#1
to Gore, v. forcing one to be subject to inane incessant ravings and demeaning lectures by a former Vice-President. Thought to have been ruled 'cruel and unusual' punishment by the most recent decree opinion of Justice Kennedy, SCOTUS for life.
A Tempe pastor is raising eyebrows with his prayers that include his pleas for the death of President Barack Obama.
Steven Anderson, 28, was featured on CNN this week for the content of his sermons, including one earlier this month titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." An audio of the sermon posted on Anderson's Web site includes what Anderson contends is proof found in scripture that "God hates Barack Obama."
Anderson gave the sermon on Aug. 16 while Obama and his family were visiting Arizona.
"I'd like to see Barack Obama melt like a snail tonight," Anderson said in the sermon, referencing the practice of pouring salt on slugs. "He ought to be aborted."
An expert on CNN said Secret Service agents had likely visited Anderson because of the content of his sermons.
Anderson, who ministers at Faithful Word Baptist Church, did not return a call or e-mail for comment.
Chris Broughton, the 28-year-old Tempe resident who gained national notoriety after carrying a rifle to protest President Obama's appearance last week in downtown Phoenix, has said Anderson is his pastor.
Anderson last appeared in the news in the spring, following a dispute with Border Patrol agents and Arizona Department of Public Safety officers that he turned into a YouTube video.
Anderson's attorney in the Border Patrol-DPS dispute said he was unaware of his client's Obama sermon or any subsequent contact with law-enforcement officials.
In April, Anderson claimed DPS officers and border patrol agents beat him following a stop at a checkpoint on Interstate 8 about 70 miles east of Yuma. Anderson was charged with disorderly conduct, and the case is headed to court in Yuma on Sept. 29.
In the months before that incident, Anderson posted several YouTube videos in which he confronts authorities.
In February, he posted a video showing an encounter he says was at a checkpoint at the New Mexico border. He keeps his windows rolled up. He questions the agents on why he's being stopped. In March, he shot a video titled "Another Cop Harasses me for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON *Minnesota."
In January, he posted another video shot at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. He walks up to a Phoenix police officer and asks him about his machine gun. When the officer replies that it's none of his business, Anderson says, "It's none of my business? Don't you work for me since I'm a citizen of Phoenix and of the United States?"
"It's not that I hate police officers and it's not that I'm anti-government or anti-authority," Anderson said in April. "I'm a Baptist pastor; I'm not some sort of anarchist."
#1
"It's not that I hate police officers and it's not that I'm anti-government or anti-authority," Anderson said in April. "I'm a Baptist pastor; I'm not some sort of anarchist."
actually, I think he's an asshole
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2009 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Definitely an asshole. How long before MSNBC paints him as the 'voice of the Right'?
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/29/2009 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's seems to me Pastor Anderson chose a career that does not fit his abilities nor temperament. A shame, really -- there are so many careers where expressing one's rude thoughts cleverly pays off in spades. In the meantime, perhaps he would be better advised to pray that the president be moved to act as is best for the United States, rather than presuming to tell God what to do.
#5
he doesn't seem any more (or less) far afield than Jeremiah Wright.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
08/29/2009 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Right, but Jeremiah Wright gets a free pass because he's BLACK .
(And Blacks can NEVER be racist, just ask them)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/29/2009 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Jeremiah Wright no longer got a free pass once the outside world noticed. Likewise, this gentleman.
One might argue Mr. Wright still has his big house and lots of money. This is true. However, I posit that the thing most important to him -- the attention and adulation to be found while standing in the pulpit -- have been taken from him, and the rest is like ashes in his mouth.
#1
Ron doesn't learn fast. Rhetoric and politics are married. Sarah et al fired up a large segment of the American population in the period before a Fall session of Congress. It is better to talk compromise and settlement when you have a partisan mass behind you. Shrillness will give way to reasoned discourse, but NOT YET!!
#2
In order to rope-a-dope, you need to understand who the dope was. How can such 'best and brightest' be dopes? Recognizing your problem is the first step to recovery. I don't think we have a whole lot to worry about that happening.
#4
I posted my last comment here as I posted the same one to PJ media. Other posts have come after but that one is still awaiting moderation. It is a key question of trust in politically biased government boards.
On the importance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as an intelligence source and the enhanced interrogation techniques that made him talk.
Go to the original blog post by Steven Hayes of the The Weekly Standard for links to the quoted articles.
One key source [of the Washington Post article] is former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who acknowledged that two of the CIA's "most powerful" enhanced interrogation techniques "elicited a lot of information."
"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview with the Washington Post.
As we approach the eight anniversary of 9/11, we in the Intelligence Community can be proud of the work that thousands of us have done, are doing, and must continue to do to help keep the country safe. Against a ruthless enemy that violates the norms of civilized behavior we along with out teammates from other departments and agencies, have carried out our duties effectively, and in ways that exemplify American values. Over the next several days there will be public discussion about individual incidents from the past in which some intelligence officers fell short of the high standards we set for ourselves. Their conduct tarnishes us all. However, the questionalbe actions of a few should not obsure the dedicated, difficult, and correct actions of the many. Most important, we must continue to improve our effectiveness against an enemy still seeking to attack us.
In the future we will find and detain more important officials of al Qaida and sympathizer groups. Based on the recommendations of a task force of which I was co-chair, the President has decided that high-value interrogations will be conducted by a dedicated, expert interagency interrogation team, back by a strong analytical team. This team will not use enhanced interrogation techniquest and will be guided by the Army Field Manual.
Another important issue in the public domain over the next several days will be Congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community. I and other leaders in the Intelligence Community are committed to keeping the Congress fully and currently informed. We have repeatedly demonstragted our genuine commitment to serious oversight in partnership with the Congress during my seven months as DNI and will continue to do so.
So, as you read the articles, watch the television reports, and check out the blogs, remember that the fundemental strenth of this country is to learn from the past and do better in the future. Your job is to sustain the best of what has been developed by those before you and improve on the rest. Meanwhile, we have work to do and a country to keep safe. Press on.
#1
Blair is lying toady. If he had any professional ethics and concern for national security, he would threaten or actually resign, just as Panetta is doing
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2009 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think this whole thing with Panetta is just a cover for him to keep some type of loyalty with the spooks.
#3
prolly so, but he's doing the right thing, this one time, at least
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2009 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Highlighting the evil past ("W" years), intelligence officers who....fell short. Hi marks and future political appointments from Barry over this one, I'm sure.
Let the show trials begin!
I, Dennis C. Blair will SAVE you from Fox, the internetS, greedy gun waving contractors, and evil astro-turf bloggers. All ahead full and all hail THE ONE!
#5
This team will not use enhanced interrogation techniques and will be guided by the Army Field Manual.
Translation: This team will wield the ultimate threat of serving terrorists room-temperature Chardonnay and forcing them to sleep on sheets with a low thread count.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
08/29/2009 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Since anyone can get the Army Field Manual, Al Qaeda operatives can get it and read it too. They can prepare themselves to resist interrogation.
If you know that the US will not actually kill you, no matter what the interrogator says, you can resist it. If you know that the interrogator cannot actually beat you, but only lightly slap you on the stomach, you can resist it. If you know that a team of American lawyers will prosecute the interrogators, not you , you can resist almost anything.
So get used to much more resistant al Qaeda captures in the future.
Or better yet, just don't take prisoners.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
08/29/2009 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
just don't take prisoners
amen
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2009 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
There is one thing that affects the perception, and therefore the nerve, of the interrogatee, outside the widely publicized new house rules: American television, American films, American news. Specifically, all emphasize that Americans break rules when they consider the goal important, and the first two make very clear that Americans consider torture a primary tool for getting bad guys to confess... and even merely for punishment/revenge. Who is going to believe that, faced with the possibility of another 9/11 -- and every jihadi hopes his little plot will become another 9/11 -- the CIA interrogator facing him is not going to use the latest combination of brain chemicals and pain induction, coupled with psychological trickerty? What guarantee does the interrogatee that the interrogator will not go rogue? Other than the Military Field Manual, I mean.
Perhaps I've imbibed too deeply of popular American culture in my conjectures. But you see, so have they.
#10
the past in which some intelligence officers fell short of the high standards we set for ourselves.
And they will never be prosecuted. Why?
All they will have to do is appoint the lovely Orly to their defense team and that object buzzing around the White House like a ricocheting bullet will be Uhbama in panic mode. He would then come to the conclusion the it would be best to drop the case, in the "national interest" of course.
The Hamas movement was enraged by the media and the Agence France Press [AFP] in particular, which published a report that was circulated concerning Hamas' decision to impose the Hijab and Jilbab [traditional, long, loose-fitting robe] on female students in schools in the Gaza Strip. The report also spoke of the decision that only female staff would be allowed to work in girls' schools.
The Hamas-affiliated Interior Ministry issued a lengthy statement that condemned the AFP report, describing it as "superficial and lacking the required media transparency and objectivity, as well as being selective."
The lengthy statement did not refute or deny any of the basic information revealed in the AFP report by school principals, teachers, and female students, nor did Hamas deny that female students would be required to wear the Hijab and Jilbab, and would be subjected to punishment should they fail to comply with this. A number of statements and decisions were made following Hamas' decision and these were verbally conveyed to school principals.
There is no doubt that the statement of clarification issued by Hamas in response to the media report and the disapproval of the decision it had already taken led to a fundamental dilemma within the movement. This is accompanied by its recent experiences and the numerous, serious mistakes that Hamas has made over the past few years.
Hamas failed to justify this step and was cautious about adopting it; it was happy just to hide behind repeating the same old phrases such as "the Palestinian nation is a conservative and a Muslim one" and that "wearing the Hijab for female students is a personal decision that stems from the family and is not imposed by force." Therefore, the tolerance that Hamas claimed to have when it seized power in Gaza by force has disappeared on more than one occasion and the issue of Hijab in school will not be the last time this will happen.
This recent restriction that Hamas is imposing on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip that further aggravates the crises is a new step taken by Hamas in an area where nothing has been achieved except more sanctions and continuous suffering for the Palestinians. Once again, Hamas is defending itself by casting accusations against the media and demanding that it focus on the Israeli sanctions and the sufferings caused by the occupation forces (which of course does deserve media coverage and attention), and asks the media to turn a blind eye to its own fatal errors and failures. This is the foundation of the Hamas experience in power. It is not enough that Hamas gives in to the media that is sympathetic towards it i.e. those who are either refrained from talking about this particular issue or others who side with the movement to the extent that many have warned against such bias.
Once again, the media is the target of ill will, coercion and dismissal. How can it not be when it is held responsible for revealing such intentions and orientations? But on the other hand, how could Hamas believe that a decision such as imposing the Hijab on students would pass unnoticed and uncovered by the media? The Hamas authority is not meant to be ashamed of its decisions but it seems that we are facing an authority that is equivocal in its intentions and one that demands the media to conspire along with it.
Hamas is not supposed to be ashamed of such a decision, especially as it is supposedly in harmony with its constitution and its own doctrine. Its attempt at equivocation is evidence that its doctrine is flawed and Hamas cannot declare this publicly. The media can host such discussions without necessarily having to accept them.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/29/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
...In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedys passing, Americas TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where theres a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.
In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 19401969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.
Thats the way to do it! An accident, ugly in some unspecified way, just happened to happen and only to him, nobody else. Teds the star, and theres no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: Like all figures in history and like those in the Bible, for that matter Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.
Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than betrayed him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, lets face it, he doesnt have Teds tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps its kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of tremendous moral collapse. When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, its usually to add insult to fatal injury. As Teddys biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedys achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.
You cant make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I dont know how many lives the senator changed he certainly changed Mary Jos but youre struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddys Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows maybe shed feel it was worth it. What true-believing liberal lass wouldnt be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?
We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-seconds notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty. When a man (if youll forgive the expression) confronts the truth of what he has done, what does honor require? Six years before Chappaquiddick, in the wake of Britains comparatively very minor Profumo scandal, the eponymous John Profumo, Her Majestys Secretary of State for War, resigned from the House of Commons and the Queens Privy Council, and disappeared amid the tenements of the East End to do good works washing dishes and helping with childrens playgroups, in anonymity, for the last 40 years of his life. With the exception of one newspaper article to mark the centenary of his charitable mission, he never uttered another word in public again.
Ted Kennedy went a different route. He got kitted out with a neck brace and went on TV and announced the invention of the Kennedy curse, a concept that yoked him to his murdered brothers as a fellow victim and not, as Mary Jo perhaps realized in those final hours, the perpetrator. He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didnt, he made all of us complicit in what hed done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation....
Posted by: Mike ||
08/29/2009 12:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As has been commented elsewhere, Senator Edward Kennedy only achieved what he did because his successful brothers were murdered. And so one has the uncomfortable feeling that had Joe, Jack, or Bobby been in that car, they would have either brought Miss Kopechne to the surface with them, or have dived back in the water in a rescue attempt, successful or no... and then turned the whole thing into another Camelot fairy tale: "Prince Charming Rescues the Peasant Maiden". But although third sons are supposed to win the princess and the crown, it is supposed to be through cleverness and kindness; princes who fail the test through selfishness never get anything until they learn their lesson. Senator Edward Kennedy never learnt the lesson, and so he never won the crown he so desired.
#2
I contributed this comment about him, on a thread here, at Chicagoboyz. It seems relevant, so I might as well quote in full: "Thats the failing that people - across the board, politically - can never forgive. Not so much because his actions, his drunkenness and stupidity put his car off the road in a relatively shallow body of water - its because he panicked, and thought only of himself.
And if he had any scrap of self-awareness, any sense of the obligations that are due from anyone who has a pretense of calling themselves a responsible human being, he wouldnt have been in the position that he has been, ever since that fatal night.
He must lived the rest of his life knowing that if he had only thought heroically, thought of someone else besides himself, been a sensible, sober and responsible human being - gone to the nearest house and called for help - she might have been rescued in time. He might have been able to live down the temporary embarrassment, had a heck of a lot to explain the next morning but He was a Kennedy, and one of those-so-called charismatic Kennedy-generation Kennedys, after all, of whom much is expected and a lot forgiven - but no. He thought first, foremost and always of himself, drunk and sober.
What we want, I think, of our politicians, is that they at least make a good pretense of thinking of the better good, and of making a more convincing show of caring abut of the people they make a great show of pretending to care about. Ted Kennedy couldnt even be bothered, in that particular instance and that particular crisis, and so the very nakedness of that dont care-think-of-myself resonates after all this time.
His older brother, for all you might say about him politically - swam a good distance in a South Sea ocean, towing an injured crewman from his PT boat, after the same was sunk in a collision with a Japanese warship. JFK didnt leave a friend/crewmate/acquaintance behind. And Teddy did. And had to bear that knowledge for all time.
No wonder he turned into a drunk - if he hadnt already been one before."
#4
John Kennedy's defining moment during WW II was how he behaved after PT109 was sunk. He swam to the nearest island with the life jacket strap of one of his crewmen in his teeth. In the process he wrecked his back, leaving him in pain for the rest of his life. He managed to get a message to rescuers. For this, he was truly a hero.
On the other hand, someone pointed out that PT109 was the only warship in modern times that was sunk by ramming. There were suggestions that Kennedy and/or his crew were asleep when they got hit.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
08/29/2009 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
Don't really know where to post this so mods feel free to move it. I have given $$ in the past to "Soldiers Angels" It seems to be a worthy charity for our guys and gals and I'd like to do more by sponsoring an event either locally in Danville, CA (where I live..weigh in, Golf Bravo) or see if I can get my company to sponsor. My question is this...do any of you know about this org and can vouch for the authenticity? I'd like to know before I commit my time and $ (as well as others) to it.
#1
Yes, I know this organization. Top notch, A-1, el supremo. I became a Kansas vol. after one of our local kids got shot up in the stan. Called them and got word back to his parents in just a few hours from Germany. Can't say enough good things about the people and what they do for our wounded troops.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A Tempe pastor is raising eyebrows with his prayers that include his pleas for the death of President Barack Obama.
