, despite one never having been applied by a judge or jury."
In some cases I can see this point (eg. relatively small amounts of drugs), but in the case of murder? Many crimes WILL result in a permanent loss of your freedom and rights. Such an extended "life sentence" is easily avoidable, don't commit those kind of crimes.
Posted by: DoorHold at December 14, 2008 12:15 PM (DA32L)
6
"For one I think it good that such irresponsible people don't get permits, but then again I also am strongly opposed to a guy's past deeds influencing his future this way."
How much of his future, and in what category? Going to jail for five years will influence five years of your future, so should we not send people to jail for any reason? Should saving your money not make you wealthier, or wasting your money not make you poor? Both examples are past influencing future. Its called consequences.
"He did the crime, he served the time.
For the law the penalty absolves him from that crime (that's what it's all about...), so what he did is (or rather should be) a closed book."
There are many theories about the purpose of incarceration, including retribution, rehabilitation, and protection of society-at-large from criminals. Absolution is not one of them. The only way to absolve someone of a crime against another is to repay the one wronged. Since the ones he wronged are DEAD, he cannot be absolved.
"Yet that crime will continue to haunt him whenever he comes into contact with the law for the rest of his life. Essentially then he's got a life sentence, despite one never having been applied by a judge or jury."
Past events are the greatest predictor of future behavior. In my experience, once a crook, always a crook, with very few exceptions.
"And that's wrong."
By what standard? Murder of innocents is wrong. Theft of property is wrong. Bearing false testimony to avoid just consequences is wrong. How is being forced to live with a reputation you fashioned for yourself, wrong?
Posted by: Walt at December 14, 2008 07:08 PM (cRO6v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
manbearpig barada nikto
Keanu Reeves come back from wherever he's been since the
Matrix and
Speed movies to turn a classic 1951 warning about the perils of nuclear armageddon into a tribute to the climate change cult in tomorrow's release of
The Day The Earth Stood Still.
The movie's plot on Wikipedia is less than inspiring:
The film opens in the future San Dimas, California, with Rufus (George Carlin) preparing to use a time machine disguised as a phone booth to travel back to 1988 to make sure that Bill S. Preston, Esq. (Alex Winter) and Theodore "Ted" Logan (Keanu Reeves) remain together as the band "Wyld Stallyns", as their music is the core of the future's Utopian society.
Wait a minute. That's the more realistic plot from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.
Here is the plot for Keanu's latest turkey:
A representative of an alien race that went through drastic evolution to survive its own climate change, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) comes to Earth to assess whether humanity can prevent the environmental damage they have inflicted on their own planet. Klaatu himself already has a negative opinion of humans, and when barred from speaking to the United Nations, he decides they shall be exterminated so the planet – with its rare ability to sustain complex life – can survive. It is up to Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith) to convince Klaatu humans are worth saving: but it may already be too late.
Oh, it's too late all right—650 scientists from around the world have slammed the climate change cult, saying that there is no scientific evidence of manmade global warning.
Real science shows that the world gets warmer, and then it gets cooler. Then it gets warmer again, and then—wait for it—it gets cooler again. It's like a cycle or something. And it's been this way for hundreds of millions of years, well before bipeds with opposable thumbs moved to the coast, took up yoga, and decided to declare the world was about to end.
If you'd like to know the real cause of global warming and cooling, stick your head outside sometime during daylight hours and search the sky. See that big, flaming ball of hydrogen? That's the sun, or if you're feeling familiar, Sol.
Sol has weather, too.
Sometimes Sol burns hotter and sends out solar flares. During these periods, it pumps out tremendous, near incomprehensible amounts of energy, and the world warms up. Other times, Sol burns a bit cooler, solar flares die down, and the amount of energy it releases into space dies down a bit, and the world cools down. This we know. This is fact.
Climate change? It happens. In fact, one thing we know for absolute, irrefutable certainty is that climate change is constant, and it is going to happen no matter what we do.
By all means, do your best to practice conservation and protect the environment. But don't be so arrogantly clueless to think you are significant enough to change our climate as the suggest in this inconvenient spoof.
The best you can do is make sure when it gets cooler or warmer that it does so over lands and seas that aren't choked with our garbage and waste.
That's a big enough challenge of it's own, I think, even if it doesn't make as good a movie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:03 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Damn! I was really looking forward to seeing this movie.
Posted by: Deuce Geary at December 11, 2008 11:13 AM (Q285d)
2
Man contributes to climate change to the same degree that all little boys pee-ing off docks raise sea levels.
Posted by: Bill Smith at December 11, 2008 11:19 AM (8aUFt)
3
Fuck em. My response would be the Roman's from Have Spacesuit, Will Travel.
Posted by: ravenshrike at December 11, 2008 12:13 PM (C63A/)
4
I'm wondering if Keanu's character will have two others who show up: Verata and Nicto?
I've also addressed this one CY. If you don't mind:
Global Warming
Posted by: PhyCon (formerly Mark) at December 11, 2008 12:17 PM (4od5C)
5
It is impossible to improve on the original.
Posted by: 1sttofight at December 11, 2008 12:50 PM (up9BM)
6
Further proof that Hollywood is bankrupt in more ways than one.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 11, 2008 02:07 PM (M+Vfm)
7
Hey!
Don't confuse the warmer's narrative with facts.
No doubt the agenda driven administrators and educators who populate gub'mint schools will deem this latest hollyweird screed a 'documentary' on climate change, and add it to their embarrassing library of 'classroom material' from Michael Moore & Al Gore.
In a day & age when many think 'The Daily Show and Cobert Report' are news sources, Reeves is simply another useful idiot in Goracle's Church of Deception.
And our children suffer for it.
God save the Republic.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at December 11, 2008 03:54 PM (HZSw8)
8
That there is global warming and that it is caused by man has become accepted science in major journals such as Nature (the worst offender). Papers disputing this premise have little chance of being published, as far as I can tell. In fact "science" is being promoted into power and profit for the believers. Nature recently suggested that climate modeling using massive new computers become recieved wisdom by world leaders, who in turn should make all there decisions based on these simulations, ie the scientist "believers" should rule the earth. No humility, no doubts there. Much like our next leader.
Posted by: mytralman at December 11, 2008 04:22 PM (26p91)
9
OMFG You
have got to be kidding me!!! I grew up with "The Day the Earth Stood Still" as my
absoulute sci-fi movie... My Dad talked about his times as a kid when he went to see it, many times... he will be SHATTERED to know that they took a classic like this and manipulated it into a bull$$hytte pro global warming expose.
Let me tell you, I'm in Baghdad, and it's cold... really
cold... even the locals have said they've never seen this level of frigidness... last time I saw it this cold, it was from a prom queen giving me the blow off... Go figure...
If BOB has decided (Big Orange Ball) to chill, then in long term, my reaction is that all those who claim we are warming get what they desreve for being wrong, that being get to be hung by their own intestines.
Posted by: Big Country at December 11, 2008 05:37 PM (vuy4X)
10
dayum - I was hoping it would be worth seeing, and now I know. :-(
Posted by: BD57 at December 11, 2008 09:01 PM (1JNU5)
11
A representative of an alien race that went through drastic evolution to survive its own climate change, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) comes to Earth to assess whether humanity can prevent the environmental damage they have inflicted on their own planet. Klaatu himself already has a negative opinion of humans, and when barred from speaking to the United Nations, he decides they shall be exterminated so the planet – with its rare ability to sustain complex life – can survive.
Sounds more like a clever excuse for xenocide.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at December 12, 2008 02:05 AM (RezbN)
12
OK, even if Al (I won a Nobel because the committee handing them out are even stupider than I am) Gore is right about global warming how is it a danger to the planet? Sure, if he's right some species might go bye-bye, but where is the danger to the planet? Is it going to explode if the temperature gets too high?
I remember a movie where a plane supposedly couldn't come down and land because the nose was pointed up too much. The hero of the movie spent most of his time trying to get the nose pointed down so the plane could descend. Uh, anyone ever watch a real plane land? Evidently no one connected to that movie ever did. Stupidest movie I ever saw. This sounds worse.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at December 12, 2008 03:48 PM (gSsBI)
13
650 scientists from around the world have slammed the climate change cult, saying that there is no scientific evidence of manmade global warning.
Wow. That's almost all of them, isn't it?
Well yes ... then there's
this little girl.
Posted by: Dan Irving at December 12, 2008 04:50 PM (Kw4jM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
201kb generated in CPU 0.0525, elapsed 0.2118 seconds.
72 queries taking 0.177 seconds, 428 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.