November 17, 2009
CNN's "Militias are Crazy!" Day 2
After yesterday's report attempting to portray a militia group as borderline terrorists, CNN's Jim Acosta used today's report to try to portray the founder of the group as also being an unfit parent.
Lee Miracle may run training exercises for the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia once a month in a rural area outside of Flint, but he's just as busy at home. He and his wife Katrina have eight kids, and there are more than 20 guns in the house. This explains why Lee refers to the family as "Lee and Kate plus eight plus a gun rack."
Make that several gun racks. The Miracle children are very much growing up in the militia. They take part in militia training exercises, including the weapons training.
We were there when 13-year-old Megan fired off her shotgun, but even the couple's six-year-old has had her share of target practice.
CNN's dimwitted followers obediently go where they are led, all but wetting themselves in the comments. One reader professes shock and outrage that a family has both children and guns in the same house, declaring that "somebody should do something" about that. The next poster down rhetorically asks if there is any difference between the militias and the Ku Klux Klan. It is tough to discern whether they feel having guns or belonging to the Klan would be more distasteful.
The hit job CNN did on the Miracle family was as easy as it is predictable.
They crafted both the text of the blog entry and tone of the video to inspire shock that young women and girls in the family are being taught to shoot firearms.
Being CNN, they never mention the fact that these young ladies are adequately supervised, use both the proper eye and ear protection, and in the one instance they broadcast, use a single-shot, preferred by many for training young and new shooters. In other words, the Miracle children exhibit the tells of youth taught how to act responsibly around firearms. That the women are as empowered to use firearms for their defense as are the males somehow doesn't excite the pseudo-feminist leanings of the CNN staff.
Those things don't fit CNN's narrative, you see.
It's much better to play up a caricature and beat down a strawman. Why waste time trying to discover why increasing number of people have determined that our federal government too incompetent, corrupt, and power-mad to trust?
After all, it's only news.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:42 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Although my parents were not in the milita, I grew up in a home that had a loaded, unlocked gun in every room, including the bathroom, kitchen, basement.
There were never any accidents. I never "played" with them. My parents taught me from a very YOUNG age to respect them, what they could do if used improperly, and how to use them, reload them, clean them, etc.
No one needs to "do anything" about it. Its the parents responsibilty to teach their children about weapons if they choose to have them in their home.
Posted by: Steele at November 17, 2009 05:10 PM (BQApT)
2
I detect the pimp hand of Morris Dees at play here. He must have a big Visa bill this month or something.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 06:02 PM (7dU/r)
3
Just watched the vid. You know, it was not nearly as bad as I was expecting it to be. Huh.
Posted by: Brad at November 18, 2009 04:22 AM (eEdXg)
4
It's almost like the "elite" come from a different country, isn't it? Few hunt; many believe that guns are evil (vice the people who use guns for evil things); they do not believe in taking responsibility of one's action and explain away the most horrific and violent actions to "a bad environment" or "a shortage of recreational facilities".
How would you change this state of affairs?
Posted by: favill at November 18, 2009 07:39 AM (fzLjW)
5
A copper lining there. If the Left is a political movement, and it is, and has coercive ambitions, which it does, a pervasive disdain and fear of firearms as well as the military and militaria begs the question, just what body of men or other mechanism will they ever use to enforce their will? If the worst of our fears and the greatest of their plots are ever to be made real, who will man these posts? No one, friends. No one at all. The teenage Stalinists have no teeth and only the most drastic alteration in their character can change that.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 18, 2009 08:42 AM (e6TEq)
6
And in other timely news: last night's episode of NCIS:LA featured a storyline about... a militia! An eeeevil militia who chases poor Mexicans back over the border only to let them die in the desert from thirst! Oh those eeevil militia-men!
They portray the militia so stereotypically it was hilarious!
The regular NICS would never have done an episode like this. Gibbs would have kicked their asses if they tried.
Posted by: Stoutcat at November 18, 2009 09:39 AM (kKdtK)
7
I grew up in a household in which my Dad's hunting rifle, a .22 and a shotgun were stored in a broom closet and the ammo was on the shelf above them. Horrors! I started shooting when I was 8 years old when my grandfather wanted to get me and my cousins out of his hair for awhile and sent us off with his .22 and a couple of boxes of shells to shoot ground squirrels. I'm sure the MSM would characterize my family as a bunch of hicks but the fact is that between me and my 3 siblings we have 7 college degrees. We didn't "play" with guns because we grew up understanding what they were for and how they worked. If people would only bother to teach their kids safety around guns they wouldn't need gun cabinets and locks
Posted by: Penny at November 18, 2009 02:24 PM (5sGLG)
8
The now, thankfully, lame duck Governor, John Corzine signed into law the new measure limiting New Jersey resident to the purchase of just one handgun per month.
...
But in the fevered liberal frenzied rush to limit handgun purchases, the Legislature also banned legitimate gun dealers from buying more than one handgun a month too.
Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 09:06 AM (tE8FB)
9
I am your stereotypical middle-aged female. I am employed in the legal field. As with everyone who gives a damn about our beloved nation, I wondered what on earth could I do to stop the insanity of a runaway government, as well to protect myself and my community in the event of a terrorist attack. I am now a proud member of a militia. Now, before I threw in 100%, I checked the members out at a training exercise. Golly gee, CNN would be disappointed. The members are all employed, hard workers, property owners, and patriots who love our country. Obviously they do not fit in with the demographics of CNN's viewership. Sadly, when I've mentioned I'm in a militia, the frightened look I receive in return tells me there are more willing to live on their knees than those willing to fight for the birthright our forefathers bequeathed us.
Posted by: SierraCheryl at November 19, 2009 01:32 PM (Cnzji)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 02, 2009
Riddle Me This...
Why is it that grass roots activist opponents of the President are
gleefully derided as "teabaggers," when it is the subservient liberal special interest groups that worshipped him up until the election—only to be cast aside afterwards with one broken policy promise after another— are the ones left with a bad taste in their mouths?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:17 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Um... that's not a riddle... it doesn't actually make any sense... why don't you take a deep breath and try again? You seem to have several bits of ignorant rant crashing into each other there.
And didn't the "teabaggers" name themselves that?
Posted by: salvage at November 02, 2009 08:06 AM (DEOQe)
Posted by: Mark Harvey at November 02, 2009 08:08 AM (SM+9r)
3
I guess salvage needs some, um, er, salvaging?
Posted by: Mark Harvey at November 02, 2009 08:09 AM (SM+9r)
4
And didn't the "teabaggers" name themselves that?
He's awfully coy about it, but I think Anderson Cooper is playing for the other team.
Posted by: Pablo at November 02, 2009 08:33 AM (yTndK)
5
Salvage,
The Tea PARTIERS named themselves after the Revolutionary War Patriots in Boston who tossed a shipload of British tea into the harbor to express their displeasure with the tax on tea. It's known as The Boston Tea Party. Look it up.
The modern day Tea Partiers were given the name you bring up by a vulgar minded news anchor who was, no doubt, thinking of HIS own favorite activity: Tea Bagging, a Gay oral sex practice. That is, they do it with their mouths and scrotums.
Now. The Conservative Republicans whom the dems tried to deride by calling them teabaggers are on the rise; they're getting louder, stronger, and more numerous.
The Obama worshippers, on the other hand, are being tossed aside by the Obama administration which also tossed aside the promises it made to these worshippers during the campaign.
The reason this doesn't make sense to you is that you can't grasp simple facts that contradict your idealistic view of your leader. He says one thing, and does another -- a LOT!
So, be careful whom you call ignorant until you can understand basic terms, and basic facts that contradict what your leaders tell you.
Posted by: Bill Smith at November 02, 2009 08:38 AM (vUEiP)
6
"The modern day Tea Partiers were given the name you bring up by a vulgar minded news anchor who was, no doubt, thinking of HIS own favorite activity: Tea Bagging, a Gay oral sex practice. That is, they do it with their mouths and scrotums."
hahahaha. Exactly. When Libs chant about Teabagging, it's not a sophmoric play on words. Thay actually believe that tens of thousands people are doing that, publicly and in unison.
Ask one. They'll confirm it.
It's one of the Libs' greatest fantasys. Weird.
Posted by: brando at November 02, 2009 09:50 AM (IPGju)
7
Oh. Yes, "Tea Partiers" sounds less gay.
Really, it does.
And from what I can tell they are much like this post; angry stupid children who are just screaming because they didn't get their way last election.
It's particularly funny when they howl about "government overspending" when it comes to something like helping your fellow Americans with their medical bills but don't say anything about the billions blown in Iraq that kills your fellow Americans.
And yes, they're more teabaggers than ever!
No, not really.
Posted by: salvage at November 02, 2009 10:17 AM (DEOQe)
8
See? He believes it. Yuck.
Posted by: brando at November 02, 2009 10:49 AM (IPGju)
9
Someone has to be the teabag-ee. Hence, the bad taste.
Really though, did you actually have to have it explained? I kind of figured it would have been obvious.
Posted by: Larry at November 04, 2009 05:20 AM (xa1/W)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 24, 2009
About the Obama Thesis Hoax
When you were younger, your parents probably told you that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is."
That bit of homespun wisdom should have been applied to a blog post that claimed tertiary knowledge of a Barack Obama college thesis lambasting both the free market system and the Constitution.
The authors claim a defense of satire now that the blog entry was disclosed as such, though that warning came far too late for those that managed to push the story to multiple web sites and even talk radio.
If people had carefully read the entry before promoting it, however, this paragraph offered a big red flag:
In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: &qout;I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.&qout;
When the blog entry claimed that the first ten pages of the President's thesis was given to the general media and not one soul wrote or talked about it that should have sent up huge warning flares that something was wrong with this story.
That no one bothered to contact Joe Klein to see if the document reportedly released to him been, is an example of shoddy fact-checking.
Sadly, this gives the left wing blog Media Matters more than enough excuse to run a headline that begins "So desperate they'll believe anything—" and have some justification for doing so. Michael Ledeen was quick to post a column noting that he'd been duped by the thesis hoax, which was a responsible way to handle such a situation.
Now, if we can only get the same Media Matters partisans that gloated over this incident to develop or even borrow the integrity to admit they were duped by a lying ACORN Philadelphia employee, we can call it a good day.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:03 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Obama said most of what is written in the bogus thesis.
I cannot get any links to take on this blog.
If I could get anything to take I could link to a radio recording of a debate where Obama said most of the Constition issues in the bogus thesis.
I leave it for others to find and post the details.
Posted by: davod at October 24, 2009 10:17 AM (GUZAT)
2
It's remarkable that the Obama thesis remains confidental to this day.
Perhaps we can hire the people at Columbia responsible for keeping BO's papers under wraps and put them in charge of security at State and Defense.
Of course they are helped along by the fact that the MSM emphatically
does not want to know anything about Barry's past.
Posted by: Steve at October 24, 2009 10:57 AM (cDwBw)
3
I'm afraid I was the primary cause of the problem. Ledeen made his post, taking the satire seriously. but no one seemed to have picked it up for two days. Until I did, on Friday. I didn't go to his source site until well after I posted comments about it at The American Thinker blog. That's where Rush picked it up. Not long after I made the post I began to have doubts about the story's veracity and was saying so in comments at AT, but by that time the damage was done. However, the climb downs and corrections made by Ledeen, Limbaugh and myself were relatively fast as compared to similar situations on the left and we needed no prompting much less pressure to do so. The full story of the mess I had a large part in making:
http://keohane.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-thesis-mess-involving-michael.html
Posted by: Denis Keohane at October 25, 2009 01:19 AM (qa33R)
4
PS - Hours ago I posted a few comments to the Media Matters story, addressing some of their claims and providing some details - but the posts don't seem to have made it past review. Maybe I violated some ground rules...
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910230037
I did acknowledge right up front that I was indeed the vaunted right wing smear machine.
Posted by: Denis Keohane at October 25, 2009 01:39 AM (qa33R)
5
"... this gives the left wing blog Media Matters more than enough excuse to run a headline that begins "So desperate they'll believe anything."
The right isn't the only group "desperate" enough to believe fabricated stories, not that the left will ever admit their own culpability. Love the irony that Rush got bamboozled by a lie after being the victim of one.
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:09 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 20, 2009
Hersh: Pentagon Out to Ruin Obama
From the always fascinating
Seymour Hersh:
"A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him [Obama] get into trouble," he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
"If he gives them the extra troops they're asking for, he loses politically," Hersh said. "And if he doesn't give them the troops, he also loses politically."
The journalist criticized the president for "letting the military do that," and suggested the only way out was for Obama to stand up to them.
"He's either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon," Hersh said. If he doesn't, "this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency."
Funny. I thought Obama was doing a pretty good job of destroying his Presidency on his own.
As for Hersh, he's had some notable successes, and some equally spectacular duds. How are Dick Cheney's death squads working out for you, Seymour?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:15 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Didn't Obama say the war in Afghanistan was the correct war? Or was that only a political lie to make it appear he also was for national security and Bush was just incompetent for starting the wrong war?
We can now truthfully say, "Obama lied men died."
As his hate America Pastor has said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost!."
Posted by: Rick at October 21, 2009 07:34 AM (79jCL)
2
The only thing you can trust about what Hersh says is that it's intended to promote Hersh. It's not that he's dishonest, it's that he has only the barest familiarity with reality.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2009 09:40 AM (ZJ/un)
3
Sy Hersh is still alive? Huh.
Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2009 11:42 AM (yTndK)
4
Um... "comes with the territory of the position of commander in chief"?
Seriously Barry... if you didn't want this responsibility, you shouldn't have applied for the job.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 21, 2009 12:07 PM (7r7wy)
5
Hersh? That guy stays plastered.
Posted by: brando at October 21, 2009 04:31 PM (IPGju)
6
Hersh? Hersh? I thought he invaded Iran along with Cheney's secret assassination squads. How does he manage to send copy back to the states?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 21, 2009 05:10 PM (3O5/e)
7
Hersh is a perennial self-loather that displaces his self hatred onto his nation. But that is too generous. To him, America is not his nation, it is the enemy. Once you understand that then you know who this gentleman really is and what he is about. Make no mistake, with his comrades running this country our days of liberty may be numbered.
Posted by: Ultraman at October 21, 2009 11:01 PM (PDt2C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No Surprises Here: WaPo/ABC Skews Poll for Public Option
Mercy me:
The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it's significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that's when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view.
Remember when I wrote that poll watchers need to remember the recent Gallup poll on party affiliation? Gallup polled 5,000 adults and found that the gap between Democrats and Republicans had closed to the smallest margin since 2005, six points, and had been reduced more than half since the beginning of the year. For the WaPo/ABC poll, though, their sample gap has increased almost 50% during that time.
Given that skew, it's hardly surprising that they find a 57% approval rating for Obama, up three points since last month, almost the entirety of the gap increase since the last poll. His 48% tie on health care should be a significant disapproval instead, and the 45%/51% slide on the deficit has probably expanded at the same rate as the deficit in a survey with a realistic sample.
The purposeful skewing of the polling data is an old political trick, and one increasingly popular among the media, especially when they are more interesting in influencing the news than reporting it. That Dan Balz and Jon Cohen of the Washington Post would use such obviously flawed data suggests they are more interested in advocacy than journalism.
The public does not support government-run health care.
Americans shocked politicians this summer with their opposition to another government takeover, and the they they were none too subtle about it as they showed up at townhall meetings, rallies, and marches.
No amount of media deception can change the fact that Americans are rejecting Obamacare, the media promoting it, and the politicians that an increasing number of Americans feel were put into office not by the American people, but by the media and special interests.
The media and their allied progressive politicians are increasing playing to an audience of themselves.
No wonder Fox News is causing the White House to scream in anger.
Along with a handful of newspapers and new media, they're the only "honest" news left.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The House plan and the one Senate plan have a Government Option, and the Democrats call it the Public Option, because polling has shown that wording polls more favorable then the term Government Option. The Senate Finance Committee has a Public Option that is not the Government Option, as it is structured to be a non-profit co-op. I wonder what the poll results would be if the public would be truthfully informed?
Posted by: Rick at October 20, 2009 03:42 PM (79jCL)
2
Fox News is the only reliable new source?
What has the world come to?
Posted by: MAModerate at October 20, 2009 04:58 PM (Rn8uU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2009
Rush Limbaugh's Critics are Big, Fat Idiots
I don't listen to talk radio, and so I only hear what Rush Limbaugh says when someone else mentions it. That said, he's been on the air as a conservative talker since the mid 1980s, with an audience of 20 million. His political and social views, vocabulary, and style are perhaps more well known than any person on the planet.
That is why recent attempts to attribute a series of false racist quotes to him is so unsettling.
Limbaugh has strong views on many topics, and if he was a hardcore racist, he would have been called out for it decades ago, boycotted, and perhaps forced off the air. But the simple logic it takes to process that thought is easily blinded by hate, and a number of left-wing journalists and bloggers have decided to post various false racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh in an attempt to ruin his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football team.
None of the false quotes even sounds remotely like Limbaugh in tone or substance, and even more tellingly, none are sourced, a red flag to any competent journalist or blogger in a day and age when such things can be easily falsified on the Internet.
Why do these journalists and bloggers lie? Why do they commit an easily disproven libel and slander in order to tar an opponent?
It's about power and control, and the moral relativism that infects them, convincing them that even the most blatant smear is justified if it thwarts their political enemies or can help them achieve even the most temporary victory.
There is a very simple reason that conservative media are ascendant and liberal media are in decline. People have learned that liberal media cannot be trusted to get even basic facts right if their agenda can be forwarded with bias and fraud. Fox News and other conservative outlets may or may not be "fair and balanced," but they certainly comes closer to being the most trusted sources of news, because the American people simply find them more trustworthy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.
1
What the whole mess we now call the MSM has demonstrated is that there are consequences for allowing things to happen. For instance, we allowed most college campuses to be taken over and ruled like little fiefdoms by liberals. Free speech, free thoughts and free association has been eliminated through political correctness and outright intimidation. Conservative speakers now face outright bans on many campuses.
We now have journalism taught in most of the major colleges not as the what, when, why and where; but as facilitation for a particular ideology, and I think you know what that ideology is without me pointing it out.
Now we have a hate crimes bill coming before the Congress that will be passed with little or no fanfare that will do to the rest of the country what has been done on college campuses. Barack has signed on to a UN passed resolution that further restricts our rights. If we as a nation don't wake up damn soon, we will lose all our freedoms.
Posted by: templar knight at October 14, 2009 10:30 AM (968gv)
2
Conservative white is the new 1950s black. Gotta give the Left their target to polarize, hate, attack and blame for all the ills of their inept and corrupt administration.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 14, 2009 11:25 AM (7r7wy)
3
Rush is trying to get back at Jesse and the Reverand. The problem is that if he says something bad about them my response is "so, I know these guys suck." Why does anyone listen to them to begin with?
Posted by: David at October 14, 2009 03:31 PM (dccG2)
4
The sad thing in this post are the terms conservative media and liberal media. When the word media is preceded by either of those words, we're certainly no longer talking about media (news). We're talking about editorial viewpoints.
I don't know nor care if Rush is or isn't a racist. For anyone who care to spend 10 minutes doing just a little bit of research, there is a preponderance of evidence that Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting "facts". His agenda is to divide the American people and play off their ignorance and fears. His very living and his wealth depend on it.
The only thing more disgusting than Rush's venom is the sad fact that so many people confuse it with Truth.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:01 PM (byA+E)
5
Such a preponderance of evidence that you don't offer proof of it? Perhaps you were going to use WikiQuotes or the irrefutable first-hand knowledge of a Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker?
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 04:43 PM (A5r0Z)
6
Dude said "Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting facts etc etc"
Dude, if you would pay any attention whatsoever to Rush you would realize how utterly incorrect that statement was. Why don't you listen to him for about a month, and then report back with what you actually find?
Posted by: Rick at October 14, 2009 05:17 PM (FWmwx)
7
AF, Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar" if you want to read some evidence. There's plenty of it there.
Rick, the thought of listening to Limbaugh for a month is revolting. Years ago I listened to him in order to learn how a conman operates. He's very good at what he does. Of course, he isn't to be taken seriously as any sort of news source. His success depends on keeping the right wing stirred up. That's what he does best and he surely isn't going to let the truth get in the way of that objective.
No thanks. I won't be listening to Rush anymore.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 06:27 PM (byA+E)
8
Dude, you're crazy in looking at Limbaugh as a news source. He's a news commentator, not a reporter, and his agenda is to make a living giving an opinion that can be taken or left. And if it promulgates the cause of conservatism as he sees it, that's just icing on the cake to him.
People listen to Rush to hear his take on the news...which he typically cites and then recites on-air along with relevant sound-clips if available. Citing a Google search as the basis of your accusations is about as baseless as the charges of racism made against him.
Posted by: Shwiggie at October 14, 2009 06:42 PM (Wr78s)
9
Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar"
...and the top two or three hundred hits will be lefty sites that have an axe to grind against him. About as trustworthy as the anonymice who invented these quotes and smeared him with them.
As for what sort of credibility you should give him: no less than any other commentator, and more than many. While he is neither as smart nor as well-informed as he thinks he is on many subjects, he's a very gifted political commentator. He's also one of the simplest, most straightforward men you'll ever meet. He is not a con man. He's not trying to trick anybody. He has two goals: to push the conservative political philosophy for as long as there's breath in his body, and to have as much fun as he can get away with while doing it.
Posted by: wolfwalker at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (c+TqP)
10
Dude, your answer to my observation that you cite nothing to back up your assertions is to suggest a Google search? Seriously? If I'm to understand this correctly, whatever I find on the internet will be true. Do you work for a major media outlet of some sort? You seem to exhibit the same work ethic as MSNBC or CNN when it comes to making an assertion and backing it up (Hint, that means none).
With the news that Rush has been dropped from the investment group making the bid, it'll be really interesting to see how many journalists, TV commentators and news organizations are named in the slander/libel lawsuit.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 08:05 PM (A5r0Z)
11
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him another non issue to stir up the ditto heads.
It would make no difference what links I might post showing that Rush wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face. Your very statement that the first 200-300 returns would be leftie sites proves my point that YOU wouldn't believe it. I'm not lazy. I'm just not going to do your work for you. Wouldn't do any good anyway. To be clear, no, I'm not suggesting that whatever you find on the internet is the truth; far from it! I am suggesting that you do a bit of research for yourself.
I KNOW that Rush isn't a news source. Many people who listen to him everyday (I don't know how they stand it) DO believe that he's in the news business.
There is one bit of hope that I get from Rush. As long as he's the face of the Republican Party and considered by many to be their spokesperson, that's good for those of us who are more reality based.
Rush needs one crisis after another to survive. If one doesn't exist, he'll create one. That's how he makes his living.
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:02 AM (byA+E)
12
Let's see, you're the one making the assertion that Rush lies yet you won't provide one example to back that up. I think it has more to do with you being unable to come up with something that isn't Wiki-libel, than any desire on your part to educate us to the vast wealth of truth you claim to possess. You don't agree with him, or most of us, which is quite clear but when your bluff is called to provide a concrete example you simply can't produce.
If it were truth, as you claim, and not a left-wing hack website that you obviously don't hold to the same standards that you claim Rush should follow, a simple copy/paste link should suffice to educate us supposedly "ignorant" folk. As it stands, you simply look like someone who points a gun with the giant red "BANG!" flag on a stick hanging out of the barrel.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 15, 2009 12:38 AM (A5r0Z)
Posted by: UNRR at October 15, 2009 07:24 AM (2D++g)
14
"Fire can't melt steel. Google it!" - Rosie
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:11 AM (IPGju)
15
Dude, be honest, you never did listen to Rush to any extent. If you did, and feel the way you do, then your brain is vapid.
I'm soory to be so offensive, but when up against an obstinate liberal as yourself is hard not to be.
Posted by: Rick at October 15, 2009 09:16 AM (FWmwx)
16
"Dude, be honest"
Good luck with that.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:31 AM (IPGju)
17
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him a cause of action to sue the people who've been sliming him.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 12:09 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2009
Chris Matthews Fantacizes About Rush Limbaugh Dying a Violent Death
Uttered this morning:
You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:29 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Whereas when matthews blows up it will be from drinking to long from obumble's crotch-fountain.
Posted by: emdfl at October 13, 2009 03:20 PM (sBfp9)
2
I'm holding my breath waiting for the left-wing blogs to slam him for this hate speech.
Holding .... holding ...
Posted by: Steve at October 13, 2009 04:14 PM (mruUD)
3
I thought Mathews was dead. Maybe only his brain died and he is a zombie.
Posted by: David at October 13, 2009 04:23 PM (dccG2)
4
Hmm, I thought all of the threatning langauge only came from the right. Well, at least that is what the Dems and their media tells me.
Posted by: citizenofmanassas at October 13, 2009 06:43 PM (HD5QP)
5
So a radio commentator is a threat to the President of the USA now? The POTUS is that weak?
Truly, as Orrin Judd said - the clothes have no Emperor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at October 13, 2009 07:37 PM (TUWci)
6
Seems like a hate crime to me. Frog march him in, toss him in with another deviant and throw away the key.
Oh crap. He'd probably like that. We're screwed.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 13, 2009 07:58 PM (7r7wy)
7
Hard to believe what a piece of garbage matthews and many on the left have become.
Posted by: rog at October 14, 2009 08:35 AM (cFGyS)
8
Oh, I don't think that anyone is going to have "jam a big CO2 pellet in his face" for Rush to blow up. He's like the recorded messages in the opening scenes of, mmmm, I forget the name of the series, that self destruct. Thus it shall be with Rush.
I have a dream!!
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:09 PM (byA+E)
9
Dude is back!
Libs fantacising about detonating Rush Limbaugh, and Dude is right there confirming that he shares the same view about murder.
Not a big surprise there.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (IPGju)
10
Yep, Brando, I'm back. I can see that you haven't changed a bit while I was away. You're still in the habit of attributing things to people that they didn't say. You and Rush must be related. Neither of you will let the truth get in the way of your story, huh?
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:09 AM (byA+E)
11
Who's this "they" you keep talking about? Related? No. Just because I don't think he should be murdered, means that you declare that we must be related. That's just plain silly. We're not related. You got caught lying again.
Zing.
I'm right and you're wrong again. How many times is this now? It's fun on my end, but it must stink for you. Oh, and when I say wrong, I don't just mean 'mistaken', but rather 'wrong' as a person.
And I'll say it again. These dreams about blowing up people who disagree with you aren't healthy.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 01:20 AM (LjEkE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 09, 2009
Miami Herald goes Race-Baiting
According to the Miami
Herald headline:
Fla. GOP members shoot Muslim targets at gun range
This is the target they were shooting at.
Now, do you see a Muslim, or a terrorist pointing a rocket-propelled grenade?
You can find this and other racist GOP shooting subjects at, uh, Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.
The real racism here is that several layers of producers and editors at the Miami Herald thinks "Muslim" and "terrorist" are synonyms. The next time they want to look for people with racial/cultural biases, they'll have to go far.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So clearly, they are saying that anyone shooting an RPG is a muslim- boy and they are calling the GOP racists?!?!
I read that story and was really curious just what they meant by "muslim targets"
Posted by: Scott at October 10, 2009 12:57 AM (giIn8)
2
IRL, if you hit the little flat spot on the cone, it becomes a reactive target.....
(11 Bravo humor %-)
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 10, 2009 01:50 AM (d1FhN)
3
I suppose if a similar group used a cut-out of a Wehrmacht soldier during WWII, then the Miami Herald would consider that "race baiting" too. You think?
Posted by: So Cal Jim at October 10, 2009 01:24 PM (Dr86Q)
4
Is the Miami Herald implying rhat all muslims are terrorists? Better call CAIR!
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 10, 2009 02:05 PM (3O5/e)
5
They're racist, stupid, and
wrong -- the keffiyeh isn't a Muslim thing, it's an Arab thing. True, many Muslims wear it, but it's also worn by Arab Christians.
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at October 11, 2009 06:11 AM (61312)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2009
Shovel-Ready
Writing in Tina Brown's
Daily Beast, Conor Friedersdorf takes issue with the success of Andrew Breitbart's media outlets, claiming that Breitbart should try to meet the standards of the...
New York Times?
Andrew Breitbart is the man in the middle of the current madness. Credit him for sponsoring Big Government, the site that broke the ACORN story and prompted the Times to begin monitoring breaking news on partisan sites. These are substantial accomplishments that improve the state of journalism.
But Mr. Breitbart's role hardly ends there.
As a proprietor of Big Government and Big Hollywood, part of the team that runs The Drudge Report, and a regular guest on Fox News, especially Sean Hannity's show, he is a leader among folks who complain that the Times is a pernicious force in American life—that it ignores stories that cut against its ideological bent, too often makes mistakes in its reporting, and gives insufficient consideration to ideological insights other than those held by its staff. This is somewhat odd given that Mr. Breitbart's media empire, and the outlets with which he most closely associates himself, are thoroughly ideological enterprises, publish few if any ideologically heterodox pieces, seldom if ever correct factual mistakes, and ignore liberal insights entirely.
Friedersdorf's screed is daft, to put it mildly.
The idea of an unbiased, objective media is a late 20th century invention proffered primarily by those within the media establishment that wanted to continue to push their ideas and ideals without being challenged by upstarts.
Sadly for Mr. Friedersdorf, that illusion was dashed long ago, mostly due to the heavy liberal bias that manifested itself time and again not just in how a story was covered, but which stories were covered to the exclusion of others.
What Breitbart's various sites provide are platforms for a center-right view of the world, with insights every bit as valid as those that the left-leaning media tries to sell. Apparently, the idea of a free marketplace of ideas isn't one critics admire once put into actual practice.
Are Big Government and Big Hollywood ideologically-driven? Unreservedly. But more importantly, Breitbart's sites all wear their viewpoint unabashedly on their proverbial sleeves... if only the Times and other news outlets weakly feigning objectivity would display such intellectual honesty!
But honesty is not part of their business model, nor is objectivity, nor is competence, or accuracy. If he thinks otherwise, Mr. Friedersdorf may need to check the prescription on his rose-colored glasses.
That said, Friedersdorf's hissy fit at the building of a conservative media empire that provides an alternative to the worldview he would like to protect is hardly surprising.
His specific criticisms, however, are amusing, especially coming from someone who writes at the Atlantic, home to infamous Trig Truther, hypocrite and ideologue Andrew Sullivan.
The temerity to criticize conservative media for inaccuracies and bias is laughable considering the dismal track record of the left-leaning legacy media, but the fact that Friedersdorf published his thoughts in Tina Brown's Daily Beast—the left-leaning, status quo-defending, botoxed and digitized old media-with-a-new-face—is even more ripe, considering that Brown's own husband abused the Beast in an article full of half-truths and outright lies that Brown refused to retract or correct.
Both old and new media have significant room for improvement, but demanding that a successful and growing enterprise follow the example of a legacy media spiraling into the ground is, quite frankly, absurd.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:57 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Should Breitbart also aspire to have the values of his offices exceed the value of his company?
Friedersdorf is a moron.
Posted by: Pablo at October 06, 2009 12:02 PM (yTndK)
2
Conor Friedersdorf's got nothing. He is bereft of new ideas and is reduced to sniping at those whose success he envies. He is a pathetic nobody that somehow has come to believe that the world owes him fame and that the "conservative movement"(whatever that is) should pay attention to him.
And that's his good points...
Posted by: diogenes online at October 06, 2009 12:13 PM (2MrBP)
3
This just further cements Conor's status as a hack.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 06, 2009 12:14 PM (3O5/e)
4
I'm not sure why anyone would object to setting some standards for journalism. Whether you like it or not some things just "are" or "are not" and won't fit nicely into a narrow, predetermined ideological storyline. It's simplistic and myopic. The right needs to stop being so touchy. It only makes them look small and frankly immature. The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts. Clean up your act, follow some basic rules of journalism and you'll be taken seriously. Shepard Smith on Fox has begun to do that. And don't fall back on the excuse that the media is biased. You have to be better than them. Not the same or worse.
Posted by: gus burlimah at October 06, 2009 12:56 PM (faIKL)
5
I've seen people call Friedersdorf a conservative, presumably because David Brooks needs company.
Posted by: Steve at October 06, 2009 01:35 PM (5//5D)
6
Gus,
The NYT pounded the Abu Graib story for 3 months for the purpose of using it as a lightning rod to get servicemen killed. They were successfull too.
It was their front page story, every single day, for over a month. Calling that bias and pro-terrorist is an understatement. It's a shame that you rushed to defend it. The NYT owes our entire armed forces a huge, heartfelt apology.
"And don't fall back on the excuse that the media is biased."
Um. Wow. You deny it? Yeah, that's an 'excuse'?
The right needs to stop being so touchy.
...about the murder of servicemen? Are you serious? Reread your comment again, and if you think about it, you'll see that you're wrong and rude. Remember that the NYT routinely just makes stuff up, expecially if it can be used to slander the US Military. Heck, they even say that Sarin is a conventional weapon, and that WP is a WMD. Straight up lies. That's not even counting that Steven Glass stuff.
And when you stand back and look at the NYT's lies, your level-headed conclusion is that CY is nuts and must clean up
his act?
It makes you look small and frankly immature. (these are your words)
Is there any chance that you'll come around?
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2009 02:22 PM (IPGju)
7
>>"The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts."
Center leaning folks like Gus Burlimah, David Axelrod, and Barack Obama.
Posted by: Steve at October 06, 2009 02:48 PM (5//5D)
8
I will tell you guys something. At first I really didn't want Obama to win The election at first. After he was voted in, I realized how much smarter Obama seamed to be Than our previous president. Not that I'm trying to diss bush or anything its just so true. But now I'm really just curious about whats going to happen next, Whats our future looking up to and why is so much of our tax money being thrown away. Or is it being thrown away? Maybe Obama has it all under control. I don't know.
Anyway their is an other website I go to called Http:wintersboots.com it a good blog. Thanks for the opinions guys.
Later
Jason
Http://winterscoats.com
Posted by: jason at October 07, 2009 08:49 PM (XsCp6)
9
The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts.
They can't do journalism because people are calling each other names? The stories can't be told because partisan people are also telling them?
That's hogwash, gus.
Posted by: Pablo at October 08, 2009 10:03 AM (yTndK)
10
Conor has proven himself to be nothing more than a little bitch looking for a handout. He is no conservative, albeit he has shopped around using that label, advertising himself as a spokesman for conservatism who is willing to trash it for a few bucks. He is a media whore. And a cheap one at that.
Posted by: templar knight at October 08, 2009 02:39 PM (968gv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 30, 2009
Crazy on the Left and Further Left
I don't often read
NewsMax. I don't have anything against them, I just have limited time and resources and rely a core group of news sites, blogs, and aggregators to gather information on a daily basis.
I rather wish I did read more frequently however, because if I did I might have been able to catch John L. Perry's column from yesterday, Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention' before it was sent down the memory hole. Clicking on that link will now redirect you to the NewsMax home page; Perry's column has also been scrubbed.
The scathing response from the blogosphere—based upon what I've been able to cobble together from quotes on several sites—seems warranted.
The simple fact of the matter is that author seems to have come unhinged, and for reasons perhaps structural to the site's editorial process, the column made it to print without a sanity check by the editors.
While the number of people dissatisfied with Obama's foundering Presidency continues to balloon and his popularity erodes on a seemingly daily basis, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of mob rule and coups by military strongmen. We will have out chance to remove President Obama in 2012 as we have always removed bad Presidents, at the ballot box.
There has only been one successful coup in American history, perpetrated by the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan and allowed by a Democratic governor and President.
Advocating to repeat such a disgrace as Perry apparently did is utterly unacceptable. NewsMax was right to yank a column that never should have made it to print, and should reconsider their relationship with Perry and what that association now represents.
Update: It is also worth noting that Perry is not a conservative; his bio says he worked for both LBJ and Carter Administrations and Democratic Governor of Florida, LeRoy Collins.
From further on the left, Gore Vidal laments the "fact" that Americans are just too stupid to appreciate the genius of Obama, and also suggests that a military coup is in America's future.
Update: A statement from NewsMax:
Statement from Newsmax Regarding Blogger
In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military.
He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.
After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.
Here is the copy of the original Perry column in its entirety, as provided by a reader:
Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isnÂ’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as AmericaÂ’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and PakistanÂ’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on IranÂ’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory"
that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of AmericaÂ’s military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:12 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1160 words, total size 8 kb.
1
There was at least one other successful coup: the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, in 1893.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at September 30, 2009 11:18 AM (+S8Kb)
2
The original article was removed from NewMax's site, but is preserved here:
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/newsmax-20090929-perry_coup.pdf
Sedition is an act of terrorism.
Posted by: James at September 30, 2009 11:27 AM (/vYfr)
3
For the record, I renamed this post shortly after posting it.
Far too many people are swallowing the Perry and Vidal as coming from the right and left, when this coup talk is really coming from the left and further left. I wanted to make that clear.
Jason, Hawaii wasn't yet a part of the United States at the time. James, I have a copy from a reader that I just posted in the update.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2009 12:28 PM (gAi9Z)
4
The problem that we have is that Obama is trying as hard as possible to distroy the US and our futures. He is in no way addressing the economic problem which is far from being over and has a potential for being much more servere than the Depression of the 30's. He is trying to socialize every industry. His foreign policy stance is almost guaranteed to provoke war. So what do we do? Can we wait another year hoping to get Republican numbers up to counter this nut? Certainly in 4 years we will be in a despriate situation if he gets his social measures passed. Now I here he is trying to stack the judicary. It seems that he is a busy little man.
Posted by: David at September 30, 2009 01:55 PM (dccG2)
5
Yeash. The only place I can imagine that this MIGHT have come from, sanely, is folks looking worriedly at the Obama Patterns (IE: "ooh, dictators! I like!") and saying "don't worry, Obama can't possibly overthrow the US Constitution-- the military wouldn't allow it."
I have seen this in several places-- shoot, I've _pointed this out_ in several places, when (possible trollish) folks come through and post about how Obama will set himself up as a dictator.
Main problem I have with the article is that it seems to be saying "oh, the US military will run all over the Constitution to save the country! See, they swear to defend the Constitution and the country!" Seems a little...um... off-kiter.
Posted by: Foxfier at September 30, 2009 02:21 PM (OtIqW)
6
A correction: William McKinley, a Republican, was president when the Wilmington Insurrection took place in 1898.
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at September 30, 2009 02:24 PM (tcrAf)
7
Gore Vidal believes the American people are too stupid to worship on the throne of Obama? Typical elitist mentality! Quite frankly I, and many like me, normal working class people, arrived at the conclusion that Obama is not particularly bright. His many teleprompter controlled speaches sounded very sophmoric and vague. His non prompted responses to questions
were not very well thought out or intelligent. He sounded more preachy than thoughtful and has
a lot to learn about the real world. Many very intelligent people like Gore Vidal believed in this fairy tale, so who is the dumb one?
Military coup?? Never happen. We the people will be Obama's undoing. Along with his pipe dream utopia influenced policies. Any of these policies which are passed into law, which I hope will be none, will be repealed.
Paul
Posted by: Paul Kanesky at September 30, 2009 03:17 PM (rCmYM)
8
I consider this, along with recent comments by Gore Vidal and Thomas Friedman, a fascinating and somewhat frightening insight into how the leftist mind is interpreting what is happening right now, and how the left continues to utterly fail to comprehend the source and nature of the opposition to their schemes. I'm not entirely sure that they are capable of understanding.
I am quite comfortable concluding that Perry is a leftist because he worked in the department of Health and Human Services under Carter.
In other words, I think it entirely possible that Perry is yet another agent provocateur.
Or, he could just be an idiot.
Posted by: filbert at September 30, 2009 03:19 PM (oVl3l)
9
I find your assertion that the man is a leftist based on the fact that 30 and 40 years ago he worked in a Democratic administration to be without merit. Mr. Perry has been writing for Newsmax, a conservative website, since 1999. The name of his column is "Right Angles." A brief scan of the titles of his columns indicates he is a conservative. Perhaps he was always so, or not, but there is a ton of evidence he espouses conservative thought. He has a column on Newsmax, which I don't think anyone here beleives is some sort of communist front.
Please, just disavow this traitor from your movement and return to rational debate. He insulted the servicemen and women of this country by stating that they would break their oath to uphold the constitution. That is his true sin.
Posted by: Rob W at September 30, 2009 03:40 PM (L009T)
10
By your logic, Reagan was still a liberal when he changed parties in 1962 because 30 years earlier he was a Democratic supporter of Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Posted by: barr at September 30, 2009 03:49 PM (5OEha)
11
I understand that conservatives want to distance themselves from like-minded nutjobs, but this Perry fellow is a conservative, a far-right one at that.
It's kind of facile to suggest that because he worked for a Democratic administration, oh, 40 years ago, that he is a liberal. He writes for a fringe right website and his column is entitled "Right Angles."
You are really insulting the intelligence of your regular readers and I know you don't really believe he is "left."
Posted by: John S. at September 30, 2009 04:14 PM (X1rqU)
12
I don't claim to know the first thing about Mr. Perry. I can only relate what he states in his own bio, where he was very active in state and national politics as a Democrat for much of his adult life in politics, and also belonged to a left wing think tank. I don't doubt that people can change, I just don't see any solid evidence that he has radically shifted, simply because he strongly opposes President Obama's continuing series of gaffes and missteps. Many Democrats dislike him, with Hillary Clinton supporters in particular being among Obama's most vehement enemies.
And for the record, merely writing for NewsMax is hardly proof of someone's political alliances. Dick Morris, Susan Estrich, Ed Koch, and Lanny Davis are all Democrats who write for NewsMax.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2009 04:42 PM (gAi9Z)
13
One last thought: if Perry really has completely shifted his political views, and now merely writes radical and dishonest propaganda to attack his former allies, doesn't that make him David Brock of Media Matters?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2009 04:47 PM (gAi9Z)
14
OKÂ…I condemn this article.
ButÂ…he covers many points that are very high in the worries of many people in the U.S. some of them already proven true, some speculated at and others that are more worthy of being scare tactics than anything else.
But his premise of the Military being involved in or the method of salvation or revolution is wrong, and wrong-headed.
Now I can see ex-U.S. Military involved in coming back and running for office in their states or even national offices. I can see x-Mil joining organizations such as The Oath Keepers. I can see x-Mil coming back and setting up local militias, and going to Tea Parties and even speaking at them. I can see them going door to door getting out the vote to get Obama and the Democrats out of office.
I can also see as a last resort, mass resignations of Officers in our Military services.
But in the bitter end, if salvation or revolution is needed for the preservation and protection of this Republic, it will fall to each citizen to stand up, load up and march forward to do it.
Papa Ray
Central Texas
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
Posted by: Papa Ray at September 30, 2009 04:49 PM (JpVJn)
15
Right, Confederate Yankee. A cursory glance at his archived articles from the past decade reveals the writings of a true blue liberal Democrat.
http://archive.newsmax.com/pundits/archives/John_L._Perry-archive.shtml
It's practically fit to print on the Daily Kos!
Posted by: John S. at September 30, 2009 04:54 PM (X1rqU)
16
"It's practically fit to print on the Daily Kos"
Really?
"So enough already of referring to the likes of Boxer, Pelosi et al as "liberals." That's the cover that Cold War communists operated under. It's the camouflage that today's inheritors of the Trotskyite philosophy relish.
How happy they must be making Joe McCarthy, posthumously.
It's time these Typhoid Mary carriers of this mutant virus of Trotskyism were understood for, and called, what they really are – leftover lefties who just can't say farewell to the Marxist god that failed the whole sorry lot of them."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/10/130523.shtml
(I am not defending the guy, but he seems more blue dog than true blue...)
Posted by: jpeditor at September 30, 2009 05:17 PM (g5AOi)
17
Bob,
TPM has the full text.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php
Posted by: Kathy Kattenburg at September 30, 2009 05:24 PM (Tdz5k)
18
Sounds like this Perry is a Dick Morris wannabe.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 05:33 PM (OX5qU)
19
This is the kind of stuff that helps despotism to take root. The fear of toppling the government brings on more repression.
Posted by: Neo at September 30, 2009 06:08 PM (tE8FB)
20
I have to agree with Neo.
Out of the thunderous madness comes a single voice:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/09/29/silence-equals-assent-why-pointing-out-conservative-lunacy-must-be-done/
This is a great blog posting. I happen to agree and appreciate the two party system. It ain't perfect but it's what we got and it needs to work.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at September 30, 2009 06:34 PM (OX5qU)
21
>>"Out of the thunderous madness comes a single voice"
When will a single voice come from the thunderous madness on the left to attack the lefts insanity, including calls for Bush to be assasinated?
When will Lipshits decry Rep Greysons comments?
Rick Moran is the rights equivalent of John Perry.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 07:17 PM (2SRpL)
22
Damn, I was hoping he was right. If one understands what Ayers, Alinsky, Glen Jones and the other radicals Obama believes in, associates with and represents. His admiration for Hugo Chevez, Castro and other dictators, and the direction he seems to be taking the nation. The military option seems a bright light of hope.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 30, 2009 07:53 PM (qEAEW)
23
>>"I understand that conservatives want to distance themselves from like-minded nutjobs"
When can we expct the LEFT to distance themselves from like-minded nutjobs?
This is why I don't approve of what CY is doing here. The left will gladly accept the rights condemnaton of this, while defending people like Bill Ayers or Van Jones. Or Jimmy Carter, for that matter. All of whom are a lot more central to the modern left than Perry is to the right.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 08:33 PM (skt70)
24
>>"He insulted the servicemen and women of this country by stating that they would break their oath to uphold the constitution."
What happens if upholding the Constitution requires them to go against Americas politicians? That is no longer a mere theoretical question.
>>"Please, just disavow this traitor from your movement"
Your demand would sit better if you had been here disavowing ACORN and Van Jones recently. Both were and are far more influential than Perry.
Posted by: Steve at September 30, 2009 08:38 PM (skt70)
25
However remote the possibility of our military stepping in to remove an administration trashing the constitution, the fears by the Obama administration of just this possibility probably goes a long way to explain their immediate and continuing condemnation of the Honduran government's and military's removal of their own marxist usurper.
Posted by: Spartan79 at September 30, 2009 10:14 PM (0IRlO)
26
Not an official Newsmax max column. Set of by Gore Vidal's brain dead reasoning pointing out another form of massive right wing conspiracy as Clinton did a few days ago. "Scrubbed" as if sites like the Huffington Post do this almost daily to keep its kooks at bay. For sure with this one instance in hand, the leftist hounds will over abuse this try to portray it as mainstream "teabagger" thinking. However in the end leftists will see poll numbers for their side of the political equation fall as a result, by reason a new right leaning internet-Fox News network reaches the same number as the left wing-media-internet-Hollywood network. In addition conservatives outnumber rabid Liberals by a two to one margin, with 40% leaning independently in the middle, who are now becoming very aware how the left uses hyper inflated insult and feigned "concerns" to press what are mostly overreached nonsensical conspiracy theories.
Germane to this, military intervention is a very remote possibility. A trigger point being a much higher bar than what Obama has done so far. The Honduran situation a disturbing example of the leanings of our useful idiot in chief still does not mean he is going to invite Hugo Chavez to America to head the FBI, or take over Hillary Clinton's job. He "only" nationalized a few banks, two of the big three car manufacturers, don't hyperventilate...
What would trigger military intervention would be a direct attack on constitutional freedoms in the Bill of Rights, free speech, seizing private property, arresting individuals, all without due process under law for a citizen's political opinion. Maybe the bar would be as high as Administration officials ordering execution of Obama's opponents without using courts. Slightly less likely would have Obama leaving men in the field of battle without adequate support or defined mission for an extended time allowing US troops to be slaughtered on an altar of political sensibilities. A third reason maybe at 10% probability, looming, is Patrick Leahy's attempt to stack Federal courts with 60 odd new positions. That IS an attack on the constitutional checks and balances. Without State ok by 2/3rds majority I don't think this is constitutional. Unaccountable to anyone, appointed by radical progressives elected under a guise of being "moderate" this could trigger considerable angst in and out of the military.
It is important to remember all recent impost of this kind of government power on citizens stems from leftist socialist regimes, not right wing ones that support capitalism. It is also a point the author of this is not a well known mainstream proponent of right wing causes aka a Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. One only has to look at what John Kerry said about Vietnam's "re-education camps" to know draconian methods of dealing with political opponents never far out of mainstream leftist thoughts.
It is clear now his book "Dreams of my Father" was ghost written by Bill Ayers, which tears it for me, I will never be voting at even the local level for a Democrat again. Nor will I listen to "reasoned debate" from people working for, or linked to places like CBS, except in the vein of taking note of the lie of the day. This Olympics fling an indicator we are now governed by a corrupt, not to bright, quasi marxist leaning President whose IQ is even probably the lowest of all Presidents since Cleveland.
I look forward now to the W recovery Obama is going to give us. The second recession will be worse than this one, and longer, starting as Greenspan estimates, by late next year. This will inform American voters once and for all the failings of socialist policies. No amount of media-White House spin will mask it, clear examples of Obama administration corruption on top of it. Look for a rout of Democrats over the next two elections. Obama a one term wonder, lovingly referred to by a Sarah Palin type populist conservative as Carter II.
Posted by: Pat at September 30, 2009 11:53 PM (9/6KL)
27
Steve, you kind of just make things up as you go along huh? There's not a snowball's chance in Hell I'll decry Grayson's comments until you decry Palin's death panel comments or Grassley's "pull the plug on Grandma" comments or Bachmann's death comments or any of the other death scare tactics and comments we've been bombarded with from Republicans for the past 3 months. Zero! Zilch! Nada! Dry hump squirt son! Damn proud of Grayson and it's about damn time a Democrat with a spine gave the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. And Steve, who the hell is Bill Ayers? Some ex-convict from like 40 years ago? Your obsession, not ours. And it's only your obsession because Jesus Palin told you to obsess over it. If it wasn't for her, you probably wouldn't know who he or any of the other names you mentioned. You're an obedient echo chamber Steve but your opinion generators are on new talking points now and you have to be a little quicker at indoctrinating yourself with them if you're gonna keep up.
Hey Pat, did Alex Jones send you? Wow, you are paranoid. It's quite "draconian" of you and people like you who refuse to recognize the American democratic process of the will of the American people. The will of the American people who have gladly embraced people who you categorize with your paranoid "Leftist" conspiracy theories. The American people who rejected you, period. I suggest you pack your bags and go live in a Socialist country for a while. When you return, you may have a better appreciation of your country you claim you're proud of and not be such a paranoid spoiled brat. Oh and for the record, Greenspan was one of the major factors as to why we have this recession so pick and choose who you idolize in your "Obama failure fantasies" more carefully. You and your right-wing draconian fascist GW worshipin' Palin idolizin' Glenn Beck followin' regimes may actually start winning elections again (if you manage to find someone who can actually lead).
Zelsdorf, you're always hoping "other" people are right. Can't think or take action yourself? You're not alone. In fact, most people like yourself are always waiting for "other" people. Keep waiting (but don't hold your breath). "The military option seems a bright light of hope" -- You're kidding me right? How about f##king DEMOCRACY as hope? How about finding somebody who can actually lead instead of whining about the Left and the mainstream media and all the other rants you throw thumb-sucking tantrums about? How about finding somebody who can win back the millions of votes you lost in the past 2 election cycles rather than obsessing over 70 year old "coup throwing" domestic terrorists and freakin' ACORN? How about having a leader that can win back the confidence of their supporters rather than a bunch of idiots on TV, radio and blogs? You talk a lot about revolutions and wanting to force some regime change but at least Ayers had the balls to do it.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 01, 2009 04:26 AM (bhNGz)
28
That's the sort of rant I've come to expect from Ayers wannabe Lipiwitz. It's hard to distill that much crazy in one comment, but you did it. Nicely done.
My favorite line is: "Dry hump squirt son!"
What a weirdo.
Posted by: brando at October 01, 2009 09:23 AM (IPGju)
29
Lippy's a loon.
But it says something about the other liberal readers here that they don't repudiate him, that they don't "disavow this traitor from {their} movement" as they want us to do with Perry.
Posted by: Steve at October 01, 2009 03:33 PM (rxQ0a)
30
Wellll, it seems to me that the reason that "The Left" has not disavowed Messrs. Carter's and Grayson's statements is that they are 100% true. And Mr. Perry is clearly a man of the Right. So, how is that it become's our fault that you rightwingers can't acknowledge that at least one of your writers is either batshit crazy or guilty of sedition? Welcome to what we like to call "Reality." And to the proprietor: there's a new invention called "Google" which would help your research efforts immensely.
Posted by: Epicurus at October 01, 2009 03:59 PM (4onRb)
31
Anybody got a clue where Mr. Perry is from?
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Perry&fname=John
Posted by: Foxfier at October 01, 2009 04:50 PM (OtIqW)
32
>>"it seems to me that the reason that "The Left" has not disavowed Messrs. Carter's and Grayson's statements is that they are 100% true. ...Welcome to what we like to call "Reality.""
I notice that what you like to call "Reality" looks a lot like a really bad acid trip.
FYI, old people agree with the Republicans about the lefts health care plans. They must not have dropped the same acid you did.
Posted by: Steve at October 01, 2009 05:42 PM (50jiK)
33
Epicurus - I'm not too happy with your man Fred Phelps either.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 01, 2009 06:28 PM (3O5/e)
34
Five corporations attempted a coup during FDR's presidency, but failed when one of the generals that they approached informed the proper authorities of the plan. Congress put on a dog and pony show, and no one was held accountable. Apparently, no one wanted to upset the superior humans who ran the corporations.
Posted by: gc_wall at October 01, 2009 11:05 PM (9NiSa)
35
Brando, Steve -- You're the Ayers wannabes talking all the Weatherman ideology of revolutions and coups and taking back the nation and secession. Step up like Ayers did. Heck, give him a call and he'll show you how it's done!
Disavow a traitor -- How about 60,000 batsh#t loonies who refuse to accept our democratically elected officials and keep talking Weatherman ideology of revolutions, coups and secession like...oh...lets say...tea-baggers and birthers? Round them all up and bring them before your death panels and make them pay the sentence of your right-wing ideology of justice. Just pretend they were all Liberals and then you'd care about treason.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 04:14 AM (bhNGz)
36
We are pretty sure Lipiwitz isn't a troll, right?
I mean, he's annoying, yes, and "trolling" for reactions, but seems to believe the garbage he throws......
Posted by: Foxfier at October 02, 2009 10:10 AM (OtIqW)
37
Confederate Yankee: "I don't claim to know the first thing about Mr. Perry."
Actually, you did know one initial fact, that this column was in Newsmax. A right-wing publication.
Posted by: Barry at October 02, 2009 03:15 PM (HaPIL)
38
Why is it that people who throw reasonable debate are called trolls? And why is it that debates are always won by having childish responses that consist of insults usually found in a playground? Foxfier, any idea or are you just gonna give me a noogie or a wedgie?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 06:49 PM (OX5qU)
39
"Why is it that people who throw reasonable debate are called trolls?"
Lippy - Why don't you alert CY when you plan on having a reasonable debate and stop throwing around childish insults and contentless comments? That would be fun to watch but I doubt you can do it - you haven't demonstrated the intellectual chops so far that I've seen.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 02, 2009 08:04 PM (3O5/e)
40
Lipiwits-
Your debating skills are as dazzling as your English skills.
You might "throw
a reasonable debate," or "offer a reasonable debate" or several other ways of phrasing whatever you're trying to say-- as it stands, your question is incomprehensible without corrections that can greatly change the meaning.
Posted by: Foxfier at October 02, 2009 09:21 PM (OtIqW)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 03, 2009 12:14 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 29, 2009
A Great Idea for 1993
Been there.
Done that.
And truth be told, the traffic wasn't overwhelming.
And while it is no doubt cool to see your mug shot on the page beside Charles Krauthammer (and to a lesser extent, Eugene Robinson), the idea of a pundit reality contest will be less than riveting entertainment for anyone not intimately involved.
As you may imagine, the folks in the blogosphere are having a field day tearing this apart.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
September 25, 2009
Drudge's Easy Libel of the Military
Earlier today I noted that Drudge's link to the use of LRADs as "acoustic weapons" was
over the top, which he would have easily recognized on his own if he had simply applied logic to the very video he linked. Put simply, if an LRAD is being used as a weapon, various people would not be walking or standing
directly in front of it.
It's common sense.
But Matt Drudge is after headlines and eyeballs, not accuracy, and that is why his inflammatory link that screams SEE U.S. MILITARY SNATCH PROTESTER... is so detestable.
It simply does no show what he claims it shows.
Look at the very image Drudge uses as his screen capture.
How many things immediately jump out at you that scream Drudge is wrong? Don't see it? Watch the video, and then I'll go over it in detail:
You should have noticed right off the bat that neither of the uniforms shown in this clip by the men that jumped out of the Crown Victoria are those currently being worn by our military.
See the officer on the left? He's wearing woodland BDUs. No active duty American soldiers wears BDUs, they wear ACUs, which are an entirely different style of uniform with a radically different camouflage pattern. Oh, and you might want to take a look at his shoulder, where you can see what appears to be a muted version of a Pennsylvania State Police shoulder patch.
The second Officer apprehending the protestor is also wearing a camouflage pattern that is not military issue. The same with the driver.
Any semi-competent national media figure should be able to tell the difference between a military uniform and a police tactical uniform, and I strongly suspect Matt Drudge does.
I just don't think he gives a damn whether he accuses the military of snatching Americans in broad daylight if that helps his bottom line.
Update: For reasons I'll never be able to understand, some of my conservative blogging peers have decided that the video is staged... faked by the protesters themselves.
The reasons they cite are similar to mine—that the uniforms are wrong for the modern military and mis-matched—but for some reason, they assume it was a staged event or "performance art" instead of Drudge simply being wrong about a very real event.
These were police officers, carrying out a real arrest, probably at the behest of the riot police 20 feet away we see at the end of the video.
And if the shoulder patch doesn't convince you they were cops, the gun should.
Dead-center in the middle of the frame you can see the bottom of a duty holster and the handgun itself printing through the uniform.
This was a police arrest, not an illegal abduction of an American citizen by the military on U.S. soil as Matt Drudge would mislead you, nor a staged event by the protesters.
Update: Via email Lawhawk notes a story that has a photo of PA State Police wearing woodland BDUs.
And in an update at Hot Air, Ed has the photo that should settle this for once and for all.
Law enforcement confirms a police arrest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:55 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I doubt very many national media figures know the difference between a military uniform and a police tactical uniform; I know I don't. Isn't it more likely that Drudge just doesn't know what he's taking about than that he's lying to get viewers? He certainly should be faulted for interpreting what he was seeing before knowing what the facts really are.
Posted by: John at September 25, 2009 11:38 AM (n6ipG)
2
The Air Force and especially Navy operator types are still using the older woodland and 3 color desert BDUs for use in areas where the pattern works better than say ACU, or the new airman pattern or woodland digital uniforms.
You are correct about the ID of the "troops" in the video as cops vs. military personnel.
The question is why are we letting leos on the street dress as paramilitary troops. It leads to this type of confusion for the average person.
Posted by: toaster802 at September 25, 2009 11:52 AM (vGjNf)
3
The question is why are we letting leos on the street dress as paramilitary troops.
And why would we have them wearing camo, and wearing it badly? Why would PA State troopers be doing a snatch and grab on this kid? If that's PA cops, there'd better be a damned good reason. And I can't think of one that explains 1) Why they didn't cuff the guy and 2) why they had so much trouble getting the guy into the car.
Posted by: Pablo at September 25, 2009 12:03 PM (yTndK)
4
Do I see an orange tip on the Police Officers gun at 24 secs in?
Posted by: Just asking at September 25, 2009 12:11 PM (zwiyV)
5
Just asking, yes, you probably did see orange markings. Many agencies do that to make sure there is not a mix-up between shotguns filled with non-lethals and shotguns filled with a lethal payload. I saw several officers so armed yesterday.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 25, 2009 12:16 PM (gAi9Z)
6
Jus for grins n giggles: The pattern that the dudes on the right are wearing is Crye Multicam www.cryeprecision.com
Used > mostly < by SF and some uberwannabe SWAT teams. Also in use surprisingly y the Latvian and Estonian Military here in Iraq. More than likely State Police in the 'Bdoos' trying to look hardcore... the lack of any other tactical gear and the placement of the sidearm (damned near impossible to get at in a 'stresstime environ') sez this 'snatch' was planned for a specific target, probably someone with an outstanding warrant. Just my 2 cents.....
Posted by: Big Country at September 25, 2009 12:29 PM (Z8fIq)
7
OK Try number two w/out accidental HTML
Just for grins n giggles: The pattern that the dudes on the right are wearing is Crye Multicam www.cryeprecision.com
Used -mostly- by SF and some uberwannabe SWAT teams. Also in use surprisingly by the Latvian and Estonian Military here in Iraq. More than likely State Police in the 'Bdoos' trying to look hardcore... the lack of any other tactical gear and the placement of the sidearm (damned near impossible to get at in a 'stresstime environ') sez this 'snatch' was planned for a specific target, probably someone with an outstanding warrant. Just my 2 cents.....
Posted by: Big Country at September 25, 2009 12:30 PM (Z8fIq)
8
I do not know who these guys are. I doubt if anybody here watching the video does either. The haircuts and military style uniforms indicate a tactical squad of some kind.
It should be noted that part of crowd control is snatching protesters from the crowd. Well done, it is a surgical procedure from which there is no way the target can escape. It should also be noted that BOTH the police AND military practice this technique. I would guess that it's probably police just because they shoved the targets head down to get him into the car. If you've watched the foreign services make a snatch they don't mind banging a struggling target around a little to help things go a little smoother.
I've never personally witnessed a real snatch, but have been volunteered to act as the snatchee in several practice sessions.
It must be kind of a scary thing, one minute all your buds are surrounding you in this one big EVENT, the next you're head down in the back seat of a vehicle under restraint. The more you struggle the more banged around you get. (Which is probably more of a feature than a bug.)
Posted by: Barney at September 25, 2009 12:42 PM (LcPv7)
9
It's hard to tell on the patch, but you may be right. As for the printing side arm, that would be your basic no-brainer. I'm pretty convinced, though I'm troubled by the need of police officers to put on their turkey hunting gear for a protest.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 25, 2009 12:47 PM (5aa4z)
10
Did any one used any handcuffs or arm restraints on the suspect? I can not actually see the video, but many refer to the lack of hand or arm restraints as a big pointer for being fake. That is SOP for all police.
Posted by: Picric at September 25, 2009 12:54 PM (oKOn9)
11
This seems real to me. If you look towards the end of the video, it looks like a kid puts his hands up in a manner to back away or back off. It seems because he is being directed to do this by a riot control officer. This officer is in the upper left of the video as the car takes off. He has a helmet w/ visor, beefed up with a heavy vest and it looks like he has flex cuffs hanging from his uniform ready to be used.
I say real. I worked at a PD department where we were given old cammies of different varieties that are swat teams used for all different things. So it isn't odd to see different uniform styles being worn by pd officers.
Posted by: Alex at September 25, 2009 12:54 PM (DqPEX)
12
The suspect isn't cuffed prior to being put in the vehicle. However LE may have changed tactics for the protest. It does make sense when you are arresting someone in a crowd that outnumbers you and is hostile to get the person out of there as quickly as possible.
You have two big guys get in the vehicle with him so there isn't to much of a danger of escaping until they can cuff and frisk.
The other thing that makes me think it's real is the gas. Looks like the car leaves through a cloud of tear gas. If the police were firing gas to break up the crowd the street would be closed to civilian traffic. So doubt it was performance art as some have stated in other threads.
Posted by: Waste93 at September 25, 2009 01:05 PM (KHM8y)
13
Picric, you are thinking about normal circumstances. Riots aren't normal, and if cops did the normal cuff-frisk-Miranda in front of a mob, it increases the risk of things getting out of hand. A law enforcement veteran at Hot Air says that what we witnessed was a "Scoop and run," which isn't unusual for these circumstances.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 25, 2009 01:06 PM (gAi9Z)
14
Isn't it common practice (I hope so) for law enforcement to place agents undercover in these types of protests/riots, to monitor for particularly violent elements?
I wonder if the "protester" being "arrested" wasn't undercover... and was in fact simply being extracted because the tear gas cloud was approaching and/or some other police action was about to take place that they didn't want to subject him to... but without blowing his cover.
No proof; just speculation.
Posted by: David at September 25, 2009 01:07 PM (ONWQS)
15
Wear of the ABU in Airforce is not mandatory until 2011. We are still allowed to wear the woodland BDU. However, besides this small correction I believe your conclusion on the matter is correct.
Posted by: Jay at September 25, 2009 01:07 PM (L8r/r)
16
I have personal experience with the people that perpetrated this. Last year the SDS (Anarchists)from the area were planning on attacking the Marine Corps recruiting station in Pittsburgh. Gathering of Eagles and others were on hand to form a barrier in front of the building. The local police were there and they were telling us all about how they have seen this before. It is street theatre, nothing more. The cops didn't react because they knew it was staged...plain and simple.
BTW...the USAF still wears the woodland BDU but would not have been involved in something like this.
Posted by: jnc1991 at September 25, 2009 01:14 PM (rJsAM)
17
Anyone suggesting this is real due to military or police like tactics being used...have you considered these guys may have had this type of training in the past. What about IVAW? There are plenty of libtards out there who hate our military enough to create propagand like this.
Has anyone bothered attempting to find out who the guy was being snatched? How about his friends? Wouldn't they be vocal about his status? If that were my buddy I would be calling the police station, his cell phone, his mother!
This is yet another attempt by Alex Jones to generate traffic to his conspiracy ministry....$$$ Good luck, Alex!
Posted by: jnc1991 at September 25, 2009 01:23 PM (rJsAM)
18
How about emailing the PA State Police to try to confirm? It's all over Drudge. Not like they don't know if it's their guys.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 25, 2009 01:32 PM (5aa4z)
19
While you are probably right about it being the cops judging by frame freezes on patch and holster, the idea that protesters would stage it isn't as outlandish and absurd as you paint it. They did the very exact thing several times in both Denver and St. Paul last year at the conventions. I saw it with my own eyes. After they finished the fake arrests they'd come back out and tell the crowd it was a demonstration.
Posted by: Caleb Howe at September 25, 2009 01:42 PM (VyIhp)
20
If you look at the other videos these armored riot police are in Alleghenny Port Authority vehicles
http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/CompanyInfo/PoliceandSafety/PortAuthorityPolice/tabid/131/Default.aspx (reverse search the phone number on the side of suburbans). They maintain a fleet of unmarked vehicles and my guess is that is who owns the Crown Vic. My conclusions is this was performed by poorly trained (not a single scratch on ANY of their riot gear and brand new equipment) and poorly supervised (stuffing an unrestrained suspect in the back of a vehicle) Port Authority officers or even rented security officers. I believe the photo of the suspect on the ground is after the abduction judging by the tired look of the 'officer' their unkept clothes (bloused trousers) and the suspect in plastic cuffs (a white ziptie, all temporary cuffs I've ever seen were black). I think this is authentic and the Port Authority of Alleghenny COunty has a heck of a lot of explaining to do.
Posted by: Stan Redmond at September 25, 2009 01:51 PM (Lcbav)
21
I find it somewhat bizarre that anyone, whether military or police, would wear woodland camo in the middle of *Pittsburgh*.
Posted by: mwl at September 25, 2009 02:24 PM (DSeW+)
22
Don't know what the USAF wears, but i think CY is calling this right, for the above reasons. I also saw, at the end of the video, the vehicle drives between the riot unit. If this was a fake, no way would the protesters get a car through the riot unit without being fired upon.
Posted by: Penfold at September 25, 2009 03:06 PM (lF2Kk)
23
Re: "Any semi-competent national media figure should be able to tell the difference between a military uniform and a police tactical uniform"
why?
and, perhaps more importantly, why should urban police be wearing camo to demonstrations on city public streets in the first place? perhaps they want the demonstrators to think what Drudge jumped to . . . or perhaps they're idiots who don't understand the PR of demonstrations. chalk another one up for the militarization of the nation's police forces.
Posted by: po at September 25, 2009 03:15 PM (WZ/Yc)
24
Actually, I have a big problem with this that no one has brought up. Except for and extremely muted patch, none of these officers appears to be wearing anything that identifies them as the police. Part of the reason of a uniform is to identify the person of authority.
I don't particularly like the idea of the police becoming so militarized, particularly the wearing of bdu's. However, I think the use of military-style faded patches makes absolutely no sense. They are civilian police and should be self-identified as such.
The fact that we have a hard-time identifying who these gentlemen are is telling. I think the car is a big give away, as well as the armed guy in armor on the far left at the very end of the video.
(if you catch me in a really grumpy mood, I let you know what I think of the poor uniform policy that allows some police to wear long-sleeve t-shirts [with the word 'Police'] and jeans. Slobby all the way)
Posted by: ElamBend at September 25, 2009 04:18 PM (UAiWm)
25
FOX News:
Authorities, Wary of Violent Protests, Beef Up Security in Pittsburgh
Ahead of G-20 Summit
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
 By Joshua Rhett Miller
=====
So, there are military units in the area. Two battalions is a lot of firepower...
Plus, even if they are civilian police officers, why are civilian cops wearing military uniforms? (No, in a free nation, there is no rational excuse.)
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at September 25, 2009 04:51 PM (2idn5)
26
also: Google: "Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America." More than seventy references. Government websites, laws, etc.
Do some actual research - facts, evidence, proofs, references and resources - and you'll find that things don't look as rainbowie and warm fuzzy as many of you wish to believe.
All politicians are corrupt power-mad autocrats, except for the ones you like and support? Such corrupt and power-mad men and women would never turn America into a police state, especially the politicians you know and love??
Really?
Why does the objective evidence prove that you're wrong?
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at September 25, 2009 05:01 PM (2idn5)
27
Let's face it. No matter what way this was going to turn out, it couldn't be good for the left. Either this was a.) a hoax perpetrated by the nutroots or b.) it's the government. We now know it wasn't a.). It is b.) The local government in PGH is liberal. The state government in PA is run by liberals and the national government is run by Obama. So, it's Hope and Change in action.
Posted by: bemusedinPGH at September 25, 2009 05:17 PM (5iv1T)
28
If this guy was a double amputee and was repeatedly tased I might believe that they were cops. They should have tried to knock out his front teeth on the pavement too.
Do they have any duty to identify themselves before they stuff the dude in the car? Just wondering.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at September 25, 2009 05:38 PM (aRm4V)
29
I find it incredible that any police officer, much less multiple police officers, would stuff a perp into the back of their patrol car with out cuffs on.
Plus, the guy hasn't been searched and is still wearing his backpack.
What's in his pockets?
What's in the backpack?
Those are important questions to ask because he's got both hands free if he decides to dig out a weapon, etc.
That's not normal is it?
Posted by: Aye Chihuahua at September 25, 2009 05:58 PM (y0/M3)
30
My opinion is that all police forces should NOT be wearing military-style camouflage uniforms. It sends the wrong impression to the American public that the US military is somehow involved in local or state police operations or arresting procedures. Something has to be done with the police force community having its officers wearing military-style uniform.
Posted by: Bob at September 25, 2009 07:29 PM (SLEq7)
31
1) Yes, any moron should be able to fact-check that those outfits don't fit anything actual military is likely to be wearing. Basic common sense says "oh, look, there's several different patterns and styles-- I should research before making a huge accusation, especially since I know that tactical-type cops like to wear cammies. Oh, and it looks like the guy on the far side is wearing a standard, blue police shirt." (Now, if they'd driven up in a white van or some sort of military vehicle, slightly more reasonable to jump to conclusions....)
2) They'd better be ready to explain this, because the action is looking pretty dang stupid.
Posted by: Foxfier at September 25, 2009 11:58 PM (PVayi)
32
maybe the simplest explanation, if your going to be doing quik strikes at the protestors and your going to be getting rough and tumble you want cloths that are loose fitting and flexible and iron tough.
bdu's fit the bill.
if you have a list of fast objectives to carry out like santching potential worst offenders getting ready to do something really ignorant, or your on the look out for numbnuts with existing warrants you want to look identifiable to your comrades but not stand out so much you look like helmeted padded riot police.
but the fact that they didnt take away his back pack at a minimum is odd to me as well as not zip tying his wrists.
Posted by: rumcrook® at September 26, 2009 12:55 PM (60WiD)
33
I agree that the uniforms do not conform to military code. But look at the men, they do not look like cops. Most cops that I see are considerably overweight and not near the physical shape of these guys. Also, look at their faces. They appear intelligent which is not a prerequisite for cops at the ordinary level. You see these types hanging around the FBI building and the President lawn.
Either way it gives you the creeps with the type of power that The One is trying to weild.
Posted by: David C at September 26, 2009 04:11 PM (FacGW)
34
There are several places that I DO NOT look at when I want reliable information.
In no particular order, some of them are:
Drudge
Andrew Sullivan
The Washington Post
Drudge
Andrew Sullivan
The New York Times
Andrew Sullivan
Drudge
The Huffington Post
Drudge
The Daily KOS
Andrew Sullivan
MSNBC
CBS
ABC
did I mention Drudge? Sullivan?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 26, 2009 07:21 PM (OmeRL)
35
Why do we let police wear military uniforms?
So they can do their thing in the War On Drugs, the War On Jaywalkers, the War on peaceful people, the War on (fillintheblank).
Not peace officers anymore.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at September 26, 2009 07:24 PM (OmeRL)
36
How do we know they're not military? Simple. Among the first things any member of any branch of the military is taught is to keep their hands out of their pockets and to always--ALWAYS--wear a hat outdoors. No hats? No military.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at September 27, 2009 07:42 PM (orefC)
37
Hmm, still not convinced. PSP have a duty uniform and there is no uniformity between the alleged officers. A uniform but only a small patch. No webgear, body armor, etc. Usually in riots they wear exterior body armor with big yellow letters that say police. No lights or siren on the Crown Vic. But most of all no complaint from the guy arrested.
And, by the way, why was he arrested from among all the rioters, usually the black bloc leads the violence and they wear masks and all black.
Posted by: Federale at September 28, 2009 11:54 AM (ev309)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 21, 2009
Pressure Mounts Against MSNBC's Faked Racial Conspiracy
By now you've all heard about how MSNBC
doctored video in order to push the fabricated narrative that open carry advocates at health care events were racially motived. MSNBC had tightly cropped an African-American open carry advocate with a Carbon-15 rifle slung over his shoulder so that you could not see his race, in order to argue that "white people showing up with guns" brought racial overtones to these protests.
Americans for Limited Government called for those involved in "a blatantly racist broadcast" to be fired on Tuesday, at which point MSNBC offered a pathetically weak non-apology attempting to claim that they were talking open carry advocates generally, even though the shot was focused on the carefully cropped image of an African American man the majority of the time.
Brent Bozell of the Media Resource Center added his thoughts today, stating that MSNBC must apologize for fomenting racial discord:
"This goes beyond 'sloppy' reporting by MSNBC. This was a deliberate effort to brand conservatives as racists – and now as violent racists.
"Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, this so-called 'news' network has tried desperately to convince viewers that opposition to Barack Obama must be race-based. Now they are actually producing deliberately misleading stories to push that agenda. As a 'news' network, MSNBC is a disgrace.
"MSNBC owes this man and the tens of thousands of protestors a public apology. It should also extend that apology to its tens of thousands of viewers."
MSNBC is guilty of attempting to incite racial strife. They obviously hoped find some sort of political silver lining in labeling opponents as white racists, even when those that oppose them are black.
I do think Bozell must have misstated MSNBC's appeal, however.
Do they really have tens of thousands of viewers?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.
April 21, 2009
Media Survey Bleg
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.
1
Gah! That survey just never ends! I tried, though, and lost total interest after 10 minutes. Sorry!
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at April 21, 2009 09:00 PM (bN9SU)
2
In order a fantastic management within your truly, volume your own.
nike schuhe http://www.nikeschuhedamenherren.com/
Posted by: nike schuhe at November 19, 2012 09:32 AM (76Igw)
3
Really don't talk about your ultimate bliss to at least one not as fortunate enough compared to oneself.
Nike Schuhe http://www.nikefree3runschuhe.com/
Posted by: Nike Schuhe at November 19, 2012 09:34 AM (VoUzl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 16, 2009
Finally! Anderson Cooper Comes Out of the Closet
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.
1
These douches must have all gotten their talking points from barney franks. Interesting that they all seem to know what the term refers to. Maybe they heard it while servicing their beloved leader's nether region?
Posted by: emdfl at April 16, 2009 08:39 PM (/A+Fk)
2
Anderson, the silly boy, tea-bagged himself.
Posted by: zeezil at April 17, 2009 01:07 AM (3gNxn)
3
Oh, ick. Not that this comes as a surprise but whatever happened to leaving somethings to the public's imagination?
No wonder no one watches the MSM anymore. At least we know why that lady from CNN was so worried about the Tea Parties being "family-friendly." She was projecting her industry's R-rating on us!
Posted by: Slveryder at April 17, 2009 04:04 AM (pNRPX)
4
See, the thing about the tea party thing is, it's named after the Boston tea party. If you hear that and instantly think about what Anderson is talking about here, that's because it's in YOUR head all the time.
But the purveyors of this sort of talk don't care because that's how this sort of "humor" works. Call it the Beavis and Butthead syndrome...('he said teabag!').
Not only is it not funny and was NEVER FUNNY, it's also ruining language in general. How many other words are going to be destroyed in the future because they mean something else to idiots?
Posted by: xerocky at April 17, 2009 06:29 AM (kX5hh)
5
NOW we know why we don't hear much from Cooper outside of his work. His mouth is full!
Sorry, CY, I couldn't stop myself.
Posted by: Tully at April 17, 2009 02:23 PM (tUyDE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Their Favorite Fictions
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.
1
As one of my college professors used to say..."There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics!"
Posted by: Lone Cactus In AZ at April 16, 2009 01:46 PM (5sGLG)
2
They're certainly right that the internet is partially to blame, but to a much larger extent the problem is themselves. The mistake the MSM made was to begin thinking of themselves as an institution, rather than as a business. They have lost sight of what it is their customers are buying their product for. Their readers have always gone to them for information, but throughout their entire history they have been able to present a lopsided watered down product (all narrative and minimal substance) to the reader. They've been able to do that because they were the only convenient source of information. It may just be an unfortunate habit, picked up through exposure to an existing professional culture, but many of them seem to feel that watered down crap is the important part of their product, and the information just gets in the way.
So yeah, the Internet provides an alternative, and higher quality source of information; selling newspapers in the information age is going to require a substantially better product than they have ever had to produce in the past. So far it doesn't look like they have it in them, or even to have realized the need.
Posted by: dmoss at April 16, 2009 05:10 PM (z17GE)
3
The NYT is a model of fairness compared to UPI's flat out lies. UPI omits the "of those traced" part entirely and says that 90% of all guns seized were from the US and then goes on to lie again saying that gun dealers are selling military assault rifles, not even bothering with "military style" or some such sleight of hand.
"Mexican authorities say that about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles they recovered from drug dealers last year came from dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona, with officials saying the cartels have been stocking up on U.S.-bought military assault rifles."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/15/Mexican-cartels-buy-guns-from-US-dealers/UPI-32471239795150/
Posted by: Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com at April 16, 2009 06:10 PM (PJyLt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 25, 2009
Complicity in Idiocy
Fox News posted the following highly-misleading graphic on the front page of foxnews.com tonight, as the click-through image for a story entitled
Clinton: U.S. Shares Blame in Mexico Drug Wars.
The obvious implication of the image, echoing recent rhetoric by the Obama Administration and the Mexican government that the firearms industry in the United States is responsible for supplying drug cartels with massive amounts of firepower, including military weapons.
But what does the picture actually show?
A close look at the picture shows at the top a short-barreled AR-15 carbine where the flash hider begins immediately in front of the front sight.
Such weapons are highly-regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and buyers must have approval from the ATF and pay a $200 transfer tax. Such weapons are most commonly seen in use by law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border in urban tactical dynamic entry or SWAT teams. It is possible, and perhaps probable, that this firearm was acquired by cartels from Mexican law enforcement, and not from civilian firearms dealers.
The next firearm down, a civilian-legal AR-15 carbine, has a noticeably longer 16-inch legal minimum barrel, as does the Mini-14 carbine. The AR-15-style rifle below that has a 20-inch barrel.
Dominating the photo, however, is a collection of military weaponry that is simply unavailable for purchase by American civilians at any price. There are either rockets or mortar shells (probably the former, but I'm not sure) and a M-72 LAW, a disposable anti-tank rocket.
Our President and Attorney General and have been more than willing to mislead the American people by including military weaponry in displays of arms confiscated from cartels, in hopes of pushing for what the President likes to call "common sense" gun control measures, as if anti-tank rockets, hand grenades, IEDs and police and military-issued machine guns can be had under existing gun laws.
We except such deception from Barack Obama, a man who was once part of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation and who was part of an attempt to con the Supreme Court. We also expect the media to be largely ignorant and heavily biased in stories involving firearms.
We should, however, expect at least the most basic level of intellectual curiosity from our media, such as wondering why government officials are implying military anti-tank weaponry is available for purchase by civilians in U.S. gun shops.
Journalists are abdicating their responsibility to ask these questions.
This failure to follow the basic tenets of journalism is a large part of why the public holds the media in such low regard, and why their news organizations continue to collapse around them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.
February 04, 2009
Associated Press Goes After "Hope" Artist For More Than Change
I was emailed a link to
this story from AP's Media Relations office tonight.
It seems that the wire service wants credit and compensation from an artist by the name of Shepard Fairey for his Barack Obama "Hope" image that was admittedly based on the work of an Associated Press photographer, Manny Garcia.
Now it has been a long, long time—circa 1991—that I was in college learning the basics of media law in a journalism class, but my initial reaction was that derivative art was protected under fair use laws.
And upon further review, it's a good thing that I'm not a lawyer.
Fairey has apparently admitted his work came from Garcia's photo. It seems to me that the only real question here is whether or not Fairey settles our of court, or if he presses for a trial that he seems destined to lose.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:58 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
1
For once, I can't figure out which side to take. I am definitely VERY interested to see how it turns out, though!
Regards,
Brian "Assaulted by the AP" L.
Posted by: Brian L. at February 04, 2009 09:11 PM (gHC4P)
2
Considering that the Obama "DOPE" poster is a work of art, Fairey has an excellent "fair use" argument. If I do a tracing of a painting or a photograph and transform that into an illustration that illustration is generally considered orginal.
It is a technique used by many model-making magazines to illustrate details. For example, you want to show the chain wales on a Revolutionary-era ship, and the only illustration you have is of a model in the National Maritime Museum -- which will charge $200.00 for the privilege of using it. You blow up the image, trace the chain wales, and make a drawing from that.
Original artwork from fair use of a copyright image.
Posted by: Mark L at February 05, 2009 08:50 AM (a+kMW)
3
USA Network has Fairey on one of their "Characters welcome" promos. Makes me change the channel.
Posted by: GnomeSelfBeTrue at February 05, 2009 08:55 AM (onj4J)
4
Are Manny and the ap then going to re-emburse Pravda for using its study of Lenin from the 30's as the basis for their Obama worship?
Posted by: emdfl at February 05, 2009 09:08 AM (blNMI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 19, 2009
CNN's Meserve Punked by Secret Service
Dude,
where's my spotter?
The teams typically consist of two people, both armed with high-powered rifles, either of whom can shoot to deter an imminent threat. If one countersniper spots a threat, that person prepares to shoot while the other member takes on the role of "wind caller," telling the shooter how to adjust his aim to counteract the wind.
The wind caller takes cues from chimney smoke, flags or undulations from the atmosphere.
While the name of the primary shooter of a precision shooting team differs for political reasons with some calling him a sniper, countersniper, sharpshooter or kitten-of-the-gun, the second half of a sniper team is ubiquitously called a spotter.
A "wind caller?"
That's the obnoxious little kid that loudly yells "Mommy farted!" at the mall, causing a mortified, teeth-clenched-and-red-faced woman to momentarily yearn for a "decade-after" pill.
One can only imagine that Meserve and Ahlers did what CNN journalists so often do, taking the word of their subjects at face value—be they Hamas terrorists, tyrannical dictators, or straight-faced comedians with a badge—rushing the story to air without bothering with tedious fact-checking, or even a few seconds on the Internet to see if they got the terminology remotely right.
The dead-pan sniper found his mark, and CNN's Merserve published a subtle fart joke as news.
Bulls-eye.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.
1
POSSIBLY THE BEST ANSWER TO A STUPID QUESTION -- EVER
Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked; 'What do you feel.....when you shoot a Terrorist?' The Marine shrugged and replied, 'A slight recoil.'
Posted by: Rich in KC at January 20, 2009 12:04 PM (siQqy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 13, 2009
Red Cross Confirms the Obvious: Israeli White Phosphorus Smoke Shells Used Legally in Gaza; Hamas Docs Continue Propaganda Efforts
I wrote
several days ago that the Israeli use of 155mm M825A1 smoke shells was not in any way a "war crime," nor the use of "chemical weapons," nor in any way against the law of war, despite the cries of leftist journalists and Islamist activists.
Today, the International Red Cross agreed:
The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.
The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.
The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit.
"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."
In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."
Sadly, even the Red Cross' statement is unlikely to stem spurious allegations white phosphorus is being used as a weapon, as these photos show:
caption: Palestinian Louai Sobeh, 10, is treated for burns at Shifa hospital in Gaza City on January 12, 2009. Palestinian doctor working in Gaza City Dr Yusef Abu Rish told AFP that at least 55 people were injured early yesterday by white phosphorous shells, banned under international law for use against civilians, but permitted for creating smokescreens. "These people were burned over their bodies in a way that can only be caused by white phosphorous," said Abu Rish. An Israeli military spokeswoman denied the claims. "There is no use of white phosphorous. Everything we use is according to international law," she said.
caption: Palestinian Mohamed Ahmed is treated for burns at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on January 12, 2009. Dr Yusef Abu Rish at Gaza City's Nasser hospital told AFP that at least 55 people were injured early yesterday by white phosphorous shells, banned under international law for use against civilians, but permitted for creating smokescreens. "These people were burned over their bodies in a way that can only be caused by white phosphorous," said Abu Rish. An Israeli military spokeswoman denied the claims."There is no use of white phosphorous. Everything we use is according to international law," she said.
caption: Palestinian Akram Abu Roka is treated for burns at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on January 12, 2009. Dr Yusef Abu Rish at Gaza City's Nasser hospital told AFP that at least 55 people were injured early yesterday by white phosphorous shells, banned under international law for use against civilians, but permitted for creating smokescreens. "These people were burned over their bodies in a way that can only be caused by white phosphorous," said Abu Rish. An Israeli military spokeswoman denied the claims."There is no use of white phosphorous. Everything we use is according to international law," she said.
Let me be very blunt: both the Palestinian doctor and the IDF spokesperson are almost certainly lying.
Israel is using white phosphorus, but it is not violating any laws of warfare, because the white phosphorus they are using is not weaponized. They are using air-bursting shells to make smokescreens, not impact-detonating munitions one would associate with offensive incendiary use. when it comes to the white phosphorus they are using, the spokesperson is telling the truth when she claims that "Everything we use is according to international law."
So why does the IDF continue to insist it isn't using white phosphorus? I'd suggest it is because most media outlets covering the conflict are either so biased or so incompetent that they couldn't or wouldn't explain to their consumers that not all uses of white phosphorus are the same.
As for Dr. Yusef Abu Rish, he's either unfamiliar with what white phosphorus burns look like, or perhaps more likely, is serving up a healthy dose of propaganda.
As I mentioned previously and Soccer Dad picked up upon, the IDF is deploying smoke shells. In specific, they are using M825A1 air-bursting smoke rounds fired from 155 howitzers. The M825A1 disperses 3/4-inch thick solid felt wedges impregnated with white phosphorus that disperse from airbursting shells in altitudes that appear in most photos to be 100 feet off the ground, or more. Each shell disperses 116 wedges.
These wedges can indeed cause horrific, potentially fatal burns if they hit people, but this kind of WP dispersal would mostly likely cause distinctive, penetrating, and localized burn injuries— not the scattering of surface wounds suffered by Sobeh, the nearly uniform and widespread facial burns of Ahmed, or the heavy, extensive burns suffered by Roka. All of their woulds could certainly be combat-related, and the later two are distinctively burns, but they do not bear the signs one typically associates with white phosphorus.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:21 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 945 words, total size 7 kb.
1
I'm not sure how you can comment on the last patient's burns as they are not visible. Do you have direct experience in treating burn victims and specifically white phosphorus burn victims?
I'm playing devil's advocate, but they are reasonable questions considering the certainty of your claims. And since these are ultimately medical issues, it would help to know if you have any medical background that would support your opinion.
Posted by: SPW at January 14, 2009 02:06 AM (KzMKD)
2
Oh, I always love it when a newbie unfamiliar with my work strikes such a tone.
I have prior experience debunking white phosphorus claims dating back to November of 2005, when I interviewed military and medical experts (and in one extraordinary stroke of luck, a soldier with medical
and artillery experience) when I debunked the Italian propaganda film
Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, which was a collusion between anti-war communists and Sunni insurgents regarding the taking Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.
I'm sure you'll find this three-parter a fascinating read.
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 3
I've also discussed WP injuries with other military medical personnel, and read about the distinctive pathology of white phosphorus (both via external wounds and ingestion) dating back to WWI in researching those articles, and how M825A1 base-ejecting 155mm shells work.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you understand how theses shells work, and how the WP used in those shells works, then you quickly realize that none of those pictured are wounded in a way inconsistent with these shells.
Read the information at the links provided, and perhaps you'll understand why these claims are false.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 14, 2009 08:39 AM (gAi9Z)
3
In part 3, the link to Signaleer he states: "Injuries related to WP are caused by direct contact with burning pieces of the waxy solid. The injuries are either primary; discrete burns in the immediate area of contact (photo left), or secondary, burns caused by the ignition of clothes or other materials that have come into contact with the WP (photo right)."
If you receive burns from the ignition of clothing, it looks like any other 'basic' burn a person would sustain.
Signaleer's statement doesn't really vindicate your opinion of these burns, it just makes the determination that more difficult. The photos he presents aren't significantly different from those in your blog post. The first photo definitely compares to the one shown by signaleer, and the second photo shown by you looks like a contact burn which is certainly possible based on Signaleer's comments.
You have certainly researched WP and talked to one person (Holcomb) who has knowledge in their wound patterns, but this doesn't give you the credentials to become a forensic pathologist. My question was whether you've actually taken care of burn victims and specifically WP burn victims to accurately assess the wounds in these photos. Further, you can't even see the wounds in the last patient so how on earth can you claim they aren't or are WP related burns?
Maybe you should show these pictures to Holcomb and see what he thinks, or a military physician with burn experience.
Posted by: SPW at January 14, 2009 10:10 AM (VftLx)
4
Leftists often quote the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons as saying that White Phosphorus is an illegal weapon. However, it specifically excepts WP when used for smoke or illumination.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Also, the across the board ban on using incendiaries in civilian areas is applied specifically for "air-delivered incendiary weapons." The wording for other delivery methods, to include artillery is more discriminating:
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Source:
http://www.ccwtreaty.com/KeyDocs/protocol3.html
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at January 14, 2009 10:45 AM (oC8nQ)
5
SPW, let's be honest about your intentions, shall we? Everywhere you appear, you do so to be an apologist for pro-Hamas actors. All the same, let's look at what the photos show, and try to fill in the gaps in your education.
The Signaleer's photos show, clearly, the effects of free-form non-fixed WP as used in incendiary weapons systems--weapons, not the base-ejecting smoke wedges deployed by the M825A1.
Look closely at the Signaleer's images and you'll see a multitude of small, irregular multi-thickness burns. This is quite possible with WP in an incendiary weapon. Why?
Weaponized incendiary WP is dispersed by a burster charge (high explosives, typically impact fused but occasionally timed) that will typically spread small bits of WP that typically cause an irregular pattern of penetrating wounds as shown in the Signaleer's photos.
"Smoke" WP is fixed and dispersed differently in a way that makes it much less likely to cause casualties, which is why experts including the International Red Cross have stated so emphatically it isn't a weapon.
The WP is fixed--impregnated--in felt wedges that capture the WP. If hit by one of the WP-impregnated felt wedges, it is most likely to cause a distinctive burn--perhaps not unlike being struck with a branding iron.
While WP burns very hot, WP in this form it does not tend to stick to vertical or nearly vertical objects as it burns, and if it should hit someone, will typically cause localized contact burns before falling away.
The first photo does not show evidence of such a burn. As far as that goes there is no obvious evidence of burns on this boy at all, while quite obvious abrasions and lacerations indicate it is far more likely that we're looking at secondary blast wounds from conventional munitions.
Likewise, WP wedges are not consistent with the burns of the second victim.
I concur that his wounds would not be greatly dissimilar with WP
incendiary munitions, but as multiple credible organizations including the International Red Cross have confirmed, these weapons are not being used. He is undoubtably burned, however. to my admittedly layman's eye these facial wounds appear more consistent with relatively quick "flashover" or "splashover" burns of high intensity and short duration. I've seen photos of similar burns resulting from various conventional IED/high explosive blasts, and even on a dim insurgent in Iraq that made the mistake of standing behind a compatriot firing an RPG. Again, I reiterate, this young man's burns are not consistent with the M825A1 payload.
Which brings us to this poor third victim. Again, if you understand the basic construction of the M825 smoke round, you cannot seriously suggest someone could be this seriously injured over such broad areas of his body--at least one arm, apparently the entire head, potentially his chest and other injuries-- from a burning piece of felt three-quarters of an inch thick.
I am not a forensic pathologist, coroner, medical examiner, internist, EMT, surgeon, RN, or LPN.
I am also not a geologist, oncologist,cashier, crossing guard, oceanographer, mathematician, or scullery maid...
...and yet I think that people in each of those professions have the capability to understand that a point-detonating incendiary white phosphorus warhead operates quite differently than a air-bursting shell designed to lay down comparatively innocuous smoke screens.
Hopefully, you have that capability as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 14, 2009 11:48 AM (gAi9Z)
6
"I am also not a geologist, oncologist,cashier, crossing guard, oceanographer, mathematician, or scullery maid."
That acually made me laugh out loud.
Posted by: brando at January 14, 2009 12:47 PM (qzOby)
7
The IDF isn't lying when they say they're not using WP, as in any military jargon WP means incendiary shells filled with the stuff, not smoke shells using it as a trigger agent or starshells.
So while they're using shells that have white phosphorous in them, those aren't white phosphorous shells.
It's no different from US APFSFS shells not being nuclear weapons despite containing (depleted) Uranium (the left accused the US of using nuclear weapons in Iraq just like they accuse Israel of using incendiary shells now).
Posted by: JTW at January 14, 2009 12:56 PM (hrLyN)
8
I did not make the connection that Signaleer's photos were point contact incendiaries which is different from what is being used in Gaza. But you pointed me to the link, and it just says "WP burns." So there is a difference. I'm not so sure people in all of those professions (except perhaps the scullery maid) are capable of making a distinction between the two unless they are told the difference by someone with more knowledge. So in that sense we are relying on you which is what a person has to do everyday when they read the news. Take the reporter's word for it. But getting an outside opinion on the matter would strengthen your argument. Especially since you have a clear agenda in the matter.
And speaking of agenda, I happen to be pro-Israel on this conflict. Half of my family is Jewish. I'm not a Hamas apologist. I just don't believe everything I read or see, and will happily call someone on it. And since you can't evaluate a medical resuscitation very well, I'm naturally suspect about your opinions on these burn victims.
But for now, I'll take your word for it. Get an outside opinion that confirms it, and I'll give you a gold star because that would be some solid reporting.
Posted by: SPW at January 14, 2009 02:53 PM (VftLx)
9
The guy in the second photo has a totally burned face, but his hair is absolutely intact, and no burning whatsoever to his clothing?
Can you say 'make-up'?
Posted by: Martin at January 14, 2009 05:54 PM (5617J)
10
I figured the Qassam used solid propellant. Even HAMAS wants to actually launch the rockets before dying, and Red Fuming Nitric Acid is something that would kill you quite dead when it is being handled. It is typically fired with UDMH, which is just deadly. I have no doubt that they lack concerns for safety, but messing around with toxic liquids does not go with a fast launch.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at January 16, 2009 12:01 AM (CG316)
11
I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks
Posted by: Enlargement at January 16, 2009 05:29 AM (ib1fU)
12
OK, IANA rocket scientist. Nonetheless I don't see any singing, charring, or evidence of flae. Therefore I first think toxic chemical exposure. Radiation maybe, look at the light and dark areas. Fell asleep in a tanning bed? Biblical plague? Maybe he has a peanut allergy.
No, you know what? It was not a burn. Not with fire, anyway. His eyebrows and eyelashes are intact, not to mention facial and scalp hair. How was this guy burned? Nah, no way.
Posted by: Nichevo at January 16, 2009 06:53 AM (ltRYU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
205kb generated in CPU 0.0607, elapsed 0.1494 seconds.
67 queries taking 0.1193 seconds, 364 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.