There is a lot of heat flying around the blogosphere (and even the mainstream media) this morning over whether or not Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on days that the church's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., uttered inflammatory rhetoric that most Americans seem to feel is at least occasionally anti-American and borderline racist in nature.

Obama claimed late Friday that he was not in attendance for any of Wright's most explosive sermons over the past 20 years he has been attending TUCC, including sermons where Wright lambasted this nation as "United States of KKK A" and stated "No, no, no, not 'God bless America,' God damn America" amid other provocative statements uttered during other sermons published on Youtube and in news outlets Friday and over the weekend.

Writing in Newsmax—a news outlet with a less than sterling reputation for accuracy—over the weekend, Ronald Kessler cites fellow NewsMax reporter, Jim Davis, who claims that Obama was indeed present for a Wright sermon he attended at TUCC on July 22, 2007, where:

...the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

[snip]

If Obama's claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wright's trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted "white" America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. Wright's reputation for spewing hate is well known.

In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. [See: "Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division."]

In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the "United States of White America" and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wright's attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.

The claim has quickly been disputed by those who have cited video evidence of Obama speaking at La Raza's annual conference in Miami, Florida that same day. Newsmax is still sticking to the claim, stating that Obama was at the church on the day of Wright's "white arrogance" tirade, along with a Secret Service protective detail, and that with early morning and an evening service, Obama had time to attend two of the three sermons and the La Raza conference that day.

I've contacted the Secret Service Public Affairs Office to see if they will be able to confirm or deny a protective detail guarding Obama at TUCC in Chicago on July 22, 2007 as they seem to be in the most credible position to resolve these claims, but I do not know if they are able to address such concerns, and even if they are about to confirm of deny Obama's attendance, I'm not sure that playing a game of "gotcha" pinning down Obama as an attendee at one of Wright's more explosive sermons is even of major relevance.

Certainly, confirming Obama's attendance would be a huge blow to his credibility as he stated categorically that he never attended church on days where Wright delivered one of his more inflammatory sermons, but that almost seems beside the point.

Whether or not he was there for one of "those" sermons, Barack Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years, and it is implausible that he was completely unaware of his rhetoric and radicalism during that entire time period.

Barack Obama is forcing us to chose between one of two narratives. Either he:

1. attended a church for two decades that featured a radical minister preaching a seemingly separatist and occasionally anti-American "Black Value System" (which curiously, was scrubbed from the church's web site over the weekend), considered Wright a mentor, was married by him, has his children baptized by him, and added him in an official capacity to his Presidential campaign (though in a largely ceremonial role), without ever really knowing anything about him or his beliefs, or;
2. Barack was aware of Wright's pronouncements and beliefs and agreed with him enough that he was a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years, only to then see Obama threw Wright "under the bus" when those beliefs became a threat to Obama's presidential campaign.

Which is it?

The latter seems far more plausible than the former, with or without the media being able to pin down Obama as having attended Wright's more bombastic recorded sermons.

Obama either displays a Gumpish cluelessness and a lack of self-awareness as a human being (not exactly sought-after traits in a President), or he agrees with the teaching of Wright to the extent that he became a member of his church and spent the last two decades as part of a congregation that was captured loudly applauding during extremist and conspiracy theory-laced sermons.

Voters polled by Rasmussen seem to have made up their minds:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that WrightÂ’s comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters.

[snip]

Last Thursday, 52% of voters nationwide had a favorable opinion of Obama. That figure has fallen to 47% on Monday...

Despite recent claims that he shared none of Wright's extremist statements, Obama's chickens seem to be coming home to roost.

Update: As noted by "JustADude" in the comments, Obama was in Chicago July 22, 2007, which was noted at HuffPo, though Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor "stressed that the senator did not make a stop at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:36 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 955 words, total size 7 kb.

You have to enjoy this bit of information in a Reuters story today by Daniel Trotta, where he simply parrots a claim made by anonymous police (my bold):

Interstate 95, which runs up the U.S. East Coast, is known to cops as the "Iron Pipeline" -- the conduit of choice for gun smugglers to move their hardware from the southern United States to New York city.

With formidable opponents in the gun manufacturers and gun owners, national politicians do little to stop this traffic, leaving gun control largely in the hands of local leaders.

"Where is the outrage in this country? Well, mayors see it," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "We're the ones who have to go to the funerals. We're the ones that have to look somebody in the eye and say your spouse or your parent or your child is not going to come home."

Since Bloomberg became mayor in 2002, every gun homicide in the city -- including the killing of eight police officers -- has been committed with an illegal gun, police say.

The claim is false, and took me less time to prove than it took to write this sentence.

The following homicides were committed with legal police firearms since Bloomberg became Mayor:

• On May 22, 2003, 43-year old Ousmane Zongo, an immigrant from Burkina Faso, was shot four times by Police Officer Bryan Conroy in a Chelsea warehouse. In 2005, Conroy was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and sentenced to 5 years probation. In 2006, the city awarded the Zongo family $3 million to settle a wrongful death suit.
• On January 24, 2004, Housing Bureau officer Richard Neri, Jr. accidentally shot to death Timothy Stansbury, a 19-year-old black man who was trespassing on the roof landing of a Bedford-Stuyvesant housing project. Stansbury was unarmed but had apparently startled Neri upon opening the roof door coming upon the officer. At that point, Neri discharged his service firearm and mortally wounded Stansbury. Although Commissioner Kelly stated that the shooting appeared "unjustified", a Brooklyn jury found that no criminal act occurred and that the event was a tragic accident. Neri was thus cleared of all charges.[35] The city later agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Stansbury family. A grand jury declined to indict Neri but Kelly later suspended him for 30 days without pay and permanently stripped him of his weapon.
• On November 25, 2006, plainclothes police officers shot and killed Sean Bell and wounded two of his companions, one critically, outside of the Kalua Cabaret in Queens. No weapon was recovered.[37] According to the police, Bell rammed his vehicle into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, prompting undercover officers to fire fifty rounds into Bell's car. A bullet piercing the nearby AirTrain JFK facility startled two Port Authority patrolmen stationed there. [38] An undercover officer claims he heard one of the unarmed man's companions threaten to get his gun to settle a fight with another individual.


• On November 12, 2007, five NYPD police officers shot and killed 18-year-old Khiel Coppin. The officers responded to a 911 call where Coppin could be heard saying he had a gun. When the officers arrived at the scene, Khiel approached officers with a black object, which was later identified as a hairbrush, in his hand and repeatedly ignored orders to stop. This prompted officers to open fire at Coppin. Of the 20 shots fired, 8 hit Khiel, who died at the scene. This shooting has been ruled to be with both NYPD rules for the use of deadly force and the New York State Penal Law provisions, so no charges, criminal or administrative, will be filed against these officers.

It took my about 15 seconds to pull that information from Wikipedia, citing homicides committed with NYPD-issued (and therefore, presumably legal) firearms.

New York also has hundreds of homicides per year and shotguns and rifles are not illegal to buy, sell, or own within city limits, so even the claim that civilian homicides are all performed with illegally-owned firearms is also very suspect.

There is also the pesky little problem that not all firearms used in homicides are recovered, making it impossible to tell if the firearm used was illegally or legally owned.

Nice job vetting your story, Reuters. You're great stenographers, even if you aren't very good journalists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:51 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 745 words, total size 5 kb.

The Wall Street Journal has published yet another damning sermon from Barack Obama's retiring minister of two decades, Jeremiah Wright.

The displaced anger, bigotry, and hatred displayed is chilling:

"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

As the story of Wright's forceful bigotry finally forced it's way into the mainstream media yesterday at ABC News with the story Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11, the people Barack Obama has chosen to surround himself with has come under sharp focus.

From a self-isolated, self-pitying wife, to a bombastic, bigoted minister, to an unreformed terrorist, Barack Obama has surrounded himself with very questionable ideological company, associations from which he has no defense. He wasn't forced to chose to spend time with this cadre of believers on the radical fringe, he embraced them willingly.

Predictably, as the media has come to focus on Obama's two-decade relationship with Wright, Obama supporters have been quick to attempt to minimize the damage. Unable to do it with a forceful denunciation of Wright's bigotry by Obama (Obama has only uttered the lamest of excuses), they have instead attempted to tar Republican candidate John McCain as being equally bad, for the support he has garnered from controversial evangelists Rod Parsley and John Hagee.

For those of you unfamiliar with these men, Parsley's most famous controversial statements include calling Islam a "false religion" that must be destroyed, opposition same-sex marriage, partial-birth abortion, hate-crimes legislation, and the separation of church and state. Hagee has been ripped an an anti-Catholic bigot, stated that Hurricane Katrina was an act of God against New Orleans for the city's "level of sin," and for claiming that the Qur'an has "a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."

There, of course, is a difference between John McCain's political endorsements by Parsley and Hagee, and Barack Obama's 20 years of willfully absorbing Wright's hatred, a toxicity to which he has willfully exposed family.

I addressed this attempt to equivilate Obama and McCain in a comment to the ABC News blog story Obama camp: 'Deplores divisive statements', which featured yet another inflammatory speech by Wright.

My comment read:

I see that some are already attempting to trot out a comparative argument, that Wright's offensive, bigoted, and paranoid rants are somehow lessened by invoking John McCain's support from John Hagee and Rod Parsley, two prominent evangelists who have also made provocative statements.

But here is the huge gaping difference between these attempts: Barack Obama has spent the better part of the past 20 years of his life listening to, absorbing, and yes, agreeing with Wright's sermons. If he did not agree with the bulk of those sermons, he would have of course left Trinity for another church--finding a church in Chicago that closely fits your own personal beliefs is not at all difficult, and Obama obviously agrees with Wright far more than he disagrees.

That Obama has spent 20 years listening to Wright, thought enough of him to use one of those sermons as the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," that he was married by Wright, had both of his children baptized by Wright and brought up in this church, listening to these paranoid and racist rants that differ little in substance from the words of a much more famous racist, Louis Farakkan, means that Obama AGREES with Wright far more often than he disagrees with him.

From that, what are we to make of Obama? Actions, indeed, do speak louder than flaccid conciliatory words that have only just now been uttered.

I say again the obvious: no American would spend 20 years listening to a minister with which he vehemently disagreed.

McCain, by comparison, is guilty of pandering to Haggee and Parsley because of the (unfortunate) influence they have over a powerful voting demographic.

I can find scant evidence that McCain has sat though one sermon from Hagee or Parsley, much less 20 years of them.

Which is worse?

The politician that panders for votes, or the man who has listened to and internalized anti-American, anti-Jewish, and anti-white messages for 20 years before ever once publicly disagreeing with them, and who is raising his children in this same toxic environment?

Not only am I certain Barack Obama is unfit to run this nation, I now question his ability to raise his own children, for the hatred he has willingly exposed them to since their births.

Yes, I went there. Read again Wright's rant in the WSJ article featured above, or some of his other hate speech (for that is what it is), and try to explain to me that a good parent exposes his children to an environment that exudes such naked anger, resentment, defeatism, and conspiratorial paranoia.

Perhaps some of you are comfortable having your children raised in such an environment, but I am not, and I do not think that someone who willingly exposes himself and his family to internalizing such vitriol for 20 years is the kind of person we need or want to lead this nation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 1088 words, total size 7 kb.

My latest article is posted at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

From WRAL:

A teen arrested in the death of a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student has also been charged in connection with the death of a Duke University graduate student.

Lawrence Alvin Lovette Jr., 17, of 1213 Shepherd St., was arrested Thursday morning and charged with murder in UNC Student Body President Eve Carson's March 5 death. Authorities also charged him in connection with the January shooting death of Duke student Abhijit Mahato.

I'd like to know if investigators intend to ask Lovette and fellow Eve Carson murder suspect Demario James Atwater why they targeted college students.

Think it had anything to do with the strong suspicion that their victims would be unarmed?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:13 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting.

Posted by: dude at March 13, 2008 02:30 PM (MyDKI)

2 Really? I think the distinct possibility that we have two dead students--and several more the victims of armed robbers just this week alone--inside campus grounds because students are known to be unarmed (whereas the general population in the area outside of these campuses is well known to contain the second-highest concentration of concealed carry permit holders in the state) is certainly a topic worth discussing. Or would you rather that more students be targeted because you don't want to ask difficult questions? Somehow, I suspect I know the answer...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 02:42 PM (xNV2a)

3 I'd just say that the Research Triangle is becoming a dangerous place to be a student...

Posted by: Techie at March 13, 2008 02:46 PM (AV8Z6)

4 For what it's worth even if they were allowed too, alot of students would choose NOT to carry a gun, even at their own peril. Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one. It's sad though, these people are constant targets to resentful townie's and other predators.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 03:53 PM (6x0Nb)

5 Having lived in the Triangle for the past 5 years going graduate school at NC State, I can tell you this violence is nothing new at all. Pretty much weekly we would have armed robberies on campus, and the tactics were becoming more and more brazen (one of the last incidents I remember, was two youths with guns robbing a group of 10 or so students). Murders happened and made the news for a day or so. What makes this situation different is it was a pretty blond up and coming girl from a well to do family that was murdered. Not guns or availability of them. Durham has some areas even the police will not go to. Though my wife was doing her residency at Duke we purposely chose to live over 30 minutes away from there, and even then the crime was reaching out. Ask yourself, how many murders happen in the US in a day, then ask yourself how many of them make the spotlight unless they are of a pretty white female..

Posted by: jambrowski at March 13, 2008 05:01 PM (QBqlm)

6 "Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one." Both victims were over 21, neither has been shown to have a criminal record and both were residents of North Carolina for at least 30 days. More than likely, both victims would have been eligible. There is no way to know if they were inclined to exercise their rights, but they should have the option.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 05:13 PM (vmEFO)

7 Even if you are not a resident, and live on campus, all you have to do is get an NC state drivers license. You are then eligible to receive a CCW. NC is a shall issue, and an open carry state, so even if they could not get CCW, they can legally open carry anyplace that is not deemed gun free. Echoing Dog, but with a bit less tact. If they are allowed, but choose not to, then that is a failing on their part.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM (9V6Vj)

8 And, of course, even if only 5% of the students availed themselves of their right to concealed-carry, the criminals wouldn't know *which* 5% carries, so would be deterred from all of them.

Posted by: Zach at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM (lHN8H)

9 It's news because random murders like these are statistically rare. Something like 60% of all murders are black men killing other black men. That's terrible, but it's not news because it happens with such frequency. There are very few random murders, and very few black man/white woman random murders. Especially of blond, smart, prominent victims on a college campus.

Posted by: BarrySanders20 at March 13, 2008 05:47 PM (qrqy4)

10 Allowing CCW on campus would not increase the gun crime rate; that's a gunbanner myth. There's no one single jurisdiction where it's been approved that the crime rate went up as a result. In most places it's banned the real reason is ''because we can''.

Posted by: Orion at March 13, 2008 05:56 PM (FzhYM)

11 What are the Duke faculty saying about this?

Posted by: Dan Collins at March 13, 2008 05:59 PM (SohFK)

12 They're probably working on a resolution to condemn the victim for being part of the oppressive white establishment that forced these two young men down the path of violence.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 06:04 PM (vmEFO)

13 BarrySanders20 is a fool, black on white crime has exploded exponentially in the past two decades. Fact, a white woman is 115 TIMES more likely to be raped by a black man than if the races were reversed. This is according to Gov't crime statistics that they are trying hard not to get into the MSM, look it up, fool!

Posted by: libsukbad at March 13, 2008 06:05 PM (Uu7ag)

14 The Triangle has some great areas and some quite bad areas. Duke has some very dangerous areas right next to the campus. A friend of mine (a female grad student) was robbed at knifepoint walking home for lunch from campus. Broad daylight. UNC is safer, but yeah there's a lot of racial tension in the area. Franklin Street is the hangout area. On a typical Friday night going down that one street, you hit first the student area, then there is a stretch where local black kids hang out, then there is the section for young adult white townies. You can see all the racial and class divisions laid out very clearly on any weekend night. There's more resentment to the Duke students since they tend to be richer and from NY/New Jersey. When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men. Most of the girls I dated were scared to go to Durham. A lot of very aggressive panhandling and begging. The black panhandlers stayed near campus, while the white mountain man panhandlers tended to stay on the intersection near the local Wal-mart. Oddest form of self-segregation I'd ever seen. Personally, I'm a big fan of Southern liberal college towns. I like having over-educated waiters and plentiful live music -- and the surrounding Southern culture prevents the college town from going totally crazy.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:08 PM (Uxplv)

15 In the account of the crime I read, Ms. Carson was said to have been set upon by the beast around five in the morning -- before dawn, while out alone and at an ATM machine. If such are the facts, this fine young lady showed a lamentable want of good judgment. To linger alone, and in the dark, near an ATM is to court danger, whether you be a woman or a man, and whether the neighborhood be good or bad. May Ms. Carson rest in peace.

Posted by: Silber Streak at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM (sFrPS)

16 What has struck me since moving to the Triangle is how lax the court system is here. Over and over you read stories of murders or rapes that are committed by people either out on bail or who have multiple convictions for breaking and entering, A&B, or armed robbery. If the court system in Wake and Durham counties would focus more on locking people up than letting them go, we might have less of this nonsense.

Posted by: YankeeConfederate at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM (neulw)

17 dude, We have more than two dead students; We have unarmed dead student after unarmed dead student for as far back as you want to look. And you complain because someone is looking at how this happens? Disgusting.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM (RO9Ei)

18 "When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men.' I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's. You did tend to see a concentration of older, poorer folks around that place, but they tended to stay there. At that time, crime was pretty rare, and the Franklin Street merchants were vigilant about getting panhandlers off the streets and away from the students/shoppers. Street musicians were always there, but they were not only non-threatening, but usually pretty talented. Where else can you hear bagpipes playing at 1 am? When I went back for a conference in 2003 or so, the mood had changed. The panhandlers were younger, far greater in number, and far more aggressive. I didn't see any attempts being made to get them off the benches or to stop them from harassing people on the street. I was both surprised and saddened to feel so harassed while walking so close to campus in the daytime. I used to walk home at 3 in the morning there and not worry about it. Looks like things have really changed.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM (snOiD)

19 The primary animal in this case was on 24 months probation for a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. That's a Federal crime folks, and I believe it is a felony under North Carolina law as well. Somewhere out there is a judge who handed down a pathetic sentence and a DA who accepted it, and didn't refer the case to the Feds. Both should share in the murderer's punishment.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 13, 2008 06:30 PM (3Aj1g)

20 "I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's." I have been in NC off and on since the late 90s, and I agree, things have changed a good bit. I am in Jacksonville, back when I first got stationed here it wasnt too bad. I could take a date out, walk around all night and people would tend to leave you alone (minus the occasional drunk Marine in a bar hitting on your woman). A year or so ago a skinny little guy tried to mug my then soon to be wife while we were out walking our dog. I do not know what kind of idiot tries to mug a large bald guy walking a 95 pound GSD, but it happened. Maybe things aren't getting worse. Maybe the criminals are just getting dumber?

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 06:33 PM (9V6Vj)

21 I remember talking to one of the shop owners there on Franklin St. He'd complained to the town council when they installed those benches -- he said the homeless guys would just sit there all day and intimidate his customers. Especially since his business catered primarily to women ... but Chapel Hill told him he was being bigoted and installed them anyway. I was there from 2001-2005. I felt safest in Chapel Hill. In Durham several times panhandlers would follow me to my car coming out of a bar late at night asking for money. Not a pleasant feeling. I didn't feel safe there alone as a guy, so I understand why so many of the girls I knew were afraid to go. Southern college towns have that mix of young well-educated super liberal whites, and poor blacks ... so they tend to be very lenient to things like aggressive panhandling. At least that's my experience. Plus, the relatively wealthy young white college kids (especially the girls) give the beggars money cause they feel guilty for being ... white and better off. Just to be clear, though. I loved my time there. And although some parts are sketchy ... nothing's as bad as when I dated a girl who was studying at Johns Hopkins in downtown Baltimore. Oh, man. Baltimore is terrifying outside of the Inner Harbor and Camden Yards. Some parts are like Escape From New York. Everything is just decaying.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:42 PM (Uxplv)

22 Dude, how would you define the term "cheap shot"?

Posted by: buddy larsen at March 13, 2008 06:45 PM (5wL8o)

23 I was in Peppers Pizza on Franklin Street last fall. It was a Saturday afternoon and a beautiful day - full of families, students, etc. A homeless black man came in (I mention race only in the context of the story) and started trying to panhandle from the people eating. A man I assume to be the manager (also a black man) came over and politely but firmly told the guy he needed to go. The homeless guy started screaming F him and how no black people (he used the n word) were welcome there and he would kill anyone who disrespected him and on and on and on. I was sitting there with my wife and 3 month old daughter and was certain violence was going to break out. Fortunately, someone snagged a foot patrol of Chapel Hill police and they managed to get the guy out of there and took him into what looked like protective custody. That was the first time I did not feel safe in the Triangle. I wish the law and order crowd was a bit more vocal and stronger down here.

Posted by: local at March 13, 2008 06:56 PM (neulw)

24 In the early '80s we had a rash of armed robbery on and around Vanderbilt campus. The fellow knew he had a lot of fairly well-off unarmed kids he could scare and intimidate. This only stopped when a plain-clothes campus cop put six holes in him durring another attempted robbery of what he most certainly thought was an unarmed student. Bad guys are motivated by risk and fear. Do nothing to affect either and you just get more and bolder bad guys.

Posted by: s at March 13, 2008 07:04 PM (ljAGw)

25 A small point: a weapon and a CCW do nothing to protect you and the people around you. Unless -- -- you have sufficient training to know what to do and how to do it. You have to be alert enough to the situation, be able to stay calm and read the situation correctly, be able to draw your weapon without getting plugged whilst reaching for it, level, aim, shoot, and hit what you're shooting at. If you can't do those things, you're pretty much useless, or worse, a danger to everyone else. I write that and it sounds obvious, but it really isn't when people talk about CCW and shall-issue. It's not enough to buy a pistol and pack heat. And so the question becomes, just how many people have the inner skills and the training to be useful in a terrible emergency? Not as many as buy a pistol for 'protection'. Near where I live (northern Illinois) we had a terrible shooting at the University. The shooter was a nutter, of course, and all the students could do is hide and run. But even if one of them had had a pistol, there's no guarantee at all that the outcome would have been different. My point, I hope, is a simple one: it's not sufficient to have CCW. We need a sea-change in attitude and mindset. One in which more of our citizens, sober, careful, determined, and perhaps a little grim, ensure that in an emergency, they can be useful. If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter.

Posted by: Steve White at March 13, 2008 07:44 PM (wJgSR)

26 I've lived in Durham since 1976, off and on. I've worked as a reporter and I've been part of the community, walking alone downtown at night, for three decades. Yes, I've seen aggressive panhandlers. Yes, I've seen groups of young men who made me uneasy. Yes, our house was burglarized in 1983. But in 30 years I've never seen anyone so much as slapped. That's not to say there isn't violent crime, but all of you who afraid to come to Durham need to get a grip. This isn't Newark. In a few weeks, downtown Durham will be filled with film makers, from Martin Scorcese to young unknowns with a camera and a dream, for the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. They're not afraid. The Triangle is growing and there's a lot of money and a lot of poverty. Gangs have marked their turf and sociopaths know where to pick up a gun. This group of communities numbers more than a million. Yes, there are tensions. But why do so many of you choose to live your lives in fear? I thought this was the home of the brave. You know, Michael Peterson killed his wife and people weren't suddenly afraid of white novelists, thank God, or I'd never get another party invitation. The reason people around here are so focused on the murder of Eve Carson has less to do with her being an attractive white girl than it does the senseless waste of a brilliant, engaging leader with more promise than 100 of her classmates put together. I can't speak for Nancy Grace's obsession. That woman's just crazy.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:03 PM (Bx4FB)

27 "God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting. " You obviously don't get it - it's not about a "pro gun" aggenda, it's about a "FOR CRYING OUT LOUD STOP PASSING STUPID LAWS THAT RESTRICT OUR ABILITY TO USE EFFECTIVE FORCE AND EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO DEFEND OURSELVES!" agenda. People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue. I'm sure his comments aren't the "only" thing he can think of - but they're certainly one of the more obvious -- at least to us responsible adults who actually have to live in the real world vs. sticking our heads in the sand.

Posted by: Tim in TX at March 13, 2008 08:15 PM (Bo+Bw)

28 "If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter." This is very true. If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. No one, not one single person, can honestly say how they will react to a given situation, until they have been in it, and most of the time they will not have reacted the way they wanted to. If you have not mentally prepared yourself to act, then you will not. If you do not act, then that weapon WILL be used against you. Simply going to the range and blowing off a thousand rounds a weekend will not prepare you to defend yourself. I am an assistant instructor at the MSOS, and I teach part time at one of the local ranges. When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves. Defense is a mindset, if you do not have it, then you will die, and you are a liability to those around you. in a stressful situation your accuracy will drop between 50 and 70%. Simply plinking targets will not help you with this.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:18 PM (9V6Vj)

29 Amen, Matt. I shoot well for a weekend plinker and feel quite qualified to defend myself against any intruder as long as they stand still at 15 yards and hold an orange dot against their center mass. The first time I was fired on I instantly became one with the earth, my molecules integrating with the dirt, desiring nothing more than to be invisible to the rounds smacking over my head. It seemed like hours before I thought to return fire and by then it was over. That's after six months of training.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:26 PM (Bx4FB)

30 David, I thank you for your candor. There are not many that can speak with modesty. It is an odd feeling, is it not? "People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue" Ok, it is story time. Several years ago I was in Fallujah during the second push as well as after the push. After the push the theater commander decided that he was going to rescind the law governing weapons in the hands of the people (that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops. As a Corporal at the time I obviously had no say in the matter, but I thought it was insanely frigging stupid. Did I say it was a stupid idea? Ok I did. That may be part of the reason I am still a Sergeant after ten years of service. Well anyway. Once that command was given we saw a FRIGGING huge jump in SVBIEDs (if you don't know what that is Google it). Come to find out, the bad guys found out about this new "law" and exploited it. Because the honest civilian populous was nolonger armed, they were able to walk into any house on the block, yoke up momma and kiddies, then say "Drive this car into that ECP or momma dies." After a bit of time, we dumped this stupid frigging law, and allowed the civilan populace to own and carry again. Guess what? We started to find more dead bad guys in the alleys, and the SVBIEDs tapered off. I frigging wonder why? Care to take a guess? I know that the U.S. is NOT Iraq. But the lesson is the SAME FRIGGING ONE WE HAVE TO LEARN HERE!

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:59 PM (9V6Vj)

31 "(that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops." Crap, I am an idiot. That did not make any sense at all. It should have read. (the previous law said every fighting aged male was allowed ect) but we took the weapons away because we wanted to make sure that only the bad guys had guns so we didnt shoot the wrong people.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:02 PM (9V6Vj)

32 Ha. It's OK, Matt, I got the drift. God forbid I get held up for my drunken syntax at 10 pm. I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences. Here in the US, training is all. I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school), but if you even suggest this, the 2nd Amendment absolutists burst into flames. I don't know. I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand. I think these two b*stards are just sociopaths doing a bit of B&E. We'll see. But I don't think gun laws have anything to do with their crime, unless it is the ease with which bad actors like these can get their hands on one. Anyone want to bet it was stolen? I'll give good odds.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 09:15 PM (Bx4FB)

33 David. You seem to be a good egg. You really do. All I am saying is please be prepared to use, if you have to. I do not think that any classes should be required to carry, encouraged by a tax credit or something if you do receive professional training, but not required. Owning is a right, you can not require something, when it is a right. "I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences." I hear ya brother. It would have been shitty call, either way they went. I want to bring everyone home. But at the same time, I don't want to restrict the rights of honest people. That was the point of my idiocy above. "I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school)," Nothing wrong with either of those weapons. I own them myself, and CC a full sized Kimber Custom Covert II (hey I am a big guy, I can CC a 1911). But good training is a must, IMHO, and if you are ever down in J-Ville, and near the Sports Mans lodge, I will give ya all the training you need. Or if you want to go the harder route, join the Corps, do a few years in the grunts. Then come to RSAS, and after ya pass that you will see me at the MSOS (that place is a black hole that I will never get out of). "I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand." Well of course not, and please do not get me started on the non existent problem that the .40 attempts to solve. But in all seriousness. Be it BnE, or whatever. If she had owned, and had been trained. She may have lived. If she died after that, at least she went out like she came in. Fighting. Even with all the insane gun-laws we have, it is still easier to get a weapon off the street than it is to get one legally. But, it does tend to cost a bit more (depending on what you want). Give me seven hundred and I can get you a Glock 30 with no serial. Take 550 and go through getting a permit, then after waiting for a permit, you can buy your weapon (some states differ). Gun laws only keep honest people honest. Nothing more.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:34 PM (9V6Vj)

34 Not that Ms. Carson's unfortunate judgment would help anyone, but as to being armed, whether or not you are a sharp marksmen, or even armed personally, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the criminal has a reasonable expectation that his efforts *might* be met with deadly force. Criminals understand logic, too, folks. Their moral judgment may be twisted, but their logical judgment is often reasonably sound. Save for the occasional Chicago or VaTech psycho who gives little or no warning before completely losing his grasp on reality, most criminals commit crime with the expectation of getting a reward out of it. The reward may be an economic gain, a material gain, sexual gratification, or simply the adrenaline rush from getting away with an act of violence, but there is an expectation of getting a reward. Similarly, when there is a negative incentive, crime is less likely to occur. An average wallet-and-car-keys theft is generally committed by someone who has an expectation of getting rich today, and generally not by someone who expects he might get shot. It doesn't mean the victim MUST be carrying. It just means that there is a real and randomized uncertainty as to whether the victim MIGHT be carrying. And if given a choice between a random citizen who might be carrying, and a naiive coed who is almost guaranteed not to be on account of well-known school policies, the criminal picks the easy target nine out of ten times. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, except possibly for self-blinded ideologues.

Posted by: anony_mouse_ at March 13, 2008 10:10 PM (WPfpc)

35 As a Duke alum who also is a strong 2nd amendment and pro-gun advocate, I must also admit that instinctively my first thought to this post (which I agree does raise a topic worth discussing) was, oh hell no, with all the frats and sororities and the heavy partying and extreme drunkenness that goes with it I would not want guns on campus.

Posted by: ER at March 13, 2008 10:15 PM (AiJT0)

36 Matt wrote: "When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves." I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire.

Posted by: Ripper at March 13, 2008 10:27 PM (8FvLX)

37 Steve, Matt, David, Ripper et al., Your comments are true from the point of view of the possessor of the CCW permit. However, if the restrictions against concealed carry by CCW permit holders on campus are removed or annulled then the dirtbags searching for easy targets no longer have reason to assume that the local college campus is full of them. The risk/reward equation tilts toward going elsewhere. Though practicing fast draw and target acquisition is a very good thing for the permit holder to do, most of the guys you're worrying about aren't thinking "I can probably get them before they get me." They're thinking "I might get killed." While shooting these characters may be satisfying, better that they should all go to DC and start robbing city council members. ER, One thing made VERY clear in the CCW classes is that if you start waving your firearm around while drunk the permit is gone for a long long time if not permanently. That however raises the heavily ironic possibility of a guy attacking someone from the unarmed party sorority being blown away by someone from Kappa Kappa Gamma or Hillel.

Posted by: Ed Nutter at March 13, 2008 10:54 PM (hI6PN)

38 It wonders me. Why, in every discussion of right to carry VS "Free Fire Zones" the ratbag scum committing the (insert violent crime of choice here___________) with a gun in his hand couldn't miss a flea on a running mongrel's ear at five hundred yards, but someone who wants to carry a defensive gun couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? Someone wanna 'splain it to me?

Posted by: Gerry N. at March 14, 2008 12:47 AM (wearR)

39 Abhijit Mahato and Eve Carson both lived off campus. Mahato was found shot dead in his apartment. Eve was found shot dead several blocks from her home, wearing a t-shirt and no jacket. LE says the ATM photos show the driver and someone else behind him with his back to the camera. I think Eve was abducted from her home, taken to the ATM, and was being held at gunpoint by the guy in back with her. I think both murders could have been prevented if the victims had guns they knew how to use at hand.

Posted by: DebinNC at March 14, 2008 01:37 AM (9LDO4)

40 "I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire." Well that is pretty frigging stupid. No offense, but I hate Cali, I hated it when I was there, I hated it when I went back, and I do not see much changing. But maybe I am missing something here. But just because they will not let you quick draw, does not mean you can not snap in on your own. Even allowing the weapon do drop down to your side, then rapidly acquiring the target will help. That is not rapid fire . "They're thinking "I might get killed." Call it a fringe benefit. "Someone wanna 'splain it to me?" First off, who said anything of the sort? Secondly. If a bad guy is trying to rob ten people, aims at one, but hits another, then he did not miss. But if someone is carrying legally, fires on the bad guy, misses, and the projectile hits little old lady crossing the street, then he/she frigging missed.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:33 AM (9V6Vj)

41 After listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons, I wonder why there is not more of this type of crime every day, everywhere where oblivious young white women come into close contact with young black men full of violence and entitlement-fueled hatred.

Posted by: Al Fin at March 14, 2008 07:51 AM (6PCBb)

42 David, your initial reaction to being shot at is one of the reasons for CCW. If you have a gun, but aren't ready to use it (and nobody is really ready, the first time), you become a ventilated ammo depot and source of a shiny new sidearm for the crooks... IF they know you have a gun. One cowering victim looks pretty much like another to a gun-wielding crook, as long as you aren't open carrying (or wearing a police/army uniform, waving your gun like a flag, etc). Most criminals aren't going to pat people down for extra weapons; they're in an even bigger hurry than their victims, which is why "WALLETS! NOW!!" is usually all you'll get out of them. CCW, if you take the "concealed" part seriously, will keep you alive (if victimized) in your critical first encounter, and more importantly, keep your gun out of the hands of people more willing to use it.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at March 14, 2008 09:11 AM (8Aysa)

43 "(and nobody is really ready, the first time)" Much of the time they are not ready the second or third or fourth time either. But there are things you can do to help prepare yourself.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:56 PM (9V6Vj)

44 Will the Take Back The Night clowns, the Duke faculty fools, and other dopey Durham activists who held canfdlelight vigils and marches against the falsely accused Duke lacrosse guys (ostensibly to protest abuse of women) even make a peep about this case? I doubt it.

Posted by: MJ at March 14, 2008 08:38 PM (AiJXe)

45 What the hell is wrong with you people? This is not a gun control issue, this is about a society that is fundamentally BROKEN. It's about two people who should've never been born because their parents were clearly not up to the task of raising two actual HUMAN BEINGS. Do you really think arming students is going to change what is at the root of senseless acts of violence like this? If you do, you're an idiot. For Christ's sake, wake the hell up and think about why we have so much senseless violence in this country. It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws. It's about raising children to be decent human beings and not pieces of human excrement like the two scumbags who took this beautiful life. Duh.

Posted by: Mark at March 17, 2008 10:33 PM (H02wZ)

46 "It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws." There sir you are incorrect. While things may have turned out different if their parents would have parented them, there is not much you can do to change that. There will always be bad parents. We attempt to educate people, we do what we can to make good parents. But the bottom line here is this, you can not make people do the right things. But you can give honest people the tools to protect themselves against idiots.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 01:51 PM (9V6Vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The inflammatory rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor of twenty-odd years has finally hit the mainstream media, as ABC News is reporting the story Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11.

The lede:

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

The lede doesn't do justice to the actual language used by Rev. Jeremiah Wright or the repeated denunciations of the United States in his sermons, and I'll send you to the story itself to read his actual words.

Wright has had a great deal of influence over Obama as his pastor and spiritual mentor of two decades, in fact lending Obama the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope" from one of his sermons.

One cannot single out Wright as an isolated Obama associate.

To get a fuller sense of the kind of man Barack Obama truly is beyond soundbites and speeches, we are required to revisit the kind and caliber of people he surrounded himself with during his adult years.

In addition to accepting Wright's rhetoric for two decades, Obama has been married to Michelle Obama (formerly Robinson) since October of 1992, and she is known for having more influence over her husband than his closest political advisors, a fact hardly uncommon or surprising for a spouse. In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michelle Robinson focused on her feelings of racial isolation.

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

It reads at the sad commentary of a person who has had the incredible advantages of an Ivy League education, but who can can only see herself through the prism of being apart and alone. These feelings perhaps indicate why she would feel drawn to the Trinity United Church of Christ where Wright preached his inflammatory style of racially-separatist doctrine, as he reinforced her long-held fears.

Having already spent much of her lifetime feeling like an outsider, and with a key spiritual influence attacking the United States, it is perhaps unsurprising that she finds connecting with her country—much less feeling "really proud" of it—an unnatural act.

In addition to such profound influences as his pastor of 20 years and his wife of more than 15 years, Barack Obama has had relationships with far more radical denizens of society, including unrepentant terrorist leader William Ayers of the Weather Underground.

The Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department, and Ayer's girlfriend Diana Oughton and several other members of the group died while assembling bombs destined for a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

How did the Obamas interact with a man who said "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough"?

Barack served with Ayers on the board of directors of the Wood Fund from 1999-2002, and they are at least casual friends according to Dr. Quentin Young.

In addition to these individuals, add Obama's already infamous relationship with political fixer Tony Rezko, currently in the middle of a corruption trial that sees him accused of placing bribes and accepting kickbacks, including kickbacks funneled to Obama's 2004 Senate run. Obama has since given $150,000 raised by Rezko to charity. Rezko was also involved in the purchase of a Obama's home by buying an adjacent lot, then selling part of that lot to the Obama's at one-sixth the price Rezko originally paid.

My boss at Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon notes on his personal blog that he is "not much for guilt-by-association," a sentiment I generally share if the associate is only a fringe player in a person's life. For that reason support of Louis Farrakhan by Obama's church should not be held directly against Obama himself, especially as Obama finally distanced himself from Farrakhan.

But even without him, we are left with a disturbing picture of the people who have great, long-standing, and future influence in Barack Obama's life that cannot be easily dismissed.

Do Americans want as a president a man who sits in on board meetings with proud terrorists, followed a separatist and anti-American pastor for two decades, and who counts as his closest advisor a wife who has made obvious the disconnect she has with her country?

It is unfair to judge a man by casual associations, but no doubt fair to judge him on the company he keeps for years at a time.

Update: Rick Moran has strikingly similar thoughts, posted at almost the same time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:27 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I would add that Obama is obviously a smart, powerful, and persuasive person. It demeans Obama to suppose he was helpless to influence any of these actors and organizations in his life. I'm a member of a progressive church. When I got tired of the all the anti-war complaining and organizing in the church sermons, meetings, and mailing lists, I, along with some other conservatives in the congregation, took action. We started speaking up at meetings, talking to the pastors, and vigorously debating the anti-war folks on the mailing list. It took a year or so, but eventually we persuaded the pastors and congregation to leave the anti-war politics out of our church. Obama wants to be president and lead America to a better place. Why didn't he start with his own congregation?

Posted by: huxley at March 13, 2008 02:26 PM (sYW8z)

2 It was apparently fair game to look at Romney's church, and Huckabee's. Why is Obama's church not fair game? Oh, right, he has a D after his name instead of an R. The rules are different, apparently.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 13, 2008 06:04 PM (XoKp7)

3 I would argue that it is a bit more than just that C-C-G. For example, I do not know of anyone (that is not a member) that has a problem speaking out against the WBC. But it wouldn't be PC to talk bad about Obama's.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 06:12 PM (9V6Vj)

4 To me, Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor disqualifies him as a candidate. If Obama was white and had a white racist mentor, then he would have been chased out of Presidential politics already. Obama has a pleasing exterior personality, but he has pandered to anti-white racists by being so close with that pastor. At least I hope he was pandering. Sadly, judging by Mrs. Obama's anti-American rhetoric, Obama actually believes such extremism and is masking such horrible beliefs under his calm demeanor. We've long since kicked White racists out of mainstream Presidential politics. Black racists should get the same treatment

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 07:03 PM (Uxplv)

5 A bit more blunt than I put it. But ok cool

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 07:19 PM (9V6Vj)

6 Actually, I don't care how much melanin someone has. Racists are racists and should not be sitting in the Oval Office. And the fact that Obama has listened to this stuff for, what, 20 years and not only has he not walked out, but he's contributed large sums tells me what he thinks of this rhetoric... he agrees with it, obviously. All the spin in the world won't change that.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 13, 2008 07:29 PM (XoKp7)

7 For some of you who are still tripping over the false accusation of Guilt By Association. The following makes you squirm a bit, doesn't it? "How did the Obamas interact with a man who said "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough"?" But not enough?. Would you have a problem voting for someone whose friend/associate said this?: "I don't regret setting bombs in black churches; I feel we didn't do enough"? The only difference between what Obama's friend reportedly said and my addition is that I specified a target. The circumstances are the same, but THAT association you'd have no problem condemning.

Posted by: Bill Smith at March 13, 2008 07:57 PM (7ZsCt)

8 My Dad always told me "if you sleep with dogs your bound to get fleas"

Posted by: tonynoboloney at March 13, 2008 08:34 PM (o+NV6)

9 hey, come on, at least he's not the most racist senator with a D after his name!

Posted by: ex-democrat at March 13, 2008 09:23 PM (CPE7i)

10 We are constantly told that hate is learned, hate is taught. I have one question for Obama: "How could you expose your little daughters to the likes of Rev. Wright?"

Posted by: Maggie at March 14, 2008 08:23 AM (K8rep)

11 What can you expect folks. Try waking up.

Posted by: Will Becker at March 14, 2008 09:38 AM (vysVG)

12 In the case of M. Obama, what is cause and what is effect? Many educated blacks express feelings of extreme alienation. The more "education,” often the worse it is. Could it be that their image of themselves, their society and their place in it is the result of what passes for "education" these days? Four to eight years of extreme, left-wing, hate America first indoctrination is bound to have some effect. Also, when the mind set of "America is evil and I am its victim" is re-enforced with substantial professional and economic incentives, it would take a rare character to rise above it. That is not to say the M. Obama's character is bad. She is ordinary and a product of the system that produced her. It is that system that is evil.

Posted by: George Bruce at March 14, 2008 10:37 AM (tj2NC)

13 One chooses a church that agree's with ones own beliefs. Enough said.

Posted by: kate at March 14, 2008 04:53 PM (k77Qx)

14 "She is ordinary and a product of the system that produced her. It is that system that is evil." Once again, someone blaming the system, not the person. She is an adult, she is responsible for her actions just as any sane person is. This blame the system not the person crap has needs to stop.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 05:06 PM (9V6Vj)

15 Its fascinating how the American people are so easily distracted from issues that really matter. Opposed to getting titillated by who Obama and McCain's pastor is and what they think, you may want to take time to consider what if any of this has to do with your paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline; 63,000 jobs lost in the month of February; the war in Iraq which is siphoning off $13 billion a month; 47 million Americans without healthcare; the Gulf coast still resembling a war zone two years post-Katrina; a gallon of milk costing almost $5.00; the astronomical number of American homes in foreclosure; American banking systems threatening to go under with your money still in it; gang violence out of control in many parts of the country especially the Mid west; the number of children in this country living two to three times below the federal poverty level; education system shot to hell --and I could go on. Keep on focusing on the dumb stuff and this country will get the government you already have and deserve because you refuse to look through all the smoke and mirrors. Keep focused on the media and its titillation de jour and come November you will all be living in a tent and getting to work on a skateboard because you were too focused on somebody's pastor instead of the real issues. Stay drunk with distraction if you will. In the interim, I wish you well with the outcomes realized.

Posted by: brenda at March 14, 2008 08:08 PM (d/RyS)

16 Wow. Just wow.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 14, 2008 10:44 PM (XoKp7)

17 Brenda, you are an idiot.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 10:48 PM (9V6Vj)

18 AMEN, BROTHER MATT.

Posted by: Jane at March 16, 2008 10:38 AM (vGBXm)

19 Matt & C-C-G, both bring up valid comments about the Obamas, however to call Brenda an idiot because of the points she brings up is demeaning to the arguments everyone is making trying to affect change. Brenda does bring up interesting points of view. For example, American homes in foreclosure, and some American banks looking to close...Its all linked together in the web of our "I'm entitled attitude". Those being forclosed on signed contracts with variable interest loans, only thinking of todays rate. The banks gave them those loans, knowing any blip on the horizon would blow the borrower out of the water. Both walked into their current circumstances with blinders on. Now everyones crying and not wanting to be held accountable. Main stream media is providing smoke and mirrors to distract us, and make a huge profit doing it. I liken it to the Brits taking away Chinese currency in the 1800's and making opium legal tender. If more people are worried about wether or not Paris is wearing underwear, than who Obama idealizes, then main stream media is accomplishing its mission. We do get the elected officials we deserve. Thats what happens when 35% of eligable voters show up on election day. As far as the war goes, I'm a combat veteran, and my son is serving in Iraq right now. Brenda we either kill them there or they kill us here. Its just that simple. The hard part is finding goverment leadership with enough courage to do whatever is neccesary to win. I'll close with my favorite qoute. "No arsenal,or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." RR

Posted by: kevin at March 17, 2008 01:50 PM (d1zcP)

20 Kevin. "demeaning to the arguments everyone is making trying to affect change." I called her an idiot because she was unable to disassociate her views of the world dynamic from the topic of discussion. She used a typical sub diversion tactic, and it seemed to have worked. The topic is no longer being discussed, and you brought up the points she did. Do you smell what I am stepping in? If not then please read the other posts I have made on this topic of discussion. If you have any questions, my email is real.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 09:35 PM (9V6Vj)

21 To summarize Kevin and Brenda: Please look the other way.

Posted by: PR at March 19, 2008 08:48 AM (tfMGP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

...resigns.

I have no pity for Spitzer, as he brought this upon himself. I do, however, hope that his family finds a way to cope in this most difficult and public disgrace.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:02 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

I see N.C. State's new $250,000 WolfAlert system is having an effect on campus crime.

Or not:

Police at North Carolina State University are being especially alert after two armed robberies in two days, and they are urging the university community to do the same.

Investigators said one victim, a graduate student, was leaving a building on the Centennial Campus when two men armed with a handgun demanded his wallet late Tuesday afternoon.

Two male students told police they were near 2110 Avent Ferry Road at about 9 p.m.Monday when a man wearing a mask and armed with a knife robbed them.

In a chilling near parallel to the recent murder of UNC student body president Eve Carson, NCSU student Natasha Herting (running for student body president) and her roommates were victimized in an break-in of their off-campus apartment, leaving her to state:

"It was really scary just to think that you have no control – that someone could be in your apartment and you have four girls alone," she said.

The statement, of course is false. Four girls share that apartment, but they do have the legal option to assert control over the situation, even if they lack the inclination to assert that right.

Like everyone in North Carolina over the age of 18 who does not have a criminal or mental health record, Herting has the legal right—and one may argue, moral responsibility—to provide for her own safety by obtaining a firearm, learning to use it, and learning North Carolina's self defense laws.

As she and her roommates live in an off-campus apartment and are not subject to the restrictions of university-wide gun free free-crime zones, she very well could put herself in a position where at least she has some control over threats to her life.

Students on campus, unfortunately do not have such an option, a fact that criminals are are too well aware of.

Update: Durham police have detained a "person of intrest" in the Eve Carson murder case. The WTVD story is here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

Thanks clearing that up, as I was a bit confused.

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

Not that it matters, but Reuter's reporter Tim Gaynor interviewed two men from Douglas, Arizona in this article, Alex Black and fellow gun collector Lynn Kartchner. For whatever reason, Gaynor neglects to mention in the article that Kartchner is not just a collector, but a gun shop owner, though that fact emerges in the caption of a story-related photo.

Perhaps ironically, another photo that was shot for the story shows a customer in a Cabela's store in Forth Worth, Texas, features Cabela's salesperson Larry Allen showing a customer a handgun.

The firearm in question? A Taurus revolver marketed as "The Judge" which gained it's name according to Taurus, "because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection."

The judges that prefer this revolver, presumably, are not just urban criminals and drug dealers.

Update: I would probably be remiss not to mention that like the author, I too, would like to see gun control advocacy made an issue in the 2008 presidential election.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

1 We Americans forget that the vast majority of Europe gives up it's political rights and freedoms pretty frequently, historically speaking. In our parents lifetime, Spain, Germany, Italy, the Eastern Block states, etc have all surrendered their political and human rights.

Posted by: Techie at March 12, 2008 10:15 AM (AV8Z6)

2 The article is actually very objective, amazing coming from Reuters. They didn't offer any "balance" by having a member of the Brady organization comment, for example. I thought the article was remarkably fair for the MSM.

Posted by: Robert at March 12, 2008 10:42 AM (hcsKC)

3 I carry a pistol, and I can guarantee you that it is NOT to protect me from NRA members or, legal permit holders.

Posted by: Joe Justice at March 12, 2008 10:45 AM (XLlwa)

4 Aw, c'mon! Why can't you all just admit to your inferiority and enslave yourselves to your betters?? Yeesh! I carry (.45ACP Kimber Pro Carry) whenever and wherever it's lawful to do so. And I'll continue to do so...I don't think I qualify as an urban criminal or a drug dealer...I'm a teacher, a businessman, a firefighter, EMT, and a Soldier. None of which are probably popular with Europeans. Orion

Posted by: Orion at March 12, 2008 10:53 AM (urNkV)

5 And, you know, *hobbyists*. I don't carry, hunt, or collect, but I do shoot (at the range) for fun.

Posted by: Kai Jones at March 12, 2008 11:09 AM (//srd)

6 As Ted Nugent says, if the only use for a firearm is to kill another human being, all of mine are defective. I like that Taurus, BTW. Not a bad weapon for a judge to carry: powerful, simple and of limited range.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at March 12, 2008 11:14 AM (sdVks)

7 "he vast majority of Europe gives up it's (sic) political rights and freedoms pretty frequently" I have always felt that a great gulf between American and European sensibilities vis-a-vis government, rights and freedoms is informed by the fact that, as a society, we do not share the historical experience and culture of feudalism. For thousands of years and numerous generations many Europeans were mere chattel to the government and institutions, and the political culture that grew from that reality is still largly authoritarian, controlling and elitist. In America, however, many who built our political machinery have their cultural roots in specifically leaving behind feudalism and even actively fighting against its long reach.

Posted by: submandave at March 12, 2008 11:26 AM (UdYT0)

8 I once met a group of soldiers on holiday in Mexico; they came from England and the Netherlands. We got drunk and talked politics. They told me that the United States has an advantage over Europe, politically, because we were lucky enough to invent our government while they merely inherited theirs, with 2000 years of warts. They seemed a tad envious.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2008 11:36 AM (tT2sa)

9 It does appear that they seem actually surprised about this novel Sociological discovery of theirs, almost at the level of, “Whoa! Gun owners can read and write, and they use SPOONS too!” One real subtext of the story is that Americans maintain a vibrant interest in our actual History and the means by which we maintain our independence. That is reflected in that same story-context is that Teh Yuropeen's are so ultra sophisticated and suffused with *it* they are disdainful and “over” History. Well, History may be done with them too as Eurabia takes over. They remind me of the foppish idiots posturing in glossy Vanity Fair couture ads - hapless fashion victims.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at March 12, 2008 12:06 PM (VNM5w)

10 The column also insults the intelligence of foreigners.

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 12:07 PM (dOpeP)

11 None of you has mentioned the fact that all the Europeans who refused to give up their freedoms to the various tyrants either died fighting them or came here. We have a gene pool selected for those who will do what it takes to stay free.

Posted by: Mike K at March 12, 2008 12:31 PM (erFnD)

12 Jeffersonian said: I like that Taurus, BTW. Not a bad weapon for a judge to carry: powerful, simple and of limited range Not a bad concept for ALL of a judge's tools. Powerful, simple, and of limited range... ;o)

Posted by: Don at March 12, 2008 12:34 PM (zS9LP)

13 Well the reason for calling it the judge really ruined it for me. I always thought it was named the judge because it's the last thing a criminal wants to see aka the judge. Or even better would be the other two guns I wanted released by Taurus... The Jury, and The Executioner. Don't worry, they'll fire this reporter for being a gun lover soon enough.

Posted by: drdoct at March 12, 2008 12:36 PM (vYL+n)

14 84 gun deaths a day? 34 by homicide? Do we really think there are more accidental gun deaths than homicides in the US each day? Where did they get their facts? Something stinks here. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at March 12, 2008 12:37 PM (Pyd3M)

15 Is it true that Europeans EAT THEIR DEAD?

Posted by: Apollo at March 12, 2008 12:42 PM (PoTAh)

16 Mike K, The gene pool is selected as you note. However it is subject to the same degeneration so prevalent in Europe. See the faculty of any Ivy League university for concentrated examples.

Posted by: Right Wing Nutter at March 12, 2008 12:45 PM (hI6PN)

17 Actually, the problem has always been in the numbers. When you have 300 million citizens and a 30k die every year, even from unnatural causes like "gun related homicide", it's really not the great tragedy, as cold as that may sound. Further, notice how he splits out his numbers regarding "gun deaths" and "gun homicides". If you didn't know, suicide is the number one gun related death (54% I believe) in the United States per the Bureau of Statistics and spiked considerably after 9/11/01. Which is not unusual either. Why aren't people demanding gun control laws? Ask yourselves, as you read this blog, how many of you personally know someone who was shot and/or killed with a gun? Not related to military experience, that is. It's about 1 in 10,000. Not an epidemic. Certainly, not a good reason to change or damage a constitutional right.

Posted by: kat-missouri at March 12, 2008 01:02 PM (ZOc4K)

18 Subsunk, don't forget suicide. The gun is quite handy for suicide. Although most suicide I saw was brought on by health issues. Seems that some folks don't want to wait around for cancer.

Posted by: Peter at March 12, 2008 01:10 PM (d/RyS)

19 Mike K said: We have a gene pool selected for those who will do what it takes to stay free. Agreed . Another way in which the gene pool is selected is for religion. For those Europeans for whom religion was important, but who disagreed with the state religions of the countries they were born in, many came to the US where they could practice their faith without government interference. Many Europeans who were not strong believers in the state religions, to whom religion was a matter of indifference , so that they did not feel degraded to outwardly conform to the state religions ( I obey but I do not comply), stayed in Europe. So the gene pool in Europe has been self-selected for indifference to religion, as the gene pool in the US has been self-selected for those to whom religion is important. I am an American and an agnostic, but I do not feel the hostility towards believers that many in Europe do.

Posted by: Gringo at March 12, 2008 02:35 PM (w5N3E)

20 The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. Elimination of guns would turn most of those into drug overdoses, etc., and not reduce the number.

Posted by: Byron at March 12, 2008 02:51 PM (9oU1J)

21 When I first heard about gun control in a 9th grade Civics class (in 1949) I brought up the subject at dinner that evening - blindly following my teacher's influence (she was all for it; and a dyed in the wool liberal - an admirer of Claude Pepper). My dad - whose role in life was to teach us to think for ourselves - said, "Honey, if you wanted to take over a country whose populace was armed, what would be the first thing you would do?" "Get rid of the guns?" I answered. (Duh!) "Yes!" my father said, beaming at me - his belatedly smart offspring. As long as a large portion of our country is armed, that's as long as we will remain free. A note to the "guns are evil" crowd: We also keep you free!

Posted by: Shi at March 12, 2008 02:53 PM (MiqvT)

22 I think Taurus is kidding about the origin of the Judge's name. I don't remember it being marketed under any other name (though it bears a resemblance to the Thunder Five); how were judges buying it before it was available? Oh, and: Not a bad concept for ALL of a judge's tools. Powerful, simple, and of limited range... ;o) Brilliant. Wish like heck I'd written that.

Posted by: Mars vs Hollywood at March 12, 2008 03:19 PM (tEYz8)

23 "Perhaps ironically, another photo that" I know the media gets it wrong all the time. But that is not an AK 47. AK 47s have milled receivers, that is a stamped receiver. But then again it is not a true AKM either because it is not select fire. Looks to be a parts gun made from a Yugo built barrel and receiver and more than likely U.S. manufactured trigger and bolt groups. In echoing many of the others. I am in the military, hold a TS-SCI, and I carry a Kimber Custom Covert II (legally). Am I somehow a criminal? "I carry (.45ACP Kimber Pro Carry) " Good piece, but I prefer the full five inch. I also own every standard issue service rifle the U.S. has ever issued, and am now working on my Russian collection. "The column also insults the intelligence of foreigners. posted by Matt at March 12, 2008 12:07 PM" This was not me. The real Matt

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:05 PM (9V6Vj)

24 Personally, I carry a copy of It Takes a Village with me for self defense, and read it aloud to attackers.

Posted by: mike at March 12, 2008 05:10 PM (kcdgj)

25 Sorry I quoted the wrong picture. I meant to put this one up. "Gaynor neglects to mention in the article that Kartchner is not just a collector, but a gun shop owner, though that fact emerges in the caption of a story-related photo."

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:11 PM (9V6Vj)

26 Most of the gun death statistics fall into four categories: 1)murder of victims, 2) homicide of criminals by victims, 3)suicides, and 4) accidents. The accidental death/injury toll is rapidly declining, and the criminals are being shot by more and more victims, due to concealed-carry laws. These are good trends. If the suicidal people do not have guns, they have unlimited other methods. The bottom line is, most of the people getting shot now deserve it.

Posted by: lynn kartchner at March 13, 2008 04:27 PM (vV+G9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The story is a couple of days old, but should echo across campuses nationwide: University police are getting patrol carbines in Arizona:

Police departments at Arizona's three universities plan to arm their officers with military-style assault rifles within the next year, officials said Tuesday.

The new rifles would give campus police officers long-range shooting capabilities, allowing them to hit targets at the end of long hallways or atop tall buildings, officials said.

Arizona State University will be the first of the three schools to use the weapons. Officers there will be trained to use the rifles in the next few months, said ASU police spokesman Cmdr. Jim Hardina.

Officers will undergo 40 hours of training before using the weapons.

"We don't want to just throw rifles out there," Hardina said.

Eight officers at the University of Arizona will get similar training before a rifle program launches there in four to five months, officials said. Northern Arizona University officials said a rifle program was in the works, although a specific start date was not immediately available.

The precise firearms in question are semi-automatic Bushmaster carbines equipped with EOTech holographic optical sights, vertical foregrips and tactical lights, as shown in this article by Matt Culbertson of ASU Web Devil. As equipped, the firearms are well-suited for clearing buildings, which would probably be the most likely scenario to which they wold be deployed, in the event of the tragic situations like those at NIU and Virginia Tech.

This is a development that more college and university police forces should emulate.

While most full-time university police forces already arm their officers with handguns, the inherent accuracy and effective range of a carbine such as those purchased for use by ASU officers would both increase the range at which officers could engage threats in extreme situations, and also increase the likelihood of any shots fired finding their preferred targets.

Missed shots typically mean that more rounds have to be fired to end a threat, and each additional shot—particularly those shots that miss the target and continue downrange as the laws of physics require—increases the odds of innocent students, faculty, or staff members stopping a bullet.

It will be interesting to see if this idea radiates out to other university police departments.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:29 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

A body was found, shot multiple times in the head, yesterday morning about a half-mile from the University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill.

She has now been identified.

Chapel Hill police have identified a woman found dead near the University of North Carolina campus Wednesday morning as the university's student body president.

UNC senior Eve Carson, 22, was found shot multiple times in the head about a half-mile from campus.

The News & Observer seems to hint that the murder may have occurred during a carjacking.

Investigators are looking for Carson's stolen 2005 blue Toyota Highlander with Georgia license plate AIV 6690. They believe the vehicle was taken during the crime.

What a shame, to lose such a promising young person to seemingly random violence.

The University's statement is here.

Police are asking anyone with information to call 919-968-2760.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:10 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

James Gibney of The Atlantic writes that "U.S. military personnel have been raping Okinawans for the last 60-plus years," though graciously allowing that "the overwhelming majority of U.S. military personnel aren't sociopaths."

Gibney does not provide evidence of six-decades of continual sexual assault, but then, he wasn't shooting for accuracy, just overwrought hyperbole to justify his premise.

Writing in Asia Times Online, Chalmers Johnson notes that since the most infamous case in 1995, there have been precisely four similar incidents:

On June 29, 2001, a 24-year-old air force staff sergeant, Timothy Woodland, was arrested for publicly raping a 20-year-old Okinawan woman on the hood of a car.

On November 2, 2002, Okinawan authorities took into custody Marine Major Michael J Brown, 41 years old, for sexually assaulting a Filipina barmaid outside the Camp Courtney officer's club.

On May 25, 2003, Marine Military Police turned over to Japanese police a 21-year-old lance corporal, Jose Torres, for breaking a 19-year-old woman's nose and raping her, once again in Kin village.

In early July 2005, a drunken air force staff sergeant molested a 10-year-old Okinawan girl on her way to Sunday school. He at first claimed to be innocent, but then police found a photo of the girl's nude torso on his cell phone.

Not including the case dismissed this past week, that brings us a total of five recorded cases in the past 13 years.

By way of comparison, if Mr. Gibney really did have an interest in "The Price of Empire" in Okinawa, he could perhaps spend some time researching the number of Okinawan citizens either directly killed by the Japanese, used as human shields, or were ordered to commit suicide by the Japanese military during the Battle of Okinawa during the Second World War.

Estimates range into the high thousands.

I somewhat doubt, however, that this particular reality suits Mr. Gibney's preferred narrative, where American soldiers are the preferred oppressors.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

The NY Times City Room blog has the latest details:

The police have attributed the blast to an improvised explosive device, and police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said the device had been placed in an ammunition box like the kind that can be bought at a military supply store. Mr. Kelly spoke with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at a news conference at 9:30 a.m. in Times Square. The authorities are looking into a possible connection to two earlier bombings at foreign consulates in Manhattan, in 2005 and 2007. Official said that in todayÂ’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle. Subways and traffic are running normally through Times Square.

They also have a useful slideshow of images from the scene, which gives us just enough information to start making some inferences about the bomb and the bomber.

Looking at images 1-3 in the slideshow, you'll note that the damage from the blast seems relatively minor. Image 1 give you a pretty good idea of precisely where the bomb was placed, as you can see how the shrapnel radiated out from a central point, which appears to have been (as we face the building) almost dead-center in front of the plate-glass window.

Slightly enlarging the same photo and cropping it to focus on the recruiting center front helps to see the central radiating point of the blast a bit better.

You'll also note in this closer view, and in the second and third images of the scene, that there was no attempt to make this an anti-personnel weapon, as there is no evidence of there being ball bearing, BBs, or another other sort of shrapnel that would form an intentional secondary blast mechanism.

The time of the blast was around 3:43 AM, when pedestrian traffic in the area is typically light and the recruiting station was closed. From the time of the blast and lack of shrapnel, we can make the guarded assumption that causing casualties was not the bomber's intention.

We can also infer that the bomber had no intention of destroying the targeted building as well, as the blast was small, and the ammunition can that carried the device could have easily held far more explosives.

From the choice of target, lack of shrapnel, and low amount of explosives used, I think it only logical to conclude that the blast was political in nature, a violent though purposefully less-lethal bomb, if you can ever call an improvised explosive device "less lethal." For these reasons, I doubt it was the act of Islamic extremists.

This was an act of domestic terrorism.

I do not, however, feel comfortable blaming any specific anti-war group for this act, or even pinning this as an anti-war act at this point in time.

Anti-war groups, in general, are non-violent in nature, and those that lean towards the anarchist fringe that are violence prone tend towards vandalism, and generally, don't have the technical expertise to manufacture even such a simple device.

Whoever built this bomb may have sympathies towards the anti-war movement and/or anti-military feelings, but I would be surprised to find them affiliated officially with any specific anti-war or anti-military group, and would be even more surprised if anyone inside one of these groups had advance knowledge of the attack.

There are some news accounts noting that there were similar minor blasts carried out against the Mexican and British consulates in New York in recent years, each using blackpowder inside inert hand grenade casings, also carried out by a bomber on a bicycle.

This seems quite plausible, but we won't know more until the FBI announces the findings of their investigation.

Update: A reminder, via Ace-of-Spades, that the peace-loving left isn't always so peace-leaving:

Thirty-Eight Years Ago Today

March 6, 1970 at 11:55 a.m.

Three members of the radical activist group known as the Weather Underground, Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins, blew themselves straight to hell when the bomb they were building, which was intended to blow up a dance at Fort Dix, exploded in an otherwise quiet New York neighborhood.

Had they been better bomb-makers, instead of killing themselves, they would have killed an untold number of American soldiers. In the name of peace.

Luckily, the Weathermen's expertise at bomb-making left much to be desired.

The Weathermen's hatred of the United States manifested itself in the bombings of the U.S. Capitol building, New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon, and the National Guard offices in Washington, D.C. The Weathermen's leader, Bill Ayers summed up the Weathermen's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

Yes, the Bill Ayer's above is the same man that has had Barack Obama as a dinner guest, and who served with Obama on the board of directors of the left-leaning Woods Fund from 1999 until 2002.

Diana Oughton, one of the deceased, was Ayer's girlfriend until some of the 100 pounds of dynamite they intended to use to bomb a non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix detonated.

Update: Hot Air has surveillance video of the bike-riding bomber approaching the recruiting center, and the NYPD thinks they have his bike.

Was the suspect smart enough to wipe his prints from the bike?

Update: The bomber sent an anti-war manifesto to eight NY Democratic Congressmen.

Update: Coincidence? Authorities are now saying the anti-war activist that mailed the "We did it!" letters to Congress had nothing to do with the recruiting center blast.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:48 AM | Comments (97) | Add Comment
Post contains 939 words, total size 7 kb.

1 My very first thought, when I saw the headline and before reading the story, was that this was the New York extension of the Code Pink protests outside the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center. From the bomber's perspective, this is a "statement," as opposed to a massively destructive act of war. As you note, it's not obvious whether the bomber was actually affiliated with an anti-War group, but that's certainly where his sympathies lie.

Posted by: Bookworm at March 06, 2008 11:05 AM (ueKxq)

2 I keep reading that it was a small explosion, but early this morning, right after it happened, I heard two different phone interviews with people who lived on the upper floors of either this building or one very close. The first interviewee said she lived on the 41st floor and the blast shook her apartment. Another caller, a man, said it shook him out of bed. That doesn't sound like such a small blast to me. I think they are lucky that the damage wasn't more extensive.

Posted by: Sara at March 06, 2008 11:34 AM (Wi/N0)

3 Isn't the ammo can alone enough to make some pretty lethal shrapnel? I'm not arguing against your thesis, which seems sound. I'm just saying, if someone had been unlucky enough to be walking past, this could have been nasty.

Posted by: S. Weasel at March 06, 2008 11:43 AM (rasT+)

4 Some conclusions are being jumped to here. How many recruits are angry at their recruiters? I would bet this is at least as likely as an anti-war protester. And since an ammo can was used, this is probably not a bad bet. An anti-war protester would be more likely to use a pipe or a jar/molotv style.

Posted by: Skyler at March 06, 2008 12:10 PM (xakVm)

5 i think i've read a dozen commentaries on this bomb, and yours is the only rational response to this whole thing. Let's wait for the FBI. Everyone else has figured out who it is already, and wants to cut their heads off for treason. Thank you for this small island of calm in an ocean of screaming vigilantes.

Posted by: eric taylor at March 06, 2008 12:13 PM (HaPIL)

6 How dare they interfere with a person's right to choose what to do with their body!

Posted by: Glen Harness at March 06, 2008 12:20 PM (qrVOZ)

7 "in todayÂ’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle." At least he's a carbon-neutral domestic terrorist.

Posted by: zorn at March 06, 2008 12:25 PM (TSa/6)

8

How many recruits are angry at their recruiters?

Actually, not many. While you are being recruited, it's all sunshine and candy. It isn't till you get to boot that you realize that the recruiter may have colored the facts a bit. When I went in the Marines, the only people mad at the recruiter were the ones he had to tell that they were not eligible, for whatever reason.

Posted by: DanB at March 06, 2008 12:28 PM (lUqUe)

9 I wouldn't be surprised if the culprit is a "Unibomber" type. Just look at the police sketch of the Unibomber that was originally distributed: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Unabomber-sketch.png/180px-Unabomber-sketch.png Coincidence? I think NOT.

Posted by: MarkJ at March 06, 2008 12:30 PM (IKzfP)

10 "How many recruits are angry at their recruiters?" Skyler, you do know there is no draft, right? Everyone who visits a recruitment office does so voluntarily, to obtain information so that they can make their own decision about whether to volunteer or not. How, exactly, would this lead to recruits being angry at their recruiters? Angry about what? Please explain.

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 12:30 PM (0suEp)

11 Sklyer, that's a pretty lame assumption you're making. If someone was mad at his recruiter, is the answer "I'm going to attack his place of work," which means he gets a day or two off or "I'm going to attack him for lying to me"? This seems like it was clearly a political act aimed at the military. The purpose was to send a message to the war effort.

Posted by: Tibor at March 06, 2008 12:39 PM (STAFE)

12 Likely a domestic terrorist a la OKC or possibly a COINTELPRO hit.

Posted by: Samir at March 06, 2008 12:40 PM (9xpb9)

13 How many recruits are angry at their recruiters? Few, if any. This is high brow comedy. But, lets take this "logic" to it's extension. Assuming for the minute there is someone pissed off enough at their recruiter to do this. What is the likely hood they were recruited in Manhattan? I'd say 0.02 Likely hood they are still so mad, while not on active duty, but out of the military riding around on a bicycle in Manhattan in a hooded sweatshirt: 0.000000001 I would bet this is at least as likely as an anti-war protester. And you'd lose that bet.

Posted by: The Ace at March 06, 2008 12:42 PM (BNlV7)

14 so I make a comment saying that we hold our troops to a higher standard than the insurgents and it gets deleted? in-f-ing-credible. talk about thought control.

Posted by: rapid at March 06, 2008 12:54 PM (c7CKN)

15 Rapid, I have no record of you even posting a comment, so please, put on your big-boy pants and stop whining. I have, however, deleted someone else's comment for profanity. It isn't allowed here, folks, and if you can't make your point without it, you are invited to leave.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 06, 2008 12:59 PM (xNV2a)

16 "Anti-war groups, in general, are non-violent in nature" Really? Someone should tell them that.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at March 06, 2008 01:19 PM (IuKAf)

17 "possibly a COINTELPRO hit" *snort*

Posted by: Rob Crawford at March 06, 2008 01:21 PM (IuKAf)

18 I think we need to convene a commission and have a series of hearings and investigations complete with wild speculations in the conclusions. I've seen IED damage before, working in movies, and this was no IED. It was a controlled demolition from _INSIDE_ the recruiting office. Obvious suspects: New York City moneymen, Bush, the Israelis, the RNC, the KKk, Bush, freepers, Michelle Malkin, Bush, St. John McBush, the Clintons, the ghost of Vince Foster, Bush or the one Dixie chick who is a dwarf or a midget. Or, going to the left, Cindy McKinney. Anyone check that facade for slap marks?

Posted by: docweasel at March 06, 2008 01:21 PM (WzPzd)

19 We can see the pictures, too. Can you tell us something we don't already know?

Posted by: nick at March 06, 2008 01:23 PM (iO6Ju)

20 About a year ago, local lefties did something similar in Milwaukee. I'd post a link to the story, but your blog won't let me.

Posted by: Mike at March 06, 2008 01:26 PM (6xL4n)

21 smells like a false-flag op; no one truly opposed to the military would hand recruiting stations such a powerful PR tool as this. one can only imagine the sympathy (and sympathetic legislation, no doubt) this will engender....

Posted by: j at March 06, 2008 01:28 PM (hB0jP)

22 The positioning of the bomb in the first picture is incorrect. Look for the pic of the marine opening the door. You can clearly see that the front edge of the door is heavily bent, but that bend sharply abates so that the bend is gone before the opposite end of the door. This indicates the blast was very close to the leading edge of the door, which took the brunt of the explosion. No doubt the doorjam near the leading edge of the door is probably heavily damaged and bent almost directly back, tho the pictures I've seen are taken at the wrong angle to show this.

Posted by: mcgurk at March 06, 2008 01:52 PM (Ri74D)

23 Holy crap J!! You hit it right on the head! False flag! Explosives never broke glass! Look at the pattern of how the glass fell! You're a gen-U-wine jeen-I-us! There's still glass at the top of the window! It defies all the laws of gravity! Can anyone confirm Rove's whereabouts at the time of the attack?

Posted by: TBinSTL at March 06, 2008 02:00 PM (2vLkB)

24 "smells like a false-flag op; no one truly opposed to the military would hand recruiting stations such a powerful PR tool as this." Um, right. Sure. Because anti-war protesters are all clear-thinking, logical people who would never do anything stupid, pointless, or counter-productive. No, the military recruiters must have set off the bomb themselves, in order to . . . um . . . wait a minute, I'm sure I can think of some way that bombing their own office would benefit them. Wait, I've got it! To discredit the anti-war protesters and make them look bad! Because the anti-war folks are definitely not doing that to themselves already.

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 02:06 PM (c6S8U)

25 Hey, I just had a thought. Wouldn't a small bomb placed in front of a window take out the entire window? In the pictures, only the bottom part has been destroyed. If it is shatterproof glass, is shatterproof glass that damage- resistant?

Posted by: chicagodudewhotrades at March 06, 2008 02:07 PM (Efj0b)

26 Good analysis, Bob! See you in March!

Posted by: Snooper at March 06, 2008 02:11 PM (U01dQ)

27 "Anti-war groups, in general, tend towards the non-violent..." Since when has this nonsense been true? One of these "non-violent" types concluded an argument with me by taking a swing at me. He had to be held back by his friends. During that same event i saw a half-dozen of these "non-violent" types menace a fifteen year-old girl, knock her to the ground and tear up her sign. a year ago, a fossil from the original SDS started a new version. It's kinda silly i know, but what purpose is served by creating a new "SDS" when the current "anti-war" movement has all bases well-covered, especially the campuses? The only thing this "anti-war" movement misses that those nostalgic for the SDS of olde might note, is the sort of vile domestic terrorism of the SDS offshoot, the Weather Underground. Has anyone seen the Weather Underground documentary? You know, the one nominated for an Oscar and winner of the Palm D'Or? It's a celebration of "anti-war" violence and a lamentation that the current anti-war movement isn't earnest enough to start killing "pigs" again. Not only are they not "generally non-violent", they are slaveringly eager for the opportunity to become violent. Even if we dismiss that this was in any way cordinated amonst several people, individual progressives have been quite active in committing violent acts for "Social Justice". Andrew Mickel shot a cop in the back of the head after leaving his manifesto on IndyMedia. Matthew Marren sought out and shot an Air Force member before shooting himself and leaving behind a letter explaining that it was an act against the government. Two years ago, "peace" protesters conducted a drive-by shooting on a Denver recruiting facility. Honestly, that was nonsense what you wrote there. You should check the NYC Indymedia, They're not hedging their bets on this at all: "Bringing the war home, a hooded bicyclist bombed the Times Square Armed Forces recruiting station this morning. There has been no statement regarding this thus far, and perhaps there will not be, although in this case, perhaps the medium is the message." They even have a theory on the linkage of this and the other two past explosions: "The New York Times is reporting that police suspect a connection between this attack and similar blasts outside the British Consulate (May 5, 2005) and the Mexican Consulate in New York (Oct. 26, 2007). Unmentioned in the NY Times coverage: the British Consulate bombing occurred on the day of the UK's general elections, during which pro-war PM Tony Blair won a third term; the Mexican Consulate blast was on the one-year anniversary of the murder of Indymedia journalist Brad Will, a killing widely attributed to PRI-backed paramilitaries."

Posted by: albnorgrimex at March 06, 2008 02:12 PM (jCNT0)

28 At ABC news comments the liberals are chanting the same thing. That it was an inside job. Their claim is that an anti-military hate crime is actually the military commiting a crime against themselves, in order to frame liberals and discredit their views. They believe this attack to be anti-liberal. Weird.

Posted by: brando at March 06, 2008 02:15 PM (qzOby)

29 "Wouldn't a small bomb placed in front of a window take out the entire window?" Obviously not. It looks like safety glass to me. Safety glass is a laminated glass made by sandwiching a thin, flexible plastic sheet between two layers of glass. When safety glass is broken, the plastic layer tends to hold the fragments together instead of letting them fly everywhere. Safety glass also shatters into smaller pieces with fewer sharp points than ordinary plate glass. The results are consistent with what is shown in the photos of the recruiting office. This picture shows another example.

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 02:20 PM (c6S8U)

30 Isn't the ammo can alone enough to make some pretty lethal shrapnel? Generally, no. Ammo boxes aren't designed to turn into bombs if enough ammo 'cooks off' : traditional metal ones have weaknesses at the seams to allow gases to vent without really making a messy detonation, while plastic ones will just rip the rings and hinges off and rocket a plastic piece into the air. They could do some damage, but not much compared to a traditional pipebomb or even a well-designed suitcase. That's not to say the bomber meant for it to be less-lethal. You don't need much technical knowledge to make a very basic bomb, and I expect he or she thought it would do well enough damage for their purposes and didn't care past that point. My bet is that the case, and for that matter the target and likely the explosive and trigger device (gunpowder rather than homemade stuff), were all chosen for the symbolism.

Posted by: gattsuru at March 06, 2008 02:22 PM (X3kcN)

31 Should name this site "Dumbass Neocon Bastards".

Posted by: Hymietown Boy at March 06, 2008 04:45 PM (9PuVT)

32 Glad you could stop by, HB. Please come back if you have any more brilliant insights to share.

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 05:05 PM (0suEp)

33 False flag attack to divert people's attention away from the collapsing economy until the rich have managed to sell all their stocks and bonds.

Posted by: Bubba at March 06, 2008 05:18 PM (nhFyu)

34 For the people questioning my credibility, I'm an officer of Marines. I've seen plenty of craziness that would make my theory plausible. Not everyone who enlists is a model citizen or even quite right in the head, though I'm not in the least saying it's a significant number. Most are the heros you expect them to be, just not 100%. More like 99.99%. But 0.01% of 200,000 is enough to have a few demented people out there. You know the old saying, tell it to the Marines, they've seen everything. In the end, it doesn't much matter why they did it. It only matters that they get caught. And punished.

Posted by: Skyler at March 06, 2008 05:39 PM (xakVm)

35 "False flag attack to divert people's attention away from the collapsing economy until the rich have managed to sell all their stocks and bonds." Whatever you say, Bubba. I do have a few questions about this theory. 1. Who, exactly, is supposed to have carried out this "false flag attack" on behalf of "the rich"? 2. Who, exactly, is "the rich"? Everyone who owns any stock or bonds? 3. Just how long does it take to sell stocks and bonds, anyway? I was under the impression that such transactions could be done in a matter of minutes. Why haven't "the rich" already sold their stocks and bonds, if that's what they want to do? 4. When was it determined that the economy is "collapsing"? I missed it. 5. How will this event "divert people's attention" from the economic collapse if the news media are reporting said collapse? Or are they in on the conspiracy too? If the news media have already promised to keep quiet about the collapse, then why is a false-flag bombing necessary? 6. If people's attention isn't distracted, exactly what will happen? 7. What have you been smoking, and where can I get some?

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 06:19 PM (0suEp)

36 Skyler, are you claiming that there are more mentally unstable people in the military than in the civilian population? I don't think there is any evidence to support such an assertion.

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 06:21 PM (0suEp)

37 "Everyone who visits a recruitment office does so voluntarily, to obtain information so that they can make their own decision about whether to volunteer or not. How, exactly, would this lead to recruits being angry at their recruiters? Angry about what?" You seem to think someone who would plant a bomb is rational and not prone to overreaction to events real or imagined. I suggest you revisit your premise. And Bob: "This was an act of domestic terrorism." I suggest you look up the definition of the term (USA PATRIOT Section 802). Without knowing the intention, you can't make that determination. It could just as easily be simple mindless vandalism for all we know now. Keep you bugbears in check.

Posted by: Overreaction Central at March 06, 2008 06:22 PM (V+jPs)

38 Skyler is right. Saying that you are still looking for your recruiter is a cliche among veterans. It is a sort of short hand bonding ritual.

Posted by: Lifeofthemind at March 06, 2008 06:30 PM (qhNk+)

39 "You seem to think someone who would plant a bomb is rational and not prone to overreaction to events real or imagined." Nope. I'm sure the person who planted the bomb was irrational. And we already know about lots of irrational people who hate the military and are in the habit of using recruiting offices as the target of their hostility. I see no need to invent, out of whole cloth, a theory that this attack was carried out by a disgruntled member of the military. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a notion.

Posted by: Pat at March 06, 2008 06:42 PM (0suEp)

40 Pat, of course not. I was providing hypothetical numbers. But it could be the case, I just don't know.

Posted by: Skyler at March 06, 2008 06:45 PM (xakVm)

41 Re: rapid's complaint of 12:54 and CY's answer of 12:59 - The comment that rapid thinks got deleted was actually posted over here. It wasn't deleted, he was simply looking for it in the wrong comment thread. Glad to be of service. :-)

Posted by: Robin Munn at March 06, 2008 07:14 PM (vcwY0)

42 I've already heard attempts by media to downplay it by calling nis "vandalism"

Posted by: Sam at March 06, 2008 10:58 PM (qetyY)

43 >How many recruits are angry at their recruiters? I would bet this is at least as likely as an anti-war protester. And since an ammo can was used, this is probably not a bad bet. Ammo cans are widely available at sporting goods stores and surplus stores and hardware stores and... "False flag" ?? Occam's Razor is more likely.

Posted by: Barry at March 06, 2008 11:40 PM (aJtCl)

44 I note that anti-war wackos are now taking credit. I believe that several helpings of crow are in order for some of the commenters here.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 06, 2008 11:42 PM (43PDP)

45 All things considered New York is over reacting. Clearly no one got hurt, or was even meant to get hurt. This is a patriotic outcry against the what the american institution has become. Remember, just because the news reports a story one way does not mean it's the right way.

Posted by: iraq vet at March 07, 2008 12:29 AM (hocia)

46 Skyler: For the people questioning my credibility, I'm an officer of Marines. I call bull. You are not a Marine, much less an officer. Who is your S-3?

Posted by: Fen at March 07, 2008 12:56 AM (huzqX)

47 It was terrorism and it was committed by anti-war activists. Big surprise. From the Daily News: "Happy New Year, We Did It," declared a sign held by a man who was photographed with the placard outside the recruiting center sometime before the early-morning blast. Cops were investigating whether he was the elusive bomber. Copies of the photo and a 32-page missive that railed against the Iraq war and was signed "David Karne" were sent to nine congressional offices, a source briefed on the probe said.

Posted by: Zach Foreman at March 07, 2008 03:53 AM (lHN8H)

48 Who is my S-3? What an absurd question. How would that help you know whether I'm a Marine? If I said Major John Doe, would that even mean anything to you? And what would that indicate anyway? My point is valid regardless of my credentials: People should be more careful in making accusations until they know the facts. I was simply pointing out that it's not a far fetched idea at all that a disgruntled recruit was getting revenge on his recruiter. The danger of jumping to conclusions is that if you jump in the wrong direction, then in the future the guilty party will be able to claim that everyone is maligning them again. We should be a bit more patient and wait for a little more evidence before condemning people and organizations for specific acts. There's plenty of stuff to legitimately hate these violent and disruptive anti-war organizations. We don't need to look too hard for that. I'd rather that we know they've done something before piling on top or else they will be able to wave a bloody flag in our faces the next time they do something bad. Someone has been emailing me about this and I'll copy what I told her: I have personally seen a Marine who, through an unfortunate admin error, was not given his enlistment bonus but didn't even tell anyone. He destroyed three jet engines, wrote enough fraudulent checks to cover the amount of his bonus, and went back home to mommy and daddy until I called them and told them he was about to be declared a deserter. I had a master sergeant in my squadron get thrown in prison for having sex with his elementary school-age children because his wife was sick and he "had to do something to relieve his urges." While I've been in, I've seen a Lance Corporal on my base steal an attack aircraft and fly it around southern California for a few hours (his name was LCpl Foot, you can look that up, and I was the duty officer that day). I've had drug dealers and gang members in my section. I've had a Marine threaten to kill himself and the commanding officer so he wouldn't have to go to Iraq (sadly, he succeeded). The commanding officer of another logistics squadron was murdered by a disgruntled Marine in Camp Pendleton back in 87 or so. Around the same time, a Marine went crazy and started shooting people on the shooting range. In the news, an army soldier has just in this recent war rolled a grenade into the tent of his officers. Do I need to continue? Shall we also go into Arthur and Michael Walker, Lonetree and other traitors and spies? I think it's fascinating that so many people here think that it's virtually impossible that someone in the military could be involved. It's not inconceivable that one of those kooks went through the "busiest" recruiting station in the country. There are plenty of kooks in the military. Yes, there are likely more who are not in the military, but my point is that before jumping to conclusions it's best to be patient and learn a bit more about who the guilty bastards are.

Posted by: Skyler at March 07, 2008 05:55 AM (xakVm)

49 It's way too much like the Weather Underground. How do we know they haven't kept their organization over the decades--just in case we got an "evil" President as they claim we have now?

Posted by: Al in St. Lou at March 07, 2008 08:22 AM (l5yFx)

50 Do I need to continue? No, because you are trying to prove a point that was never in question. Of course there are some bad and crazy people in the military. No one in this thread has claimed otherwise. But when you hear hoofbeats, you should assume it's horses, not zebras. This was an attack on a military recruiting office, something we've seen many times in the past. Such attacks are invariably carried out by anti-war activists. I'm not aware of a single instance in which a member of the military was responsible. That doesn't mean that it will never happen -- but your insistence that the two scenarios are equally likely is simply not supported by history. An initial assumption that anti-war activists were responsible was not "jumping to a conclusion". It was a perfectly reasonable working hypothesis, and one that has apparently been borne out by the evidence.

Posted by: Pat at March 07, 2008 08:22 AM (0suEp)

51 Violence should ALWAYS be state sanctioned and always rationalizeable as to diffuse individual responsibility..My Lai, Kent State, any collateral damage in Iraq, etc..

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 10:53 AM (6x0Nb)

52 It's nice to see the Lefties show their true colors for a change.

Posted by: Techie at March 07, 2008 11:10 AM (AV8Z6)

53 Rebellion is always illegal in the THIRD person, NEVER in the FIRST. paraphrasing Ben Franklin

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 12:45 PM (6x0Nb)

54 the weather underground was a group dedicated to making a statement using violence but violence not directed towards people. where did you get that report its totally false. as far as i know besides the one accident no one was ever killed in their mission. they were a great group of people.

Posted by: Nathan White at March 07, 2008 01:24 PM (EG0er)

55 the bomber is my new hero. revolution. all you "wackos" keep driving your suv's, keep sheltering your children from the rest of the world, and most importantly shop shop shop.

Posted by: Nathan White at March 07, 2008 01:26 PM (EG0er)

56 Real empathy and "compassion" would take a more christian view of certain situations. You know the "splinter in someone's eye vs the two by four in your own"..State sponsored violence is inherently problematic. I personally remember the story early in the current conflict where they bombed some palace THINKING Sadaam was there only to later claim he wasn't, brushing aside the innocent civilians killed in the effort. It's hard to always swallow the "ends justifies the means" rhetoric.

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 01:33 PM (6x0Nb)

57 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWLnDUWJ8do

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 01:46 PM (6x0Nb)

58 It's nice to see Chris enjoys talking to himself.

Posted by: Techie at March 07, 2008 04:37 PM (AV8Z6)

59 Wow, I'm invalidated.

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 04:53 PM (6x0Nb)

60 Maybe Chris can pull out the dusk-orb or cannibalism arguments from a few threads back. I'm actually glad to see the left jump behind this behavior. It's a lot more straightforward than the "we support/don't support the troops" concept. My 2 cents on this bombing is that it's emblematic and also a crime.

Posted by: brando at March 07, 2008 05:03 PM (rDQC9)

61 You know I'm interested in what your leaders mean by "compassionate conservative" in looking at Malkin's blog, Limbaugh's program, Coulter's books, the comments on this site, even many of the counter protesters at the Peace marches, I have ALWAYS encountered the same snarky, bitchy name calling and squelching of constructive give and take. I am not saying that there are left wing reactionaries who shout down opposing viewpoints but right now I am talking to people like Brando and Techie to start.

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 05:13 PM (6x0Nb)

62 Skyler. I will not call your service into question. If you are, then you are, if you are not, then you have to live with a lie. My only question is this. Why would you assume that it is/was a service member that did this, when there are many more likely candidates? Calling the service into question is not something I know a lot of service members to do. Chris, you are an idiot. But I will die making sure you can continue to be an idiot.

Posted by: Matt at March 07, 2008 06:10 PM (9V6Vj)

63 Matt, thank you again for your service. I know I've said it before, but it's hard to say that too much.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 07, 2008 06:30 PM (lUnc9)

64 C, Thanks. But as I have said before. Do not thank me. The Corps thanks me twice a month.

Posted by: Matt at March 07, 2008 06:39 PM (9V6Vj)

65 Matt..thanks for illustrating my point. Where are your Allen Blloms, William F Buckleys and milton Friedmans? Now it's rude insults like Matt.

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 09:35 PM (qTV/d)

66 Allan Bloom

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 09:53 PM (qTV/d)

67 "Now it's rude insults like Matt." Son, that was not an insult. It was a statement.

Posted by: Matt at March 07, 2008 10:09 PM (9V6Vj)

68 People don't see what they " SEE" they see what they BELIEVE...

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 11:20 PM (qTV/d)

69 actually I think alot of you are phonies a nd I think Gore Vidal was his nemesis...esposing even WFB's phoniness...

Posted by: chris lee at March 07, 2008 11:24 PM (qTV/d)

70 Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, Chris. You just curl up in your little fantasy world if you want. The yellow submarine will be by to pick you up pretty soon. The rest of us will do just fine without you.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 07, 2008 11:32 PM (43PDP)

71 "actually I think alot of you are phonies" Ok, how about you man up and say what you mean instead of tippy toeing around it. If you mean phony about who I am, then you sir are dead wrong. Feel free to join me on SOFNET. Or if you do not want to get hammered by the members there, feel free to email me at bear23991@yahoo.com where I will send you a copy of my SRB edited for OPSEC and you can go ahead and finish chewing on that foot you stuck in your mouth.

Posted by: Matt at March 07, 2008 11:33 PM (9V6Vj)

72 classic

Posted by: chris lee at March 08, 2008 05:07 AM (qTV/d)

73 You throw out one hell of an argument. Not so much.

Posted by: Matt at March 08, 2008 06:46 PM (9V6Vj)

74 Thank you so much for the link and for the additional information!

Posted by: LindaSoG at March 09, 2008 08:51 AM (GBBmd)

75 I have ALWAYS encountered the same snarky, bitchy name calling and squelching of constructive give and take. Really, chris? I ask because you were constructively engaged here, and your reaction was to try a couple of dodges and, upon them failing, to disappear. And yet now you claim that you ALWAYS have found bitchy name calling and no give and take. Perhaps that's because give and take requires that both parties have something to give and you don't. Remember this: the common denominator of all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

Posted by: Pablo at March 09, 2008 09:07 AM (yTndK)

76 Yes, Pablo and the common denominator of my FUNCTIONAL relationships is me, too. What's your point? Are you saying that the derisive tone of contemporary conservative opinion is justified by the unworthiness of liberals?

Posted by: chris lee at March 09, 2008 11:01 AM (qTV/d)

77 No, chris, I'm saying that you have an obvious perception problem and that you may be a walking, talking self-fulfilling prophecy. I think you see so much derision because you earn it, especially given that you are so unable to recognize, relate or respond to sincere, substantive argument that you decide it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Pablo at March 09, 2008 11:15 AM (yTndK)

78 actually I think alot of you are phonies Is that the derisive tone of contemporary liberal opinion I see there, chris? I think it's missing a "RACIST!!1!one!!" and maybe a "HOMOPHOBE!!eleven!!" Oh, and Halliburton.

Posted by: Pablo at March 09, 2008 11:19 AM (yTndK)

79 Pablo, Good assessment of Chris. In simpler terms. If one person calls you an idiot, they may be an idiot, if twenty people call you an idiot, then it is time to take a long hard look at yourself. Matt, kicking the darkness till it bleeds light.

Posted by: Matt at March 09, 2008 12:25 PM (9V6Vj)

80 Pablo, screaming "Racist!!!!11!!!!!" or "Warmonger!!!11!!" or "Nazi!!!!!11!!!!" (and always finishing with "HALLIBURTON!!!!!!!!" is what those on the left consider "substantive debate." Therefore, because we haven't been screaming those things, Chris thinks we haven't been engaging him substantively.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 09, 2008 12:41 PM (XoKp7)

81 I claim that terrorism's bad, and also a crime. Chris disagrees completely. That's one more concept to add to the list. I really liked a few threads back when Chris claimed that his insane arguments were not based on flawed concepts, but because he writes his ideas in a hurry, and on his friend's faulty computer. Faulty Computer, huh? Well then, by all means, go bananas.

Posted by: brando at March 09, 2008 01:04 PM (rDQC9)

82 "I really liked a few threads back when Chris claimed that his insane arguments were not based on flawed concepts, but because he writes his ideas in a hurry, and on his friend's faulty computer." I have seen a few (be it very few) level headed leftists, but I tend to think of them as Conservatives in denial. But the left has never been good at faulting themselves for their shortcomings. It is human to want to blame others for your faults. But one of the key resources in the learning process is knowing when to say, "Oh I am sorry, I was wrong." Then saying. "But now I know I was wrong, and I will do my best to correct that failing."

Posted by: Matt at March 09, 2008 02:44 PM (9V6Vj)

83 Perception problem Brando? Did I say "terrorism" is NOT bad? I used this incident as an opportunity to make a statement that violence, state sponsored violence is "problematic" and not so easily reduced to binaries. The American "rebels" were terrorists, so was the confederate south.

Posted by: chris lee at March 09, 2008 07:45 PM (qTV/d)

84 Chris, what "state" sponsors terrorism? Would you be willing to send the US Armed Forces to that "state" to stamp out terrorists? Oh, and which side in the Revolutionary War beheaded innocent journalists after capture? How about the Civil War?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 09, 2008 08:30 PM (XoKp7)

85 I love it when people ignore something they can not argue against. You see you are failing in one area, and instead of addressing it, you move onto another idiocy.

Posted by: Matt at March 09, 2008 09:07 PM (9V6Vj)

86 The POINT is "state sponsored" violence is called something else, but the outcome is still civilian death. Nothing is good about beheading people, nothing is good about haveing your skin burnt off in a napalm attack, nothing is good about being "collateral damage" in a bunker buster attack, nothing is good about being wiped out in the westward expansion of the 19th century U.S. It's the "rationalization" that makes all the difference in the world ,from the viewpoint of the "poi-petrator".

Posted by: chris lee at March 09, 2008 09:07 PM (qTV/d)

87 You see you are failing in one area, and instead of addressing it, you move onto another idiocy. Which is what I'd call a dodge. And chris wonders why people get derisive with him. There you have it.

Posted by: Pablo at March 09, 2008 09:34 PM (yTndK)

88 Oh, so now any "state sponsored" violence is terrorism, Chris? Would you rather we had let Hitler take over Europe and Hirohito take over Asia? Were the Allies "terrorists" for using military force to stop them? You're digging yourself ever deeper, and forgetting the first rule of debate: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 09, 2008 09:35 PM (XoKp7)

89 "The POINT is "state sponsored" violence is called something else, but the outcome is still civilian death." No bright box. The point is, in one type of violence, innocent death is avoided, and not reason it is done, the other type it is the desired effect. Yes civilians die during war, it is a bad thing, but sometimes it can not be avoided, but we do try to avoid it. Terrorists attempt to cause as many civilian deaths as they can. Big difference buddy.

Posted by: Matt at March 09, 2008 09:43 PM (9V6Vj)

90 Indeed, Matt, and that goes back to my earlier question to Chris... which he hasn't answered yet. Which side in the Revolutionary War beheaded innocent journalists, Chris? Which side in the Civil War did?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 09, 2008 09:49 PM (XoKp7)

91 CCG- What are you talking about? There were atrocities in both the Civil War AND Revolutionary War..The Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence under threat of disembowielment..you seem to be advancing OUR "gentlemanly, bureacratic" violence against THEIR brutal, primitve violence. It's all coercive injury and mayhem toward a political aim. Who's AIM is just is a function of the viewpoint involved. Napalm attacks, slaugher of Native American children in the 1800's, how is that an attempt to avoid civilian death?

Posted by: chris lee at March 10, 2008 04:50 AM (qTV/d)

92 Okay, Chris, prove your statements. Give me verifiable proof of those atrocities against civilians... meaning something other than a post on DailyKOS.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 10, 2008 08:01 AM (XoKp7)

93 CCG..I recommend you do some reading of Harper's Weekly Civil war reporting, I used to sell antique issues. Amongst other things you'll find stories of soldiers burying other soldiers alive, as far as the Revolutionary War, do your own research as well, not a pretty picture what was done in that era on both sides.

Posted by: chris lee at March 10, 2008 08:37 AM (6x0Nb)

94 ..as far as napalm and agent orange used against the North Vietnamese, and US soldiers killing Native Americans do your own research, I don't work for you and could care less whether you are convinced of what I say or not. If it inspires you to look a little further fine, if not so be it.

Posted by: chris lee at March 10, 2008 09:01 AM (6x0Nb)

95 I asked for specific articles, Chris, a vague "go read Harper's" won't do it, because if I don't find anything, you'll just say that I didn't read the right ones. I presume you graduated from high school, so give me an article reference as you would if you were putting it in the bibliography of a paper.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 10, 2008 08:06 PM (XoKp7)

96 That's my cue CCG, the topic is exhausted..you've "cornered"me into admitting all of my assertions are groundless fantasies pulled out of my a**. Yossarian: That's some catch that Cath-22. Doc Daneeka: It's the best there is. Sweet dreams everyone

Posted by: Chris lee at March 10, 2008 08:19 PM (qTV/d)

97 Thanks for admitting it, Chris, We have some lovely parting gifts for you. Unfortunately, a good reputation is not among them. Oh, and have a nice day.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 10, 2008 09:19 PM (XoKp7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment