Next Get Bond... Julian Bond

The media at large and CBS News in particular took hard hits as a result of the last election cycle, and it appears they are not alone. In addition to propagandist Michael Moore being shelled as the least inspiring, least-intriguing celebrity in Hollywood, it now appears the axe is falling on at least one head at the incredibly ineffective NAACP, as President Kweisi Mfume plans to step down.

Neither the NAACP nor Mfume would say why he was stepping down, but I'll go out on a limb and say he has to for allowing the organization's credibility to be damaged severely, to the point where many feel it is no longer a civil rights organization, but instead a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

Mfume allowed NAACP Chairman Julian Bond to threaten the organization's tax-exempt status by making overtly partisan statements at the organization's annual Convention in July. Bond said:

"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said Sunday night in the 95th annual convention's keynote address. "They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."

In light of these statements, and earlier comments where Bond compared Republicans to terrorists, it is clear (at least to me) that Mfume is not the only officer of the NAACP that should step down. Bond has destroyed any remaining shreds of credibility the organization has, and it would be a shame if the one-time powerful civil rights group should be forced to consider reorganizing as a 527 or other non-tax-exempt group thanks to their poor and partisan leadership.

Julian Bond, is is time for you to go.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

I Wish I'd Run So Far Away

The Puppy Blender has a tittilating thread promoting "Hot French Chicks with Guns."

Sucker that I am, I clicked on it...

For my trouble, I got a fake Glock, a fake Beretta, what are probably not even real French people, and a "chick" (singular) looks like a long lost member of A Flock of Seagulls.

No wonder Glen is credited with being the leader of the Axis of Naughty.

If you want real hot foreign chicks with guns, you have to go here.

Accept no substitutes.

And be very polite.

Neither Muskets nor Ducks

Like it or not, the assault weapons outlawed by the now-expired 1994 Crime Bill are precisely the kind of firearms that our Founding Fathers probably intended to protect.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Earlier today I read the interpretations of a group of self-professed "experts" explaining how assault weapons were dangerous, obviously not protected by the Second Amendment, and in need of a permanent ban.

They were following the collectivist, or "states rights" argument, that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was written to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militias. To their way of thinking, there is no individual right of gun ownership, and the government is permissive in the kind of sporting arms used in hunting or target shooting. According to their argument, assault weapons and several other categories of firearms should be banned outright.

These people could not understand the Second Amendment any less.

If any category of modern firearm is protected by the Constitution it is assault weapons, not hunting or target-specific arms. Does this seem like a strech to you?

Read on.

Many may scoff at the idea, but those who subscribe to the collectivist interpretation of this Amendment betray a misunderstanding of the historical context the Bill of Rights was written in, or they simply chose to ignore it in pursuing their political agenda.

In the cultural context in which it was written, the Colonial Era "militia" referred to the armed citizenry as a whole, as opposed to the "organized militia" which was the government-controlled force we would now recognize as the Guard and Reserve components of our full-time armed forces.

In this correct context, the Second Amendment simply justifies the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, just as the Constitution was written to justify certain inalienable rights. We have a pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other reasons that is bolstered by the phrasing "the right of the people" in the First Amendment that is understood to apply to all the other Amendments to protect individual rights, not the authority of states. To say that the Second Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that followed the collectivist model is disingenuous at best.

The only Supreme Court case on the matter, United States v. Miller (1939), held that a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches did not show a "reasonable relationship" to the kind of arm that might be expected to use in a well regulated militia, and that the sawed-of shotgun in the case was not the kind of ordinary military equipment that could be reasonably expected to be used in the common defense.

In Miller, the Court specifically held that the militia was comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. This individual rights position was bolstered in 2001 where in United States v. Emerson, the Court held that the people have "rights" and "powers" but that the federal and state governments have only "powers" or "authority," holding that the "right" referred to in the Second Amendment was an individual right.

In addition, a 2002 Justice Department brief states that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

In short, the modern Justice Department and apparently the Supreme Court uphold the individual right to own arms, but what kind of arms does that specifically apply to?

Once again, this historical context of the Framer's time period is important to understand their intent.

At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789, a substantial portion of the population lived in rural or semi-rural areas, where firearms played a vital role in the lives of the colonists being used primarily for hunting, self defense, and community defense.

The typical military firearm of Revolutionary War was a musket, a smoothbore firearm typically loaded with "buck and ball," a single large round ball slightly smaller than the interior diameter of the barrel, and several smaller buckshot. This was an inaccurate firearm not capable of reliably hitting a single man-sized target outside of approximately 50-75 yards, however, it was easy to load and fire several projectiles per firing in a comparatively short amount of time, which was desirable in an age and style of warfare that utilized densely packed formations of men firing in close proximity to their enemy.

The typical civilian firearm of the time period was the rifle, a firearm with spiraled grooves down the length of the barrel that imparted spin on a single projectile, making it much more stable in flight, and thus more accurate, much in the way a football thrown to impart spin is much more stable and accurate than one that is thrown so that it tumbles end over end.

The rifle was a huge technological improvement over earlier firearms such as muskets and shotguns, extending the practical range from the approximate 50-75-yard range of muskets to 150-200 yards for rifles. The downside of a rifle in the military usage of the period was it's comparatively slow rate of fire and lack of a bayonet mount, both major problems in the style of combat prevalent in regular armies of the time period. That said, rifle-equipped units were the "special forces" units of their day, and excelled in unconventional combat.

So... what does that have to do with assault weapons in modern America?

Everything.

The Second Amendment was written to make sure that the civilian population that makes up the general militia has arms suitable for the protection of the community at large, which at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, consisted of the continued civilian ownership of muskets and of more technologically advanced civilian rifles.

A logical person understands that for the civilian militia to be effective, they must have personal arms that can be militarily viable in the context of the potential conflicts of the day. This of course does not apply to crew-served weapons employed by professional militaries and their organized militia (Guard and Reserve) components, but just to small arms. Civilians have no rights to cannons, tanks, or nuclear weapons, just small arms.

Considering the small arms technologies employed by conventional infantry units in 2004, civilian versions of military assault weapons are specifically the kind of small arms our Founding Father's intended us to have.

Militaries today primarily use either NATO-specified 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition, or military calibers of the former Soviet Union (7.62x39mm, 7.62x54R). Therefore, firearms chambered to fire these calibers of ammunition are exactly the kind of firearms the Founders who have had in mind for the general militia that is the population at large.

Further, the kinds of semi-automatic firearms erroneously called "assault weapons" that most closely mimic conventional military weapons, are precisely the kinds of civilian-owned firearms most protected by a correct contextual interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was never written to preserve our right to hunt ducks or squirrels, and it was certainly never intended to limit our choice of weapons to period muskets any more than the Freedom of Speech would be limited to those conversing in Colonial-era English.

The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the individual American could ensure his access to military capable arms for the defense of his home and his community.

Now, when can we get a militia-friendly, semi-automatic version of one of these?

Update 11/30: This thread has been picked up by excellent gun blogger Jeff Soyer at Alphecca, and was "Today's must read" from SayUncle. Thanks, guys!

Do I Have a Show For You...

Dear Mr. Network Executive,

I think we need a new mega-reality show. One that will put your network over the top.

People are getting tired of the simple formulas that inspire trauma-based shows (Fear Factor, Scare Tactics), touchy-feely self-improvement tripe (The Swan, The Biggest Loser), or even surrounding-improvement programming (Monster House, Trading Spaces) or transportation-makeover episodes (Pimp My Ride, Overhaulin').

No, what we want, what we need, is a new ultra-reality show that combines the best elements of all the shows above.

My Solution:

Pimp My Bride. Seriously. Hear my out.

Start with four moderately-attractive engaged couples.

Maked them eat something really disgusting, and then given them a physical challenge that will make the more-athletic member of each couple infuriated with his or her future spouse. Or even better, combine the two into one event.

Then boot one of the couples out of the contest for some completely arbitrary reason.

Host Ty Rogan: "Maria, while your team actually came in first in the oral buffalo-chip relay, we just couldn't stand the bouncing of Dave's man-boobs as he ran. Your team is eliminated. Have some minty-fresh Listerine (sneaky product placement for our sponsers) and get to steppin'."

Down to three couples, split them up into teams of guys and girls, and have the same-sex threesomes compete in gender-opposite stereotypical contests.

Then bring the three couples back together, and boot another pair out of the contest, again for simply not liking one of them.

Host Ty Rogan: "Phil, you made an excellent three-cheese and broccoli quiche for brunch, and your lovely financee Marilyn excelled in calling that three-downs-and-out series in the Rams game. You should win this round and advance. But who carries the stones in this couple, Nancy-boy? Is she carrying your pair? You're eliminated. And don't drop your apron on the way out, Phil-lis."

At that point the contestant lunging at the host will, of course, call for an overzealous response from show security, combining the best elements of The Jerry Springer Show and Cops.

Am I a genius or what?

As the now-beaten and bloody losing contestant(s) are hauled away to jail, the remaining two couples will compete for our grand prize, a complete extreme makeover for the future bride, just like on The Swan... sorta.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

For our final contest, we'll combine the best of the home and car improvement shows, and have the couples design and build a garage that functions not only as a place to park a vehicle, but doubles as a man-refuge from his constantly nagging spouse.

The premise of this stunt alone will cause tension, and as the guys, blissfully unaware, try to figure out how they can fit a La-Z-Boy (product placement), a Budweiser beer tap (more advertising!) , and a Sony widescreen television (Even more advertising moolah, Mr. Network!) in front of a Buick (am I good at this or what?), the faces of the fuming girls will provide great tragi-comic relief.

Then, just to change things up, actually judge the final event on merit.

Relationship merit.

Ty Rogan: "Bill, that was an excellent idea to run the urinal tube from the front of your recliner directly into the septic line so that you'd never have to miss a second of the game. Unfortunately, in all your engineering excitement, you completely ignored Pam, and never noticed she was fuming in the corner. Think about how much butt you're going to have to kiss to make up for this one on the way out the door. And good luck in your 'Relationship.'

"John, you actually had the brains to tell Rebecca how wonderful she was and never even glanced at your potential sanctuary until she understood this was something you would only ever dream of doing 'for the show.'

"You are the winner of Pimp My Bride!"

At this point, we start a stage of the game that the winning couple doesn't know about. Remember I promised a Swan type ending? Well, that would be just too boring, wouldn't it?

At this point, an excited Rebecca, as the winning female, will be led away to visit a team of top-notch plastic surgeons for consultation, and will then have a day at the spa.

John on the other hand, as the winning male, will meet with the team of plastic surgeons who will actually be performing the surgery on Rebecca. He gets to make the call on implants, liposuction, dental work, etc. Just like in the other surgical shows, no one will see her, including herself, until the "big reveal" at the end of the episode.

Will Rebecca end up having more plastic than a cupboard full of Tupperware?

Does John even come close to making the right decisions?

Will Rebecca, in fact, kill John for what he did to her?

Are they going to remain engaged?

Who cares?

It's all good (for ratings), and you can see it all unfold again next week on Pimp My Bride.

So, Mr. Network Executive... do we have a show?

Update: Kevin at Cadet Happy whipped up an awesome image for Pimp My Bride and dropped it into sarahk's "real" site with all her other reality show addictions (right column). Now to pitch this to Fox...

Update 12/3: This article was the #1 search result for "Pimp Juice" on popdex ("the Website Popularity Index") for 12/1. Heh.

Dubya's Thanksgiving 2004 Proclaimation

From the White House:

All across America, we gather this week with the people we love to give thanks to God for the blessings in our lives. We are grateful for our freedom, grateful for our families and friends, and grateful for the many gifts of America. On Thanksgiving Day, we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come from the Almighty God.

Almost four centuries ago, the Pilgrims celebrated a harvest feast to thank God after suffering through a brutal winter. President George Washington proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789, and President Lincoln revived the tradition during the Civil War, asking Americans to give thanks with "one heart and one voice." Since then, in times of war and in times of peace, Americans have gathered with family and friends and given thanks to God for our blessings.

Thanksgiving is also a time to share our blessings with those who are less fortunate. Americans this week will gather food and clothing for neighbors in need. Many young people will give part of their holiday to volunteer at homeless shelters and food pantries. On Thanksgiving, we remember that the true strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of the American people. By seeking out those who are hurting and by lending a hand, Americans touch the lives of their fellow citizens and help make our Nation and the world a better place.

This Thanksgiving, we express our gratitude to our dedicated firefighters and police officers who help keep our homeland safe. We are grateful to the homeland security and intelligence personnel who spend long hours on faithful watch. And we give thanks for the Americans in our Armed Forces who are serving around the world to secure our country and advance the cause of freedom. These brave men and women make our entire Nation proud, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifice.

On this Thanksgiving Day, we thank God for His blessings and ask Him to continue to guide and watch over our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2004, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all Americans to gather together in their homes and places of worship to reinforce the ties of family and community and to express gratitude for the many blessings we enjoy.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

The BBC Foulkes Up

In an article titled "Housing Report slams US and Sudan," Imogen Foulkes of the BBC reports on the Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) condemnation of the United States and several other nations because of high homelessness rates.

As an American citizen I was extremely surprised by the news story, as when I think of world homelessness, I tend to think first of developing nations with high birth rates, not the world's sole remaining superpower. Upon further reading, in the second paragraph of the story, I happen to notice an unfamiliar term-"forced evictions." What, exactly, does that mean?

You would be hard-pressed to find a direct answer from the BBC article, but it seems that the condition of "forced eviction homelessness" Foulkes highlighted is readily apparent on the COHRE site, and is defined as:

the removal of people from their homes or lands against their will, directly or indirectly attributable to the State. It is a widespread practice affecting persons in developed and developing countries.

Wow…where I live? I read more.

There is invariably an element of "force" or coercion involved and the use of physical and psychological violence is also common. To implement a forced eviction, it is now common practice for governments to employ armed police officers, SWAT teams, criminal gangs or hired thugs and bulldozers to ensure a complete and successful eviction. COHRE receives regular reports of the use of severe violence during forced eviction including killings, beatings, rape and torture.

Now, as a blogger, I just felt stupid. Completely incompotent.

I've spent countless hours breathlessly searching the web for news of relevance to write about, to the point that sweat is dripping from my pajamas and pooling around my fuzzy bunny slippers, and I miss a case of this magnitude, virtually in my own back yard?

I had yet to hear of cases where NYPD SWAT teams murdered and raped, or raped and then murdered, tenants that did not pony up their monthly rent.

I knew obtaining rent-controlled apartments in Manhattan was very competitive, but I didn't think it had gone so far as to necessitate torture. I thought that was a right reserved for housing co-op boards.

I fought down an urge to call Mayor Bloomberg's 311 line, and left the COHRE site to return to the BBC article, so that I could bring the full weight of evidence of this atrocity into the public eye.

As I rejoined her BBC article, Foulkes went on to say that the US was cited for not only high levels of homelessness, but for criminalizing acts such as sleeping on a park bench. Oh, the horrors! But before I could renounce my citizenship and run for the Canadian border, I caught the next paragraph, where it stated the US:

was also cited because of its activities outside US borders. The centre claims indiscriminate bombing in Iraq has destroyed thousands of homes.

Wait just a minute...

I put down my copy of The SAS Survival Handbook and sat staring at my computer monitor, stunned.

The article nearly took me in, and instead of a true human rights report, I find a blatantly anti-American screed.

Let me get this straight: this "journalist" and a bunch of Euro-dunces takes issue with the fact we are disenfranchising Islamofascists in Iraq from their rights to fortified positions?

Something stinks in London, and it isn't the Thames.

Not only does this "journalist" (and I use that term loosely) fault the United States for these so-called crimes, but she refuses to mention, in any way, that the terrorist forces in Iraq are commandeering these houses-often committing the very rapes, murders, and torture COHRE seems to want to credit to the U.S.-and thereby forcing coalition forces, in military terms, to "reduce" these structures to save the lives of peaceable Iraqis who are being terrorized, murdered and raped by terrorists who have taken over their own homes.

Apparently Imogen Foulkes and COHRE doesn't care if the house is being lived in by the rightful owners or being used as a weapons cache, rape room, or torture center, as long as it is still erect and even so much as a terrorist can call it "home."

No, Foulkes and the COHRE instead use this as an excuse to attack the United States on the most dubious of charges, while commending Sao Paulo, Brazil for their policies on treating the homeless. Unless Brazil has recently moved or there is another Sao Paulo, this is the same city where no less than another BBC article showed the police there have been accused of murdering the homeless in their sleep.

Nice.

Once upon a time I though that the BBC was a credible news organization. It is quite a shame to realize that they, too, are Rather biased.

Update: Upon further reading, COHRE takes issue with the United States for confiscating the homes of drug dealers, and those homes used as drug dens, or what we tend to call "crack houses." I guess in their eyes, violating the law is not a crime.

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclaimation

Thanks to PBS for their site Discovering George Washington for providing the text of this speech.

Proclaimation of National Thanksgiving

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Let's hope the atheists and agnostics among us among us don't get too upset that this is indeed a religious holiday, a national day of thanks to a higher power.

From Confederate Yankee and Family: Y'all have a safe and happy Thanksgiving, and God Bless.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)

Rather Biased Reporting: 1962-2004

Bye, Dan.

Update: I think I may have been outdone. "Pajamahadeen" indeed.

Little Green Foul Balls -Redux

It seems that once again Charles and I are disagreeing about the issue of photojournalist Kevin Sites. For those of you who did not catch the last thread I wrote on the subject, I felt the crowd at Little Green Footballs was wrong to vilify Sites for shooting the video of a Marine killing a wounded terrorist inside a Fallujah mosque that had been used for days as a fortified bunker.

I had taken the time to read a few of the entries at Sites' blog, and thought that he wasn't the left-wing apologist bent on fabricating the news that many were accusing him of being. I said that I thought Sites showed himself to be another war correspondent trying to make sense of the insanity of a combat zone.

Over the weekend, Sites wrote Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1 in an attempt to explain the decision he made to release the video he shot in Fallujah.

I agree with LGF that the information about the incident itself has not changed from the original report. No, where I disagree with Charles is where he asserts that Sites is somehow of less importance as a human being for being a war correspondent and not a Marine rifleman.

He seems to imply that Sites is a traitor by saying Sites, "doesn't share the goals of the people operating the weapons."

I must ask: what kind of America does Charles Johnson want to live in?

The "goal" of America has always seemed to me to be promoting individual liberties and freedom for every human being. I firmly feel that the freedom of our press to operate freely, without censorship, is our single greatest long-term weapon ensuring that freedom, not the use bullets and bombs.

The free exchange of ideas may not ensure individual truths, but it does ensure the discussion of larger truths important to the essence of our democracy.

Journalists reporting stories as accurately as they can "straight down the middle" do not create dangerous long-term situations. Censoring our media and turning them into propaganda mills creates danger for the very foundation of our democracy.

If we are as strong and kind and noble as we would like to believe ourselves to be, then honest reporting of even the most difficult, complex stories is no threat to our society or way of life. Contrary to some popular wisdom, the airing of this video does not constitute a "defeat." This story, and others like it, are bound to emerge In Iraq as they do in every war.

The measure of our society and its values emerges in how we respond to these events.

In my opinion, Sites himself said it quite well in his Open Letter:

The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.

There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation -by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.

I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Fallujah began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:

"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."

We are the good guys.

And as long as we have the courage of our convictions and the faith to never compromise our liberties for what may be politically expedient, we will remain strong, we will remain just, and we will remain an example for those in the Middle East and around the world that aspire to freedom.

I believe Ben Franklin is credited with once saying:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I would think Mr. Franklin would be very disappointed to know that so many seem to be willing to stifle the essential freedoms of the First Amendment in the childish hopes that by suppressing a few seconds of video, our mortal enemies would somehow be less bent on our ultimate and total destruction.

Those that feel this way have neither an understanding of our enemy, nor of the essential nature of this country that makes it worth fighting for.

Where is Michael Moore's intellectual honesty?

Michael Moore, the activist filmmaker that excoriated George Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 for alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, is strangely silent on the news that these same Saudi interests, including the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen, funneled millions of dollars into the Presidential library of one William Jefferson Clinton.

The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar (state-owned apparatus of Arab news outlet Al Jazeera ) also each donated a million or more.

Somehow, I don't see the hypocritical Moore making a video condemning Clinton, either Bill or Hillary. Moore is great at slickly-edited partisanship, but lousy at seeking or presenting any sort of true intellectual honesty.

The Arrogance of Amphibians

In a visit to Britain Friday to try to improve relations between crumpet-eating mammals and spine-deprived amphibians, Jacques Chirac huffed:

"It's not for any given country to consider that a situation is open to stepping in and interfering," he told a question-and-answer session with students at Oxford University, according to the UK's Press Association in a sentence that either Chirac or the British has trouble translating into coherent English.

"It's up to the international community to do so and particularly the U.N., which alone has the authority to interfere," he said in remarks apparently aimed at the United States and its involvement in Iraq.

He went on to hold forth about the importance of dialogue between Europe and "the world's major poles" -- China, India, Brazil, Russia and various trading blocs according to CNN.

"For although our memory is sometimes short, the peoples submitted to the West's domination in the past have not forgotten and are quick to see a resurgence of imperialism and colonialism in our actions."

This would be presumably the same world whose United Nation's had Security Council members Russia, China, and France accepting lucrative bribes in the ongoing Oil-For-Food scandal with Saddam Hussein's Baathist Iraq. These five same Security Council members were understandably against any action against their revenue stream Iraq, and would have vetoed any military action by the United States against Saddam's regime.

So, Jacques Chirac, the President of France, is against the use of unilateral military force by Western powers, and thinks we should guard against actions that might be taken as resurgent colonialism?

I'm sure Ivory Coast appreciates that sentiment.

For those of you who can't keep up with African maps that change with more frequency than the bug splatter patterns on a NASCAR windscreen, Ivory Coast is a former French colony in the middle of a civil war that pits the dictatorial Laurent Gbagbo government against northern rebel forces.

On November 6 Gbagbo's forces launched an air strike against rebel positions, and nine French soldiers were killed in the attack, presumably while trying to surrender.

So France of course followed their own recommendations to the Americans, right?

They of course called an emergency session of the United Nations, where a timetable was arranged to start strategically applying increasingly stronger-worded resolutions over a multi-decade time period until Gbagbo died of boredom, or old age. That is what they have been telling us to do with Iraq for several years, so obviously that would the correct course of action in these kinds of circumstances, oui?

Well, someone apparently forgot to pass along the "timetable for peace" to the French military, as their response to the killing of their handful of peacekeepers was to wipe out the Ivory Coast Air Force.

This overkill response led to outrage among Gbagbo's government loyalists, and the French have now found themselves in a situation where they are being blamed for shooting into a crowd of anti-French demonstrators, killing over 60. As tensions escalate in an impending showdown in Africa, one can only assume that Jacques Chirac was either a complete fraud in his call for sanctions in Iraq, or he was simply too arrogant to think that his advocacy of a world authority would actually apply to him.

Update: According to feeds compiled by Instapundit, French soldiers were caught on video indiscriminately firing up African civilians (additional updates available here), though exact details and context seem to be lacking.

Unlike the video of the American Marine shooting a terrorist in Fallujah, this story is getting swept under the rug by the international media. The AP, Reuters, and other news agencies seem to be ignoring the story entirely, and the BBC makes no mention of the video and focuses more on the French denial of beheading victims.

The international apathy to French attrocities is appalling. Of course, we've seen French "diplomacy" in action before.

The campaign button probably didn't help

According to the fair and balanced media, John Kerry believes he lost to George Bush because of the release of a video from Osama bin Laden right before the election.

Though mentioned before, I can only wonder why he feels that might be the case.

Update: Sometimes great minds think alike. Steve H. posted an almost identical picture back on November 1 on Hog On Ice, about 24 hours before I posted my version of the same idea on another message board.

I suspect he has a time machine beside his brewing equipment, but I could be wrong...

Madison, put down those matches

Not content to make assinine comments in this moron-a-thon that were largely (and perhaps overzealously) debunked here, another Cheese-stater has shown his bigoted hatred by calling Dr. Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom" who wasn't a competent Secretary of State.

How "white" of him.

For some reason, parts of the country want to believe that the bigot is alive and well and isolated to those more temperate regions of the country. They think of Sins of the Father and Mississippi Burning when they think of those "backward" red staters, and tend to think that where they live is right as rain.

Well, I have news for you, folks. It isn't like that.

Southerners are burying our past and moving on. It's time the rest of you, from the idiots above to this guy, try to do the same.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

Calling Kerry's Libel Bluff

According to the gossip-laden Page Six of the New York Post, Senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry is considering filing a libel lawsuit against the leader of the Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth, John O'Neill. 800,00 copies of O'Neill's book Unfit For Command and a series of television commercials produced by the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth attacked Kerry's war record and branded him a traitor.

The Post added:

Now, "the Kerry camp is thinking about filing a libel lawsuit against Regnery and O'Neill," a source close to the candidate's inner circle tells PAGE SIX. "I don't know if they will actually go forward, but consideration is serious. If Kerry plans on running again in 2008 - and I'm hearing he will - it would make sense that he'd file the suit."

I'll go ahead and promise Mr. O'Neill he won't have to loose one night's sleep over this empty threat for a very simple reason: Kerry's bluffing, and not bluffing very well at that.

If Kerry files suit against O'Neill, Regnery Publishing or Unfit's co-author Jerome Corsi, John Kerry's service records, so long and successfully hidden from public view, will become key pieces of evidence for the defense, and therefore, public knowledge.

While the liberal mainstream media has been almost as careful about avoiding Kerry's record as it has recklessly and occasionally fraudulently challenged Bush's, they know that Kerry has failed to file a release of his service record, and that as many as 94 pages are hidden. Why?

Good question.

We do know that any libel lawsuit by the Kerry campaign against Mr. O'Neill will bring the uncomfortable glare of the media spotlight on a man who has so far managed to avoid answering questions about his unusual discharge circumstances, his own repeated lies about the "Christmas in Cambodia" myth he created, his fraternization with an enemy he himself categorized as "terrorists" in Paris, and other mysteries that happened between his enlistment and eventual discharge.

In poker terms, John Kerry is "drawing dead."

It's time we called his bluff.

I can't wait for that free national heathcare...

I wonder if this is what Hillary had in mind.

Link "borrowed" from one of those nice red-state dog lovers.

Ronstadt speaks out

According to WorldNetDaily, has-been singer Linda Ronstadt has gone on the rant against those of us from the more enlightened regions of the country, declaring that "People don't realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves," and that we're dealing with a "a new bunch of Hitlers."

Don't beat her up too bad, though.

She seems to be gravely ill.

Tolerable versus terrible journalism

I've gotten some attention based upon my support of a certain liberal photojournalist's attempt to break what he felt was an important story in Fallujah. Interestingly enough, some think becuase I support a journalist who happens to be liberal in this instance, they jump to the conclusion that I support all liberal journalism. They should probably read my blog more (bookmarking it is optional).

No, there is a world of difference between reporting a valid if controversial story with a moderate degree of bias, and completely making stuff up, a la Robert Fisk.

Fisk has long had a reputation as a hardcore liberal apologist. His coverage of the Margaret Hassan murder and mutilation by terrorists is a perfect example of crossing the line from liberal media bias to blatant propoganda.

Fisk opines:

So if anyone doubted the murderous nature of the insurgents, what better way to prove their viciousness than to produce evidence of Margaret Hassan's murder?

What more ruthless way could there be of demonstrating to the world that America and Alawi's tinpot army was fighting "evil" in Fallujah and the other Iraqi cities that are now controlled by Washington's enemies.

No, of course we cannot say that Alawi was involved in Margaret Hassan's death, even though he would have hated her political views.

Just because the "Interim Prime Minister" is widely believed in Baghdad to have executed seven prisoners in the Amariya Police Station just before taking office - he denies this - should not suggest he would ever have a hand in so terrible a deed.

But the question remains: Who killed Margaret Hassan?

This revolting bile spewed forth by Fisk absolves the terrorists who abducted and murdered Hassan of all guilt, and not only that, it implys that the leader of a fledgling democracy is responsible for not only her death, but the murder of seven others.

Kevein Sites provided video and commentary from his perspective of an event he witnessed firsthand. Robert Fisk excretes his own twisted apologist views and sourceless street rumors into an editorial and tries to pass it off as a news article. There is a huge gulf of distance betwee these two viewpoints, and it would be worthwhile for all of us to remember that.

Little Green Foul Balls

Charles Johnson has an awesome blog at Little Green Footballs (one of my daily reads), but I think he's making a bad call by villifying Kevin Sites. Sites is the NBC reporter that shot the infamous video several days ago of a Marine killing a wounded terrorist inside a Fallujah mosque that had been used for days as a fortified bunker.

I wrote in a previous thread that I'd reviewed Sites' own photoblog, and he seems much more like a later day Ernie Pyle trying to accurately explain life in a combat zone to his readers than a left-wing apologist bent on fabricating the news.

But don't take my word for it.

Read some of Ernie Pyle's columns from World War II and then the latest available entry from Sites in Fallujah. They are far more alike than different.

Kevin Sites seems to be one journalist who tries to be objective, and to attack him personally for objectively reporting a tough story does not serve our democracy well.

Note: This thread has been picked up by Instapundit.com. Thanks, Glen.

Mr. Consistency...

In his first interview since his November 2 loss, Kerry was asked by the Fox News in Boston about running again in 2008.

He replied, "It is so premature to be thinking about something that far down the road. What I've said is I'm not opening any doors, I'm not shutting any doors."

Those flip-flops must be really comfortable.

K'Mears Stores

As reported by a reputable news outlet, Sears and K-Mart, two retail giants, are set to merge.

Since both chains have such a strong base in the South, they are considering a new marketing strategy where stores below the Manson-Nixon line will be called "K'Mears" with the slogan:

"Y'all wanna buy stuff? K'Mears!"

Mama will be soooo happy. Now she can get all her Bob Stewart and Martha Villa stuff all in one place...

A touch of Grey in Fallujah

Remember a movie called Red Dawn?

In that movie, a wounded insurgent, played by a young Jennifer Grey, hides a grenade under her bullet-ridden body as she lay dying, so that when the enemy soldier comes to check on her, he gets blown up.

This seems eerily similar to the situation the young Marine faced in that Fallujah mosque, and from the perspective of the movie, I can't disagree with his decision.

"It's all political"

I said earlier that I don't know enough to judge the situation regarding the Marine that killed a wounded terrorist in Fallujah, but according to an al Rueters story, his fellow Marines are rallying around him, even as they support an investigation of the incident. To me, that means they feel that there is nothing to hide.

Charles wonders about the motivations of the NBC reporter who broke the story. I'm not so sure.

Kevin Sites doesn't seem like someone with an anti-military grudge, at least not by what I've see on his web site. While I've never been in combat, I think it would be mighty difficult to be prejudiced against the men you're embedded with, and I can't find any overt anti-Marine bias in what I've seen of his reporting.

Time will tell.

Interestingly enough, some of the MSM seem to be playing this one close to the vest. Maybe the incident will be treated in context after all.

Update: Maybe the Marine shooter should get a Silver Star?

The Pornography of War

As I write this, the Dowd's and Krugman's of the left are doubtlessly wringing their hands with macabre delight. A videotape has surfaced apparently showing a Marine in Fallujah firing a shot into the head of a wounded terrorist lying on the floor of the mosque he'd used as a bunker.

The New York Times will run this on the front page for several weeks if they can find a way to justify it, and Dan Rather will make sure it leads every broadcast as long as he thinks it can be used against the administration. The shrieking classes are almost sexually titillated as they ache for another Abu Graib as an excuse to attack a U.S. military they have always loathed.

We will see the still photos and the few brief seconds of video hundreds, if not thousands of times in the days and weeks ahead. What we will not see is the true story, and the media, which is not equipped to handle the truth, will most likely not even try to provide it in their rush to an accusatory climax.

This is what we know.

Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, came under fire from terrorists hiding in a mosque on Friday. 10 terrorists were killed and five more were wounded. The following day, another group of Marines from the same unit engaged in battle, and an embedded correspondent reported seeing fresh gunshot wounds on terrorists that had been injured the previous day.

It was during this second day operation that a group of Marines is seen coming up upon this group of terrorists, and a Marine is heard to yell several times, "He's faking he's dead!" The Marine then fired a single shot, killing the terrorist.

You will probably here most of this part of the story from the mainstream media, right before they try to crucify our soldiers in an almost orgasmic lust.

Here is what they won't tell you.

They won't tell you that shortly before this incident, one Marine was killed and five were injured when a booby-trapped body went off just a block away.

They won't tell you that insurgents that have faked being dead or wounded have risen up to shoot at our troops from behind in this battle. The will probably "forget" to mention that four of the five terrorists in the video had fresh wounds, meaning that after being wounded the first day and left to be taken prisoner, then once again raised arms and tried to kill American soldiers after having once been spared.

I don't know if what this young Marine did was right. I wasn't there. I can't imagine the pressure of days of close quarters battle. I simply don't now enough to form a judgment at this time. I will withhold judgment and let the Uniform Code of Military Justice runs its course.

War is jarringly violent and chaotic. I hope the media can try to understand this as they rush to pass judgment on this Marine, in what is almost sure to be a pornographic display of media hatred for this administration and our soldiers in the field.

Speechless

I see the next crop is coming along nicely.

An Avenging Angel at the CIA

While it is far too early to intelligently speculate about the new team Bush will try to assemble for his second term as President, indications from a recent appointee seem to indicate Bush's version of Team America will not accept dissention within the ranks.

Porter Goss, the former spymaster now heading the CIA, is clearing out the deadwood in management. Two more officials "resigned" today from the CIA, and according to a Washington Post article:

Both men are highly regarded by their clandestine service colleagues, said 10 former CIA officials who have worked with them.

Of course, commentary from the CIA to the news just like this is exactly why these men needed to be "resigned."

The CIA is supposed to be a spy agency, which it clearly has not been for the last decade in any effective way. With John McCain calling the CIA a "rouge" agency with a political agenda instead of an intelligence service, Goss is right in telling these paper-pushers to ship out.

The job of the CIA is to provide intelligence, not attempt to sway public opinion.

I'm glad that someone in Washington finally realized that. It's amazing that this was even an issue after the multiple and broad CIA failures noted in the 9/11 Commission Report and other critical reports and books.

Goss, thankfully, understood the importance of having an intelligence service that works for the administration and the country instead of against it. His "can do" attitude is certain to strike fear into career CIA bureaucrats the way another famous Porter did when he took care of business in his own environment 150 years ago. If Goss is any indication of the character of men and women Bush will appoint, Bush's second term is going to be fun to watch and blog.

Update: wretchard of Belmont Club provides an excellent analysis of the CIA culture Goss is trying to reform.

Watch where you spend it, Mr. President

It has been almost two weeks since 51% of American voters decided to give George Bush a second term as President of the United States. Bush not only won the election with a majority; he picked up support across a wide range of demographics when compared against the 2000 election. In addition, the Republicans not only won the White House, they picked up four seats each in the House and Senate, while deposing Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Liberalism may not be dead, but the public issued a strong admonition against it.

In this charged political atmosphere President Bush and the Republicans feel they have earned some political capital, and they say that they intend to spend it. Let's just hope they decide to spend it on the right things. From what I've seen so far, President Bush has good ideas that his capital is worth investing in, if it doesn't get wasted upon issues with the potential to be costly mistakes.

Gay Marriage Amendment
Quite frankly, this stands to be a Pyrrhic victory, at the very best, and could cost President Bush dearly while stoking the fires of his liberal obstructionist opponents. Most Americans don't feel comfortable with the proposition of a Constitutional amendment that seems to have the sole purpose of limiting the rights of a group of American citizens.

The Republicans need to remember that they did not win the election because of the Religious Right. No, the Republicans won because of moderate voters, Democrat, Republican and Independent, that thought the more conservative values of the traditional Republican party trumped the liberal extremism being displayed by Democrats. If the GOP lets the extremists of the far right drive this amendment, they can expect to lose the popular support that have steadily been gaining over the past few elections. This should be a state's rights issue, and the GOP would be wise to step away from this on the federal level if they hope to pick up more seats in the 2006 elections.

Border Security/Illegal Immigration
The elephant in the room that neither side wanted to discuss during the campaign. The popular excuse has always been that the Republicans don't want to take away cheap labor from Big Business, and Democrats were silent because they tend to consider new immigrants (legal or otherwise) "money in the bank" for a variety of reasons on Election Day. That mindset should have changed in the wake of September 11, 2001.

The 9/11 Commission Report and ongoing intelligence operations show that our borders are exceedingly porous, an unforgivable sin considering what we know and what we suspect may be coming into the country. Bush's response so far has been anemic at best, and embarrassing at worst. We need stronger border security, not amnesty for lawbreakers. Bush's current lackadaisical attitude on the subject may have fatal consequences that could not only cripple his second term, but replicate or exceed the human tragedy of that day in September three years ago.

These are two issues where many of us voted for you despite your position, Mr. President. Don't make us wonder if we wasted our capital on November 2.

Dear Mr. "Swift"

I read with some amusement the almost coherent babble on your new web site. I find it quite interesting that you blame "the South" for a Bush re-election, when in fact, the "reddest" counties were in the Midwest and West, including every county bordering your home base of Madison, WI as well. I'm sorry that we can't all be as urbane and enlightened and indeed, mature as you are, but let's try to face some factual problems with your little hatefest, shall we?

The Second Amendment, sir, is about making sure Americans have sufficient arms to prevent tyranny, sir, which would by definition included military-capable arms of the day, including what you erroneously call "assault weapons" in your ignorance of the mechanics of the law and of firearms design.

In addition, you didn't kill half a million people in the Civil War. Of the 618,222 men who died in the Civil War, 414,152 died from disease, not combat. When it comes to combat losses, the South lost 94,000 and the Union lost 110,070. Also, the war was fought primarily about states rights, not slavery. Do get you facts, correct, sir. They seem to be in short supply in your region, or at least, in your house.

"We" founded this country? "We" did not include Wisconsin, sir, as one of the 13 colonies. You may also want to reconsider you conscending, arrogant "we started this country" diatribe, as you, in fact, did not.

Both the Mecklenburg Resolves (May 31, 1775) and the Halifax Resolves (April 12, 1776) preceeded the Declaration of Independence, and The Halifax Resolves were the first formal call for American sovereignty. The first American military victory was also in North Carolina, at a place called Moore's Creek where on February 27, 1776 a thousand North Carolina patriots routed Scottish Highlanders for the first patriot victory of the Revolutionary War, months before the official Declaration of Independence was was signed on July 4th. Southerners also fought and won the turning point battle of the Revolutionary War at Kings Mountain, wiping out Ferguson's forces, killing or capturing every man. The Battle of Cowpens, made famous by Mel Gibson in The Patriot was also a major victory in the Carolinas in 1781, which led to the eventual defeat of British Forces in Yorktown, Virginia, which the last I checked, was part of the South, under the command of General George Washington, who was also a Southerner from Virginia. The Revolutionary War was decided in the South,sir, by the South, sir. Perhaps you should review your history.

You would like to whine about taxes and self-sufficiency, sir? We can play that game as well. It is hearby decreed that every county in the U.S. that voted "Blue" should be entitled to keep every single dime it produces in tax revenue. Will that make you happy, sir?

In exchange, the "Red" counties will not longer be required to provide these predominantly urban "Blue" areas with "Red" food and water. You'll have your tax money, but you'll be dead in a month from starvation and disease, sir. I guess we simple Southerners will share that orange juice amongst ourselves, won't we?

One last comment: regardless of party, a Southerner has been in the White House for five of the last six Presidencies, and that trend shows no signs of stopping, sir.

So enjoy your cheese, sir, and feel free to enjoy your whine as well, while we Southerners run the country for another four years.

Good Day, sir.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 01:45 PM

Remembering

Today is Veteran's Day, the day we remember those who have fought and those who have fallen for our freedom, and the freedom of others. I thought I would share an appropriate passage from a story I wrote many, many years ago.

The monuments in Washington all seemed false in the cool morning mist. They were big and white and extravagant, yet the tourists cheapened them somehow as they gawked, took photos, and scurried to the next place on their list of things to see. Their attention seemed to fous on what things were rather than why they were. The scene was a poor example of Americana. Even Honest Abe seemed to frown from his throne. Of all the walls of stone only one seemed real.

This wall's long black marble slices into the ground. On it are engraved fifty-eight thousand American names from an undeclared war that no one wants to remember in the jungles of a country half a globe away. There are no ornate scrolls or stenciled directions, no fancy faded pieces of parchment, no self-serving sentiments, just names.

There's also a statue some distance away. Three bronze soldiers stare into the wall, waiting for word of their fellow soldiers, or perhaps morning their loss. The soldiers don't talk; they simply stare. They are all just boys, most of them only six years older than I was then: nineteen.

Under the statue-soldier's gaze, an elderly man lagged behind a tour at the wall. He caressed it and knelt to leave a single rose at its based. He sobbed. He had difficulty standing up. A nearby park attendant helped him and asked, "One of your sir?" The old man shook his head and replied, "Not just one of them. All of them."

God bless those who serve.

Sick blogging/Thoughts on liberal succession

Sickness sucks
Bloggins is late and light today. Yesterday's sore throat evolved into today's bronchitis, so off to the physician I went. My doctor always creeps me out a little. He looks too much like Skinner from the X-Files, and every time he puts the flashlight thing in my mouth and makes me say "ah," I half expect an alien probe to Cartman out the other end.

But I have drugs now, so tomorrow I should be better.

Thoughts on liberal succession
This has been handled quite well on various blogs across the 'net, but when you're titled Confederate Yankee you feel obligated to make at least some comment on the subject.

My comment? I advise my liberal friends who want to go this route to stock up on canned goods, bottled water, and Glade plug-ins. Why?

As a reader noted on Powerline, a truly fair and equal succession would occur on a county-by-county basis, turning many metropolitan areas into liberal "reservations."

As these predominantly urban areas are incapable of supporting enough farming and ranching to feed their own populations, starvation is a short-term possibility and a long-term certainty. Granted, the animals in the Bronx and Central Park zoos might provide enough meat for a fraction of the population for a week or two, but I don't think there are any good recipies for red panda anyway.

These same urban areas also rely on watersheds from far away "red" areas for their drinking and flushing needs, making drought, famine and disease probable. 72 hours without water from "red" upstate counties and the Big Apple will start smelling like the Big Diaper.

So think carefully before you make a decision, my liberal friends. We can possibly live without you, but you most assuredly cannot live without us.

Bab-ble

Babs is on the rant again. In her post-election missive, she tries to offer hope for the 48% of the country that backed a losing Kerry Edwards ticket by quoting from Thomas Jefferson:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

Perhaps Mrs. Streisand should read the entire document. For if she had read the entire letter to John Taylor from Jefferson in 1798, she might have realized that he was in fact referring to a time in our history where Jefferson's Virginia and my own native North Carolina were:

"...compleatly under the saddle of Massachusets & Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings as well as exhausting our strength and substance."

Jefferson was lamenting the undue influence of the anti-Republican northern states of his day that used the economic forces of the Northeast to tried to run roughshod over southern states of the Republic, states that today would be recognized as the rural "Red States" that coastal liberals are reacting against with such venom today.

Babs, do you get your information from Jane Smiley by any chance?

Note: This thread was picked up by The New Editor. Thanks, Tom.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 11:41 AM | Comments (0)

As we suspected...

According to NewsMax (which is about as balanced towards Kerry as the New York Times is towards Bush) Kerry describes in his diary his "meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris" in 1970. Of course, I always take anything Newsmax says with a grain of salt.

However, when the article cited by NewsMax in Newsweek supports the exact same story, I start to think that there might be something to this. The last paragraph on the first page of the Newsweek article reads:

[Senator] Edwards played along, but his aides were indignant.
They warned the veep candidate that the story was already out of control and about to get worse. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a wartime biography of Kerry, cautioned that Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris. Edwards was flabbergasted. "Let me get this straight," the senator said. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."

No wonder Osama wanted Bush out of the White House. In Kerry, he might have found exactly what he was looking for in a presidential candidate.

More from SeeBS

It looks like another retiree from the Tiffany Network is soiling his Depends over how some blogs were leaking exit poll data from last Tuesday's election.

Maybe he should try to remember which network tried to determine the course of an election with fake documents and biased bomb stories before he starting preaching in front of his glass house, eh?

What is a Confederate Yankee?

Confederate Yankee. noun. A Southern-born inhabitant of a northern U.S. State.

I infiltrated north of the Manson-Nixon line in 2000 to bring intelligence and perspective to a part of the country steeped in leftist propoganda and outright dowdification. While I have been here, I have noticed that there are differences between Northern and Southern cultures.

Southern rednecks have gun racks.

Northern Rednecks have snowplows.

Southern states have economic growth.

Northern States have unions.

Still, we are more alike than different.

I am here to try to help translate, and provide some down-home wisdom to those who have been deprived of the experience of growing up in the more enlightened, more intellectually stimulating southern region of the country.

Enjoy.

Don't blame Gavin

It seems that San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome is being offered as the sacrificial offering to the Democrat masses for the failure of the Kerry/Edwards ticket to capture the White House. According to the points-of-view I've seen offered up for the past few days, the near mythic power of the Evangelical was a dormant beast until Newsome decided to allow a few gay marriages.

As this theory apparently runs, the Evangelicals (which makes up about 59 million American voters if you listen to the way the mainstream media spin) felt that the Decline And Fall Of Civilization As We Know It would occur if Bruce and Steve were allowed to place rings on each other's fingers and say "I do."

To hear the media spin it, this barbaric act of exchanging rings was so outrageous that the so-called "morals voters" turned out in droves to reject this travesty of God's Law, and thus projected George W.Bush to the White House based upon their own bigotry and hatred of gays.

Maybe I'm not the typicalBushvoter, but that isn't what I was feeling on the way to the polls Tuesday morning.

Along with about 60% of America, I'm fine with Bruce and Steve having some form of legal and moral contract dedicating their lives to each other. My moral issues went a bit deeper than whether or not each household was composed of an equal number of adults preferring the toilet seat up or down.

My moral issues began with courage, conviction, integrity, and resolve, not gay marriage, or whether or not you beleive in God the same way that I do, or even if you believe in God at all. I found that for me, George W. Bush better exhibited these qualities of leadership better than John Kerry did, almost across the board.

Why?

We've had almost four years to judge George W. Bush in what fate shaped into a remarkable presidential term. To find a true position of leadership in John Kerry's life we have to go back over 30 years to four months in Vietnam, where his superiors and peers gave him less than stellar marks for his performance. These were the moral issues that troubled me, and the majority of American voters.

You see, we aren't just a bunch of bible-thumping rednecks. We have much more depth than the ineffectual intellectuals in the media would like you to believe. Gavin Newsome is just a whipping boy, an excuse. His opinion didn't affect the election in any appreciable way, despite what the media would have you beleive.

Call me crazy, but if you really want to find someone to blame for John Kerry's defeat, I think you might want to start with John Kerry.

Razing Arizona

On my drive to work Friday morning I listened to Paul Harvey, who mentioned that according to the 9/11 Commission Report, there were 59 references to al Qaeda activity in this border state. According to Arizona Monthly's feature article this month Al Qaeda Among Us (free registration required),

"...the most important nexus for international jihad outside of Pakistan and the Middle East has been Arizona."

Isn't that just peachy?

Specific attention is focused on the Islamic Center of Tucson (ITC) which according to the article, seems to little more than an al Qaeda base operating in the continental United States.

When you combine the Arizona Monthly article, to the chilling news that this past July, 25 Chechen terrorists slipped across the border from Mexico into the mountainous regions of Arizona before disappearing, then you have to wonder just how good our security is along our southern borders.

I think the goverment is correct in taking the fight to terrorists where they live and breed overseas, but when you let them in though the back door you open yourself up to dangerous and possibly catastrophic possibilities.

Let's get with the program, Washington.

Anatomy of an Idiot

I noticed with considerable amusement yesterday that according to Jane Smiley, 58 million American voters are complete idiots. Though apparently the victim of social promotion's influence on math skills, she is, of course, referring to the 59,459,765 Americans who chose to re-elect George W. Bush by a comfortable margin and a statistical majority over John Kerry.

In her vile, headlong rush to condemn the majority of American voters who voted red instead of blue, she seems to get her facts just a bit backward.

According to Smiley:

The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862-Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children.

Now, if history hasn't completely reversed itself recently, wasn't William Clarke Quantrill a Confederate raider?

According to PBS, the strongly pro-Union stronghold of Lawrence, Kansas, had 183 (again, social promotion does not help math skills) of their predominately Republican citizenry slaughtered by pro-slavery Democrats. These same Democrats, of course, went on to found the original Ku Klux Klan.

Of course, we are the party revelling in the "ignorance in America" so I guess she didn't think we'd notice her attempts to play fast and loose with the facts...

Us being idiots and all.

Note: This post got a mention by Glen Reynolds in an update of the Jane Smiley backlash over at Instapundit.com. Thanks Glen! Frank J. at IMAO picked it up as well. Thanks, guys.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)