Sick. Sick! Sick!! SICK!!!

Posted by: Rusty at 04:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Outrageous? Yes, but not quite as egregious as the mastermind of the nuclear proliferation ring, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was pardoned after he confessed to helping Libya & North Korea develop nuclear weapons. While no official charges have been pressed against Khan, he's been put under an unofficial sort of house arrest. Not so much as punishment, but to make sure he doesn't talk to the press and confirm what we all know: that he was working under the blessings of the Pakistani government in helping rogue nations develop nuclear weapons.

Defence Talk:

A South African court handed a German engineer who was involved in a global nuclear technology smuggling ring an 18-year suspended jail sentence on Tuesday, the SAPA news agency reported.

Gerhard Wisser will have to spend three years under house arrest as part of a plea bargain...

Wisser, former managing director of Johannesburg engineering company Krisch Engineering, had been accused of involvement in an international smuggling ring headed by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 5 words, total size 1 kb.

Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan has been acquitted of the three most serious charges arising from the Abu Ghraib scandal: failing to obey a lawful order by ordering dogs used for interrogations; cruelty and maltreatment for subjecting detainees to forced nudity and intimidation by dogs; and dereliction of a duty to properly train and supervise soldiers in humane interrogation rules.

Jordan was convicted on a lesser charge of disobeying an order not to discuss the abuse investigation. Jordan admitted to e-mailing others about the matter.

The usual suspects are seething and whining. AP:

"None of the cases brought to date has given the systemic accounting the nation needs of what happened, why and how far up the chain of command responsibility lies," Shamsi said. "It cries out for the kind of oversight and investigations that Congress can do."

Of course, nothing short of pinning the Blame on Bush of Rumsfeld is adequate for the Left. The same people who were shocked and horrified about our side building naked pyramids but say next to nothing when our enemies systematically torture and murder civilians.

As I've said many times before the sick cruelty of the prison guards at Abu Ghraib is torture in the same way that my three older brothers constantly tortured me. Abuse, yes....but torture, no.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

We'll just go ahead and make this an all Mojo Nixon themed day. Why? Because this blog could use some fixin......

The surveillance video showing what I presume is Mojo Nixon stealing Elvis's gun is below. Who else but Mojo would have the balls and motive to steal the King's 9 mill?

Here's the story on the gun's recovery from what I'm guessing is an intern:

Security video shows a man, a real "devil in disguise" walking to a display case at an Elvis museum in Memphis last week...The gun was taken from the Elvis after dark museum last Tuesday during a week where fans from across the world converged on Graceland to mark the 30th anniversary of Elvis' death.

The museum is across the street from Graceland....

A cleaning person found the gun in the portable toilet, and handed it over to police.

And realizing it's "Now or Never", the "Hound Dog" palmed the pistol and "left the building".

Video below more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

But now, legal analysts say the prosecution's case is in jeopardy.

They spoke after investigative officers recommended that two of the seven Haditha defendants should be spared courts-martial, largely because of weak evidence.

A third defendant was recommended for trial yesterday.

“I think that unless they get a Marine eyewitness to roll over, they are going to have a hard time prosecuting the cases,” said Jane Siegel, a former Marine judge and longtime defense lawyer in San Marcos. “The government has to know that as the investigation gets older and older, the case gets colder and colder and harder and harder to prove.”

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Man. In with a bang, looking to go out with a whimper. The MSM seems quite mum on Haditha recently. I wonder why.

Who was cheerleading the bang, other than the TIME, the mainstream press, John Murtha (D), terrorists, etc.?

Posted by: Good Lt. at 03:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

(Wilson County, Tennessee) Tennessee-based 21-year-old porn starlet, Justis Richert aka "Barbie Cummings" (pic), was issued a speeding ticket by Tennessee Highway Patrol Trooper Randy Moss. During the traffic stop, Trooper Moss apparently found some illegal pills in Richert's possession and, according to Richert, he agreed to throw them away in return for oral sex.

However, once it became known that Richert traded her services to avoid an illegal pills charge, Trooper Moss, 40, resigned his position.

Under her porn film name, Cummings wrote on her blog that Moss took photos and video of their encounter in May and sent copies to her.

She also wrote that she told the trooper she made "dirty movies" and they then watched sex videos together in his patrol car.

Presumably, Richert/Cummings thought she could also blow off the speeding ticket so she didn't appear in court on Friday. By failing to appear, she instead blew the chance to have the charge dismissed because Moss wasn't in court. She now must pay $159 within two weeks.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:33 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1 In todays celebrity driven culture nobody can keep their mouth shut....after its been open.

Posted by: Randman at July 02, 2007 07:38 PM (Sal3J)

2 I know, but in this case her open mouth was full of something

Posted by: Richard Romano at July 02, 2007 09:23 PM (iD1fP)

3 More usefull than some of the females on this blog.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 02, 2007 10:13 PM (nI+kp)

4 That sucks!

Posted by: JihadGene at July 03, 2007 12:09 AM (l8Hl5)

5 This is an outrage, double jepardy!!!!  If this cop doesn't pay this girl's fine for her, he should be beaten severely about the head and neck area.

Posted by: Howie at July 03, 2007 10:06 AM (YHZAl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

An unbelievable story, with a good ending.

A judge today ordered that Genarlow Wilson be freed from prison, where he has spent more than two years for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.

Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson also amended Wilson's felony conviction to a misdemeanor without the requirement that he register as a sex offender.

Wilson's lawyer, B.J. Bernstein, appealed to a judge Wednesday to free him from prison, arguing that his 10-year prison sentence and inclusion on the state's sex offender registry is grossly disproportionate and violates the Constitution.

Bernstein also pointed to how the Legislature changed the law since Wilson's conviction to make similar acts a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in prison. Wilson, now 21, has been locked up for more than two years.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:41 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

1 they freed a black kiddie rapist and you call that justice?

60 days max before he has committed another felony.

Posted by: Jake Roberts at June 11, 2007 01:07 PM (DCZ7U)

2 #1 Jake Roberts, You are sooooo stupid! This kid didn't deserve his sentence a it was a huge miscarriage of justice.

Posted by: allahakchew at June 11, 2007 01:13 PM (m2p07)

3 I have a friend who had the exact thing happen to him. He was 17 and his GF was 15. He didn't get prison but he is on probation and the sex offender list here in Texas. Nice that justice was served in this case at least.

Posted by: Randman at June 11, 2007 01:23 PM (Sal3J)

4 remember his name.  those people get out of prison and their is always a 99.9% repeat offender rate.

some poor law abiding citizen will be destroyed by this felon.

Posted by: Jake Roberts at June 11, 2007 01:27 PM (DCZ7U)

5 You can look at this two ways. On one hand, ten years for a consensual sex act, even one with a minor, seems a bit excessive. On the other hand, the law was passed by a duly elected state legislature. Even though the law has been changed now, when he did the crime the punishment was ten years.

My test for laws like this and age of consent laws is to imagine that the person over the age of consent is 50 years old. Would you guys really be comfortable with a misdemeanor conviction and a year in jail (and not having to register as a sex offender) if a 50 year old had gotten a blowjob from a 15 year old?

Posted by: Shivv at June 11, 2007 01:32 PM (v8h2M)

6 when i was 17  (12th grade senior) some of my classmates dated freshmen (10th grade 15 year olds) i hope he sues

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at June 11, 2007 01:55 PM (NV4Fm)

7 I've read on another link people decrying the Court's decision proclaiming "the law is the law".
 
As a former Assistant State Attorney, I've seen "the law as the law" where its effect was unjust. Had one case where a 17 year old white hispanic boy was having sexual intercourse with a 15 year old white girl. Under "the law is the law", this boy was charged as an adult and was facing 15 years. I was the prosecutor on the case and I saw the boy sitting in the audience. He was small and so scared he looked frail. When studying the case, I realized the "victim" was smarter and more mature than he was. The "victim" tutored him in some of his classes and they had dated and engaged in multiple sexual acts of intercourse during the time they dated which lasted up to the the time of his arrest. I as his prosecutor was upset that he chatted away to police, admitting everything, tell them he loved her and wanted to marry her. Where was his damn attorney!!!
 
I advised my supervisor that I was not willing to prosecute him and that perhaps someone else should. I also proposed that perhaps we could get him into the military. I was told to give that a try, but I have to get approval of the mother of the "victim". Thank God in a later phone conversation, the mother said she didn't want prison, but just wanted him away from her daughter. I quickly took the lead with the mother's statement and she was very agreeable to the military option. The boy did enter into the military and we were therefore able to drop the case and not sentence him to 15 years and ruin his life with a sexual offender designation.
 
I'm glad in this case that although the "letter of the law" may not have been followed, the spirit of the law was followed and justice was done. It is one thing to prosecute a 35 year old having sex with a 15 year old and another thing entirely to prosecute a 17 old boy have sex with a 15 year old.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 02:04 PM (UCVDK)

8 Just  a note:  The problem with this post is that it describes the sex as "consensual".  However, in all of the states the age of consent is 18 or older.  Accordingly, by law, the sex cannot be consensual.  People under 18 generally cannot be held to a contract for the same reason. 
 
That is why consent is irrelevant to statutory rape cases.
 
Perhaps a better term is unforced.
 
But, having written all that, the penalty in this case was extreme. 

Posted by: Cruiser at June 11, 2007 02:14 PM (pM6Sa)

9 Yes the law is the law so why not prosecute the girl who performed oral sex on multiple men at the party including this man who was a minor at the time. 

Posted by: Darth Odie at June 11, 2007 02:16 PM (YHZAl)

10 #5 Shivv...........A 50 yr old could not possibly plead "consensual". Jessica's law would come into play here (if the state has it). Now adays teenagers are bombarded with sexually explicit advertising. The secular progressives push this as "if it feels good do it" and to hell what your parents say. It is a hell of alot harder to raise kids now than during the "hippy" period of the 60's due to the fact that alot of our lawmakers are former hippies. They are very dangerous to our kids well beings. This day and age is a parents worst nightmare. I have a 19 yr old daughter in college and pray we raised her right. Checking the sex offenders registry from her area lists 19 tier 3 sex offenders living in close proximity to her. She is aware of this and has a permit for a concealed weapon. It truly totally rediculous that it has to come to this point. The lefties are destroying our society and values. Sorry about the rant but I feel this kid is a product of the "if it feels good do it" society. We have a young 18 yr old in Kansas that was abducted and murdered by someone that should of been behind bars years ago. Priorities need to be followed.

Posted by: allahakchew at June 11, 2007 02:17 PM (m2p07)

11 #7 Darren Thank you for your input. As a layman I only have opinions not experience.

Posted by: allahakchew at June 11, 2007 02:21 PM (m2p07)

12 Dear allahakchew,
 
Thank you for your comment. I am pleased about how that experience turned out. I feel like God gave me that Florida case and I was able to effectuate a good outcome and grateful I had a supervisor willing to see the case my way along with the mother of the "victim". Otherwise, I would have had to turn the case over to someone else since I could not zealously represent my client in said matter AND my client was entitled to zealous representation.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 02:32 PM (UCVDK)

13

By the way, I'm a Conservative on the Right, Anti-islamic, "Zionist" Christian who is glad to see this young black boy get his sentence reduced and hopefully released today, which an appeal may fowl that up. I hope not.

By the way, I don't care for liberals either!!!
 
I'm too am sick and tired of the violence I see in our society.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 02:38 PM (UCVDK)

14 Darren, If you are truly who you say you are I am wondering why you referred to this guy as an "young black boy" Why the need to state his color?

Posted by: allahakchew at June 11, 2007 02:55 PM (m2p07)

15 Attorney's deal in fact. The boy is a boy. He is black.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 03:01 PM (UCVDK)

16 The Georgia Attorney General has appealed. The kid won't be freed anytime soon.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 11, 2007 03:06 PM (TmLg9)

17 Jake Roberts, you are a stupid cracker racist. It was consensual sex. He is not some kiddie rapist. There's a big difference between consensual sex and forcible rape. He deserved some prison time but not 10 years. He'll be freed eventually.

Posted by: None of your business at June 11, 2007 03:09 PM (TmLg9)

18 Dear George:
 
Somethimes those who enforce the law are blind to justice. Sometimes they are just blind bureaucrats who can't see the bigger picture and think outside the box.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 03:12 PM (UCVDK)

19 I've always been of the opinion that cases like this show why the age of consent should be 18. Had both of these teens been under the age of consent, the prosecutor probably wouldn't have filed charges against either of them

Posted by: Shivv at June 11, 2007 03:14 PM (v8h2M)

20 I note there may be some confusion about the term "consent". Anyone under the age of consent, usually 18, can NOT consent even if they "jump the bones" of the other person. Regardless how willing, wanting, and able the under age of consent person wants to have sex, in the eyes of the law they are incapable of consenting. Sometimes it is called "statutory rape". See Cruiser's #8 post above where he does a good job of explaining consent.

Shivv in post #19 makes a good point that BOTH were under the age of consent (If the age of consent in Georgia was 18 at the time of the incident). If such was the case, BOTH could have been prosecuted. The girl could have easily been prosecuted as well.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 03:26 PM (UCVDK)

21 Interesting note:
He was sentenced for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.
The lawyer who got him off is named B.J.

Just saying. :-)

Posted by: scaulen at June 11, 2007 03:37 PM (OZn2O)

22 Darren, the age of consent is actually 16 in Georgia if the other participant is 24 or under. What I was saying was that IF the age of consent had been 18 then the prosecutor probably would not have filed any charges.

Posted by: Shivv at June 11, 2007 03:40 PM (v8h2M)

23 #21 B.J. initieals is interesting. Darren what do you have to say about this?

Posted by: allahakchew at June 11, 2007 03:44 PM (m2p07)

24 The state appealed to block his release.

Posted by: Darth Odie at June 11, 2007 04:54 PM (YHZAl)

25 Yep, he'll be in prison for a while longer. LOL, Scaulen. Thank you for the kind reply Darren. I'm only referring to teenagers who have consensual sex with other teenagers. NOT adults who sleep with thirteen to 15 to 17 year olds depending on the law limit. I'l l give Debra Lafave and Sandra Beth Geisel exceptions because they are HOT!
 
NICE!!!!!!

Posted by: George Ramos at June 11, 2007 04:58 PM (TmLg9)

26 who can't see the bigger picture and think outside the box.

It WAS oral sex

Posted by: Randman at June 11, 2007 05:02 PM (Sal3J)

27 Darren: When I was a kid in Calif. I had a friend in highschool that was sentenced to CYA for an indefinite term for balling his 16 year old girfriend. He was 17. Man was I scared because when I was 17 I was nailing half the girls in school and trying to nail the other half. Didn't stop me though. At 17, getting laid in the #1 thing on your mind. Blame in on God, nature, whatever. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 05:06 PM (ijNsC)

28 Damn! Now I feel like a criminal who didn't get caught. It fact all my friends were criminals who didn't get caught balling their under 18 girlfriends. Then there was the twins that took on the football team. Holy shit. Our entire team could have gone to jail instead of College. Only in America.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 05:09 PM (ijNsC)

29 Randman: According to Clinton oral sex is not sex. Ha, ha. Therefore no crime has been committed. heh, heh. Good one.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 05:18 PM (ijNsC)

30 BJ  ha, ha Bernstein. Ha, ha. Should use the Clinton defense and get the guy off. Whoops!  Bet he's afraid to get off anymore.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 05:21 PM (ijNsC)

31 Being a former "hillbilly", we thought oral sex was swapping tobacco wads. To my shock I later found that not all girls like that!!!

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 05:25 PM (UCVDK)

32 Military option? What military branch takes someone who isn't a high school grad? Hummm!

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 05:28 PM (ijNsC)

33 An appeal may fowl.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 05:31 PM (ijNsC)

34 To #32

He had gotten his G.E.D. prior to going into the military. By the time he had been arraigned on his charges, he had just turned 18 as well.

Posted by: Darren at June 11, 2007 05:39 PM (UCVDK)

35 The girl probably had grandchildren at 15. Whats the big deal about a little hummer?

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 11, 2007 06:01 PM (ou0cx)

36

Debra Lefav should be a reward for getting 100% on your test. That would get some serious studying done.

 

 

 

Group hummers at 15. Classey little piece. And the boy did what wrong?

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 06:29 PM (1ZyKh)

37 He snitched to the police. At least I think that's what happened. I don't know how she got caught. If he did snitch than he's a retard.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 11, 2007 06:32 PM (TmLg9)

38 I'm referring to Debra Lafave's teen lover. Genarlow is black so he should have known that the prosecutors would throw the book at him. He also shouldn't have had sex in a party where everybody would see him.

Posted by: George Ramos at June 11, 2007 06:34 PM (TmLg9)

39 Right on. Oral sex should be performed behind closed doors. Except San Francisco where they call it lunch.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2007 09:43 PM (1ZyKh)

40 After a little serious thinking. The little tramp should be burned at the stake. More fodder for the muslims. As the local Inman would say. If this is western culture we don't want our kids to have it.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 12, 2007 01:30 AM (1ZyKh)

41 I'll bet the little tramps parents are proud of her.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 12, 2007 01:31 AM (1ZyKh)

42 You forgot to mention the video of him participating in the gang rape of another girl at the same party.

Posted by: LCB at June 12, 2007 10:32 AM (45ULZ)

43 (42)
Oh no they didn't mention the video he made did they and the dope and the alcohol, the gang signs and heavy Rap music.
The fact that this young man was into more than just consensual sex is being brushed aside.
Much like the young man who killed his niece with a wrestling move a few years back and was freed and is now serving an armed robbery charge this fellow will be seen again on the news in deep kimchee for a crime much like the one he was pardoned for.
Has anyone thought to ask the fellatrice her opinion of the whole shebang?

Posted by: Barry at June 12, 2007 12:43 PM (xQq4i)

44 As I understand the case, a deal was made.  He would do 10 years on the lesser charge, in exchange for not going to jail for participating in a gang rape.

Posted by: LCB at June 12, 2007 12:57 PM (x76Xt)

45 #23 Use your own nic you creep!

Posted by: allahakchew at June 12, 2007 01:00 PM (m2p07)

46 In ancient Rome, or the Greek city-states, both would have been considered adults.  The real question of justice lies with the intent to harm, the actual harm, and the proportion of any punishment. As a matter of US law they are not adult, although we do know that such a label is actually quite arbitrary. At 11:59pm the day before, a parson is an 'adult' and then at 12:01 am the next dy, they are not. so two minutes is a total transformation of the persona real world abilities? I don't think so. These 'kids' were about the same age. Presuming either had a malicious intent to abuse a 'child' is just plain silly. Punishing it with a ten year sentence is draconian, and wrong. IMO                           USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 12, 2007 03:32 PM (2OHpj)

47 If the 'boy' was guilty of some other crimes, he should have stood trial for those instead.                      USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 12, 2007 03:38 PM (2OHpj)

48

Whoa! I didn't know about the other charges taking place at the same party. I think we are also forgetting that he pleaded guilty to the charges and thought 10 years was a good deal for his crimes. Different picture emerging here.

 

 

 

 

Michael:  Implied violence to get others to do what they wouldn't do under normal circumstances is real. If you don't know that, you haven't been around much.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 16, 2007 11:16 PM (AsTKg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

(Berlin, Germany) In preparation for the Group of Eight (G8) Summit Meeting next month, German police are compiling a database of human scents to track down possible violent protesters. A spokesman confirmed that the scents of anti-globalization activists have been collected for use by police sniffer dogs to identify troublemakers in the crowd.

Opponents voiced concerns that the stink method of identifying suspects was a trick used by the notorious Stasi secret police of the former East Germany.

The East German security police -- the omnipresent Stasi -- routinely collected scents from dissidents, often from bits of clothing sealed in airtight containers for storage, in order to track defectors or suspects later with the help of sniffer dogs.

"This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth," Social Democrat minister Zypries told HR3 radio.

Logically, one could conclude that the perpetrator of the elusive "perfect crime" will always smell guilty, despite the lack of any other evidence.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:27 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

This is funny..

No Comment....

Posted by: Howie at 05:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

No lobbying reform. No earmark reform. No victory in Iraq. Highest tax burden in history. Conflicts of interest, corrupt politicians and self-righteous do-nothing morons everywhere one looks. Just another day in the Do-Nothing Democrat Congress.

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

Not to say we told you so, but we told you so.

Now to sit back and watch "the most ethical, most open, least corrupt" Congress in the history of the Universe continue to implode.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:19 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

If you read nothing but leftwingnut screed sheets or the New York Times, you would never know this happened:

Newshounds will surely remember that in the fall of 2005 the press and the lefty blogs spun themselves up into outrage over the timing of Bill Frist's sales of HCA stock. Everybody from AMERICABlog to the New York Times -- admittedly, a narrow ideological range -- were certain of the impropriety of the sales and hoped for their criminality. At the time, I wrote a fairly detailed analysis of the timing of the sales and concluded that Frist had almost certainly acted both morally and lawfully. Nevertheless, the press continued to torture him for months.

Well, Bill Frist has been exonerated.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Confederate Yankee:

Virginia State Police Public Relations Manager Corinne Geller confirms via email that [the Perverted Turd] only used standard capacity magazines in a rampage last Monday at Virginia Tech that left more than 50 Virginia Tech students and faculty dead or injured.

"We are not identifying the capacity of the magazines or number of magazines purchased prior or in [Turd's] possession at the time of the shootings. I can tell you that the magazines were standard issue."

Posted by: Ragnar at 07:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Lt. Col. William H. Steele, one-time commander of a prison in Iraq, has been charged with aiding the enemy. Steele is said to have passed an unmonitored cell phone to detainees.

What most media accounts of the charges filed against Steele leave out is that he is also charged with sleeping with a detainee's daughter. So, this appears to be a case of a soldier who is asked to do a "favor" for the father of the girl he's sleeping with.

------
UPDATE: Commenter Y7 thinks he knows who the girl is. He reports that Steele is said to have had a hot interpretter. To quote him:

And she was frickin' HOT. And by hot, I mean, SMOKIN....And she wasn't just wartime hot, she was anywhere hot.

Just kidding. It doesn't excuse him, but now we get it. Kind of makes the SNAFU analogy below all the more relevant. And, just to clarify, Y7 isn't 100% sure that Steele was sleeping with the same smokin hot interpreter or not. But, we kind of gather that he has a stiffy just thinking about her....
----------

Why does this remind me of the WWII War Department cartoon featuring the voice of Mel Blanc as Private SNAFU? In the particular episode, which I've posted below, SNAFU reveals classified information to a "dame" while drunk.

My first reaction when I heard about this on the radio was, "this man is a traitor! Get a rope." But the charges actually read more like a case of an officer who was recklessly careless and naive.

Below the video you'll find the official list of the charges filed against Lt. Col. William H. Steele. There are actually four charges against him. Oddly, one of the specific instances of violating military rules is that he possessed pornography. Gee, that would be odd for a soldier to have porn. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:27 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 955 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Bloomberg is reporting 9 counts against him.
Steele was commander of Camp Cropper where most of the high value prisoners were held, including Sadaam. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_HtSvzqZoRs&refer=us

Posted by: John Ryan at April 26, 2007 09:46 AM (TcoRJ)

2 I could see a private or corporal to make a mistake like that; but for a Lieutenant Colonel to be seduced ......... Let's just say I'm hoping the charges are proved to be false.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at April 26, 2007 09:50 AM (j97MF)

3 Hang him if he's guilty.

"Coercion by female" is a favorite tactic, it reminds me of the 1987 Marine Spy Scandal.

Posted by: blackflag at April 26, 2007 10:08 AM (Mq5jS)

4 Also Rusty EVERY major news organization that I saw that carried the story always mentioned the detainee's daughter. It would be hard for any to pass up placing THAT count in the story. No word yet if he will at a later point be charged with "sleeping with the enemy"

Posted by: John Ryan at April 26, 2007 10:13 AM (TcoRJ)

5 There are four "charges" but 9 "counts".  That means that he violated four military rules, but there are 9 specific cases of these charges.

Posted by: Rusty at April 26, 2007 10:14 AM (JQjhA)

6 any man that can get hard over a filthy muslim deserves death. this is a subhuman race of animals we should be slaughtering not consorting with.

not only does this traitor need to be executed but his entire family should also face execution as this is obviously a genetic flaw in his line.

disgusting.

Posted by: Don Bell at April 26, 2007 10:16 AM (Nhfns)

7 I'm sorry, I'll have to post "as of this writing" next time.  I'm not sure if you're becoming a bigger dick or just getting downright petty with what you disagree with John Ryan?

Posted by: Rusty at April 26, 2007 10:16 AM (JQjhA)

8 Uh huh.

When does harry reid get tried for being a traitor? And when does nancy pelosi get tried for sedition?

I'm just askin'....

Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at April 26, 2007 10:19 AM (Cy7OH)

9 Its probably not forbidden or uncommon for soldiers to have porn, but in the Middle East, remember, we must at all times maintain an order of civility so as not to upset the tender sensibilities of our Muslim hosts. Sarcasm off. This is the same type of bullshit that prevents our guys from having a beer after going on patrol.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 26, 2007 10:33 AM (mak/j)

10 Possession of porn is a direct violation of General Order #1.  If it can be proven that he had the female in his quarters, it would be a direct violation of General Order #2.  No booze, no porn, no private time with the opposite sex behind closed doors. Them there are the rules (and are the most devastating for morale!)

To clarify, there were times that Hussein was in Cropper but he was mostly kept in an island prison near the Al-Faw palace. Cropper was originally the HVD center but the desire to close Abu Ghraib resulted in a brand new prison complex being built at Camp Cropper. When Abu closed all the regular disposable terrorists were transferred there.

Posted by: y7 at April 26, 2007 12:23 PM (NxCJt)

11 Violating the UCMJ to get some poontang doesn't make it less of a violation. As a matter of fact, it only serves to turn the offense into treason AND immoral behavior.

Sorry, but he knew damn well what he was doing. He needed to hear a concerto played on his meat whistle, so he willingly and deliberately provided a detainee with access to the outside world. If proven guilty of such, hang him.

One charge I disagree with, however, is the pornography charge. Not because it won't stick, but because the UCMJ is beyond stupid in that respect. Of course, even an imbecilic law is still the law, I'm just saying that I never understood that nonsensical prohibition.

Soldiers are men (for the most part), and men will BE men. Their sexual urges aren't going to evaporate because they're in uniform, and no amount of counter-productive, Puritan bullshit regulations will change that.

"Counter-productive?"

Why, yes. Field brothels and acceptance of "jerking off" material have never been a way of "being nice to the soldiers", it's to keep them from raping the locals or otherwise engage in unacceptable conduct. Try to keep soldiers from shooting their wad for a year and you'll have a disaster on your hands sooner or later, I guarantee it.

But I digress wildly, so just disregard me riding my hobby horse for the last few paragraphs.

Posted by: Misha I at April 26, 2007 01:19 PM (3VtXI)

12 Ryan has no life. If he did he would not bother commenting at my site which we all know is the lamest site in the world. Amen. How did the dude get to be an O-5 anyway if he is such a loser?

Posted by: SeeMonk at April 26, 2007 02:37 PM (2HM/d)

13 This isn't about pornography.  It's about a memeber of the military that betrayed his mission and should defiinitely be punished.  He let a prisoner use an UNMONITORED phone.  Who knows where those calls went to?  He could have placed his troops in danger!

Posted by: pivalleygirl at April 26, 2007 03:14 PM (x/ji8)

14 The way I read it, the detainee's daughter in Charge III Spec I is te interpreter from Charge III Spec II. Its been awhile but when I was on Abu I remember LTC Steele and there was a rumor about him and an interpreter. And he was frickin' HOT. And by hot, I mean, SMOKIN.

But that is beside the point. I thought a Staff Sergeant was hitting that one since he was never more than a foot away from her. She was that hot...

Anyway, one story was that she was an interpreter up north in Mosul who was fired due to ties to the insurgency.  Steele hired her innocently enough on Abu where she worked virtually unnoticed until someone from up north recognized her.  Then Steele did some things to try to protect her, can't remember everything.

I don't know if this all the same story or not. If it is, all I can say is: she was that frickin' hot!!  (Especially so on the tight red shirt days! On red shirt days in the chow hall, faithful husbands would lose the ability to communicate verbally.  There would be groups of guys circling the salad bar waiting for her to pick a spot to sit and trying to box out that SSG.)

And she wasn't just wartime hot, she was anywhere hot.

Posted by: y7 at April 26, 2007 04:05 PM (NxCJt)

15 Correction. Third sentence. Do I even need to point it out?

Posted by: y7 at April 26, 2007 04:06 PM (NxCJt)

16 Hey! And looking at the dates, some of this happened on Abu Ghraib!  Abu didn't close until July or Aug 2006 and this dates to Oct of 2005.

Interesting, when I read it I immediately thought of when they were going to ban cell phones for servicemembers (we could buy Iraqna prepaid phones and call home with them) or they were going to jam the signals because they couldn't figure out how detainees had charged cell phones but no chargers.

Makes sense now.

Posted by: y7 at April 26, 2007 04:12 PM (NxCJt)

17 John Ryan you terrorist pig! You are scum, The lowest of low. You think we are infidels but it is you who is the idiot. Lay off the soldiers. We are not STUPID JOHN RYAN go peddle your propoganda elsewhere. We have not grown up in caves as your like has. I don't know if you are a convert or "home grown" but you can bet your boots we will be watching you. I have been reading your comments on other sites and have your number. We all have the right to bear arms and remember that JOHN RYAN . Your comments are typical as what has been taught...to break down the resistance  We are not stupid and understand your motives. Tell me , when are you going to strap on the suicide vest or are you in propoganda department?  I spit on you, you coward!

Posted by: allahakchew at April 26, 2007 04:23 PM (BrndJ)

18 He let a prisoner use an UNMONITORED phone.  Who knows where those calls went to?

He just wanted to vote for American Idol

Posted by: Randman at April 26, 2007 05:08 PM (Sal3J)

19 I'm witholding judgement until I see pic's of the Smoking hot daughter...........
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
 

Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 05:36 PM (XvkRd)

20
I'm witholding judgement until I see pic's of the Smoking hot daughter

Where is Ragnor when you need him?

Posted by: Randman at April 26, 2007 07:35 PM (Sal3J)

21 God damn right where is that slacker...........
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 07:51 PM (XvkRd)

22 OH……

Posted by: Tracy at April 26, 2007 07:56 PM (8lLqk)

23 http://www.igametc.com

Posted by: Tracy at April 26, 2007 07:57 PM (8lLqk)

24 Passed unmonitored cellphones to detainees. Boot him out of the military. (No pension please) and don't allow him back in the United States. A son of a bitch that would put getting laid before the safety of our military doesn't deserve any pity. If any calls placed on the cellphones he supplied the enemy resulted in harm to our team he should be hung. I will be glad to pull the rope.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 08:20 PM (jmD0W)

25 My wife has been in Norfolk, Va all week on military business. I did pass up a hottie at the American Legion hall. Diffenately looked better than any muslim could. So proud of myself. Then again I was a Marine.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 08:36 PM (jmD0W)

26 greyrooster,
 

It depends on the circumstances. Kick him out of the military, Yes. If it was just a potential father-in-law talking to relatives trying to get out of jail, then no harm no foul. If he was talking to terrorists then the SSG needs to be charged with treason. Otherwise let the man bring his new bride home and make a regular life for the two of them. There is no need to make enemies out of people we really don’t need to and even SSG’s need love. Before we decide to crucify the man lets find out what really happened otherwise we are no better then the fucking commie/liberal leftards………..

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 08:37 PM (XvkRd)

27 any man that can get hard over a filthy muslim deserves death. this is
a subhuman race of animals we should be slaughtering not consorting
with.


Don Bell,

FUCK YOU MOBY.
1. Muslim is not a race.
2. My wife was a muslim
3. Google Sarah Shahi. If you can't get a hard on for her, you are gay.

Posted by: wooga at April 26, 2007 08:53 PM (t9sT5)

28 C'MON. C'MON, you people!  Honestly, 'wooga' is of course right.  Everyone in the Middle East is not scum!  I KNOW it makes it easier to think that.  If you have to go to war with people, it seems easier to hate them.  The trouble is, if you have even ONE arab or Iranian friend, EVER, you will feel like a jerk for bad mouthing them.  They are, in fact, very nice people.  Among this majority, there is a small minority who are very, very bad people.  I'm sorry to make your life complicated, but that's the way it is.

As for ROASTING this Leut. Col. long before the trial, have a heart.  Charges like these are titillating, and exciting, but they may be totally wrong.  Obvious alternative explanations include false charges leveled against him by ex-detainees who have a grudge against him!  Remember Kobe Bryant, the Duke students, and horribly, the Haditha marines.  They are now being quietly acquitted, because of compelling video evidence of their innocence.  From the beginning, that whole thing was an Al Qaida frame-up.  The MSM roasted those poor marines alive.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 26, 2007 09:35 PM (L/SIz)

29 Now all of a sudden the people in the prison are detainees. She was the daughter of a detainee. Insurgent ?? No! Terrorist ?? No !! her dad was just a detainee. And of course he never allowed anyone else to use his cell phone.
Allahalchew Actually you do not spit on me. You post anonymously that you spit on me. There is a difference. And as I have said to others who post insults; does insulting me make you feel better .... about being yourself ? As for "watching me" I have posted my address on more than one occasion and post under my real name. Would you care to do the same ?
As we have seen from the list of other courts-martial the military has a high rate of convictions. I would be surprised to see a Lt Col charged without strong evidence.

Posted by: John Ryan at April 26, 2007 09:44 PM (TcoRJ)

30 To: wooga
OK, I just googled (and oogled) Sarah Shahi.  I see your point, yess, I see your point.  Eyes like headlights, a body on fire, and approximately 25 sq ft, of soft, light brown skinn...

Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 26, 2007 09:46 PM (L/SIz)

31 To: allahakchew
Uh, time for hate management class, this is called channeling.  Could you please channel your anti-muslim hatred so as to arrange to deport Sarah Shahi?  She lives in Texas, and I want you to deport her to CANADA.  Please? Just one little deportation?  I promise to pick her up at the airport.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 26, 2007 09:57 PM (L/SIz)

32 Bullshit! This guy should have had the intelligence not to do something that dangerous to others. If he believed it was okay he should have gotten permission from a superior. I don't make excuses. We are at war. He's toast.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 09:59 PM (jmD0W)

33 And as I have said to others who post insults; does insulting me make you feel better

You have the maturity of a 12 year old John. You can dish it out but you sure as hell can't take it.

Posted by: Randman at April 26, 2007 10:08 PM (Sal3J)

34 Wooga: Your ole lady was a muslim because everyone else around her was a muslim. If a person grows up in a tribe of cannibals he will be a cannibal. What the cannibal does when he moves to America is what counts. Some Eskimos grow up eating muck luk. If you know what that is you can understand that enviroment means everything. And I hate all muslims.  If they change then I don't hate them anymore. I hate mosquitos that bite. If they quit biting I won't hate them anymore. If muslims stop their shit. I won't hate them anymore. Pretty simple huh.
 
 
 
 
And quit parading your wife. Friggin showoff. And no I didn't goggle her. I'm shit faced and may try to get her number. I get slapped a lot. But I used to get a lot. Ah! for the good ole days. Getting old is a pain in the ass. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't. Just stay young. It's cheaper.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 10:13 PM (jmD0W)

35 John Lyin Ryan: Bullshit! Your posted address was a phoney. And you're a lucky little traitor.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 10:34 PM (jmD0W)

36 Don Bell: What are you still doing here? Didn't I tell you to go screw yourself?

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 10:38 PM (jmD0W)

37 "Coercion by female"  The woman is called a 'swallow' in spy-speak, and her specific purpose is to compromise the targets affections.         So far, it looks like it worked here.             
                          USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 27, 2007 01:59 AM (2OHpj)

38 Any info on if this interpreter had ties to Qods Force?

This sounds too smooth to be an Al Qaeda operation, they'd offer goats or camels. The Iranians on the other hand have been nasty and global since the 1980's.

I'm intrigued by her coming from the North. IIRC both Yon and Michael Totten have reported lots of Qods Force Iranian terror activity up there.

Sorry, to me this stinks of Iran. Too smooth for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Any info on how the troops felt about this Officer hob-nobbing with the hottie and trying to protect her? Yeesh. An Officer is supposed to protect his men and live like they do.

Probably a Clinton officer.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at April 27, 2007 03:16 AM (4878o)

39 "not just wartime hot"
LOL! We had a female in our unit who bluntly described herself as a "New York 6, Desert 10"

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 27, 2007 07:17 AM (oC8nQ)

40 I'd have nailed her and told her some ridiculous lie. Then passed her around to anyone else horny in the desert.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 27, 2007 09:55 PM (7p5VY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's always sad when someone has to die but not so much when it's the bad guy. This report is from yesterday.

CLEVELAND -- A man who has a permit to carry a concealed gun shot and killed one of two teenage robbery suspects he encountered on his front porch, police said.

City prosecutors decided yesterday that the 25-year-old Cleveland man was justified and would not be charged in the shooting Saturday night of 15-year-old Arthur Buford, a freshman at John F. Kennedy High School.

Buford and another teen approached the man on his porch and one of the youths pulled a gun, prompting the resident to pull his gun and shoot Buford several times in the chest, police said.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:34 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Crimestoppers strikes again. Beautimus.

Posted by: dick at April 25, 2007 06:49 PM (XlQVK)

2 This criminal counts as an accidental death you know ... ? After all, he accidentally tried armed robbery on someone who could actually fight back. Right? I'm sure he would have rather robbed a defenseless old lady, say like a ... former Miss America? Or maybe some guy in his sixties just on his way to work? Expect unreasonable crap to back up out of the 'John' any minute though. USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 25, 2007 06:51 PM (2OHpj)

3

This is what happens in a world closer to perfect then the liberal/communist want America to be. Criminal pulls gun to commit crime, law abiding citizen pulls own gun and kills criminal. Blessed be the founding fathers and the Second Amendment. May all the anti-gun   anti-second amendment liberals get to hell way sooner then they are expecting too.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

Posted by: doriangrey at April 25, 2007 07:17 PM (XvkRd)

4 Apparently his house isn't a gun-free zone.

muahaha!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 25, 2007 07:29 PM (8e/V4)

5 This would of never happened if this mistaken young man had not been forced to try to meet an impossible expectation of a capitolistic society driven by George Bush and Dick Cheney. It was murder of a youth and the blood of this angel is on the hands of the NRA

Posted by: Lucy Fur at April 25, 2007 07:36 PM (RVrL5)

6 JC, funny, funny, funny.
 
Good thing it wasn't the home of a cop. The officer would have unloaded two clips, missed the criminals, wounded a dog, broke some windows, and flattened one of the tires on his cruiser.
 
2 shots, 2 kills. Give that man a medal.

Posted by: Rome at April 25, 2007 08:16 PM (/GrlO)

7 My bad, the other loser got away.

Posted by: Rome at April 25, 2007 08:17 PM (/GrlO)

8 Arthur Buford be dead. Al Sharpton be pissed.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 25, 2007 10:06 PM (yp+ZO)

9

Lucy Fur: What kind of stupid nut are you.George Bush did it. Ha, ha. You can't be serious. If you are. You need to get some help. Quick. It's not nice to do drugs. Never heard anything so stupid in my life.  You have to be kidding. The 15 year old robber was so poor he could afford a pistol. Ha, ha. Friggin nut. Don't want any of your fur.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 25, 2007 10:11 PM (yp+ZO)

10 greyrooster,
 
Lucy Fur is obviously an agent provocateur, and a rather funny one at that, the name should have been your first clue. Lucy Fur…Lucifer…Of course with a NIC like dorian grey it shouldnt be all that surprising that I would notice something like that.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

 

Posted by: doriangrey at April 25, 2007 10:53 PM (XvkRd)

11 Lucy Loser GO AWAY

Posted by: jake caywood's father at April 26, 2007 03:37 AM (n6n5z)

12 The NYT ran a graphic the other day showing the average breakdown of gun deaths in America. They has stats by race, sex, and whether it was murder, suicide, or accident or police shooting. I thought it was odd, that they had not a single mention of self-defense. I'm not saying this happens every day, but this does happen.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 26, 2007 07:24 AM (oC8nQ)

13 More innocent children are drawn into the cycle of death by gun carrying red necks who drink beer. The only answer is for everyone to turn in the guns and get behind Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer in 08.  The government should be the only ones who are allowed to have any type of guns. There is no need for hunting since there is lots of food available in the stores.  You people really need to get over your macho weapon ideas and stop encouraging others to kill children. This was a child looking for help. And it's childish to make fun of my name, show some respect.

Posted by: Lucy Fur at April 26, 2007 08:15 AM (rLcjw)

14 Deleters struck again. Nappy headed hos go away.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 08:29 AM (jmD0W)

15 Ha Ha! A child looking for help! Figuratively right?! Is that how you express the need for help by pulling a gun and trying to rob the guy on his own porch? Good riddance. I hope he suffered before he died. What do you think about that Lucy? You blame the guy that rightfully defends himself, I'll blame their culture of stupidity and too much Tu-pac.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 26, 2007 08:41 AM (mak/j)

16 I can understand why rooster is having problems with Lucy's obvious parody.  With Leftardism, it's often hard to tell the difference.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 26, 2007 09:12 AM (8e/V4)

17

Strangely, liberal lefties want to ban and abolish the very instrument of their freedom. You take the guns away from the citizens and you get Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's, the Armenian genocide in Turkey post-WWI, the Stalinist state of Russia and his campaign of mass murders post-WWII. Lucy, is that what you want? Your government in complete control of you? What happens if the wrong person takes power, whether Democrat and Republican, and starts really exercising power over the people? Well, since you want to wipe your behind with the Second Amendment which was expressly written to avoid that type of situation, you might as well roll over and put on your proletariat blue coveralls and move to your assigned collective farm and work until you die, comrade.

Posted by: Rick at April 26, 2007 09:57 AM (9ZqGe)

18 Lucy Fur,
Outstanding!

I'd would like all of the amateur trolls to take note of how a real pro does it and direct your attention to "Lucy". You see, instead of just dropping the N-Bomb and running like the noobs do Lucy actually has the basics of a good troll in place:
-Hit all the Lefty Talking Points and use the correct Lefty verbiage? check.
-Use moral equivalence to make the actual attacker the victim in this case? check.
-Somehow blame it all on capitalism ,Bush and Cheney? check. (bonus points could have been awarded if you could've dropped a "Halliburton" or "Neo-Con" in there as well, better luck next time)
-Tell how it wouldn't have happened if A Socialist would have been in power (Hillary!)? check.
-Call believers in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constituition "killers" and "rednecks"? check.
-Do it all so the reader has to ask himself "Does Lucy really beleive this bullshit or is "she" a troll?" check.

I give you an 8/10 on this thread, if you had a better name and a hyperlink to a socialist/truther/anti-GOP website you would have scored better.

Posted by: blackflag at April 26, 2007 10:25 AM (Mq5jS)

19 btw: It was a good shoot, it could have only been better if a shotgun were involved and both perps took the dirt nap.

Posted by: blackflag at April 26, 2007 10:26 AM (Mq5jS)

20 Geez, why couldn't the 25 year old just talk it over with the young hoodlums? "Can't we all just get along". You mean there wasn't a diplomatic way to work this situation out?
 
Good job, Hesitation=Dead, Action=Life.

Posted by: America's Last Stand at April 26, 2007 11:36 AM (SuIz4)

21

Lucifer Lucifer Lucifer

Oh how your name rhymes with sulfur,

 

A retched stench of odoriferous decay

A malfeasant cry heard to this very day

 

Through verbiage so noxious unrelentingly wry

A putrid foul diatribe to make Angels cry

 

Wrapped in the blood of innocence lost

Hidden in folds of freedoms now tossed

 

Giving new meaning to socialist though

Brain dead and brainwashed by liberals taught

 

Covered in gore grasping the umbilical chord

Worshipped by baby-killers as their new Lord

 

Seeking your kingdom by deceit to enlarge

By forcing good people to walk around unarmed

 

Your purpose by now to all understood

To make what is good  bad and what is bad good.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 12:11 PM (XvkRd)

22 Black Flag,
 
You are too kind.
 
Lucy

Posted by: Lucy Fur at April 26, 2007 05:45 PM (enVOn)

23 Lucifer,
 
You are damn good.........Please post more.........
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
 
 

Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 08:05 PM (XvkRd)

24 Too bad so sad these two idiots choose to commit a crime and one of them is dead and no one to blame

Posted by: sandpiper at April 30, 2007 04:48 PM (lIqve)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Either that, or he's just completely ignorant of firearms and the law. He repeats the well-worn lies that :

1. The VT shooter was wielding "automatic" weapons and

2. The Scary-Looking Rifles Ban prohibited the sale of "high-capacity" magazines.

Why does an idiot like that get a spot on McLaughlin?

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:55 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

We all knew it was coming.

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Lincoln authorities evacuated a set of buildings on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus after a bomb threat was received, and officers told students on campus that classes have been canceled in those buildings.

Other events like this have been reported around the country as well.

I have an idea that will eliminate this sort of thing.

Phone Control.

I demand regulations to restrict the use of phones to eradicate this criminal activity. Not all phones, mind you. Just the scary looking wireless ones with large battery capacity and fully automatic redial.

This phone would be cool. We're not trying to restrict hunting, mind you, and this phone is still used in some rural areas by hunters.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:08 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted at The Fred Thompson Report:

The logic behind [the anti-gun] attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Posted by: Ragnar at 04:23 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Raise the age of all firearm ownership to 21 and lower the age for  
alcohol 18. Or at the very least get it the right way round !!

 

Posted by: rob at April 20, 2007 05:40 PM (QpkBe)

2 Sneaky Fred Thompson. He's making me seriously doubt my allegiance to Rudy.

Posted by: wooga at April 20, 2007 05:45 PM (t9sT5)

3 Right said Fred.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 20, 2007 06:47 PM (ou0cx)

4 I'd say alcholhol is more dangerous than a gun. I had a hunting rifle which I paid for with my own earnings, next to my bed from age 12. I was also possibly the most responsable person in the house. All the drunk people over 21 were doing the violent stuff, so I think I can make that claim.               
                                USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 20, 2007 07:26 PM (2OHpj)

5 Fred should declare!                      USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 20, 2007 07:27 PM (2OHpj)

6 Having guns. Why the hell was this foreigner allowed to buy a gun? Anyone ask that question?

Posted by: greyrooster at April 20, 2007 07:52 PM (E6u6Q)

7 Because he was a legal resident. That should be a fair reason. Years ago, all that used to matter was if you had the cash, so the fact that we even worry about legal residency should be considered a step forward.                                 USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 20, 2007 11:30 PM (2OHpj)

8
I'd say alcholhol is more dangerous than a gun.

But there is a reason our country has one bureau for alcohol, tobacco and firearms...they go together.

Posted by: Randman at April 21, 2007 04:42 AM (Sal3J)

9 You always expect the gun control wackos to call for even more stupid gun control laws after things like this when it was gun control whiched cuased this and instead of blaming the NRA lets lay the blame right on the shoulders of the BRADY CAMPAGN

Posted by: sandpiper at April 21, 2007 09:31 AM (9NBAS)

10 Ha, ah! Michael: He was an alien resident. Our right to bear arms is a protection for American Citizens. As an alien he was not an American citizen. Therefore he hasn't the protections our Constitution guarantees. As I read it. He had no right to bear arms as he was not a citizen. He should not have been able to purchase and own arms as a non-American.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 09:38 AM (oChhC)

11 "shoe bomber Richard Reid," There are now "shoe free zones" in Central America, which seems to have eradicated shoe bombing in Cental America, take that NRA.

g

Posted by: gerald at April 21, 2007 10:21 AM (h0BrM)

12 "he was not a citizen"  but being in the country legally he would have been able to enjot the protection of our laws. If he was here illegally, then a case could be made that his origion should have prevented a purchase. I stand by the 'cash and carry' statement about how guns used to be purchased, and the people had more freedom to acquire arms under that more 'liberal' market.  I don't see any strngth in your assumption that he should NOT have been able to legally purchase arms, based on his background check. His mental illness was protected information, and that is where the background check failed.                                         
                        USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 21, 2007 05:12 PM (2OHpj)

13 Then as you understand he should not be denied the privilege to vote. 

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 07:56 PM (kSa9I)

14 I believe the Constitution says the right of citizens to own and bear arms. Doesn't say a thing about aliens from Korea having the same protection.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 07:58 PM (kSa9I)

15 Wooga: Little info here please.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 08:00 PM (kSa9I)

16 If you keep chunking the bait sooner or later you'll get a bite.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 08:13 PM (kSa9I)

17 <sup>I for one am just a bit worried that he had guns so easily.  It seems that once he was arreste and in the systhem there should be some followup.  If his prior behaviour is not an indicaations that at least maybe a flag should go up to law enforcement that a effing nut just bought a gun. 

Not that we need any new laws just to follow the ones we have a bit better. .  I won't speak to Virgia's  lawa.  I'm in I'll you can buy a gun only following a full body cavity search condected personally by gov rod.

The shame is is just one of the girls had pressed the felony stalking charges, maybe he would not have passed the check and gotten these weapons to start with.  Documented emotional instability should be considered, I mean we take gun cards for some of the silliest offenses. Like forgetting to unload your shotgun, but the nut can have one.  Geees.</sup>

Posted by: Darth Odie at April 21, 2007 08:58 PM (YHZAl)

18 Glad to know I'm not the only drunk on this blog.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 21, 2007 11:45 PM (kSa9I)

19 Michael Weaver +1 on the "protected" status of PMH files, it seems that few understand that his right to be a danger to himself and others somehow became more important than the right of society to protect itself from him. 
 
As for Fred Thompson, he continues to say things that a lot of folks have been thinking for a long time.  Straight, common sense answers to our nations problems sit well with me and apparently a lot of other people as well.  I haven't felt excited about a candidate since Reagan but I find myself wanting to work to get Fred Thompson elected.  Common sense has been badly lacking from Washington DC for way too long.
 
The concept that Americans can be trusted to not only protect themselves but to stand between evil and their fellow man lies at the heart of the second amendment to our Constitution and it's sad that it takes a tragedy like that at VA Tech to remind us of that.  How sad also that we aren't hearing the same from other Presidential candidates.
 
 

Posted by: Buzzy at April 22, 2007 12:34 AM (CXz7T)

20 But is the average American brave enough to elect him. The lefturds will automactically say if we elect Fred Thompson another war is sure to follow/

Posted by: greyrooster at April 22, 2007 09:38 AM (Sih+1)

21 greyrooster
 

The left turds will ensure that another war is inevitable, they will follow the failed path of Chamberlain until another war is thrust upon them just as WWII was thrust upon Europe.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

Posted by: doriangrey at April 22, 2007 11:45 AM (XvkRd)

22

Not going to arque that.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 22, 2007 02:56 PM (SgF5q)

23 Looks like Micheal Weaver quit on the right to own arms issue. The second ammendment clearly and repeatedly refers to THE PEOPLE. Common sense means that the people are the citizens of the United States. Non-citizens have no right to purchase, own or bear arms in this nation. Once again academic meatheads have failed to understand the intent of the writers and ratifiers of the 2nd Ammendant. Once again we can look to academia as the source of misinterperting what our forefathers wrote. Academia needs an enemia.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 22, 2007 03:14 PM (SgF5q)

24 Actually I think legal residents are entitled to serious consideration under the law. Unless they are doing something wrong, they should probably be secure in thier effects, and property, and such. They should probably be allowed to hunt, or fish, or use the sidewalk, or anything else that comes under the broad catagory of 'enjoying' legal residency.  The franchize for voting extends to citizens, and goes beyond issues of self defense, or property. Guns minus intent are merely property, and in that sense are no different than automobiles or color TV's.  If someone is in the States legally, they should be able to spend thier money.           USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 22, 2007 04:45 PM (2OHpj)

25 As far as legal residency goes, we could benefit from more serious determination of that standard as well.  To many get it, to easily.  Look at CAIR's membership.  There is room for improvement.  Still ... a gun is a useful tool, and a means to pursue legal recreation. If as greyrooster suggests, we disallow them to legal residents, we are leaving a foor in the door for gun control advocates to try and add to the 'disallowed' list. My instinct is to say that self defense as a right, trancends any governments right of recognition. The government doesn't give you a right to self defense, it only choses whether to recognize the right, and how much.
                        USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 22, 2007 04:51 PM (2OHpj)

26 As far as recognizing the right to self defense, that right trumps government's right to recognize it, the real issue rests with an individuals willingness to defy a government restriction on that basic right to self defense. A big mean government that tries to restrict your right poses a threat that must be weighed against the justified defiance of thier restrictions. Morally, you ARE REQURED to resist gun control as a restriction on your right to personal self defense. And for Greyrooster, this right is universal, whether the US government extends recognition to all legal residents, or just the citizens. Even Koreans have the basic right. Cause it's basic! It's universal!                                     USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 22, 2007 04:58 PM (2OHpj)

27 Now as to voting, which Greyrooster tried to compare to self defense/gun issues.     Voting is for people who are invested as citizens, in the process of government by the people, and who have given allegience to the political entity within which the voting occurs, and which the voting is intended to govern.  Voting is recognition of the individual voice as it applies to collective decision making.  The voting body can pursue issues like defense of the collective citizenry, and even decide to oppress basic rights like personal self defense. The right doesn't go away, but it can be oppressed.  OK anyway, voting is a memebrship issue. you need to be a citizen, and you decide as a collective. Gun rights are personal, and as a matter of self defence, are more pure than a governments efforts to oppress them. I hope the distinction comes through.                 
             USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 22, 2007 05:05 PM (2OHpj)

28 "repeatedly refers to THE PEOPLE"  The US Constitution was used to hold out certain rights for special protection, and especially for 'The People'.  Some rights are unenumerated, and as our Founding Fathers said, all men are created equal, with inalienable rights. Giving special protection to 'The People' is not meant to infringe on any mans 'inalienable rights'. This would be morally wrong. When 'rights' come into conflict, value judgements have to be made. The US government is suppossed to put the rights of 'The People' first, but this doesn't require the defacto oppression of the rights of non-citizens. If a conflict occurs, the rights of citizens should have more weight. Thats he main difference.                
                             USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 22, 2007 05:12 PM (2OHpj)

29 I will always uphold the Second Amendment, and I embrace the concept that all people have inalienable rights. The whole world should be transformed to recognize those rights. The default should be to respect an individuals equal right to exist, and freedom of choice, and conscience. Only where a conflict MUST BE resolved, should sacrifices be made, and those sacrifices should be as minimal as possible. My counter to Communism ... "Each according to his ability, and conscience!"  Just that! Men with a conscience CAN CHOOSE to be generous with the fruits of thier labors, and exercise moral judgement as to how those fruits are to be distributed.           I guess I'm ranting.          I hope my rants are at least clear enough to be understood                                  
                                                                       USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 22, 2007 05:23 PM (2OHpj)

30 Good way to leave the main subject. The 2nd ammendent clearly refers to the rights of the people. The people being the citizens of the United States of America. It in no way extents the rights to own and bear arms to foreigners. All else is academic poppycock. Libral interpretation and lack of common sense has allowed the 2nd ammendant to be manipulated until it is a danger not a protection for Americans. Nothing permits 10,000 green carders from coming into this nation and buying 10,000 weapons all in a short period of time. Would you feel comfortable with 10,000 mexican coming into San Diego and being able to purchase 10,000 weapons.     What does a foreign student need a semi automatic weapon for? Swatting flies in the dorm? COMMON SENSE needs application here. CHO had no right to purcase and own weapons in our country. He was not a citizen and some ambulance chaser needs to challenge that right. Could be big bucks in a class action suit.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 23, 2007 07:19 AM (Ri8KN)

31 Declare all gun control unconstitutional i mean a judge just recently declared WASHINGTON D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional and of course the eletist liberal mayor is objecting WELL IF THIS WUSSIETARD CANT READ WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT SAID THEN WHY DONT HE JUST STEP DOWN AND GET A NEW JOB CLEANING UP TRASH

Posted by: sandpiper at April 23, 2007 10:23 AM (nzpL/)

32

Greyrooster, our Founding Fathers recognized the existence of universal rights, and took measures to enshrine protections for those rights into the laws of the republic. For the most part, the rights remain universal, even if not enshrined in law. 

A mans right to take up whatever arms he can in defense of himself, his family, and thier welfare, is a universal, and inalienble right.  Morally, a man has the natural right to seek the means of defense REGARDLESS OF GOVERNMENT OR LAWS OF MAN! 

Saying rights have no moral application to those who are not citizens is like saying they have no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. We would become that which we hate. Using your exmple of rights applying only to 'The People', I could pick out people who were merely 'legal residents' and deprive them of life, liberty, etc, and it would be OK.  Why ... we could re-instate slavery!

Unless someone is doing something wrong, (WRONG) then leave them alone!  Really! 

A hundred years ago, Mexicans (and others) could come buy guns in the USA if they had the cash, and nobody gave a damn if they were citizens.  Nobody probably bothered to check and see if they were even legal residents. SO BIG WHOOP!  It was better that way, than it is now with all the restrictions that lawful residents already face.  

Many things about our culture were MORE FREE in those days. There were no real gun control laws, and a man could choose as he liked.  Personal self defense was presumed, not punished. I'm not changing my view about inalienable rights, or how effective self defense is one of them.  Criminals, invaders, and seditionists need to be stopped, but otherwise, leave people alone. 

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 23, 2007 12:00 PM (2OHpj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Talk about politicizing an atrocity:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday the government hoped the Virginia Tech shootings, allegedly carried out by a 23-year-old South Korean native, would not "stir up racial prejudice or confrontation."

Protecting them, I might add, from their own kind. I guess you could call that racial prejudice.

Way to spit on the graves of the 36,516 Americans who died to keep you free to spout this nonsense.

If people really want to chant about bringing our troops home, maybe it's time to bring them home from ungrateful places such as this.

By the way, I just checked, "South Korea" translates into the Korean language as "France."

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

The United Kingdom continues its march toward police-state socialism.

The UK parliament is considering legislation that would authorize bailiffs to break into the homes of motorists accused of not paying parking tickets.

Under legislation currently making its way through the House of Commons, bailiffs would seize items out of the home in order to pay off the amount owed in tickets, plus hefty fees. Any homeowner that attempting (sic) to stop the bailiff would face up to a year in prison.

1) Police goons knock on the door and if it's not opened smartly or nobody is home, they break in.

2) Police goons immediately perform a search for wallets, pocketbooks, coin purses and cookie jars for cash sufficient to pay whatever is owed plus hefty fees.

3) If sufficient cash is not found, police will then look around the home to find and confiscate articles of property which, based upon an on-the-spot valuation by a police officer, would produce enough money to cover the debt plus hefty fees.

4) Police goons depart with money and/or valuables confiscated during the debt collection operation, likely leaving behind a ransacked home with a broken front door.

And while they consider forcefully breaking into homes, Brits continue to berate the U.S. for monitoring international phone calls involving terror suspects as an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

(H/T John Ray)

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:01 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Behold! Michelle down the smack layeth:

Congrats to Michelle on her hosting gig on O'Reilly. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict a Malkin show on Fox News in the not-too-distant future.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:30 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Recently, the parents of convicted Taliban supporter John Walker Lindh have been engaged in a media campaign to have their son's sentence reduced. This was prompted by the lenient sentence imposed upon Australian David hicks, who will reportedly be free in another nine months.

Lindh's parents have been interviewed by several news outlets over the past week, and it seems their intent is to capitalize on the new national 'mood', now that several years have passed since the 9/11 attacks. They seek to build media momentum in order to force the issue to the president's desk, where they hope George W. Bush's 'capacity for compassion' will prevail.

It is understandable that Lindh's family would do whatever is possible to protect their son. However, the news media has no such motive, and I suspect their agenda is somewhat less wholesome.
Regardless, John Walker Lindh betrayed his country, took up arms in the name of the Taliban and supported those who seek America's destruction.

My response to the Lindh family media campaign is below the fold.
The views expressed in this video are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jawa Report.

Click "Read More" to view the video. more...

Posted by: Kafir at 05:43 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

It's not clear what benefit is to be derived by having an official definition for honor killing. Nevertheless, here it is. It comes from the Culture Manager for Sanliurfa Province, a region abutting the border with Syria in southeastern Turkey.

From Sabah:

"Honor killing applies to the ones escaping from their homes or betraying their wives or husbands. It does not apply to innocent ones."

However, it's worthwhile to note that within the context of the above definition, or an interpretation thereof, a reported 1,806 murders were committed in Turkey between 2001 and 2006.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:35 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

HELLO, MSM? Echooooo...

According to MetroActive, she resigned quietly (where was the MSM?) from a Military Construction Appropriations committee after a conflict of interest involving her husband, tens of millions of dollars in defense and construction contracts, etc. surfaced in January.

MetroActive speculates that the resignation was due to the impending release of a scathing expose (funded by The Nation) that threatened to blow the lid off the air-tight kettledrum of ethical problems:

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?

WHERE IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS TO CONDEMN AND ASK FOR HER RESIGNATION? WHERE IS NANCY PELOSI? WHERE IS HARRY REID? WHERE IS CHUCK SCHUMER?

More importantly, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE REPUBLICANS?

This is genuine news. Political corruption on a scale as big as Duke Cunningham, and the mainstream press is worried about 8 US attorneys losing their jobs in a completely legal hard-ball political axing-session.

The Culture of Corruption has 'returned' - bigger and better than ever before!

Welcome, Instapundit readers.
ht: Michael Savage

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:15 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.