They no doubt decided that one prime-time airing of "Lie to Me" was enough.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Confidential sources close to the White House have confirmed that President Obama was indeed on Air Force One today as it attempted to land in New York, but the flight was turned away three times by ground fire originating from Bank of America shareholders.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

How incredibly stupid:

President Obama's White House was forced to issue an apology Monday after a photo opportunity gone badly wrong — an Air Force 747 plane did a low flyover over Lower Manhattan, prompting terrified citizens to flee from their offices and high-profile accusations of government insensitivity in the post 9/11 era.

White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera issued a brief statement saying he was too blame.

"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision," he said. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, its clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

The panic started Monday morning when a backup 747 known as Air Force One when the president is aboard flew by Lower Manhattan with a U.S. fighter jet closely following, rattling windows and causing some limited evacuations.

Hot Air has several video clips gathered by panicked citizens; judge for yourself if the evacuations or the terror the flight caused as the huge 747 made aggressive high-speed banked turns just above the skyline was in any way "limited."

President Obama, of course, is furious. I rather doubt that he was directly in the loop about the photo op beforehand, but he is certainly taking the heat for it nonetheless, and by the rules the game established by his own supporters over the past eight years, deservedly so.

Regardless of whether or Obama was personally involved in this decision, he is the head of the branch of government that made this decision, and if we've learned anything from his most vocal supporters, it is that the President doesn't have to directly participate in an act to be fully culpable for any adverse reaction.

If President Bush is to blame for torture, the recession, and trumping up fake WMDs to start a preemptive war as the left has howled for years, then President Obama has earned the "right" to take the blame for this debacle and every other than can be tangentially be blamed on his watch.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

Jimmy Carter needs to be disarmed:

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. ThatÂ’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

President Carter doesn't go on to mention precisely what kind of firearms he owns or what calibers they are chambered for, but I feel confident asserting that every single firearm he owns, in every caliber he owns, has been used to kill people, and I suspect we can include police officers wearing bullet-resistent vests in that tally. I'm equally confident that weapons strikingly similar to what Carter owns can be directly linked to some of the worst mass killings in American history, most of which did not use "assault rifles."

Carter claims that he has no desire to " kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."

But can we really trust him?

After all, Carter admits to owning two handguns, and it was with two handguns that Seung-Hui Cho committed 32 murders at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, and Jiverly Wong recently used two handguns to kill 13 befor taking his own life in Binghampton, New York.

Carter also admits to owning an arsenal of four shotguns, and it was a pump-shotgun that Eric Harris fired 25 times at Columbine High school; his perverse partner Dylan Klebold was found with a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun beside his body as well.

As for Carter's scoped rifles, why are his any different than the weapons used by Charles Whitman in his Texas bell tower attack that left 14 killed and 32 wounded?

Perhaps it is safest to err on the side of caution and view Carter's angry letter to the editor as a final cry for help before he embarks on his own killing spree.

Jimmy Carter owns weapons have been used in more mass killing sprees than the assault weapons that that the former president is somehow convinced contain a malevolent soul, and Carter's record of incompetence has been unmercifully skewered for three decades as being one of the most incompetent Presidents in American history, giving him a far greater reason to go on a random killing spree than almost any mass shooter in American history.

Perhaps America does need more gun control.

Let's start with James Earl Carter.

Update: Jimmy has killed before, shooting his sister's cat. Don't profilers claim that animal cruelty is one sign of a sociopath?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 3 kb.

The Nation has always been a bit "off" as a conspiracy-minded forerunner of the Huffington Post, and is roughly as credible.

As if to prove that point, one of their writers, John Nichols, is attempting to preemptively blame swine-flu deaths on Republicans who voted against the bloated $787 billion-dollar "stimulus" bill Democrats in the House and Senate approved with near lock-step conformity without reading.

For all these Democrats knew at the time, David Obey could have inserted a $900 million appropriation for swine flu research in Mexican facilities that went awry and created this never-before-seen avian-swine-human H1N1 hybrid. Democrats would have voted lock-step to approve that as well, but do you think Nichols would have blamed Democrats for it?

Of course not.

It's also a fact that Barack Obama actually shook hands with a noted Mexican archaeologist who died of the flu the next day.

If Obama had been a Republican President instead of a Democrat, you can rest assured Nichols and his fellow conspiracy theorists at The Nation,and the Democratic Underground message boards would have been buzzing about the racist Republican attempt to eradicate Democrat-voting minority cultures with a genetically-targeted virus.

Afterward, Kanye West would find a second-rate awards show to declare "Barack Obama hates brown people," and Naomi Wolf would use the occasion to once again declare that it was evidence of a fascist coup, probably orchestrated by Blackwater and Karl Rove, and no one on the hivemind left would dispute her.

But Barack Obama is a Democrat, and is therefore always blameless, so the leftists who need an outrage-of-the-week have found another (rather creative) way to blame Republicans for a natural event.

I can only imagine next week they'll find a way to blame the GOP for missing sunspots.

No doubt, we'll find out Dick Cheney had them waterboarded.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

It is more than a little sad that a man like Mr. Crumbo put his life on the line in dangerous combat missions in the service of a Constitution and Bill of Rights he clearly knew nothing about.

As various other posters to the op-ed linked above have made clear, the 1994 "assault weapons" ban did not ban so much as ONE assault weapon or machine gun capable of firing one shot per trigger pull. It was, for all intents and purposes, a law to ban scary looking features on some firearms, and did not in any way affect their lethality or rate of fire.

The Second Amendment that Mr. Crumbo so clearly does not understand was not written to protect your hunting rights. It was written by a group of very wise men who had just watched a army comprised largely of civilian militiamen defeat one of the most formidable land armies on the planet. The Second Amendment was expressly written to protect the rights of following generations to own arms that would be suitable for them to use as militiamen if the need again arises, as it has repeatedly through American history, most recently (to my knowledge) in the Battle of Athens/McMinn County War in 1946.

The semi-automatic intermediate-caliber rifles that mimic the look and feel of today's modern military weapons, far from being something not protected by the Second Amendment, are the very weapons that should be most protected by a Right that ensures Americans never again need feel the boot of a tyrant on their necks. It is perhaps the Right most singularly responsible for ensuring that our United States boasts what may be the oldest continuously-functioning government on Earth.

The Second Amendment was never about home defense, or hunting, or target shooting. The clear purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to create a nation of riflemen, a citizenry armed with weapons suitable for use as a militiaman.

If former Navy SEAL Kim Crumbo is the weapons expert he claims to be, perhaps he can point out a civilian weapon more suitable for the militia use imagined by our Founding Fathers that the very semi-automatic rifles that he now says should be banned.

I thank Mr. Crumb for his service, and hope that he uses his retirement to educate himself about a Constitution he defended, but so clearly never understood.

(h/t NC Tea Party Revolution)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Over at NRO's "the tank," Steve Shippert leaves little else to be said about Barack Obama's easy betrayal of the military.

The assault is relentless. It is enraging. And today, the Obama administration's assault on those who dare to defend America from terrorist thugs who rejoice in publicizing beheadings, mass murder, and pure evil are on notice: "You will be punished. We're coming after you."

The target audience now includes the American Warrior. The Obama administration has abdicated the Warrior's defense, refusing to appeal the 2nd Circuit's decision that more photos should be released from investigations of the detention of enemy fighters from the battlefield. The Obama administration has sided with the ACLU and abandoned our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

...

The Obama administration — and those at the Pentagon not standing up in vociferous defense of its warriors — had better buckle up for an American backlash. Pay attention here.

The photos, taken from Air Force and Army criminal investigations, apparently are not as shocking as the photographs from the Abu Ghraib investigation that became a lasting symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But some show military personnel intimidating or threatening detainees by pointing weapons at them. Military officers have been court-martialed for threatening detainees at gunpoint.

The photos are not egregious. Not even rising to the level of panties on heads. But no matter. The assault is on. And your president — your Commander in Chief — supports it.

The release of these images serves no practical purpose, except perhaps for "enhanced prosecution techniques" against our own. Understand clearly that the purpose of the release — and the Obama administration’s decision to do so willingly if not energetically — is to denigrate the American Warrior and to further the assault on the American psyche.

...

...the principled defense of the warrior is over, by choice of the Obama administration in directing the Pentagon to end the defense short of SCOTUS. It is an outright abdication.

It's utterly an utterly detestable acquiescence of one left-wing radical to a group of like-minded fellow travelers that would rather see our soldiers demoralized or killed than victorious—and that's just what they're willing to admit in public.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:08 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

North Carolina State Senator Doug Berger, a Franklin County Democrat, has introduced a bill that would end the requirement for North Carolina sheriff's offices to conduct background checks and issue permits before citizens can buy a pistol or crossbow.

"There should be no infringement on a person's ability to purchase a gun," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Doug Berger, D-Franklin County.

Gun control advocates were shocked when they learned of the bill.

"How can this be the response, that we want to to make it easier (to get guns)?" said Roxane Kolar, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence.

Berger argued that leaving it up to local sheriffs to decide whether to issue a person a gun permit is too subjective.

"We need to begin to look at those laws that are on our books that were written at a time when people did not fully appreciate the Second Amendment," the senator said.

"Did not fully appreciate the Second Amendment," indeed.

The existing law, like so many throughout the country, are the ugly remnants of racist gun control that came down from this nation's founding and through our shared history.

It is particularly poignant that a North Carolina Democrat is the senator offering up such a bill, as it was the North Carolina Democratic Party that staged the only successful coup d'etat in American history, which was followed by the passage of Jim Crow laws that destroyed the rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights era. Among those laws inspired by the Jim Crow era was the process of county sheriffs awarding pistol permits to people of "good character," which was widely understood for many years to mean whites.

Not surprisingly, the bill is already encountering opposition from gun control advocates.

Racists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

And please, don't blame me for the title.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:21 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

6 people, presumably students, have been arrested protesting Virgil Goode's speech against illegal immigration at UNC-Chapel Hill. They seem to be every bit as tolerant as the Carolina blue fascists that violently ended Tom Tancredo's attempted speech last week.

The Daily Tarheel covered the speech via Twitter, and described juvenile protesters that simply don't understand that the freedom of speech hinges on the free exchange of ideas, not drowning out those that oppose your own.

It's a sad commentary on the state of education and intellectual discourse at Chapel Hill, but sadly a kind of intellectual bullying that has become a favored tactic on the political left.

A protestor at the Tancredo event sums up the thuggish behavior with daring honesty when she admitted, "I don't believe a lot of change in this country have come through debating and being happy and talking to people."

Presumably one day in the future this protestor or another one like her will brag about having the university with the cleanest-burning ovens.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:42 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Barack Obama doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to criticize the previous administration with the bitter, petty relish one would expect of today's breed of liberal fascist, especially when it comes to attempting to brand officials of the Bush government as torture-loving deviants.

It is strange, then, that Mr. Obama is silent about the torture allegations being levied against the government he recently visited just over our southern border.

Mexican soldiers fighting a war against drug cartels have arbitrarily detained suspects, beating and torturing them with electric shocks, a senior human rights official said on Wednesday.

Mauricio Ibarra, a top investigator at the National Human Rights Commission, said complaints of army abuses have spiked since 10,000 troops surged into Ciudad Juarez, the country's most violent city on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Soldiers charged with patrolling drug hotspots have detained suspects in military barracks -- sometimes for up to 12 hours -- and beaten them to solicit information before turning them over to police investigators, Ibarra said.

"They give them electric shocks on different parts of the body ... testicles, arms, legs, buttocks," Ibarra told Reuters.

I'm not a torture absolutist. While I feel it is a last resort, I'm not the kind of idiot who will cling to the lie that I wouldn't condone it if it is the last, best hope of saving lives that are in imminent danger.

Further, I feel that those who would make the claim that they are against using any means necessary to save lives in imminent danger are either dishonest even with themselves, or they are monsters in their own right, willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents for their own quite-warped absolutist ideology.

That said, the torture outlined above doesn't seem to come close to a standard of imminent jeopardy. Those being allegedly tortured here are certainly not terrorists plotting a near-term attack, and if the allegations are true, some of the Mexican citizens being shocked or beaten may have no ties to the cartels at all.

You would think that the Obama Administration and their sycophants in the progressive blogosphere would be leading the charge against human rights abuses that are occurring within sight of the United States, but apparently, torture only bothers them when the subjects are terrorists wishing to kill Americans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:49 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

Pseudo-environmentalists are celebrating Earth Day today, a day "a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment."

Uh-huh.

My company is celebrating Earth Day by passing out compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) light bulbs to all employees. As you may imagine, I am absolutely thrilled that they are attempting to introduce fragile glass tubes containing poisonous heavy metals into my home. After all, mercury worked so well for Jeremy.

Like Doctor Sanity, I see Earth Day for what it is, a political machination more than an environmental one, and so I'm hardly surprised to see President Obama burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel to take a junket to give a short speech in Iowa supporting his plan to wreck capitalism with a so-called "green economy" that will cost American jobs and cause fuel prices to soar for all Americans during a down market without actually benefiting the biosphere.

Today is Earth Day, they tell me. Today I should appreciate the environment.

Maybe it's simply a sign of how I was raised, but pretty much every day is Earth Day. We cut off the lights when we leave a room. With the exception of the baby, we take showers instead of baths. We grow some of our own vegetables and spices, and hand weed and use organic remedies to minimize pests instead of using chemicals. Given more time, I'd even provide more "green" meat for my family, hunting and fishing to harvest those other meaty emitters of greenhouse gasses and biowaste for the children!

But Earth Day isn't about protecting the Earth for many of those involved. It's about regulating and controlling people, especially people that they find objectionable.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Yes, kids. The media is always willing to cover the Obama Adminstration's butt:

For the first time, an accused domestic terrorist is being added to the FBI's list of "Most Wanted" terror suspects.

Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California.

Authorities describe San Diego as an animal rights activist who turned to bomb attacks and say he has tattoo that proclaims, "It only takes a spark."

A law enforcement official said the FBI was to announce Tuesday that San Diego was being added to the "Most Wanted" terrorist list. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the announcement ahead of time.

San Diego would be the 24th person on the list, and the only domestic terror suspect.

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko declined to comment on the pending announcement.

The move to add a domestic, left-wing terrorist to the list comes only days after the Obama administration was criticized for internal reports suggesting some military veterans could be susceptible to right-wing extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence. That prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans groups.

I have to ask—by what standard is San Diego the first domestic terrorist added to the FBI's "Most Wanted" list?

Ted Kaczynski was a high-profile left-wing domestic terrorist that went on a 17-year bombing spree that put him on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list as the Unabomber.

Eric Robert Rudolph was on the "Most Wanted" list as a right wing domestic terrorist when he was captured in 2003.

Those are just the first two domestic terrorists that were on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list that immediately come to my mind; I strongly suspect there were others.

If I didn't know better, I might suspect that the addition of an obscure left-wing terrorist who planted two bombs that caused no injuries and only minor property damage to "Most Wanted" list was a political calculation, perhaps made specifically to help take the heat off a DHS Secretary under fire for supporting the release of a controversial report that labeled mainstream conservative values as those belonging to extremists, and who more or less stated military veterans were too stupid to keep from being duped into joining extremist groups.

I'll leave it to others to judge which.

Correction: As Jim notes in the comments, there are two distinct "Most Wanted" lists maintained by the FBI, the traditional "Most Wanted" list that focuses on criminals and one created specifically for terrorism suspects in 2002. While Kaczynski and Rudolph are without a doubt domestic terrorists, they were listed on the FBI's traditional "Most Wanted" list, and not the terrorism list. The AP article was correct in listing San Diego as the first domestic terrorist added to the terrorism list, even if he wasn't close to being the first domestic terrorist.

The timing of adding left-wing bomber San Diego, a minor figure in every respect, at this time, is still highly suspect.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:24 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.

Aaron Veenstra, a PhD. Journalism Candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is asking for your help:

My primary research interest is political blogs and I am conducting a experiment with blog readers that I would greatly appreciate your readers' participation in:

http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~asveenstra/09study-3/start.html

...This study will hopefully shed some light on some understudied areas of news effects by letting me focus on a group of heavy news consumers who are highly interested in politics and current events.

Completing this survey will take about 15-20 minutes and will require a high-speed Internet connection (a connection that's fast enough for YouTube will work fine). As thanks for participating, 10 respondents will be randomly selected at the conclusion of the study to receive $25 gift cards to Amazon.com.

For those of you would would like to let a researcher know what you think of the news media and blogs, here's your shot.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

While Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton walked away as Miss America last night, it was runner-up Miss California that got the headlines for her answer to Perez Hilton's question about gay marriage:

When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

That is hardly an unconventional view in most of America, but it did expose the blithering self-centered cluelessness of at least some of those in attendance:

Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. "It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."

Is he actually arguing that state and national policy should be determined by the audience demographics of beauty pageants?

Why not?

It seems to be how "conservative" Andrew Sullivan forms most of his political opinions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Like in politics.. an honest answer can get you disqualified.

Posted by: MAS1916 at April 20, 2009 12:57 PM (EjR/1)

2 It's also instructive that those who loudly demand that we tolerate their 'lifestyle', are really the most intolerant among us.

Posted by: Billiam at April 20, 2009 01:04 PM (5/v20)

3 I believe America is about having free will to think like we believe. Even though I believe same sex marriage should be allowed, I ALSO believe that everyone has a right to his/her opinion and should be allowed to express it!!! Miss California didn't hurt anyone! She was asked a question, and gave an honest answer. How can ANYONE chastise her for that? God gave us free will to think like we believe, act like we want, and love who we want. I actually have gay friends who don't believe in gay marriage because they think it's a union between a man and a woman!!!

Posted by: Christy at April 20, 2009 01:28 PM (hntqD)

4 Having just watched the video, I would note that her answer was cheered by the crowd. 95% my a$$.

Posted by: Formerly known as Skeptic at April 20, 2009 04:25 PM (91XRk)

5 Voters in 30 states have amended their state constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, not same sex couples. If this were any other issue, that would lead to talk of an "emerging national consensus" But the PC enforcers and their allies in the media continue to lie about the issue and deny this reality. It is a travesty. A minority is forcing compliance upon the majority.

Posted by: zhombre at April 20, 2009 07:36 PM (vr7q0)

6 Why are homosexual men interested in attending a Miss USA pageant? Seriously. It's all about the beauty and sexiness of the ladies. A gay man should have no attraction for it. And if it's about the gowns and frills, aren't there enough drag queen pageants for him to indulge in?

Posted by: MikeM at April 20, 2009 08:28 PM (NN/XE)

7 It seems to me this man is denying her the same rights he himself demands

Posted by: Paul at April 20, 2009 08:57 PM (rCmYM)

8 Mike, maybe they know something we don't and most of the girls are actually transvestites

Posted by: J.T. Wenting at April 21, 2009 12:16 AM (hrLyN)

9 Tolerance at its best

Posted by: So What at April 21, 2009 11:51 AM (vnIRR)

10 Tolerance at its best??? I wonder if he takes part in the street festival in San Fran's hometown, Folson Street Festival

Posted by: So What at April 21, 2009 11:57 AM (vnIRR)

11 Transvestites, JT? Not in those bikinis! Not enough room.

Posted by: MikeM at April 21, 2009 09:21 PM (NN/XE)

12 Scott Ihrig is right, though. She should have NOT gotten 1st runner up. She should have won.....

Posted by: Cargosquid at April 22, 2009 12:30 PM (ESUIi)

13 Miss California's aswer was exactly the same as President Obama's so it MUST be correct?

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at April 23, 2009 02:10 AM (5ZsaL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Master Sgt. John Hatley has been convicted of four counts of murder and has been sentenced to life in prison:

Master Sgt. John Hatley, 40, also will have his rank reduced to private, forfeit all pay and receive a dishonorable discharge, a jury of eight Army officers and noncommissioned officers decided. He has the possibility of parole after serving 20 years.
The sentence came a day after Hatley was found guilty of premeditated murder and conspiracy in the execution-style killings of the detainees.
He was found not guilty of premeditated murder in a separate January 2007 incident in which a wounded Iraqi insurgent was shot and killed.

Combat documentarian J.D. Johannes was in "The Arena" the killing ground in Baghdad's West Rashid neighborhood during the time of Hatley's deployment, and provides some perspective of what was occurring there at the time. It in no way justifies Hatley's action—to the contrary, it magnifies just how wrong Hatley's actions were during a critical time—but it does help explain how such crimes can occur.

And while I haven't yet surveyed the liberal blogosphere for reaction, day-late-and-dollar-short liberal bloggers are eventually going to latch on to the fact that Hatley was, at the time, the Sgt over one Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the fantasist that got The New Republic in such trouble for his various fictions including square-backed bullets, Bradley 25-ton IFVs that could turn on a dime to pick off dogs in the vehicle's blind spots, and verbally-abused female military contractors that never existed.

Hatley's case is proof that while no system of justice is perfect, the military system's promise of protecting those who turn in offenders from reprisals works.

Soldiers had to sense of justice to take down a superior (Hatley) and his accomplices for murders. Funny how none of the dozens of witnesses that would have witnessed Beauchamp's minor atrocities ever came forward, even when not doing could have lead to time in Leavenworth.

Far from weakening the Army's case against Beauchamp, that fact that soldiers in his unit are willing to testify against the most horrible of crimes actually bolsters the case that they would have come forward if Beauchamp's poorly-constructed stories were even close to the truth.

Below is a repost of my response to the announcement of Article 32 hearings of Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy, and Spc. Belmor Ramos, Hatley's fellow murders.

And? [Originally posted Sept. 19, 2008]

Some of the defenders of Scott Beauchamp's trio of fables in the New Republic simply can't let go of the fact that his stories were poorly written fiction. There's always been an odd attachment by some of them to justify his lies, almost as if his stories of minor atrocities were dismissed, then no atrocity claims would ever be taken seriously again.

Today, several left wing blogs have latched on to a story than has been simmering for months, the trial resulting from the execution of prisoners by members of Beauchamp's battalion between mid-March and mid-April of 2007 near Baghdad. They are trying to use that story to somehow resurrect Beauchamp's credibility.

"See? This guys in Beauchamp's battalion committed atrocities, so his stories must have been real!"

Uh, no.

During the debunking of Spencer Ackerman's cartoonishly bad "Notes on a Scandal" roughly a month ago, I compared the military investigation into Beauchamp's lies to that very same far more serious and still developing homicide investigation to make a point:

Ackerman’s biggest point of contention that Beauchamp's stories may be true are the claims that five soldiers contacted the New Republic to vouch for the accuracy of the claims made in the article — but that none of the soldiers were willing to go on the record in the magazine for fear of retaliation by the Army. Ackerman himself presents no evidence that he spoke to a single one of these soldiers, so we don't know if that claim has any merit, but I did get in touch with an officer yesterday involved in the saga who referred to claims of fears of retaliation as "a bald-faced lie."

The claims made in "Shock Troops" — insulting a burned woman, wearing bones as a hat, running over dogs — are barbaric, but at best are minimal crimes if true. Punishment for even those soldiers involved in acts such as those Beauchamp described would be administrative punishments carried out at the base, while those who would have witnessed such acts would face no penalty for reporting them. Lying on a sworn statement, however, is far more serious, and could potentially result in a court martial and prison time. Does anyone seriously want to argue that 22 men would risk their careers and freedom to lie for Scott Beauchamp, a soldier who had gone AWOL on several occasions and who many of these men did not trust?

In addition, whistleblower laws protect witnesses of crimes, whether minor cases of cruelty as reported by Beauchamp, or murder, and we need look no further than Beauchamp's own brigade for evidence proving this.

An Article 32 hearing for Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy, and Spc. Belmor Ramos will begin next week to determine whether these four soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion executed Iraqi prisoners.

It was other soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion that stepped forward and reported the far more serious crimes of executing captives. It is highly improbable that soldiers trained to do their duty would report their fellow soldiers for serious crimes, while men in the same battalion, presumably with the same training, would participate in a cover-up of far more minor violations, fearing non-existent reprisals, and risking their careers by participating in a cover-up to do so. The argument made by Beauchamp, swallowed so easily be Ackerman, is absurd.

The one particular detail of the murder investigation that has the left so suddenly feisty is that one of the soldiers facing charges (added as a defendent in the 1 1/2 months that has passed since the story cited was written) is SFC John E. Hatley, a soldier that has been cited for an email he wrote to milblogger SFC Cheryl MacElroy (RET).

Vietnam war historian Keith Nolan wrote this afternoon seeking my reaction to this development as he recalled I mentioned Hatley's email, and this is what I told him:

Mr Nolan,

Yes sir, I did quote from and refer to an email between SFC Cheryl McElroy and a SFC Hatley. I've contacted McElroy to see if she can contact the Sgt she emailed and determine it is the same Hatley. If it is the same Hatley, it would certainly destroys his credibility if he is judged to be guilty of such crimes.

What interests me is that Hatley isn't mentioned among the accused at all in this earlier article. I wonder what changed since late July.

As for how that impacts the overall case against Beauchamp? It doesn't.

It was still against SOP (not to mention suicidal) to change a HMMWV tire while on urban patrol in his area, and doubtful that a run-flat equipped vehicle would stop anyway.

There are still no such thing as a square-backed bullet in modern firearms, and Glocks are still among the most popular handguns in Iraqi culture, despite Beauchamp's claim that only Iraqi Police carry them.

There is still no burned female contractor. She simply never existed. I have an independent civilian contractor at that Kuwaiti base and military officers on the record supporting that.

Bradleys and other tracked vehicles still cannot maneuver as he described, and that comes straight from the company that manufactures them.

As for the most plausible story he told, that of someone abusing human remains, I've got two dozen signed affidavits in my hands (well, photocopied onto a CD) that makes the all sorts of slightly different claims you would expect regarding several bones found at a COP under construction, but not a single one of a guy wearing a rotting skullplate with flesh attached for part of the day and night.

Hatley's account was a supporting anecdote I relayed, but it played no significant role in my investigation or conclusions.

Hatley may very well prove to be guilty of murder and of lying in a email about how all of his soldiers are "consistently honorable."

But Hatley's guilt or innocence in a separate matter is of little more than a footnote in Beauchamp's stories, all three works of fiction that editor Franklin Foer finally decided that even he couldn't support.

Update: It looks like some of the liberal blogs found the story of the murder convictions, and predictably, are using faulty logic to insist that since Hatley lied, Beauchamp must be telling the truth.

A sampling.

Crooks & Liars:

If you cannot place the name, Master Sgt. Hatley was the direct superior of Pvt. Scott Beauchamp and the person most used to discredit (along with the gay porn star) the New Republic diary of the life of a soldier in Iraq and the ways they dealt with the pressures of Operation Clusterf*ck. All of which Hatley said was absolutely not what his ever virtuous soldiers did.

TPM Muckraker:

Some of those conservatives, including the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, participated in a concerted (and inaccurate) effort to discredit Beauchamp and tar, for lack of patriotism, the notoriously dovish New Republic and, by association, liberals everywhere.

For his reporting, Goldfarb relied on some...let's call them 'questionable' sources and even got an assist, in a bizarre breach of protocol, from Beauchamp's First Sergeant, who took to the blogosphere to make the case against the beleaguered Private. "My soldiers [sic] conduct is consistently honorable."

This soldier has other underlining [sic] issues which I'm sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man's fairy tale. I can't and won't divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here.

The name of that Non-Commissioned Officer might ring a bell: John Hatley. And he seems to have protested a bit too much. Hatley had, in fact, committed the murders before he took to the Internet to defend himself and his fellow soldiers against charges of recklessness. We excitedly await Goldfarb's statement on the issue.

Andrew Sullivan:

In many ways, you couldn't make this up. But given Michael Goldfarb's enthusiasm for killing innocents, it's not terribly surprising. Goldfarb was part of the wide bloggy attempt to describe TNR's correspondent, Scott Beauchamp, as an America-hating loser and liar for pointing out that some soldiers in Iraq acted dishonorably and immorally. One of his key sources, Beauchamp's own First Sergeant, was critical in rebutting Beauchamp's charges. Goldfarb's source for defending the honor of his men and himself was just convicted "of executing four handcuffed, blindfolded Iraqi men by shooting them in the backs of their heads." Goldfarb's kinda guy. But who looks more credible now? Goldfarb or Beauchamp?

Looks like we have some liberals trying to rewrite history on a grand scale.

Hatley was not a source cultivated by Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and his comments were not solicited by Goldfarb either. Then SFC Hatley wrote his comments in an email responding to milblogger SFC Cheryl McElroy, which you can read in the original form at her blog. It's quite obvious after reading that link that both Sullivan and TPMM's Brian Beutler owe Goldfarb at least a correction, thought I doubt they have the integrity to issue an apology for their rather gutless smears.

Like all of Beauchamp's wannabe defenders, these bloggers and others have overinflated Hatley's importance. Hatley's email on SFC McElroy's blog was a character reference we now know to be worthless.

That said, I have, via FOIA, all of the statements taken from soldiers in Beauchamp's unit, asked about the specific allegations Beauchamp alleges. There were more than two dozen. Even though they would have faced felony jail time if they lied under oath, not one soldier would support Beauchamp.

Not. One.

Bu the evidence that damned Beauchamp more than even the military investigation were details I investigated independently of the military.

I hunted down the manufacturer of the Bradley IFV, gave him Beauchamp's story, and he explained why you can't hit dogs as described in Beauchamp's fictions with a 25-ton tank.

I hunted down both civilian and military personnel in other commands that were stationed at both the camps Beauchamp claimed to have insulted the burned woman at, and all confirm that such a distinctive character would have easily stood out, and yet, she never existed.

As something of a firearms expert in my own right, I can state definitively that "square-backed" pistol ammunition Beauchamp wrote of and claimed to have recovered has never existed. Not was he even close to correct in claiming that Glock pistols were carried only by Iraqi police when they are in fact the most widespread pistol among the military, police, and civilians in Iraq.

Hatley is a murderer who directed a conspiracy to cover up his crime. He's also a liar. We all agree on that, and I think we all agree he earned his life sentence (though I would prefer that he didn't have the opportunity for parole after 20 years).

That said, Hatley's role in the Beauchamp case was a minor one (you can read my archives if you doubt that), and watching liberal bloggers trying to inflate his role so that they can tear down the case against Beauchamp (and thereby justify for their loathing for all things military) is a pathetic attempt at self-edification by a group that would still rather spit on the uniform than honor it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 2336 words, total size 16 kb.

While "public" opinion polls published by the media show broad public support for President Obama's political agenda and the American press has continued to give him and Congress fawning coverage, a wave of disgust with Washington seems to be growing across the country.

Montana's governor just signed a law that exempts firearms manufactured in the state for residents from federal regulations.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation, adding firepower to a battery of legislative efforts to assert states' rights across the nation.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," Democrat Schweitzer said.

Texas Governor Rick Perry affirmed Texas' sovereignty last week, and then created an uproar when he hinted the possibility of secession:

We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.

Today, Rasmussen released a jolting poll that just 75% percent of Texans would opt to remain in the United States. It would be good to know if the 25% that feel otherwise is a number that has increased, decreased, or remained the same, but that simply isn't the kind of poll that gets asked anywhere often enough to determine a trend.

Mirroring a Congress that passed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill without reading it, the Georgia Senate passed a bill affirming states rights and rather stupidly pronounced a right to secede over inconsequential, trivial matters.

Montana, Texas and Georgia are not alone in their disgust, as 30-percent of state legislatures are in some stage of debate over resolutions challenging a power-hungry federal government.

This pushback against federal authority comes at a time when it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security released a document that painted those who disagree with the left-wing bent of the current federal government as "right wing extremists." This overly-broad threat assessment painted a significant number of Americans as potential domestic terrorists for sharing one or more mainstream conservative values. The story broke just one day before hundreds of grass-roots protests involving more than a quarter-million Americans took place against excessive government spending in what were promoted as non-partisan TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. This report was sent to police agencies nationwide, much to the disgust of the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), and over the objections of the DHS Civil Rights officials as well.

It is perfectly normal for a political party out of power to feel disenfranchised, and the wailing drama of the minority can indeed be both obscene and absurd as we've noted abundantly during recent years.

But there is something deeper and far more disturbing about the present simmering distrust between American citizens and a federal government that seems to desire to be rulers instead of leaders.

It isn't just partisan sniping directed at one party's politicians by the opposition, but a questioning of the competencies and motivations of the federal agencies under their control. In addition to doubts about the federal government, their is an open disgust and mutual animosity developing between the pundit and media classes and the citizenry. Journalists, editors, and publishers that are supposed to be government watchdogs have long ago debased themselves into being nothing more than partisan cheeerleaders, and have now descended to the point of making contemptuous and crude sex jokes at the expense of citizens, or flat out suggesting they have a mental disorder if the have political beliefs that diverge from their own.

Historically, Americans have found ways to resolve or at least contain even the most polarized beliefs. We've had one bloodless transfer of elected power after another to the point that only twice—the Civil War and the Wilmington, NC coup d'état—has insurrection been a significant threat (the Civil War is obviously notable the size and scope of it's insurrection; the Wilmington Insurrection was notable for being the only successful coup against a lawfully elected government on American soil, and because it was possible because of a fusion between Klansmen, the state Democratic Party, and the most powerful newspaper in the state, the still existing and still reliably Democratic Raleigh, NC News & Observer).

Thankfully, not having the kind of significant political strife that threatens to undermine the core of our political system has simply become expected. That faith we have in our political systems and the checks and balances contained within have served this country well, but those systems are not perfect nor permanent.

Odds are that the current situation will diffuse peaceably of its own volition. The states and federal government will likely learn to accommodate each other without a constitutional crisis, and market conditions will either put an end to overtly biased news companies or see them marginalized.

But there is a chance, a very slim chance, that those in power have developed too great of a sense of their self-worth, and it is that troublesome DC-centric self-importance that has caused state governors and legislatures of both parties to sound a warning rattle.

Young or old, Democratic, Republican, or politically apathetic, we love our freedom in America. we will not cede it to tyrants, be they foreign potentates or self-aggrandizing homegrown snobs that think they know better than you do how to live your life.

Let us hope that once again words will be enough, and that the cautionary, months-long run on firearms and ammunition is just an over-reaction, and not a precursor.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:19 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 937 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Why put quotes around the word public when talking about polls that show overwhelming support for the administrations policies, and then go right ahead and quote the "jolting" poll showing 75% of Texans are dead set against secession? What makes that poll result telling while the others are suspect? I think they are both saying the same thing, Obama is quite popular except for a very small minority of citizens who hold to some pretty silly viewpoints. More importantly, why should this administration, or any administration, change it's priorities to try and placate a 20%-30% minority view? Obama has majority support from Democrats, and majority support from independents. That's a majority of voters and the base that elected him. It's not his job to try and appease a minority that didn't vote for him, it's his job to do the will of the majority who elected him.

Posted by: Jim at April 17, 2009 03:22 PM (3GzXA)

2 I thought it was kind of amusing that on the one hand you say 'or flat out suggesting they have a mental disorder if the have political beliefs that diverge from their own' While having this comment in the header of your page: "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state" I've no doubt if I bothered to read your prior comments your epiphany is recent. Okay I bothered...I was right. LOL

Posted by: HeavyHemi at April 17, 2009 06:03 PM (god7U)

3 It fascinates me that these lefties are the most hypocritical, stupid, blind nit-wits I've ever seen or heard. They act like middle school kids, all the while thinking that they are so intelligent. Sad thing is...53,000,000 other nit wits voted for the main nit-wit.

Posted by: ironeagle at April 17, 2009 08:53 PM (OuxNz)

4 "But there is something deeper and far more disturbing about the present simmering distrust between American citizens and a federal government that seems to desire to be rulers instead of leaders." Bang on, Bob.

Posted by: Bill Smith at April 17, 2009 09:08 PM (upUQP)

5 Very persuasive argument you've made there ironeagle. Flawless.

Posted by: Jim at April 17, 2009 11:19 PM (GStBc)

6 I take issue with the concept that succession is "silly". The poll results do indicate that people are beginning to consider the fact that we would be better off with a split government. You must consider who the 25% are that want a reasonable, limited government. Are they nut cases or are they the marginalized hard working people that just happen to make money and fund the other 50% of the country. If they are the latter then we are in for a revolution for sure. This is one I think is long over due. I know that living in the South I am hearing much more about a change and not the type that Obama wants.

Posted by: david at April 19, 2009 05:52 PM (X62Aj)

7 Excellent post. Superb.

Posted by: cmblake6 at April 19, 2009 08:57 PM (mSaOp)

8 Excellent post. Superb. And do you have any idea how badly this spam warning thing is getting?

Posted by: cmblake6 at April 19, 2009 08:59 PM (mSaOp)

9 Our situation today would be close to the situation before Shay's Rebellion in 1786 where the taxing of farmers during a depression was causing farmers to lose their land in debtor courts. The farmers tried petitioning the government as we have via the Tea Parties; then they occupied the courts. They were ignored and eventually took up arms against the state government and were defeated. I suggest that if the tea parties fail, and so far it appears they have not influenced congress, then following MLK's lead, we should start picketing those politicians' local offices who have voted to spend us into ruination. If that doesn't work, sit-ins at their local offices will be required. Hopefully congress is more astute than was the Massachusetts government in Shays time or Southern Democrats were during the civil rights movement. We 60 something retirees have the time, even to spend in jail if necessary, and should have the motivation to save our children and grandchildren from economic rumination and a loss of their freedoms. The Greatest Generation saved our nation from Fascism so we owe future generations a serious effort to return to the economic and personal freedom they fought so bravely to retain. As I expected I have convinced few people of the necessity of such actions; therefore I may have to go it alone.

Posted by: Al Reasin at April 20, 2009 07:24 AM (XRq3E)

10 David, you said "I take issue with the concept that succession is "silly". The poll results do indicate that people are beginning to consider the fact that we would be better off with a split government. You must consider who the 25% are that want a reasonable, limited government. Are they nut cases or are they the marginalized hard working people that just happen to make money and fund the other 50% of the country. If they are the latter then we are in for a revolution for sure. This is one I think is long over due." From what I've seen of rallies like the tea parties they are not full of people who earn in the top 5%, they are full of middle class people who pay less Federal taxes now than they did under Reagan and the Bushes. That top 5%, the ones who would pay more taxes under Obama than under Bush would still pay less than they did under Reagan. So where was the revolt then? What is silly about secession is the idea that if a state like Texas went out on it's own, suddenly by some magic it wouldn't have to pay for roads, schools, police, it's own army, etc. That takes tax money. Texas just about breaks even in terms of federal tax money out, and federal spending in Texas, so without the Feds you're looking at the same bills to pay from the same tax base. Assuming of course that Texas could raise it's own army, boarder patrol, DEA, FBI, etc... And that 25% who wanted secession and "limited government" - whatever that means, what gets cut? - would have to deal with the 75% who was happy with the way things were. Try ruling 75% of of the people with 25%, then you'll see what revolution really is!

Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 03:12 PM (GStBc)

11 Jim, The circumstances that we have now are very similar to those of the 1850's. I am sure that if Texas went off on its own that it would do very well. But I doubt they would be alone for long. In short oder would follow, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. I short there are a considerable number of people who are sick of the government and see no alternative but to start over.

Posted by: david at April 20, 2009 04:41 PM (X62Aj)

12 The circumstances now are completely different than the 1850s, unless you're thinking that 75% of the white south was against secession prior to the Civil War. LA, MS, GA, AL, etc are some of the biggest beneficiaries of Federal tax dollars, they get much more coming in than they send out. Secession, ignoring the additional costs of standoff/conflict with the USA, would bankrupt most of the red states, it's a non-starter. As for just Texas, for a start, where would you find the money to police the Texas boarder, which would now include every inch of the state, not just the boarder with Mexico. Taxes. And again, you're ignoring the 75% who want no part of the deal, they kinda count.

Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 07:07 PM (GStBc)

13 Just to add some numbers here's what those states get back from the Feds for every $1 they pay in Federal taxes: TX .94 La 1.45 MS 1.77 AL 1.71 GA .96 AR 1.47 FL 1.02 SC 1.38 Think about what those numbers mean. If, for example, MS taxed their citizens at the current Federal level, they'd be able to provide about half the local services. Pretending there would be no costs associated with things like making an FAA, FBI, DEA, etc from scratch, just paying for the current level of goods and services would require raising taxes above current levels for a new Confederacy. Now that's a recipe for revolt.

Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 07:29 PM (GStBc)

14 Here's the link for those numbers, look at the states that are paying verses those taking, it's pretty much Blue pay, Red take. Revolt all you want, you'll be getting a worse deal. http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 07:31 PM (GStBc)

15 Hey Jim - So I have "Silly" viewpoints because I don't agree with Ubumma? Are you writing reports for Homeland Security too?

Posted by: Mikey J at April 21, 2009 01:43 PM (T4ASz)

16 Hey Jim - So my viewpoints are "silly" because I don't agree with Ubumma's views? Do you also write reports for Homeland Security?

Posted by: Michael Smith at April 21, 2009 01:45 PM (T4ASz)

17 Hey Jim - So my viewpoints are "silly" because I don't agree with Ubumma's views? Do you reailize how "silly" your statement is? Do you also write reports for Homeland Security?

Posted by: Mikey J at April 21, 2009 01:47 PM (T4ASz)

18 So Jim - My viewpoints are "silly" because I don't agree with Ubumma? Do you also write reports for Homeland Security?

Posted by: Mikey J at April 21, 2009 01:49 PM (T4ASz)

19 Well Mike, I don't know you personally, but seeing your work here, four nearly identical posts all with the ridiculous misspelling of the Presidents name, I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, I do suspect you hold a number of silly viewpoints. There are about 40% of the people in the USA who don't agree with Obama, and only about 20% who are silly enough to talk nonsense like secession over their Reagan era sized tax bills. Only you can say for certain which 20% you're in, but again, the Ubumma is a pretty big hint.

Posted by: Jim at April 22, 2009 12:35 AM (GStBc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A bit of personal wisdom approximately 50 seconds in.*

Other so-called "professional" journalists engaged in the juvenile wordplay as well, all--perhaps not surprisingly--on networks that aren't doing so well.

*MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is not gay, despite a performance history that might suggest otherwise.

Yeah, low-hanging fruits.

Oh, wait. People, people...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Probably not considering the cast of incompetents, malcontents and crooks we have in both parties, but she has some nerve calling the Tea Party protests "despicable" as if being a Congresswoman gives her the sovereign right to pillage the national treasury.

Then again, she is yet another far left progressive Democrat married to a tax cheat, so perhaps she does honestly think she's entitled to both your money and her "let them eat cake" attitude.

Schakowsky's antipathy for America's taxpayers is all too common from our elected officials.

Of course, if people keep electing people like her by wide margins, there is no reason for them to feel otherwise.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Two readers sent me a link to another infuriating and dishonest New York Times story about Americans guns begin purchased in the United States and being smuggled south for use by Mexican drug cartels.

As you may expect, it picked up on the White House's favorite faux talking points:

Sending straw buyers into American stores, cartels have stocked up on semiautomatic AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, converting some to machine guns, investigators in both countries say. They have also bought .50 caliber rifles capable of stopping a car and Belgian pistols able to fire rifle rounds that will penetrate body armor.

As it so often does, existing BATF rules and regulations disprove the mediaÂ’s assertions. Simply put, The BATF does not allow the manufacture or importation of firearms that can easily be modified into machine guns, and those drop-in parts which can quickly change a semi-automatic design are treated and as strictly monitored and regulated as machine guns themselves under U.S. law.

If there are conversions going on in Mexico, it means that the parts that make a machine gun a machine gun already exist in Mexico, meaning no additional laws targeting U.S. guns would make a difference.

And when you come down to it, I'm tired of government officials that favor gun control telling us that these conversions are taking place. I want them to show us specific conversions they have captured, making the serial numbers and manufacturing details of their parts public record so that we can determine for ourselves where these parts are coming from.

As for the .50 caliber rifles "capable of stopping a car," well, a typical car can be stopped with just about any centerfire rifle you would use for deer hunting, or with a typical shotgun. Implying that .50 caliber bullets have magical properties is rhetorically disingenuous. Yes, the .50 BMG cartridge produces far more energy than a typical rifle bullet, but the bullet isn't explosive, which is just what most pro-gun control stories stop just short of stating when they imply such firearms are threats to train cars, airplanes, and armored vehicles.

As for the .50 rifles being recovered in Mexico, commenters have remarked before how the .50-caliber rifles being recovered by the Mexican police look suspiciously like those sold to the Mexican military, right down to the same brand of scope and back-up iron sights (BUIS). Once again, that is not a problem that would be resolved by more restrictions in the United States.

As for the "Belgian pistols able to fire rifle rounds that will penetrate body armor," the authors are peddling yet another statement that is a only loosely based in fact.

The round in question is the 5.7x28, and it is not remotely a rifle cartridge.

It is chambered for pistols and personal defense weapons that falls into the submachine class of weapons , but that can shoot bullet designed for armor penetration. What the Times won't tell you is that armor-piercing bullets are highly-restricted under U.S law, for sale only to the military and police. Nor will the Times tell their readers that even when these pistols are loaded with the heavily-restricted "armor piercing" bullets, these bullets utterly fail to penetrate the more advanced body armor used by police and military units, and work reliably only on lesser armor classes.

Lastly, the Times neglects to mention that their rhetorical whipping boy 5.7x28 cartridge is failing to catch on in many circles, because while it does possess some armor penetration capabilities if using the restricted ammunition, it always uses a tiny bullet, and does not have a record of reliably causing incapacitating wounds.

You've got to give it to the Times for efficiency, though; they packed so many half-truths and lies in two sentences that it took seven paragraphs to detail them all.

But the Times isn't quite does just yet.

Watch the mastery in the deceptive sentence below:

Federal agents say about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers last year and asked to be traced came from dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona.

If you read this quickly as most newspaper readers would, you'd come away with the distinct impression that 90-percent of the guns recovered from drug dealers in Mexico came from the United States, which is exactly what the author wants you to understand.

It is only upon reading the sentence deeper that you would recognize that the the phrase "and asked to be traced" is the key.

Mexican authorities only ask American authorities to track the small fraction of those guns that it suspects comes from the United States. The do not ask us to trace the majority of the guns they capture that are clearly not of U.S. origin. Of the total number of guns recovered from cartels, just 17-percent came from the United States--quite a big difference from the 90-percent the y tried to trick readers into accepting.

It is really quite sad that so many journalists feel they have the right to publisher such clearly biased information as fact, but their reporting is no more pathetic than the editors and publishers that allow journalists to publish advocacy instead of news.

News organizations are dying on the vine in the United States, and the media loves to claim that the Internet is to blame. That may be true, but if it is, it is because the Internet allows the mediaÂ’s favorite fictions to be exposed, leaving their reputations—arguably their most important product" irrevocably damaged.

People wonÂ’t knowing buy damaged goods, and why should they?

Day by day, story by story, the Times justifies ever dollar it loses with another fiction that turns away another reader, and when they are gone, they will not be missed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 973 words, total size 6 kb.