...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

August 31, 2006

Guardsman Beat Up By Crazy Liberals

Near Tacoma, Washington...

The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is searching for five people who allegedly attacked a uniformed National Guardsmen walking along 138th Street in Parkland Tuesday afternoon.

The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.

“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.

The suspects were driving a black Chevy Suburban-type SUV.

“This is something new for us, we have not had military people assaulted because they were in the military or somebody's opposition to a war or whatever,” Troyer said.

The driver is described as a white male, 25-30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, heavy build, short blond hair, wearing a black T-shirt and jeans, and armed with a handgun.

The vehicle's passengers are described as white males, 20-25 years old. Some of the suspects wore red baseball hats and red sweatshirts during the attack.

The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and charging of the individuals involved. Informants can call 253-591-5959, and callers will remain anonymous.

That is just sick. Every time some terrorist cell gets busted we hear no end of public service announcements intended to prevent "hate crimes" against muslims. They must be very effective, since I haven't heard of a single such "hate crime" since 9/11. Maybe we should be doing the same thing to protect our military in certain sections of the country.

h/t Beth at She Who Will Be Obeyed

Posted by annika, Aug. 31, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Sep. 1, 2006

Well of course, Kipling's is the classic response. It's hard to beat Tommy Atkins. I, however, came to borrow from McMurtry. The gratitude of the American public is a mighty weak vessel to put much hope in.

Posted by: Casca on Sep. 1, 2006

Ummm...maybe not.

"Authorities are continuing to investigate a National Guardsman's claim that he was attacked earlier this week in Parkland and called "a baby killer."

A witness who came forward after the incident told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News a different story about what happened on Tuesday morning, but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.

The witness told police he saw several men in uniform beat a man in civilian clothes, but later changed his account to back the guardsman.

Investigators said the witness's stories were inconsistent with the guardsman's, and they are back to "square one" in the investigation."

Posted by: Hesiod on Sep. 1, 2006


I don't know how the same, sane woman who wrote that heartfelt commerative piece could also pen the headline of this piece. (Although I do not see the parallel with apeasement of Adolf)

It sounds as if it is awfully early in the investigation to be jumping to conclusions. Seriously, ANnie, Liberals don't jump out of pickups and beat anything up. SOme weatherman left over from 1970 might but not those that followed the wing of the party led by HH and others. A group of PETA types might if he had his winter furs on or some Earth FIrsters might if he had a 36" Stihl in his hand but not Liberals of the CIndy SHehan ilk. THis guardsman might be muddying the waters and doing a bit of agit prop to rally the Right to go on a witch hunt or some other nonsence. Or maybe DOnald Segrity paid these guys 50 bucks to do the deed and cast aspersions as we run up to the midterms. The Republicans are running scared and losing control of the H & S and so forth is going to make for some real dirty tricks. Poll taxes are starting to flourish; I notice MO just got into the game (All passed by Republican state houses arguing protection against non-existant voter fraud) and there will be more to come. However, if all goes as it seems it will, We could see articles of impeachment by January.

Posted by: strawman on Sep. 1, 2006

"Poll taxes are starting to flourish."

Proof please. Nice race card, Straw. Sorry, it won't work in 2006 - especially because they only people that can still be legally discriminated against are white men.

"Non-existent voter fraud." You betchya. The only person you are fooling is yourself, Straw. Your party invented voter fraud and engages in it every single election.

BTW, the Dems have no chane of winning the Senate. They have a 50/50 chance of the House because the MSM will start really cranking up the anti-Bush machine. (Notice that the MSM had absolutely nothing to say about the Wilson - Plame fraud that they brought upon the nation?)

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 1, 2006


You don't think the placing of these document barrriers is a poll tax? Is there some constitutional requirement that you must drive or be able to lay hands on your birth certificate or that you have the bus fare to go to the county seat and then pay for the search or the copy? These are blantant impediments to voting that aim squarely at non-republican voters? There is no evidence of a single vote cast fraudantly in Georgia in the last twenty years. These programs are pure politics. Justice reviewed these laws, wrote a memo stating flatly that they are "likely to be descriminatory against African-Americans" and, of course, a Bush appointee said, "Nah, couldn't be".

All these photo ID laws will eventually be struck down, and that is understood by all, but the ONLY concern is that the mid terms take place first. It has nothing to do with voter fraud and you, my good man, know that.

Posted by: strawman on Sep. 1, 2006

Hi everyone, I am blogging on my neice's dell from Grand Isle La. about to head out on a fishing trip tomorrow.

Straw, you goddam left wing ass, yes of course left wingers do crap like that. The primary motivation of the left, since the time of Marx has always been hate. Hatred of the bourgeois, hatred of capitalism, hatred of religion etc.

Well I will drink another margarita to the spirit of freedom which does not inhabit your sorry ass at all.

Posted by: Kyle N on Sep. 1, 2006

"You don't think the placing of these document barrriers is a poll tax?"

No, it is common sense. We have a right to vote. But there is nothing radical about asking people to prove who they are when we know that voter fraud occurs constantly - especially on the Left.

"Justice reviewed these laws, wrote a memo stating flatly that they are "likely to be descriminatory against African-Americans" and, of course, a Bush appointee said, 'Nah, couldn't be'."

How? We all have equal access to birth certificates and a driver license (provided it hasn't been taken from you or you have not ever tried to get one - in which you can easily obtain a State ID.) Basically, your and the Left's problem with these laws has absolutely nothing tp do with your supposed empathy for these poor minority people - it is all about political power. The Left has always been willing to usurp power no matter the cost. You all know damn well that there is rampant voter fraud on your side. The thing is that you don't care.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 1, 2006

Again I must concur totally with Blu on this. As a Georgia voter in perhaps one of the lily whitest counties in the state I can tell you that for years I have been asked to show I.D. at the polls. Whether this was actually required or simply helped expedite the process, I don't know.

I do know it takes far more to rent a movie at Blockbuster.

Posted by: Mike C. on Sep. 2, 2006


Blockbuster. Cashing a check. Using a credit card anyplace. The list goes on and on.

The arguments against showing a vaild ID are ALL ludicrous. Of course, the Left will never admit that they want as many people voting regardless of citizenship status. I believe that many of these people don't believe in the sovreignty of the U.S. and, futhermore, that "citizenship" should be bestowed on anybody that manages to sneak across our border. So, legal or illegal it makes no difference to these people. Heck, some of these idiots think that the murderers and rapists sitting in our jails should have the right to vote as well. We need not get into how many dead people manage somehow to vote Democrat each year.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 2, 2006


SOmetimes you are an insufferable ass. None of what you argue is true. And don't confuse presenting ID with the NEw laws. What you present at Blockbuster, or the bank, or the supermarket will not work anymore at the poling station. They have made it harder and with only one purpose in mind;Reduce democratic voters. It is all about poverty and hardship. You and Kyle and Mike are completely dissengenuous when you say stuoid shit like "we all have equall access to our records". We don't and you fucking well know it. As for dead people voting in Georgia:Apocrahphyl! According to the Republican sec. of state. Just bad record keeping. But the R lives on lies and just keeps telling them until they forget the truth. Explain the FL felon list to me Blu?

Yup, Kyle, thanks for the history lesson, I think you've been drinkin margarita's non stop since birth.

Posted by: strawman on Sep. 2, 2006

So, just for the record, Straw. You oppose the idea of proving that you are who you say you are, a registered voter and a US citizen, when going to vote. It is a simple question. The only reason to oppose this is because you want people to vote who should not be voting. Period.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 2, 2006


What does "period" mean? You make the most assine inference from what I wrote and then you say "Period'? I don't get it.

If I believed you thought for a moment that the difference between the R and the Dem's is that one only wishes to see fairness in elections and and the other strives for the right to let dogs and meerkats vote I would have stopped talking to you months ago. You don't believe it yet the words still come. Try a little honesty once and a while.

Posted by: strawman on Sep. 3, 2006

Honesty: I believe that Reps don't want people voting who ought not be voting due to their citizenship status - this is partly due to ethics and partly due to the fact that fradulent voting is more likley to benefit Democrats. Democrats want people to vote without the benefit of ID because they know that fradulent votes will likely benefit them. There those like you - I'll take you at your word - that feel like showing an ID is some sort of undue burden that unequally falls on minorities. So, not requiring an ID soothes your conscience by (1) lifting that "burden" and (2)erasing any ethical consequences related to fradulent voting because if nobody has to prove who they are then nobody knows for certain who is or is not a legal voter.

More honesty: Reps prefer a lower turnout because that usually benefits our side as our voters are generally more reliable than yours.

Personally, I believe there should be no situation where a person can vote without legal photo ID.

All of this I honestly believe.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 3, 2006

Let's see, I'm trying to remember what the Strawman wanted from the Wizard of Oz.

Oh, yeah. Well, it's clear he never got it.

Posted by: shelly on Sep. 3, 2006


(Shelly, what I wanted and have had in recent times is not to have unctuous selfsatisified smelts like yourself nipping at my heels.)

Not lets get this straight Blu, because I think there is a large flaw in all of this and that is your assumption that the dem's wish people to vote without showing some form of ID. This is the strawman of this argument that you seem to have swallowed. NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY is suggesting that showing an ID is intrusive and some sort of civil liberties violation nor is anybody suggesting that a situation should be advanced where the possiblity of those not permitted to vote should be enhanced. NOBODY.

What is at stake is that people who HAVE the right to vote are having impediments put in their path. This is ALL that THIS IS ABOUT. Impediments to LEGAL voters who also are to a greater extent likely to vote democrtatic because they are african-americans or are poor.

Blu, get a grip.

There are many forms of ID. 40 some states are using them without a problem. People who may not drive may have credit cards, picture ID.s from their supermarket chain or video store, or their place of employment (lockeed martin, the Post office, McDonalds,) These people cannot register with this ID BECAUSE the new law prohibits registering unless you have a DL or this NEWLY created ID issued by the state at a few locations. Bus fare, gas for your car, the 10.00 fee for the ID and having access to a prima facia form of ID are all required for this new ID to be issued. Blu, do birth certificates have a picture on them? So what the fuck good is the new ID if it is based on bullshit? IT is no good is the point but it will cause thousands in many states to be disenfranchised and is part of a cynical and most likely illegal political strategy.

Your honesty is somewhat refreshing as far as it goes. You know that in this country the prevalence of people voting who shold not be is completely insignificant and that, especially in the SOuth the disenfranchisement of significant numbers is and has historically been significant.

Posted by: strawman on Sep. 3, 2006


If someone has a store card from Sears and they didn't need to produce a legitimate ID in order to obtain it, then what good is it for positive ID at the polling place?

"Um, yeah... I'd like a library card, please? My name... and no ID required? Uh... Joey Joe-Joe Junior Shabadoo. Yeah, that's the ticket..."

And this ID is good enough, in your estimation, for vote casting? So any shmoe can collect various cheesy IDs for his friends and relatives and vote all day long. And, even if he's caught, there's no way to undo the damage since votes are cast anonymously.

A valid state photo ID is a common sense requirement. Will it prevent me -- with my Right to vote -- from casting a ballot if I show up without my wallet? Yep. So what? I have a Right to vote, but not a Right to commit vote fraud.

Would it allay your fear of a "poll tax" if all eligible voters who do not currently have a state-issued photo ID were issued one F.O.C.?

Posted by: Tuning Spork on Sep. 3, 2006

Respectfully Straw I must take issue regarding the typical reference to the 'south' in your comments. I'm not a southerner by birth and when I moved to the Atlanta area in the early seventies you could justifiably make the case that discrimination still prevailed. If I'm not mistaken even the great Carter ran first on a segregationist platform even if no one came right out and said it. (back in his statewide days)

Now Atlanta is a great city run by minorities, some of whom would likely take offense at the notion that they aren't smart or wealthy enough to aquire the requisite I.D. for voting. Granted the rest of the state is now largely Republican but there's more to this than just politics. (When the Dems were in power they had their own
tricks like gerimandered districts that crisscrossed the state following black population)

If there were no other reason the illegal imigrant
situation would be enough in my opinion. And this conflicts with my setiment that illegals should have driver's lisenses so that they are insured, in which case I'd be happy to get a new voter I.D.

I will admit I am not purely democratic by any stretch. I would prefer it if state assemblies still elected U.S. senators and I've even entertained the idea (not too seriously) that
only property owners should vote, but please- let's keep that our little secret.

Posted by: Mike C. on Sep. 3, 2006

In keeping with this topic, I'm certain you will all be excited to hear that liberals in TN and MD are doing their best to make certain that ex-Felons - yes, murderers and rapist - are allowed to vote immediately upon release. The forces behind this push are the usual suspects:
The NAA(L)CP and the very un-American ACLU. Well, at least they are correct about one thing: The odds are that most ex-felons are Democrats.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 5, 2006


How clever.

But, those who think black leaders or just plain folk will be offended that part of the augment against State issued ID's is poverty are nuts. They know better than anyone how their people have systematically been coerced away from the polling booth. They see the Georgia law for what it is-more of the same white bullshit fucking with their rights. Show mw a black legislator in Georgia that voted for the bill, please?

I don't deny dem's have gerrymandered and I hate it. It is a process that can, not always, lead to the dimishment of representative government. What is the statistic about the actual number of seats in congress that are really ever in play? 10% 15%?

Furthermore, all you fraud advocates: what would have stopped anybody in the past, legal or illegal from getting multiple id's and voting all day long? Everybody on your side keeps spouting this horse shit about multiple voting yet there is NO, I repeat NO documentation to support the argument that it is currently (last 25 years) a problem. (Please don't cite an isolated case in Idaho; we are talking about numbers that have even the slightest significance)

What about my previous argument that possession of a birth certificate is also meaningless if you want to identify someone? It has no picture, fingerprints, nothing linking it to the person in possession of the doc with the person identified on the document.

So I still maintain that the whole thing is bullshit. Just another attempt by the R to separate voters who do not support their candidates from the booth.

As for felons voting, Blu, that is a decision of State legislators. If a person has done the time presumably society is content and the punishment for their crime is complete. Why give them drivers licenses or let them collect social security, or use a public library, or ride a bus? Why do you pick on voting as the punishment that endures the test of time? Why let them out of prison at all?

Posted by: strawman on Sep. 5, 2006

"They see the Georgia law for what it is-more of the same white bullshit fucking with their rights. Show mw a black legislator in Georgia that voted for the bill, please?"

I don't give two shits what any black legislator thinks about this issue. The majority of black Dem legislators I see on C-SPAN or cable sound like racists and would like us to believe that "the man" is out to get them 24/7. (Or how about listening to the bile that comes from Julian Bond's lips any day of the week.) You see, Straw, that's how they keep their jobs. God forbid any of these race-baiters would have to work for a living. You see the "black leaders" go after Cosby for daring the speak truth? Or how about the absolute beating Juan Williams is taking for suggesting that, oh I don't know, black kids learn to speak English?

Straw, did you come of age in that Golden Era of the 60's? I have no clue of your age, but just in case you've forgotten the year is 2006. Nobody is getting lynched -well, except of course for the high tech lynchings that occur to any black conservative who speaks truth to Black Power -; the fire hoses are not being turned on anybody; and the KKK is likened to dog excrement by 99.999% of Americans. I'm sick of whiny fucking minorities; but, I'm infinitely more sick and tired of their white, guilt-trippin', forever livin' in the 60's colleagues. Get over it. But, mostly, get over yourselves and your annoying self-righteousness. The problems of the black community are their own and won't be solved by guilty white liberals and black race baiters.

"Whitey" ain't keeping nobody down, yo.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 5, 2006

"Why do you pick on voting as the punishment that endures the test of time? Why let them out of prison at all?"

I actually agree with you on this, Straw. As much as the idea of a violent felon voting disturbs me, I do think that a person who has done his time should be free to exercise his right to vote. I just think it is interesting how transparent and frankly ironic it is. The ACLU and the NAACP don't care about these people. They are just peasants and pawns in their eyes. It's all about political power - that is what always drives the Left. They know two things: most felons are black and most blacks are Democrats. It's that simple. If most of these felons were white, let me assure you that these two groups would not be pounding the pavement making sure these guys (and gals) could vote.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 5, 2006