May 31, 2008
Bitter and Clingy Bleg [Bumped]
Bumped to the top.
The M&P Compact isn't the only handgun I've got out on loan. Here's a stock picture of the very nice J-frame 637 CT (Crimson Trace Laser) I've been carrying. That little capsule-shaped bump at the top of the grip is the laser aiming module.
I've had some very nice items loaned to me in recent weeks for a long-term story I'm developing, including this one.
Nice, isn't it?
The only downside of this project is that while I've found the shooting industry to be very gracious and giving, there are still some out-of-pocket expenses involved, and finances are a bit tight right now as we adjust to the new baby, as you might expect.
If you can chip in a couple of bucks, I'd greatly appreciate it, and if you can't that's cool, too.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:09 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I prefer a good ole chunk of American or Brazilian steel myself, but I've heard good things about the M&P. Did they give you money to feed it too? Seems the price of ammo goes up just about every day...
Posted by: the pistolero at May 30, 2008 09:22 AM (uNxV7)
2
S&W didn't give me money to feed them, but ATK and Winchester have me taken care of, ammo wise.
It's the "other stuff" that will start piling up quickly--range fees, targets, training (I'd love to get at least one more formal class in), etc.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2008 09:32 AM (xNV2a)
3
I see a removable (drop clip) in the weapon so if Obambi is elected you can expect the Peeeloshi/Obambi weapon confication police to be at your door. That is the first, (anything with a removable clip) weapons they have planned for removal from the hands of the 'American citizens'. Think they need a constitutional amendment to violate your rights. Forget it, they are the American Communist Party, aka democrats, and the constitution is simply a yellowed piece of paper.
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 30, 2008 06:11 PM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 30, 2008
The Men in His Life
Father Michael Pfleger, lynching advocate and 22-year friend and mentor to Barack Obama, found his testimonial whitewashed from the official Presidential campaign website by Monday, even before his latest rant against
Hillary Clinton and white entitlement before Obama's long-time and current congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ.
Predictably, as he always does when one of his associates is revealed as a radical, Obama feigned shock proclaimed his disappointment. Pfleger apologized.
Both men would like for you to think that this kind of outburst was unexpected and rare, but it seems that public radicalism has characterized Pfleger's entire career, and perhaps drew the men together to when Obama met Pfleger for the first time more than 20 years ago.
Michael Pfleger is just one of the men who have helped mold the man who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. Hiding behind a cool facade and rigidly-enforced message discipline is a candidate who has had his philosophies and ideals forged around men who have roots in fomenting race-hatred and hard-left political ideologies.
Barack Obama, Sr. abandoned his son when he was a toddler and only met with him once more before dying in 1982. Obama Sr. first married to a woman named Kezia in a tribal ceremony and never divorced her. Senior left a pregnant Kezia in Kenya with and infant soon to enrolled at the University of Hawaii on an academic scholarship. It was there he took his second wife, Ann Dunham, who did not know he was already married. Barack Hussein Obama, Junior was born six months later. Senior left his second wife and son when he was admitted to Harvard, and divorced Dunham in 1963. Senior returned to Kenya with another American woman he met at Harvard and joined the Kenyan Ministry of Transportation as an economist, writing a paper Problems Facing Our Socialism that advocated 100% taxation. This aligned him with Kenyan communists, and alienated him from the sitting government, and effectively torpedoed his career.
Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA, mentored Obama during his high school years, and was alleged to be his role model as a black man when few others were around to make an impression, as Obama was only one of three black students at his school as he was being raised in the home of his white grandparents. Obama wrote admiringly of Davis in Dreams from my Father. A poet, Davis' poems "Smash-on, victory-eating Red Army" and "Christ is a Dixie Ni__er" which dismissed Jesus as " another New White Hope" probably wouldn't endear Davis to too many of Obama's supporters of any race.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright came into Obama's life after the future senator graduated Columbia and became a community organizer, railing against the Reagan Presidency, "where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds."
Wright led Trinity United Church of Christ, a church dedicated to Black Liberation Theology, a toxic mix of Marxism and Black Nationalism based upon the work of James Cone, who claimed in Black Power and Black Theology (via Say Anything):
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
Wright's sermon "The Audacity of Hope" which stated that we live in a society "where white folks greed runs a world in need" inspired Obama's second book, using that same title.
Wright's racism, paranoia, and conspiracy theorizing, including his most recent outbursts that finally forced Obama to repudiate his pastor after doggedly following his teaching as a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years, are well-documented and mercifully do not need to be repeated. What is not as well know is that while Obama has distanced himself from Wright, he has not renounced membership in the radical church Wright grew and lorded over until his recent retirement.
Lest you begin to think Barack Obama sought guidance merely from men consumed by a love of radical political ideologies driven by race hatred comes Bill Ayers, who proves that Obama's fascination with radical and sometimes violent political ideologies is color blind.
Ayers is well known as an unreformed domestic terrorist, who was part of the Weather Underground, a radical leftist group that bombed American government buildings, targeted a soldiers' dance for a mass-murder (before Ayer's then-girlfriend Diana Oughton blew herself and other Weathermen up while making pipe bombs for the attack), and which later killed police during an infamous armored car robbery along with members of the Black Liberation Army.
Obama kicked off his political career at Ayer's home, and served with Ayers as a member of the ultra-liberal Woods Fund. Ayers has also served with Obama on numerous panels and they knew each other in social circles. Before he became a debilitating factor in Obama's presidential campaign, Ayers was said to be regarded as a friend of Obama, according to his campaign staff.
By comparison, Father Michael Pfleger, while a frothing radical in any other company, actually looks sedate compared to other men who have helped shape and mold Barack Obama.
There are other men in the freshman Senator's life who have no doubt had a far more benign influence on who he has become, but one is forced to wonder what kind of radicalism floats through Obama's mind, based upon the company he's kept.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:00 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Obama finds it hard to understand why people look to his associations to find something out about him. Most candidates have a track record of some sort to refer to, but he doesn't. I don't hear him talk about what he did in the Illinois Senate or in his four years in the U.S. Senate. He's a do nothing guy who's written two books. I'm not buying his books to find out what he's like when he has no track record. That brings me back to what he's about in the first place. And then I see these guys.
One of these associations, alone, would have torpedoed any other candidate.
Posted by: SAM at May 31, 2008 09:43 AM (GAf+S)
2
At the rate they are having to scrub Obama's web site it won't be long till all that is left is a blank page with the Obama banner at the top and a Pay Pal button.
Posted by: Just A Grunt at May 31, 2008 01:32 PM (wN+/J)
3
SAM, the reason Obama finds it hard to understand his problems is because he was raised around hard-line socialists and the Chicago Democratic Machine. The sorts of people that the rest of the nation finds so outrageous are par for the course in the hyper-leftist enclaves that he's been dealing with his whole life.
If Obama had any hint that the folks here in "Jesusland" would have been offended by Wright, Ayers, Pfleger,
et al, he'd have dumped them long ago, if he had any political smarts at all. The fact that he didn't either indicates that he didn't realize they'd be an issue, he has zero political instincts, or some combination of the two. I vote for option #3.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 31, 2008 04:40 PM (+icbL)
4
I just wish we could get these men and quotes into the news magazines. People seem to see only his vapid smile and hear only his uplifting but vacuous remarks. He's an "empty suit" but a suit filled to the brim with evil, who needs to appear empty to those who question him.
Posted by: Shoprat at May 31, 2008 07:08 PM (8PCIZ)
Posted by: C-C-G at May 31, 2008 08:18 PM (+icbL)
6
This guy's past is a minefield. The wisdom that a man will be known by the company he keeps predates the bible. The MSM flatly refuses to pursue any of it. This election will be a real world test of Lincoln's "you can fool some of the people" adage. Great post. Linked. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/06/interesting-posts-from-around-web-1.html
Posted by: GW at June 01, 2008 11:18 AM (GAf+S)
7
What does this tell us about the state of American politics when a man of so little achievement and talent could be the nominee of one of our political parties for president?
Is this the best America has to offer?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 02, 2008 11:20 PM (LHaZf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 29, 2008
McCaffrey Rips Times for "Dishonorable" Innuendo
The lefty blogosphere and some of the more unhinged Democrats in Congress have worked themselves into a lather over claims made in a New York
Times article,
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand, which claimed that the Department of Defense was using retired military officers hired by news agencies as military analysts to spread propaganda.
The most "ethical Congress everTM," never missing a chance to launch a politically-charged investigation if it could somehow be blamed on the military or Republicans, sent letters to some of the military analysts, essentially asking them if they were shills for the Administration.
General Barry R. McCaffrey (ret.) responded in no uncertain terms.
Here's a taste:
If you want to read the rest, Michael Yon has the exclusive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:48 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nothing that the paper that ran the "General Betray Us" ad does surprises me any more.
It's almost like they WANT their circulation to drop right through the floor.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:52 PM (+icbL)
2
Normally the West Point program is only 4 years. Gen. McCaffery means that he was a 17 year old cadet, while West Point subsidized the NY Times by purchasing copies of the paper for Cadets.
Posted by: Don Meaker at June 02, 2008 08:29 PM (4x8W0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Marine Removed From Duty For Proselytizing in Fallujah
From Multi-National Force – West PAO, via email:
CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq – A Coalition force service member was removed from his duties today amid concerns from Fallujah's citizens regarding reports of inappropriate conduct.
Multi-National Force - West initiated an investigation into reports that a coin with a Bible verse written in Arabic was distributed to Iraqi citizens as they passed through a Fallujah entry control point. If the allegation is substantiated, appropriate action will be taken.
"Regulations prohibit members of the coalition force from proselytizing any religion, faith or practices," said Col. Bill Buckner, MNC-I spokesman, "and our troops are trained on those guidelines before they deploy."
"This has our full attention," said Col. James L. Welsh, chief of staff, Multi-National Force - West. "We deeply value our relationship with the local citizens and share their concerns over this serious incident."
This was reported earlier today by McClatchy, but quite frankly, when a news organization runs items under the tagline "truth to power," by an author also published by al Jazeera, I like to get confirmation first. I've got a request in for more details on this, and will update again if they have additional information.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:49 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If McClatchy said it, I'd pitch it.
If they said the San Joaquin Delta has water in it--I'd go check.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 29, 2008 03:40 PM (z6wiy)
2
"Marines Fear Only God-No Others"..Sgt. Grit bumper sticker...if a U.S. Marine handed out such a coin, then as Teddy Roosevelt would say,BULLY" in other words FANTASTIC. No matter how much mainstream media, Liberal Amerika tries to remove God from our society, courageous folks pop up on their own. You can take the Marine out of Christ's Chapel but you can't take Christ out the Marine. That's a little bit convoluted, but you get the idea. Semper Fi! Do or Die!
Posted by: Michael H Boyce at May 29, 2008 06:44 PM (No9B+)
3
This is pretty boneheaded if true. Lets see one of these coins, shall we? But that said, there is no reason a Christian should not proseletyze in Iraq but it just is not within the soldier's duties. Islam is spread here in the West. Why should potential jihadis be denied the grace of the Gospel? Seems like something that should be encouraged, just not practiced by government functionaries.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 30, 2008 11:40 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pelosi: Surge Failed, Iran Rules Iraq
The special kind of delusion it takes to believe that Iraq was irretrievably lost in 2006 is still alive and well and in positions of leadership in the Democratic Party.
Speaking with the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insisted that the surge failed, and insists that if there is any progress, it is because Iran allowed it.
Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn't happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.
Cue the flaming skull.
Pelosi's needful delusions means that dictator-loving, Jew-hating 9/11 conspiracy-theorist Cindy Sheehan is not the most insane candidate vying for California's Eight District House seat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:07 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nancy Pelosi has become Colonel Nicholson from The Bridge of River Kwai. So obsessed with proving herself superior and her enemy (GWB) wrong, she's lost sight of who the real enemy is. Truly disgusting.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at May 29, 2008 02:49 PM (d5LvD)
2
Yes, it is incredibly horrible to point out that Iran stopped the fighting between two Iranian-backed groups.
If you don't want Iraq to depend on Iran's "goodwill," maybe you should have thought twice about empowering a government controlled by Iran.
It is amusing that every time the surge fails, it is bailed out by people that conservatives hate: after the surge killed more people throughout most of 2007, violence was curbed (somewhat) by Sadr's cease-fire, and when the surge touched off a civil war in Basra, the Iranians stepped in and stopped it.
It must really gall conservatives that their boogymen like Sadr and the Mullahs keep bailing out Petraeus....
Posted by: Volp at May 29, 2008 02:53 PM (JGJFa)
3
What Nancy? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all of the cognitive dissonance in here.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 29, 2008 03:06 PM (oC8nQ)
4
Comrade Pelosi just wants to take you to the promised land, where she will be the dictator. Of course, if she had a brain she would know that the drive-by media parrot can no longer make it so. That's what living in the past does for you.
Jimmuh Carter, the father of Iran and modern terrorism is looking for company, this time with nukes. I doubt Israel is going to sit still for being 'wiped out'.
Posted by: bill at May 29, 2008 03:14 PM (7evkT)
5
Yes, and in Nancy's World....
1. We won the American War of Independence because "The British allowed it."
2. San Francisco is now located in the United States because "Mexico allowed it."
3. The North won the Civil War because "the South allowed it."
4. The Allies won World War II because "Hitler and Tojo allowed it."
5. We won the Cold War because "The Soviets allowed it."
Nancy Pelosi: Worst.Speaker.Ever.
Posted by: MarkJ at May 29, 2008 03:18 PM (ZFVlP)
6
Hopefully your post was sarcasm Volp.
Posted by: BobbyD at May 29, 2008 05:07 PM (huc4x)
7
Ouch, it hurt when my jaw hit the floor. Her world view is so divergent from reality that its literally a little scary that she is an elected official (even if she does represent a place as loopy as San Francisco).
The surge has been successful not only on the security side but also on the diplomatic side where most of the initial objectives have been met. This has been despite IranÂ’s arming of terrorists not because of it.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 29, 2008 05:22 PM (gkobM)
8
The more the successes of the surge become obvious, the farther out into outer space the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism have to go to continue to make their outlandish claims of failure.
San Fran Nan seems to be following in the footsteps of people like Lord Haw-Haw, Seoul City Sue, Tokyo Rose, and Baghdad Bob.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:21 PM (+icbL)
9
Yes, and in Nancy's World....
1. We won the American War of Independence because "The British allowed it."
2. San Francisco is now located in the United States because "Mexico allowed it."
3. The North won the Civil War because "the South allowed it."
4. The Allies won World War II because "Hitler and Tojo allowed it."
5. We won the Cold War because "The Soviets allowed it."
If I may continue:
6. Nancy Pelosi is in Congress because "The Republican Party allowed it."
7. George W. Bush is in the Oval Office because "The Democratic Party allowed it."
Those two right there should make Nancy's head explode.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:36 PM (+icbL)
10
Man, I thought Vietnam anti-war screwballs were messed up when they spit on grunts coming home...this new version of Amerika blockading recruiting stations, bombing recruiting stations, openly supporting our enemy in print, politics and in the name of the Demokratic party is going way beyond the acceptable. I think it's time CA, NY and all other left wing liberal states supply their own DoD made up of the Code Pink types and truly see what their version of society will turn out like. They can then gaze with longing eyes across their border at the Free US of A and dream of days gone by.
Posted by: Mike Boyce at May 29, 2008 06:54 PM (No9B+)
11
Mike Boyce,
The Vietnam anti-war screwballs never spit on returning war vets. It's a made-up story, just like "the surge is working", "Saddam was a threat to the US", and W is "a compassionate conservative".
Posted by: Robert in BA at May 31, 2008 08:34 AM (zKYT8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Obama Preacher Problem
I emailed
Allahpundit yesterday, wondering why Barack Obama's
favorite lynching advocate priest and
spiritual mentor of 22 years quietly saw his endorsement drop away from the
faith testimonials page at barackobama.com.
As you may remember, Father Michael Pfleger has a history as a radical leftist, and the long-time friend of Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan once called for a local gun shop owner to be dragged into the street by an angry mob and "snuffed out."
That outburst didn't get him removed from Barack's list of supporters, but Allahpundit thinks that he may have found the rant that did.
Does Barack Obama know any sane people?
And while we're on the subject: Why is Barack Obama still a member of this church? Why does he expose his children to such hatred by calling this congregation home?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:56 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Trinity United... the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:22 PM (+icbL)
2
And, of course, good ol' Obama tries the old tired trick of
making the problem man disappear, and fails.
Seems Obama really doesn't know much about politics outside of The Chicago (Democratic) Machine. In the real world, a cover-up is frequently more damaging than the original "scandal," and this ain't ancient Egypt where you can just obliterate the record of someone by chiseling their name off the walls.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 09:20 PM (+icbL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Moon: Operative Word in Iraq is "Hope." Obama: Let's Change That.
Despite their best intentions and willing accomplices in some press outlets, Democrats have apparently been unable to convince the international community that
time stopped in Iraq in 2006.
"Notable progress" has been made in Iraq despite persistent problems, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday at an international summit to promote peace in the violence-wracked country.
"If we were asked to use just one word to describe the situation in Iraq today, I would choose the word 'hope,'" Ban said at the Stockholm, Sweden, conference. "Iraq is stepping back from the abyss that we feared most."
Barack Obama, of course, refuses to see any signs of progress in Iraq as a matter of policy and self-interest. His campaign is wedded to the leftmost fringe of the Democratic Party, who insist that failure is the only acceptable opinion in Iraq. The freshman senator from Illinois still publicly advocates headlong retreat from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if elected, and will not be swayed by stark warnings from international experts and regional governments that such a retreat would reverse all the gains paid for by coalition casualties, and perhaps trigger events as severe as a regional war that would impact energy markets and economies globally.
Right now, the greatest threat to Iraq's future isn't Iran, militants, or sectarian divides, but an inexperienced defeatist from Chicago.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:28 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Even the BBC's coverage of Iraq is becomming less doom and gloom and taking a more (cautiously) optimistic approach.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7425314.stm
Posted by: Lone Star Politics at May 29, 2008 01:19 PM (zTc9q)
2
Obama may be inexperienced at defeatism but he's got the lingo down cold.
Posted by: Tim at June 01, 2008 11:28 AM (WiHUE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Dem Offers Forced Servitude to "Honor" Slain Students
What could possibly go wrong?
Students in North Carolina's private and public colleges would be required to mentor public school-age children to receive a bachelor's degree after 2012, under a bill filed this week.
Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, named the proposed community service program in memory of two college students who were shot to death earlier this year – Eve Carson, the student body president at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Abhijit Mahato, a Duke University graduate student.
The bill would require any student seeking a bachelor's degree to spend 20 hours per semester mentoring and tutoring a public school-age child. The bill doesn't specify for how many semesters the mentoring would be required.
It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Two college students were murdered by street thugs who were drop-outs, so Rand's obvious reaction is to force more college students to spend time with failing students that come from similar environments as the killers.
If Rand wanted to actually do some good, perhaps he could get on board with organizations pushing for allowing CCH holders to carry on college campuses, instead of providing a victim delivery service.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The bill would require any student seeking a bachelor's degree to spend 20 hours per semester mentoring and tutoring a public school-age child.
CY - I think mentoring and tutoring are the wrong words. Indoctrinating would be a better description. Those children are future voters after all!
Also, how do you make this mandatory for students at private colleges in North Carolina as a degree requirement unless the college or student receives state aid?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 29, 2008 10:20 AM (i/fLn)
2
As far as I know, most college students are dope smoking slackers that I wouldn't let near my child. Really, think about it, what the hell would a 20 year old have to offer as a mentor? Life experience? Wisdom? Tattoo advice?
Posted by: dan in michigan at May 29, 2008 10:35 AM (uSI6F)
3
Dan... a high school diploma?
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at May 29, 2008 11:14 AM (yiMNP)
4
Gah.
First with this "well rounded" garbage-- Lookie! My grades weren't good, and I didn't have a job, but I was on the cheer squad!-- and now with forced community service?
*gag*
Posted by: Foxfier at May 29, 2008 07:58 PM (3aOlt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stay Classy, Google
They can't be bothered to post a
simple tribute to fallen servicemen who fought for the freedoms they enjoy, but find the time to post about a rather pointless accomplishment by a mountaineering New Zealander and his Sherpa guide.
If they find out that Hillary didn't dodge conscription and was a RNZAF navigator during World War II, will they end his tribute as well?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I am slow to jump on Google for not doing a Memorial Day theme for the reason that Google, while an American corporation, caters to an international user base. While Memorial Day is a distinctly American holiday, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzig Norgay's Everest summit is an internationally recognized event. I think that this is the reason why Google failed to theme its homepage for Memorial Day but did so for the Everest summit, not b/c Google was trying to snub the American armed forces.
Posted by: Lone Star Politics at May 29, 2008 02:07 PM (zTc9q)
2
I'm quick to call that seditious dis-information conglomerate 'googlag'.
'Don't be evil' is simply newspeak for 'globalism - and at any cost'.
Did you hear that ViaCom is suing googlag / youtube for one billion dollars in copyright infringement?
This comes on the heels of allahtube telling Sen Lieberman 'are you kidding?' when asked to take down jihadist propaganda.
One more in a long line of abuses and 'eff you America' which googlag shows a corporate propensity for....
Simply search my site for 'don't be evil' and you'll see a whole catalog of googlag's disdain for individual liberty & public decency all across this globe.
My recommendation: don't be evil - don't use googlag or allahtube.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at May 29, 2008 03:17 PM (//Ayq)
3
Lone Star: Google refuses to do Memorial day. They run different sites around the world as needed, and will celebrate other U/S. only holidays. They also celebrate non-U.S. Holidays.
If they were like Clusty, who never changes for anyone, it may be different. But it isn't like that at all. They simply refuse to do Memorial Day.
Posted by: JP at May 29, 2008 04:39 PM (Tae/a)
4
LoneStar, Yahoo and Ask.com also serve international audiences, and yet they found a way to honor our fallen heroes.
Not to mention that fallen American servicemen have made a lasting impact on the rest of the world. If not for their sacrifice, you might be speaking German today.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 05:39 PM (+icbL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 28, 2008
Just the Facts, Sam
Would someone please provide ABC News' Sam Donaldson with some facts?
It is perhaps progress in this commentary piece for a journalist to admit that Obama needs schooling— I do find it amusing that he refers to McCain as "the professor" and Obama as "his callow student"—but he grossly overestimates the size of al Sadr's faltering organization by an enormous amount, while downplaying Madhi Army defeats at the hands of the Iraqi security forces in recent weeks.
Iraq will almost certainly be one of the central issues in November -- if McCain is lucky it will remain relatively calm with casualties relatively low. But there is a wildcard named Moqtada al-Sadr, the 34-year-old Shiite leader of a 2 million man army.
When the surge began, al-Sadr instructed his army to lie low. Why fight an increased American force? But we all saw what happened a few weeks ago when al-Sadr loosed his men in Bashra and Bagdad -- violence flared, casualties spiked -- before calling another truce.
I'd like for Mr. Donaldson to explain where he got a figure of 2 million for the collection of neighborhood militias, street gangs, and "special groups" that make up the JAM (Jaish al Mahdi). Most estimates of the group have not put numbers larger than roughly 60,000 strong at any point in the conflict, and present numbers are said to be in rapid decline even now because of their growing unpopularity among Iraqi Shia.
I'd also like Donaldson to justify his dishonest portrayal of events in Basra and Baghdad. In both cities the Madhi Army suffered horrific losses at the hands of Iraqi security forces before suing for peace out of a sense of self preservation, and in both cities, Iraqi soldiers and police continued to relentlessly push into neighborhoods formerly dominated by Madhi Army thugs event after these "treaties" were agreed upon. In Basra, Iraqi government forces now rule virtually uncontested as they continue to carry out targeted strikes against wanted members of the Madhi Army. GoI security forces entered Sadr City with an unexpectedly large number of soldiers equipped with heavy armor, surprising the militiamen, who have yet to formulate a response.
Donaldson is obviously as much an Obama cheerleader as he is a journalist, but his 37-years in the business don't give him the right to make up his own reality.
Stick the facts, Sam. One Dan Rather at a time is enough.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:19 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Walter Cronkite.
Tet caused Walter to declare defeat, and although we won by a large margin, the statement became fact in the minds of the People. Sammy Boy is attempting to Walter the facts.
Posted by: JP at May 28, 2008 03:46 PM (Tae/a)
2
Sam Donaldson's op-ed can be explained very simply:
Namely, Sambo's hairpiece has tentacled into his brain and it's now doing all of his thinking and writing for him.
Look at this pic and tell me it ain't so:
http://www.pnc.edu/cd/news/newsphotos/Donaldson_Sam.jpg
Posted by: MarkJ at May 28, 2008 04:15 PM (ZFVlP)
3
Sam got his data from the same place Dan Rather got the Bush Air National Guard documents.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 28, 2008 04:34 PM (+icbL)
4
If I am not mistaken, there are only about five million men in Iraq who are Shia Arabs more or less of military age (i.e. between 14 and 60). Sam Donaldson fancies al-Sadr has a stupefying ability to inspire participation. (Recall that al-Sadr's electoral vehicle won 0.8% of the vote on the last occasion he fielded a stand-alone slate).
Posted by: Art Deco at May 28, 2008 05:15 PM (ewZQX)
5
When did the definition of "news" become --- "Telling people what is likely to happen weeks (or months) down the road?"
Turing "news" coverage into weather forecasting has gone hand-n-hand with turning it into a vehicle for opinion-giving (a.k.a "analysis").
Please, tell me, "EARLIER today, John McCain said concerning Iraq policy 'blah blah blah blah.'"
And leave out the, "This will likely mean come election time that if blah blah blah"...
Just the news ---- what happened yesterday....please....
Posted by: usinkorea at May 28, 2008 05:24 PM (qObWH)
6
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the -
Web Reconnaissance for 05/29/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David m at May 29, 2008 02:07 PM (gIAM9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Most Ethical Congress Ever Rides Again
With
stories like this popping up with disturbing frequency, no wonder Congress has such dismal approval ratings.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:43 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
CY, you don't realize... "ethics" to a lefty means "a handy tool to get those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans out of office," it's not something they actually believe in. All lefties believe in is power, power, and more power.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 28, 2008 02:12 PM (+icbL)
2
Shirley [Golub]
explains, "This coming Thursday, May 29 at 10AM (ET), one of my volunteers will dress up in a chicken costume and go up to the West Steps of Capitol Hill, where they will gather with video cameras on the steps of the House of Representatives. What I am hoping to accomplish with this is to demonstrate
just how truly useless it is to send a chicken to Congress."
Posted by: Neo at May 28, 2008 07:50 PM (Yozw9)
3
Congress has dismal approval ratings because "impeachment is off the table".
Posted by: Robert in BA at May 31, 2008 08:36 AM (zKYT8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Always Back a Winner
Iraqi soldiers carry M-16s as they stand guard in Sadr City. AFP Photo by Ali Yussef
If the Iraq War is "lost" as journalists, politicians, and other Democrats continue to shrilly insist, then why is the Iraqi military choosing American weapons?
It isn't because American M16s are better than AK-47s for the needs of the Iraqi military (they aren't), but because Iraqis are impressed by American soldiers and want to emulate them.
Do you think they would be so eager to adapt our gear if we were losing?
Me neither.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:40 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I may be putting too much into this but...
The soldiers are probably using the weapons they are given and the ammo they don't need to pay for is the ammo used. But you are right, the US weapon does show a solidarity with the US soldiers. What I am impressed with is how the lead soldier is holding his weapon. The trigger finger is in a safe/ready position. They aren't carrying the weapon like gangs or thugs.
Posted by: mekan at May 28, 2008 09:52 AM (hm8tW)
2
Yes, I'm sure that the fact that US troops are training them and that US Foreign Military Sales promote US military contracts has nothing to do with the fact that the Iraqi army has US military weapons. Nothing at all... Fact is, the M16s jam in the dust, which is why all the US troops switched to M4s or other weapon systems. AK47 is still more reliable, cheaper, not as accurate but in an urban setting, just as good if not better than the M16 rifles.
Posted by: J. at May 28, 2008 09:57 AM (Da6a7)
3
I may be putting too much into this but...
The soldiers are probably using the weapons they are given and the ammo they don't need to pay for is the ammo used.
There is no doubt at all that they will carry what they are issued (and that decision was ultimately made well above their pay grade, as my link in the article shows), but it is equally true that the Iraqi soldiers
want to emulate American soldiers. They covet the M-4 and M-16, want the same sunglasses and goggles, and other American gear.
As Mike Yon just sent via email, "They like M16s because we use them."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2008 10:02 AM (xNV2a)
4
Fact is, the M16s jam in the dust, which is why all the US troops switched to M4s or other weapon systems.
You do know that the M-4 is a "chopped" M-16, is
less functionally reliable than an M-16, and fires 5.56 ammo at much lowers velocities because the barrel length of the M-4 is 5.5 inches shorter, leading to reduced terminal performance?
Nah, of course you didn't.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2008 10:08 AM (xNV2a)
5
Isn't the M16 a much more complicated and sophisticated gun to maintain and operate than the AK47? Can we draw the conclusion that this is more antidotical evidence that the training of the IA continues apace? Thanks.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at May 28, 2008 10:27 AM (d5LvD)
6
I'm sure the weapons were chosen for a variety of reasons and subsidized but we do know that the country is awash in AKs and ammo including vast numbers in Iraqi army stores. Functionality may not explain it, nor the supply issues but they could have armed themselves from stores for nothing per unit, just maintenance and refurb. They have not.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 28, 2008 10:45 AM (LF+qW)
7
You guys are all overthinking this. The simple answer is that its all a Rovian plot to enrich Haliburton (betcha didn't know they sell guns too) using Blackwater to force the Iraqis to buy M16s. Why use all that tiring logic when a nice neat conspiracy theory will do?
Posted by: Tim at May 28, 2008 10:57 AM (3Wewy)
8
Actually I think the reasoning was because the M16 is more accurate than the AK47 and there are advantages to having ammo and weapon commonalities with your allies.
And the Iraqis are now our allies.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at May 28, 2008 11:17 AM (yiMNP)
9
Comparatively speaking, the M-16 is a finesse weapon next to the AK-47. Just like pirates who preferred the cutlass for boarding actions, the AK-47 is easy to use and care for. It also is heavy and less accurate. Further, it is primarily used in full automatic mode. The M-16 is more like a saber or rapier. It is just as deadly in the right hands as its brutish cousin.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 28, 2008 12:54 PM (oC8nQ)
10
All the speculations aside (Another of the many reasons the IA and IP are looking at using the A4 and M16 is the terrs and AQ do not use those often. Easy to spot the baddy if'n his weapon is vastly different than yours) I'm most glad to see the Trigger Discipline on these guys. I've been hearing and seeing more and more stories about the IA and IP taking to full US style tactics and training. Like duck to water. This shows in the blow up as he has his finger out of the guard, but ready. Outside of Israel, one doesn't see that in the MidEast. They are even getting officer material that doesn't treat the enlisted as slaves and dogs. Be a shame to cut these guys off at the knees like Obama and his comrades would love to do.
Posted by: JP at May 28, 2008 03:39 PM (Tae/a)
11
SSGT Jeff and JP are making the same point in two different ways... the Iraqi military is clearly throwing its lot in with the US Armed Forces, both in terms of weapons and ammo used (as Jeff pointed out) and training and tactics (as JP said).
The Iraqis are clearly expecting us to come to their aid if needed, and Obama and his cronies are threatening to pull the rug out from under them.
Nice way to treat our
allies, Senator Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 28, 2008 06:04 PM (+icbL)
12
What is more impressive than the fact the Iraqi soldier is holding an American weapon is the way it is being held: muzzle down, hand over the trigger with the trigger finger alongside the magazine -- not on the trigger.
Contrast that to the typical photo of a terrorist holding a weapon -- pointing up, finger on the trigger, Allah help us if the safety isn't set.
Them soldiers are
learning
Posted by: Mark L at May 29, 2008 07:47 AM (bWB5j)
13
Umnnnhhhh....neither.
I thought that Congress had jammed through a request for Colt Industries' M-16/M-4 weapons for the Iraqi army....and that was facilitated by Congr. Murtha, a very close pal of the Chairman of Colt Industries.
Posted by: dad29 at May 29, 2008 09:07 AM (CyfiL)
14
Just back from Baghdad and the IAs I saw and talked to all pretty much LOVE the M-16A2s that they have been given. It's a "I 'wannabe' just like the Americans" kind of thing... also a lot lighter which they like, and from what they told me (in broken eeeeng-glish) and from what I could unnastand, it (the M-16) doesn't carry the 'symbolism' that an AK does and makes it easier on joint ops with US Troops to tell the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys'...
Posted by: Big Country at May 29, 2008 11:50 AM (niydV)
15
Thought I doubt this is the primary reason for IA forces carrying M16s, might it have something to do with the distinct sound of an AK47 as opposed to that of an M16/M4? In Vietnam, if American GIs hears AK47 chatter, they knew it was enemy fire. I assume the same principle applies in Iraq (or would if only the IAF were using AKs). Knowing who is doing the shooting obviously helps the soldier maintain tactical awareness. Just a thought.
Posted by: Lone Star Politics at May 29, 2008 01:13 PM (zTc9q)
16
It also has to do with the fact that inside 300m the M16 has better terminal effects on target than the AK series weapons.
Posted by: Eric at June 01, 2008 10:33 AM (9V6Vj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 27, 2008
The Problem of Having Your Work Misrepresented in the Village Voice...
...is that
so few people read it that you're unlikely to see enough web traffic from them to know they've even brought up your name.
That they got the facts wrong is almost irrelevant, but amusing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:38 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
villagevoice.com gets 403,000 monthly uniques. You get 10,000.
But hey, Quantcast probably has liberal bias too.
Posted by: Notnowjohn at May 28, 2008 11:43 PM (lxlUq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Barack's Imaginary Uncle, Bad Memory, or Bad Reporting?
So Barack Obama's uncle helped Patton's 3rd Army
liberate the concentration camp at Auschwitz, which is a neat trick, considering that the 3rd Army never made it into southern Poland. It was instead Russians that liberated the camp, and if that wasn't embarrassing enough for the rookie Senator,
his mother was an only child.
Still going on the assumption that his material grandparents knew how many children they have, it would seem apparent that his Kenyan father's side must have provided the uncle that helped liberate the camp, or Obama was lying on Memorial Day about his family's military service. Could he really be that dumb?
Something has to be off here... there is no way he would simply create an uncle. If his mother was an only child, then the uncle wold have to be on his father's side, but I somewhat doubt that Kenyan Luo tribesmen left Africa, and served in either the 3rd U.S. Army under Patton or the Russian Army.
As we missing something here, or is Obama blatantly lying about his family's military sacrifices in a Memorial Day speech?
Update: Only CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic and WaPo's Karl Vick seems to have the "uncle at Auschwitz" claim, which does not appear in Obama's prepared remarks and can't be heard . Either Obama ad-libbed a line afterward and can't be in the video and the media was only working from prepared remarks (which happens more often than you'd suspect) , or Gavrilovic both implausibly made up that same claim.
Update: The Obama camp has responded, and indicates that it was not Obama's uncle (he didn't have one) but his great uncle that served in the 89th Infantry Division, and the camp he was part of liberating was not Auschwitz in southern Poland, but Ohrdruf, part of the Buchenwald camp system, in central Germany, which was liberated four months later.
The Washington Post isn't impressed, and for good reason. It wasn't a "lie". He just didn't get any of the truth right.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:49 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 3 kb.
1
To repeat someone else's comment elsewhere, it musta been his Uncle Joe! (The same "Uncle" after whom Country Joe was named...Ok I'm officially a geezer.)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at May 27, 2008 12:07 PM (VNM5w)
2
Maybe he meant great uncle. I referred to my great aunt as my aunt, colloquially.
Seems like we should check before we start accusing him of lying, as it ruins our sides credibility if we're wrong.
Posted by: Alcibiades at May 27, 2008 12:09 PM (kMPMr)
3
Not that the genealogies available are anywhere near accurate, but the ones I found online list no uncles. A great uncle makes sense, but geographically it seems to be a stretch. I could also understand if the Senator meant another camp that may have been liberated by the US.
Posted by: Mekan at May 27, 2008 12:45 PM (hm8tW)
4
Alcibiades: it doesn't matter if he was calling his 3rd cousin twice removed "Uncle", he wasn't with the 3rd American Army when it liberated Auschwitz ... since it did NOT liberate Auschwitz and was probably busy fighting in the Bulge at the time.
Posted by: Lord Nazh at May 27, 2008 01:07 PM (sBNzZ)
Posted by: Richard1 at May 27, 2008 01:36 PM (xJ+oA)
6
Obama is telling the truth. His family and his uncle are Stalin Communists. They liberated Auschwitz.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at May 27, 2008 01:43 PM (zC8Dg)
7
The reason it isn't in the transcript is because his remarks about his Grandfather's service and the Uncle were part of an answer during a Q&A session after his prepared remarks.
Flopping Aces has the video:
The MessiahÂ’s Gaffes & The MSM Who Ignores Them
Posted by: S at May 27, 2008 01:53 PM (Wi/N0)
8
Sorry, you have to go to about 4 min. in on the video to get to the right part.
Posted by: Sara at May 27, 2008 01:54 PM (Wi/N0)
9
Obama's mom was not in the WWII generation - the linked article has her graduating from high school in 1960. Even if she'd had a brother, it's unlikely that he would have been old enough to serve. I'm guessing that the mythical uncle is/was actually a great uncle and Auschwitz was Barry's generic name for a concentration camp. Ignorance of European history is not at all unusual for Barry's generation.
Surely he's not dumb enough to make up something so easily fact-checked - is he???
Posted by: Diogenes at May 27, 2008 02:30 PM (2MrBP)
Posted by: Neo at May 27, 2008 02:47 PM (Yozw9)
11
The uncle/great uncle thing doesn't matter that much.
It's the statement that the Americans liberated Auschwitz. It's like Hillary stating "There was a saying in the White House during the 90s, if a place is too poor, too dangerous to send the President...then send the First Lady."
Clinton and Obama know they are lying. This isn't even a bending of the truth. And still they choose to lie in the most spectcular fashion.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at May 27, 2008 03:14 PM (zC8Dg)
12
Foxnews can't get the story straight either(from http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/):
"Obama was raised in part by his grandparents, and his father served in the second World War."
IIRC, Barry's father was born in 1948. Pretty sure Fox mean't
grandfather.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 27, 2008 03:32 PM (2MrBP)
13
If Barry has any relative with a plausible claim to serving in Europe during the Big One, okay. Thing is it seems unlikely from public information that this is possible, much less true. What is becoming ever more clear is that this guy just makes things up on the fly. Hillary of Tuzla likewise. Kerry with his seering recollections and Bog Dog with examples too numerous to meter are in similar straits. And the press covers for them. Of course the pressies are likely about as unfamiliar with US history as Barry of the 57th State. But we haven't ALL forgotten. Not yet. If this is crap it is the lowest attempt to suck the valor of better men since Kerry's. I guess that wasn't so long ago.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 27, 2008 04:30 PM (LF+qW)
14
Who makes up an uncle, dips him in a dream,
Fakes a little sorrow, and collects up all the cream?
Obama-man can, the Obama-man can
Yes, the Obama-man can 'cause
He mixes it with bull and makes the lie taste good.
Posted by: twolaneflash at May 27, 2008 04:34 PM (05dZx)
15
The real question is, can Obama spell "potato"?
Most people here will get the reference. A Republican makes a simple gaffe, and he is endlessly hounded. A Democrat makes numerous gaffes, and the MoveOnMedia is silent.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 27, 2008 05:07 PM (+icbL)
16
Just surfing around my favorite conservative sites, and found that
NRO's Corner blog has located a press release from Obama's campaign:
“Senator Obama’s family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II – especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald. Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
If the Obama campaign expects this to close this issue, they're probably wrong. The obvious question is, doesn't Obama believe in not speaking definitively about things he is not sure about? This probably would have been passed over if he'd phrased it as "...I believe it was Auschwitz, but I could be mistaken..."
Makes one wonder if Obama is so egotistical as to believe that he is incapable of getting even the smallest fact wrong.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 27, 2008 05:30 PM (+icbL)
17
Obama is a superhero and seeing dead people is one of his superpowers... the other is dumbing the mind of voters! Let's pray that the voters come to their senses by November! Keep smiling and God bless! Padre Steve
Posted by: Padre Steve at May 27, 2008 08:46 PM (EPAL6)
18
Buchenwald or Birkenau? Shia or Sunni? Which is it Barack? Which is it John? I guess I care more about Shia and Sunni right now...Hitler's dead right? Where's Bin Laden...is he Sunni or Shia...I can't remember.
Posted by: G Rob at May 27, 2008 10:08 PM (Ps4Rz)
19
Auschwitz, Buchenwald, 57 states, or 50 states, what's the difference, folks? Presidents "have people" for piddley little details like that.
Posted by: Bill Smith at May 27, 2008 10:12 PM (mjSzj)
20
So the mastermind gets the country wrong, the army wrong, the camp wrong, and the relative wrong. You can trust him to get the details right when he's president!
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 27, 2008 10:32 PM (LHaZf)
21
Here's my site covering the liberation of that camp.
http://ohrdruf.simmins.org/
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at May 28, 2008 04:50 PM (ZXtMw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dumber Than Bush, Dumber Than Quayle
I pretty much ignored political news this weekend, only to find out that the
top story on Memeorandum.com this morning was of a gaffe Barack Obama made regarding Memorial Day.
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
As you may imagine, "I see dead people" is a crack being used in blog posts with a great degree of derision and amusement as the freshman Senator's opponents have a field day with his
fficial&client=firefox-a">chronically gaffe-prone campaign.
Obama's latest unintelligent statement behind us, Jimmie at the Sundries Shack accurately snipes:
After this campaign, I swear, I don't want to hear one more person crack wise about Dan Quayle ever again. Quayle had a couple very unfortunate gaffes and was forever painted as immature and plain old dumb.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has enough gaffes to his credit to start a fleet of charter boats and not a single soul in the MSM has even breathed the "D" word about His Deific Changiness. His goofs are coming at a rate of a couple a week now, far more than Dan Quayle ever did and certainly more than George Bush, who has become the Golden Standard of Chimpitude to the left for his verbal advenures[sic].
He makes excellent points.
Quayle was hammered by Democrats as a vice presidential candidate in 1988 for being too inexperienced, serving just two terms in the House and one full-term in the Senate before being selected as George H.W. Bush's running mate two years into his second Senate term(versus Obama, who announced his run for President 1/3 the way through his very first Senate term).
Based upon his weak debate performance against Lloyd Bentsen and a series of frankly stupid comments he made as a candidate and vice president, Quayle was hammered an an intellectual lightweight worldwide.
When Bush '41 was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat in 1991, the world seemed terrified:
Newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Britain this week also puzzled over a political system that allows a man of relatively little national experience to stand next in line to the leadership of the world's most powerful nation.
In Italy, La Repubblica in Rome referred to what it called America's "cardio-constitutional crisis," and Il Giornale of Milan heard echoes of European history in Mr. Bush's situation.
In a front page editorial on Tuesday, Il Giornale said, "The invincible President becomes politically vulnerable because of his heir, just as, in the centuries of the dynasties, the absence or the frailty of a successor could undermine the most powerful of kings."
In Germany, a dispatch from Washington that appeared Tuesday in the General Anzeiger of Bonn described the American President as "the most powerful single person in the world" and noted how "carelessly" the American political system chooses its Vice President.
"Dan Quayle may grow with the position as did Harry Truman," the report said. "But the world would rather put its destiny into the hands of a man who has already proven himself."
One of the bluntest reactions came from The Financial Times of London, the bible of the city's business and banking community. In an editorial on Tuesday, the paper wrote: "Mr. Quayle was a cynical political choice in 1988 and, thankless as the Vice President's job often is, he has done little since to convince that he is qualified to serve as chief executive in his own right."
In Paris, Le Monde on Monday called Mr. Quayle "a man who inspires, rightly or wrongly, more jeers than confidence" and wondered whether Mr. Bush would now change his mind about keeping him on the Republican ticket in 1992.
And yet, for all the fear he inspired, Quayle was smart enough that he knew not to start his political career at the home of domestic terrorists who are still proud for attacking their nation, and who still harbor a fondness for cult-leading murderer Charles Manson.
Obama? He did.
Quayle didn't attend a church for two decades built upon a "religion" that is a mix of Marxism, racial identity politics, and Christianity. Obama did, and as a matter of fact, he's still a proud member of that congregation.
Quayle didn't follow a radical, racist pastor espousing conspiracy theories and hate. He didn't include among his other decades-long mentors a radical priest who espouses support for the murder of people he doesn't like. Obama? He did, only recently dropping Pfleger's endorsement from barackobama.com where it resided between endorsements from Rev. Delman Coates and "Eileen P.".
Quayle—along with most third-graders—even somehow seems to know how many states there are in the United States, something Obama hasn't yet grasped.
Barack Obama is far more prone to foolish associations and questionable statements Dan Quayle ever was, and yet has compiled more collective idiocies in just one campaign that Quayle has managed in his entire political career.
Our current President, George W. Bush, is lambasted by the political left for a Quayle-like tendency for verbal gaffes known as Bushisms and is widely regarded by them as an idiot, (even as he has somehow outsmarted them into winning the White House twice), and yet the worst of Bush's 7+ years in office is only on par with what Obama offers up as standard fare.
The same press that excoriated Bush and Quayle for lesser offenses is giving Obama a free pass for a continuing series of verbal stumbles, stumbles that would have them tied up in knots denouncing the intelligence of Republicans. Is it because Obama is an African-American that they refuse to question his intelligence, or is it because he's a Democrat?
If the former, the media is racist; if the latter, they are biased to the point of being incompetent. Perhaps they are both. Andrew Sullivan was a Quayle apologist who is now firmly behind Obama and seemingly blind to his faults. Other members of the media are just as bad, or worse.
Don't get me wrong. Barack Obama isn't an idiot.
Barack Obama is pretty, he reads a teleprompter beautifully, and when given the time to compose a speech, he writes beautiful words as well, empty though they so often are. He just doesn't do well when forced to think on his feet, or under pressure.
By that standard, he is "dumber" than Bush, and "dumber" than Quayle, issuing forth a staccato beat of misstatements and empty platitudes when under the slightest pressure. That should not be a surprise. He's a remarkably shallow candidate with a considerable record of ducking responsibility and hard decisions in his meager legislative record, and is utterly lacking of any meaningful executive experience.
It would nice for the press to acknowledge these truths. It would be nice of the to recognize that Obama isn't the Messiah.
He isn't even a decent Brian.
Update Good Grief. Two huge gaffes in one speech?
Has anyone copyrighted the term "Obamanation" yet?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:41 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1178 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Obama also claimed on the weekend that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz. Curious since the Red Army liberated Auschwitz and the US never entered Poland. What use is a Harvard education if it dosnt let you lie convincingly during a run for president?
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 27, 2008 11:24 AM (gkobM)
2
Um, when we flog a pol about idiotic gaffes perhaps we should also pay attention to the difference between what Obambi passes out as "standard fair" Unless they have changed English since I was in school the term is "standard fare".
Posted by: Peter at May 27, 2008 01:10 PM (I4yBD)
3
Good point, Peter. Fixed now. I never claimed fluency, just a couple of degrees. :-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 27, 2008 01:46 PM (xNV2a)
4
Obama's accolytes prove the long term plan of the US Ed system - MTV meets Affirmative Action
Posted by: Bandit at May 27, 2008 02:08 PM (/R+6i)
5
Even with this torrent of stupidity pouring hourly from the Lamb of Chicago the preening continues. Barry could never be less than genius, could he? He is smarter than Edwards and might be as smart as Hillary, that is all we can really allow on the evidence. This puke is actually even ignorant by Democrat standards which is saying a mouth full. In debate with McCain can he hold it together on live national TV with his witlessness at the mercy, not of the press corps or fellow Gramscians but from McNasty hisself? Doubtful.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 27, 2008 04:34 PM (LF+qW)
6
As I asked in another thread, can Obama spell "potato"?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 27, 2008 05:09 PM (+icbL)
7
More to the economic point, I have talked with several oil people high in the industry (we have a boom going here in Shreveport). They have all indicated that if Obama and the Dems get the government, they are capping the wells before paying excess taxes. Thus, his election could be an economic storm.
Posted by: David Caskey at May 27, 2008 07:29 PM (OlIp9)
8
I posted on this subject http://becauseimright-nocomme1.blogspot.com/2008/05/barack-youre-no-dan-quayle-and-no-thats.html a week or so ago, concentrating more on a sort of side by side comparison of Quayle's experience and qualifications and Obama's. There is simply no way to look at their records and not conclude that Quayle was much more qualified: more expeienced, more accomplished, etc.
Obama is Quayle without the brains. The fact that the media has given this low-ender a free ride is one of the great journalistic scandals of our time.
Posted by: Nocomme1 at May 27, 2008 09:20 PM (/Xg66)
9
But, Obama isn't a Republican, so his false steps can't mean he's stupid.
Only Republicans have it written in their party constitution that they can only nominate idiots for president. Inductive logic tells me this, because as far back as I can remember or check, they have only nominated idiots. I checked all the media reports. All idiots.
And clearly Harvard must just hand out MBAs to kids of rich, important people. Or, Bush Sr. had the CIA pressure them into giving the son a degree....
....Yeah....That's the ticket...
Posted by: usinkorea at May 27, 2008 10:21 PM (VfiuX)
10
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the -
Web Reconnaissance for 05/28/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at May 28, 2008 10:25 AM (gIAM9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 26, 2008
Arlington
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2 words, total size 1 kb.
1
May we always strive to be worthy of the sacrifice they made.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 26, 2008 12:23 PM (+icbL)
2
Great, now I'm crying. I don't know if Trace Adkins is from a military background but this song captures so many of the men & women I know.
I remember.
Posted by: Silvera at May 26, 2008 04:15 PM (9xBZn)
3
Thank you for posting this song. We are indebted to those at Arlington, and this song captures that very well.
Posted by: Nina at May 26, 2008 04:52 PM (cHSOu)
4
As I said at the 3rd Memorial Day Ceremony I attended back home with my parents, brother, nephew, a few hardy local citizens, and the VFW/American Legion Honor Guards/Leaderships -
Thank you Veterans, both living and dead, for perfoming a duty I could not do...
Thank you, CY, for this post.
The rain has been falling here since that first ceremony this morning in fitting tribute...as it has been from my eyes.
Posted by: Mark at May 26, 2008 09:34 PM (KDHro)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 23, 2008
Thrill Kill Hill
Oh no, she didn't:
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
I never thought I'd see the day that a candidate would suggest that part of the reason she's remaining in the race is the possibility of her rival being murdered.
If someone informs her that the Obama assassination myth is merely media projection against "bitter" and "clingy" Americans, will she finally go away?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:40 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But Hillary isn't the first person to raise the issue. Didn't Michelle Obama herself initially object to her husband running because she feared he'd be assassinated?
Posted by: zuzuspetals at May 23, 2008 04:23 PM (7ynR1)
2
Given the viral conspiracy emails, books, circumstantial evidence, laws of probablity, and the Clintons strong arm obstruction of investigations regarding their involvment with Vince Foster and a veritable laundry list of other former Clinton associates who have (often suspiciously and mysteriously) left the gene pool...she actually said this?
Dude.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at May 23, 2008 05:35 PM (GrBA3)
3
I dunno, I'm pretty tired of the obama campaign crying foul every other week. Does anyone really believe Sen. Clinton mentioned Kennedy because she thought Obama might be assassinated?! I honestly think she just wasn't thinking about the assassination part of that analogy, she was trying to make the point that the primary isn't actually OVER. Perhaps she's so singularly focused on winning that she wasn't thinking about that event in any other light but the fact that a new front-runner had to be chosen... which is rather in character for Ms. Clinton I think.
Posted by: K-Det at May 23, 2008 05:43 PM (fD4zt)
4
Dang, that is one big, hairy hand holding the gun!!
Posted by: Chey at May 23, 2008 05:50 PM (gEmvd)
5
Personally, I want Hillary to stay in the campaign. The longer she is in, the more chance of the Dems fracturing.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 23, 2008 06:08 PM (WLr2t)
6
Agree with K-Det. I never felt she was implying anything about assassination. Why should she? No upside. She was just making a familiar historical reference, and subconsciously probably trying to ally herself with Bobby Kennedy's surging candidacy. More alarming in all this is the constant speech policing and offense-taking.
Posted by: Rein at May 23, 2008 08:29 PM (uf8br)
7
Wow, thank God for Rein and K-Det: after reading about this in various places all day, this is the first time (and twice in the same place) that I've found some people that feel about the same way I do about the comment.
Posted by: ECM at May 23, 2008 09:19 PM (q3V+C)
8
Far worse than Hillary's assassination comment is the accompanying photo which displays her ignorance of firearm safety. With her finger on the trigger, who or what is she about to shoot?
It is unfortunate that so many of those who portray firearms as evil have so little experience with them. If Hillary actually spent some time at the range she would:
a) Learn proper firearm safety, and;
b) Realize that a firearm is a
tool that can be used for good as well as evil.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton --
finger OFF the trigger!
Posted by: Just Askin' at May 23, 2008 09:30 PM (esv00)
9
I'm no fan of the Hill but that's a crock and lot
of Bull about nothing.If someone is stupid enough
to whac the Ob the results will make Watts look
like a sunday picnic...As for Hill and the pistola
nice Photoshop...
Posted by: Gator at May 23, 2008 10:06 PM (uaTZE)
10
Gator:
You're right! I missed the photoshop. Unless Hillary's right hand has somehow transformed into a man's.
(Hmmmmm.
Could be...)
Posted by: Just Askin' at May 24, 2008 12:10 AM (esv00)
11
Unless Hill's got an extra joint between her wrist and her elbow, this is a photoshop, and not a very good one. The line of her forearm changes right at the end of her jacket. To say nothing about the size of the hand.
Not that this renders CY's story incorrect or irrelevant, mind you. He didn't suggest that the picture was legit, he's just using it as a visual on the RFK assassination reference.
Posted by: Ric James at May 24, 2008 08:19 AM (AS/pd)
12
I was going to answer Just Askin's question With her finger on the trigger, who or what is she about to shoot?: she's thinking "Go ahead, Barry; now I
want you to run..."
Posted by: Casey at May 24, 2008 01:37 PM (RJSy/)
13
Everyone is forgetting Bill Clinton's mention of Bobby Kennedy.in his speech to BBC some years ago.He almost went into tears over Bobby Kennedy. I personally thought it ws to cover up his involvement with the death of John Kennedy Jr. the typical Bill Clinton crying cop out, as when he faked a breaking voice on "wi-ife," when he said, "I hurt my wi-ife."I think Hillary meant, you never knowbut her dreaming under self probably meant, Obama might be murdered.
Posted by: barry titus at May 24, 2008 09:29 PM (TOCBx)
14
I'll take HRC at her word, but still must point out how incredibly stupid and politically tone deaf this comment makes her out to be.
Any way you cut it, her comparison to the 1968 primary is BS, and to invite the assasination discussion was beyond foolish.
Put some marmalade on that toast.
Posted by: Old Dad at May 25, 2008 02:08 PM (JQwWt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hairballs and Hellfires
In what I think is a fairly well-balanced article about the significant increase in the use of U.S. Hellfire missiles during the recent campaign against Shiite militiamen in Baghdad's Sadr City came this
utterly bizarre claim:
One of Zahara's uncles, Dhia Rahi Shaie al-Koreishi, 34, a taxi driver, and her grandmother, Um Fadhil al-Koreishi, were killed by the blast.
"The heart of this family has been ripped out," said Alaa Rahi Shaie, 29, another uncle, who was stoic in describing the death of his brother. "This is his blood," he said, indicating red splotches in front of his home. "And the remains of his head are over there."
He pointed at a large mound of dirt. A group of young boys dug out the remains and then showed visitors a black bag filled with clumps of hair and scalp.
Family members and neighbors said they didn't see anyone in the area fire rockets. Two black funeral banners hung outside the battered home to honor the dead.
I'm sure some of my readers are more familiar with Muslim burial rites than I (just about anyone would be), but I've always been under the impression that Muslims were very careful to respect the dead and bury them as intact as possible shortly after their demise. Banners honoring the dead are nice. Not treating their remains like kabob scraps is nicer.
Does the claim here of the remains of Dhia Rahi Shaie al-Koreishi's head being unceremoniously dumped in a sack and buried by the family in a dirt pile where children perform ad-hoc exhumations strike anyone else as being odd, even for what we've heard of Iraq?
As for the apparent premise of the article that AGM-114M Hellfire II missiles take an inordinate number of civilian lives... well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Hellfires are preferred for being one of the most accurate missiles currently deployed, and it has the added benefit of having a smallish explosive warhead, making it somewhat less dangerous than some other weapons systems that we could deploy.
The Post does not make any attempt to distinguish how many of the 251 Iraqis killed by Hellfire missiles were Shiite militiamen, Iranian-trained " Special Groups" operatives, and how many were real non-combatant civilians.
While the Post article was less than clear on this point, it seemed possible that Uncle brains-in-a-bag could have been one of the two men loading rockets into a vehicle who were watched for hours before being killed, and grandma might have simply had the misfortune of having her son followed home by a missile. Or they could have been innocent bystanders... we simply don't know.
We do know that the video accompanying the article shows several strikes on obviously armed fighters (including a large group caught red-handed firing rockets), with no obvious civilians nearby. Still, in urban combat civilians will always run the risk of being casualties, and we are making attempts to minimize that possibility now through tactical decisions made, and in the future via new weapons systems. The 5.3 lbs Spike missile, at just over two-feet long will hopefully provide just as much precision with less collateral fragmentation than the Hellfire in future urban conflicts.
Even then, the best advice for civilian in urban conflict areas is simple: don't stand to close militiamen and terrorists.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:03 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I ran across a You Tube site that had videos from US military action mostly in Iraq. Much of it was aerial footage from drones or bombers or helicopters but also some ground units. The aerial footage often had the radio traffic with it and showed things like camera crews going through the process of asking permission to launch a drone's missiles or clearance for a bomber or helicopter to fire.
The spread of the Internet and broadban access is giving us more and more opportunity to bypass our "trustworthy" media to get around how they filter things.
For example, how often have you see the press quote the US president or CIA chief or some 4 star general as the article quotes family members on the street in Iraq?
How often does the press simply relay the words that come out of the US government's mouth ---
--- without some qualifier????
It's BS.
But, more and more, the media is becoming irrelevant....
Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:07 PM (cwn6C)
2
As odd as it may sound, there are strict rule in war. Rule one is to protect non-combatants - civilians, wounded and prisoners of war. Rule two is to make combatants easily distinguishable from non-combatants. That is why members of the military wear uniforms. French Partisans attacking Nazis in Paris wore arm bands. Combatants must carry their arms openly and not conceal them. Military organizations are required to have a chain of command who may be held responsible for enforcing these rules. These measures are not there to save soldiers, but to protect civilians.
Al Sadr's Mahdi Army respect none of these rules. They do not evacuate their civilians; they use them as human shields. They wear civilian clothes and hide their weapons. They launch rockets, detonate IEDs and fire mortars from residential areas full of civilians. All of these violations are war crimes. I hope the "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army are held accountable.
Our armed forces have rules of engagement that require a target be clearly identified before they receive authorization to strike. If you are firing a mortar and run into a nearby house, do not be surprised if an AGM-114 is right behind you. As for the collateral damage from a Hellfire, it is a relatively small precision guided weapon that weighs about 100 lbs and will usually hit its target.
Finally, our opponents have excellent media exploitation capabilities. In fact, our media are willing accomplices in this propaganda campaign. Why should we believe anything the MSM media releases? I do not.
Posted by: arch at May 24, 2008 07:30 AM (pKbp9)
3
As I remember, we were not allowed to exhume bodies of the dead in, I think Hadditha, because of Islamic burial requirements.
But now they just throw the head in a bag, bury it in the backyard, and dig it up to show any reporters that just happen by?
Something smells funny here.
Posted by: Scott at May 24, 2008 08:01 PM (al/0C)
4
I do not find civilian casualties funny and I don't take their deaths lightly, but....
No armed force, past or present, has taken better care to avoid killing innocents than the US, Israel, and British today. The US alone has taken 4,000 deaths and some 40,000 wounded in combat that sees innocents killed by those same troops as an exception not the rule. Gone are the days of Dresden or the fire bombing of Japan.
Posted by: mekan at May 25, 2008 09:45 PM (JJmRm)
5
Yeah well, its only the WaPO after all.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 26, 2008 04:35 PM (DqXz5)
6
While it is certainly possible that utterly uninvolved people mightbe injured or killed in one of these strikes, we know that the jihadis are explicitly trained to a) deny their involvement, of course and b) fabricate slanders against whomever as a strategic attack on the opponents will. This is nothing new at all. But could we hope, a bit, that the press might ask for a smidge of corroboration? The head in the bag... Come on. It's not quite as ridiculous as the unfired bullets hitting the lady's house but close enough.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 27, 2008 11:16 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
134kb generated in CPU 0.0405, elapsed 0.1602 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.1316 seconds, 306 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.