As time goes on, I'm starting to adopt this position myself.

The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate.

The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama's having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won't allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it.

So what's the problem here? Release the original and let's be done with this madness.

I truly believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. All available evidence points to this, and there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else. But as time goes on, I'm increasingly amazed that not only is the call to release Obama's original birth certificate being sustained, the cry actually seems to be gaining momentum.

I believe it was wise for the President to ignore the movement when it started because it simply marginalized the Democrats that created the rumor (yes folks, the story originated and was first propagated by Clinton-supporting blogs), and then various Republicans that jumped on board and then took over the fruitless pursuit. But now the controversy—for reasons I simply cannot fathom—has expanded to alarming proportions.

I have to think that it reached—or will soon reach—a state where it becomes more of a problem to ignore those calling to see the document than it is to ignore them.

Officials in Hawaii have confirmed that the original, long-form paper birth certificate filled out at the time of President Obama's birth exists. The President can easily ask them to release a copy of the document to the media to be photographed at high resolution, where it can be posted on news web sites and blogs around the word and debated and parsed, ultimately shutting down all but the most fringe elements of the debate, those that still believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that Ron Paul would have made a good President.

It only takes a phone call. Do this, Mr. President.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

As you may know, seven men in Willow Springs, NC have been detained on terrorism charges, and an eighth man is still at large.

It's a bit shocking that Islamic terrorists could be hiding in plain sight in a small Southerner town, but that appears to be exactly the case.

And for such a small cell of just eight men, they seemed to be working on a sizable cache of weaponry according to the indictment, including 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.

I've categorized them by name, type, and date purchased below:

The M70B1, which was not linked, is just another run-of-the-mill fixed-stock AK-style rifle.

You may note that the AR- and AK style rifles are what our politicians have labeled "assault weapons," even though they are not assault rifles by any military definition. Prohibitionists may be quick to point out that the AK- and AR- rifles were some of those banned under the Joe Biden-authored abortion known as the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. This is the same ineffective law that our President and Attorney General would like to have reinstated.

The Saiga 308 purchased by Boyd is built upon the exact same AK action, fires a cartridge with the same rate of fire and having both far more range and power.

The two Ruger Mini-14s and Ruger Mini-30 in this arsenal use the same cartridges and have the same range and rate of fire as the AK- and AR- pattern rifles, and they were never subject in any way to restrictions of the so-called "ban."

Nearly identical relatives of the Bushmaster M4 A3 rifle were available during the entire life of the so-called ban, and that if the Smith & Wesson M&P had been around at the time, a variant of it, too, would have likely been legal for civilian sale.

If Boyd had been interested in the other AK-pattern rifles that he amassed he could have purchased those during the ban as well, though he would have paid a premium for them. While illegal to import, the thousands already in circulation were entirely legal to buy and sell.

Tell me again how gun control "works"...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 5 kb.

The so-called "Thune Amendment" to provide co-equal reciprocity to concealed carry permit holders traveling across state lines will come to a vote today.

The Amendment would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their guns in the 48 states that allow some form of concealed carry (Illinois and Wisconsin do not allow for concealed carry in any form). Permit holders would still be responsible for knowing and following all applicable laws of the individual states they visit regarding concealed carry.

Opponents of the amendment have gone for the usual hysteria, insisting that such a bill would mean blood flowing in the streets.

That sort of hyperbole and fear-mongering is of course unfounded.

There are legitimate reasons one could cite to oppose the bill, such as concerns over how Alaska and Vermont residents—which are allowed to carry concealed weapons without any sort of a permit—would be accommodated. There are legitimate reasons to question the public safety of allowing people who come from states that provide permits without any training to travel anywhere. There are also questions about whether such a bill tramples on states' rights.

Those questions need to be answered, and I suspect they reasonably can be.

By the protests sounded by many of those opposing this bill aren't based upon any sort of logical thought process. They trumpet only unreasoning fear:

"If you walk down the street in New York ... you can have the solace of knowing that if someone has a gun on them they've gone through a rigorous police background check. After this bill, you can have no such comfort," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday.

Shumer is dishonest. If someone is carrying a gun in New York City, they are either a criminal or politically connected, with very, very few exceptions, and it is only slightly less difficult to carry upstate. Being a well-trained, responsible, law-abiding citizen isn't enough to get a carry permit in New York City, you need political connections, or if you are a normal citizen, you have to demonstrate need—as if a citizen can foretell in advance when someone might attempt to carjack, rob, or rape them. Even then, permitting is an altogether arbitrary process subject to whim as much as process.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was no more logical:

It could be drunks stumbling out of saloons packing heat that leads to another OK Corral. Or a bump on the subway that turns into a quick-draw shootout.

And the cops can't do anything about it until it's too late.

Those are some of the nightmare scenarios an agitated Mayor Bloomberg said could unfold on city streets if the Senate doesn't kill a "terrible piece of legislation."

The controversial measure says that as long as you're legal to pack heat in one state, you're A-OK to carry a concealed gun anywhere you travel in the U.S.

The proposal, an amendment coming up for a vote today, "is just an out-and-out trampling of historic states' rights," Bloomberg said in a reference to New York's tough laws against concealed guns.

"This bill is an anti-police, pro-gun-trafficker bill. This is going to put a lot more guns on the street," Bloomberg said on a conference call with several other mayors who warned their streets could also become war zones.

As Bloomberg should know, carrying a firearm in New York City would still be prohibited even when the Thune Amendment passes; it only apply to state laws, and local prohibitive ordinances such as NYC's would presumably still apply.

As for the Wild West hyperbole of shootouts on every street corner over the slightest offenses, well, that bit of dark fantasy has been debunked no less than 36 times. The same fear-mongering has been made in response to every state that implemented a concealed carry law, and the claims have always fallen flat.

Concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and though there are millions of concealed carry permit holders in the United States—there are more than 1.4 million in Florida alone—the best that the anti-gun Violence Policy Center could do to suggest that concealed carry was dangerous was to point out 31 instances where concealed carry permit holders have been accused of violent crimes.

The VPC was so desperate to get even this scant amount of evidence that they were forced to include allegations of wrong-doing in cases that had not been adjudicated, cases that concealed weapons played little or no part in, and at least on case were no weapons at all were used.

Far from showcasing gun violence caused by concealed carry permit holders, the VPC report instead serves to show that carry permit holders as a group are far less violent that those citizens that are not licensed to carry firearms.

38 states allow concealed carry. 28 of them already have reciprocity laws that allow permit holders to carry in various states.

Thune's amendment is an attempt to add some consistency to an often confusing hodgepodge of state-mandated and constantly changing reciprocity agreements, while keeping every individual state restriction and concern in place about how and where guns can be carried within those states. It seeks nothing more or less than extending to law-abiding citizens the opportunity to follow the laws of another jurisdiction.

That hardly sounds like a situation that should earn the shrill hyperbole we're hearing from some politicians and media elitists.

But then, we aren't dealing with rational people.

Update: Why am I surprised that irrational fear wins in a Democrat-controlled Senate? The vote fell two votes shy (58-39) of the 60 needed.

And the victorious dolt speaks:

"Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement. "The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban."

The ten year (1994-2004) "assault weapons" ban did not save one single life.

While 19 guns were banned by name, every single domestic manufacturer had variants of pre-ban guns on the street the day after the "ban" took effect, with no decrease in accurate, power, or rate of fire. Many manufacturers of assault weapons expanded their domestic sales during the ban due to high demand, and there were always plenty of these firearms legally available for sale on gun shop shelves.

The "ban" can fairly be credited with the creation of a new class of handguns, subcompact semi-automatics that packed duty-grade calibers (9mm, ..40S&W, .357 SIG, .45 ACP) into ever-smaller frames, so that far more powerful bullets can be launched from guns not appreciably larger that the low-powered and often ineffective &qout;mousegun" calibers of previous generations. If anything, a good case can be made that by making guns ever smaller and more powerful, the assault weapons ban encouraged people—both law-abiding citizens and violent criminals—to carry firearms more frequently.

How many homicides associated with this new class of weapon do you want credit for, Chuck?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1204 words, total size 8 kb.

If Chuck Shumer and the New York-based media are against it, it must be good for America:

A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun laws of the state they are visiting.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said his proposal would reduce crime by providing reciprocity to carry concealed firearms. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," he said.

...

Thune's bill, supported by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would allow people with concealed weapons privileges in one state to transfer that right to other states, contingent on their following the laws of those other states. Many state gun laws specify locations where concealed weapons can, or cannot, be carried.

It does not, Thune said, provide for a national carry permit and would not permit the concealing of weapons in the two states — Wisconsin and Illinois — that do not allow the practice.

Gun control advocate Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the amendment "could endanger the safety of millions of Americans."

He said in a statement that "to gut the ability of individual states to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense," he said.

This may come as a shock to the uninformed, but most states with concealed carry permits already have some sort of reciprocity agreement with other states. For example, my North Carolina concealed carry permit is honored in 31 other states. New York concealed carry permits have considerably less clout, being honored in only 13 other states.

Critics that insist this amendment would lead to violence are all predicted on the absurd illogic that a person who is licensed to carry a firearm in his home state would be overcome with a murderous desire urge to commit a violent felony the moment they cross the border into another state where they did not previously have reciprocity.

It's a laughably foolish premise that an educated, rational person would ignore, and yet the apparent de facto position in a number of editorials in northeastern news organizations.

The echo is so harmonious that almost makes me wonder if news organizations have been orchestrated in some manner—perhaps by a panicky senior Senator from New York?

On second thought, I'm sure I don't want to know.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not sure what I find most offensive about this: the fact that the local media chose to try to sweep this under the rug as much as possible without completely being derelict in their duties, or that the NAACP would allow a convicted felon—one convicted of multiple homicides and an apparent attempt to cause a third— to hold office.

So much for standards and accountability:

Stokes County sheriff's deputies arrested the president of the local NAACP chapter on child sex and firearms charges Monday.

CBS affiliate WFMY reports that Larry Lash, 54, of Walnut Cove, was charged with six counts of statutory rape and two counts of sex offense and first-degree sex offense, among other sex charges.

Sheriff Mike Joyce told WFMY that there were three victims, including two under 16-years-old and that the alleged sex acts took place at Lash's home over a period of time.

Investigators found five guns and ammunition at Lash's house when they arrested him, leading to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. According to state Department of Correction records, Lash was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 1974 and assault by pointing a gun and discharging a firearm into property in 1978.

If the there is any evidence at all that Lash used the influence and prestige of his position to carry out his assaults, I hope that the families of the victims sue the state and local organizations into bankruptcy as a warning that no organization is above the law, and especially one chartered to fight for equality.

In this day and age where you have to submit to a criminal background check for everything from applying for loans, to applying for jobs, to volunteering in many organizations, there is no excuse at all for the NAACP not vetting their officers on every level, including Lash.

The other possibily—that the NAACP knew Lash was an convicted killer, and allowed him to serve anyway—is even more dangerously negligent, and I hope is far from the truth.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, how they make things interesting:

A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel.

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

However, before the issue got to court, Cook's orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked. Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Tuesday that Cook was no longer expected to report Wednesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization to active duty. Cook, who claims he is now the victim of retaliation due to his suit, received his mobilization orders to report for active duty at MacDill on Wednesday. From there, he was to go to Fort Benning on Saturday for deployment to Afghanistan.

Cook has now been fired from his employer over the suit, which was dismissed this morning by a federal judge, on the grounds that his canceled deployment orders rendered the case moot.

It is not known if Cook, his lawyer, and the generals will file another case, but I rather suspect they will.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

No, I didn't say it. A liberal law professor disgusted with her testimony did.

Ace distilled the essence of Sotomayor thus:

She's denying that there exists something called "theory of jurisprudence," which includes such doctrines as originalism, strict constructionism, and, of course, the ever-flexible and ever-expanding doctrine of the "Living Constitution." As she doesn't want to admit she's an adherent of the latter, she claims there's no such thing as judicial philosophy whatsoever.

For example, faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say there is no Constitutional dictate either way: A law is permitted to exist; it is also permissible to have no law. Lacking a constitutional source of authority, a judge herself has no authority to set policy.

On the other hand, someone like Sotomayor does not stop her inquiry simply because she finds that she has no authority whatsoever to make a ruling that binds anyone. She then looks to international law; the always-popular "changing social mores and norms;" "public policy considerations;" anagrams of Ricky Martin song titles; etc.

So, yeah, she's lying.

I fully expect Sotomayor to be confirmed by the Democratic supermajority in the Senate. While the nation as a whole doesn't support her nomination, there simply doesn't seem to be enough of an immediate cost to her confirmation to make voting for her a short term political risk, which is all politicians care about any way.

The fact of the matter, however, is that activist judges like Sonia Sotomayor and her peers that believe in what Ace so correctly mocked as the "Living Constitution" undermine the laws that holds society together with every decision they make. The constantly shifting standards and "law of the now" approach to jurisprudence means that no law is ever actually law; it is an ever-changing rough guideline. With no fixed compass, the law—as law—ceases to exist.

She is a dangerous choice... and no one knows that better than the radical neophyte America elected as President who appointed her.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

"The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground."

Obviously, part of what Mr. President is concealing in his hidden university records are his failing grades in history.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Hope and Change:

North Carolina's unemployment rate, already one of the highest in the country at 11.1 percent, will "peak" at 13 percent in the first quarter of 2010 before it begins to improve, North Carolina State University economist Michael Walden predicted Monday.

In his "North Carolina Economic Outlook" report, Walden said that "an emerging consensus" points to an economic rebound beginning "in late 2009 or 2010."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Rather pathetic considering their history of small arms development, but perhaps to be expected from a now-neutered nanny-state that thinks normal kitchen knives are too dangerous.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.