VIDEO: SHOOTER OF CONGRESSWOMAN AN ATHEIST?

It took me a few times watching this to figure out what this insane nut job was saying but it appears he is an atheist. In one of the videos on his YouTube page entitled Introduction: Jared Loughner, there is a string of extremely long numbers and Loughner seems to be fixated on years B.C.E and A.D. He is clearly delusional at best and outright insane at worst but the second panel in this video refers to this being the year 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 B.C. My guess is he's arguing that Christ was never born and that the earth is that many years old.

His next panel says "If B.C.E. years are unable to start then AD.D.E. years are unable to begin."

He ends this video with "No! I won't Trust in God!" in the second to last panel.

HERE is the YouTube page of the nutjob.

THE SHOOTER: JARED LEE LOUGHNER'S YOUTUBE PAGE

The alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) is Jared Lee Loughner, who has a YouTube page that reveals a dude certifiably whacked out. There are at least four videos there. Three of them consist of text only (with music). There is one video of someone who can be assumed to be Loughner. In it, there is a heavy metal song by a band called Drowning Pool called Let the Bodies Hit the Floor. At about the 4:30 mark, you can see the person in the video set a U.S. flag afire.

Also listed on Loughner's YouTube page are his favorite books, which include both Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. This guy is clearly insane.



More at Democratic Underground

BREAKING: U.S. REP FROM ARIZONA (D) SHOT DEAD. UPDATE: SHE'S ALIVE

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) was shot in the head at a grocery store and later pronounced dead. Giffords was known as a blue dog Democrat whose district borders Mexico. The suspect shot Giffords at very close range and then shot 12-15 others. It will be interesting to discover the motive of the shooter because Giffords was not a fan of the Federal Government's lawsuit against her state over SB 1070.

UPDATE: Fox News, after reporting Giffords was dead, is now saying she is alive and in surgery.

Via NPR:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six others died after a gunman opened fire at a public event on Saturday, the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms.

The 40-year-old Democrat, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting a "Congress on Your Corner" event at a Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media.

At least three other people, including members of her staff, were injured. Giffords was transported to University Medical Center in Tucson. Her condition was not immediately known.

Here is an interview between Fox's Greta Van Susteren and Giffords several months ago about the subject of Arizona's immigration battle with the Feds.

START, OBAMA, AND FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS

The passage of the recent START Treaty in the lame duck congress became news again after the Russian Duma insisted that the verbiage in the preamble was legally binding. That's important because it puts a limit on our missile defense. That verbiage was an alleged source of concern for the 13 Republican Senators who ultimately voted in favor of the Treaty after getting assurances from Obama that missile defense would not be subjected to the terms of the treaty. The Russians disagreed and the episode was billed as an embarrassment for the president.

That's the subject of my latest missive over at BIG PEACE:

When the Senate ratified the recent Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) during the lame duck session, the only reason it got the 67 needed votes was because thirteen Republican Senators believed Barack Obama when he assured them that language in the preamble linking the buildup of offensive nuclear weapons with missile defense systems would not inhibit missile defense because, well, it’s just the preamble and not legally binding.

Obama even sent a letter of reassurance to the Senate via Harry Reid. In it, he explained that there would be no restrictions on missile defense development. In hindsight, those 13 Republican Senators should have learned from Bart Stupak putting his faith in an Executive Order guaranteeing no federal funds would go toward abortions, in exchange for the votes of his dirty dozen.

Russia’s Duma almost immediately took issue with the notion that the preamble was not binding and is insisting that the verbiage in the preamble carries just as much weight as the verbiage throughout the rest of the treaty. The Russians are, in effect, making the assertion that the United States has agreed not to take steps to defend itself against nuclear attack – Obama is responsible for this lack of distinction.

Media attention – and conventional wisdom – has deemed this an embarrassing episode for President Obama but is it really? His meaningless Executive Order proved worthless but he got health care passed. He traded minor embarrassment for America’s health care albatross. If his word means nothing, why should he care about it? Besides, didn’t Stupak and his lemmings end up being disgraced more than Obama anyway?

If, in the case of Stupak, it was about a public blemish on the president in exchange for health care, what is it in the case of START? There is a public blemish but what is it in exchange for?

Frank Marshall Davis had access to Barack Obama as a child for several years. He was a member of the Communist Party USA, had a 600-page FBI file and loved Soviet Russia. Odds are good that he communicated at least some of his affinity for the Soviet Union to a young, impressionable Obama. In fact, Davis once wrote a poem entitled “Smash on, victory-eating Read Army.” It reads as follows:

“Show the marveling multitudes
Americans, British, all your allied brothers
How strong you are
How great you are
How your young tree of new unity
Planted twenty-five years ago
Bears today the golden fruit of victory!”

Who does the START treaty embarrass more, Obama or the thirteen Republican Senators who have been duped on a world stage after two years of a president who has quite the track record of duping?


At least in the case of Stupak, it was twelve Democrats. In the case of START, the blemish is on a baker’s dozen in the Republican party. That will dwarf any embarassment Obama may endure.

In fact, he may be trading in minor embarrassment for something bigger…..again.

Includes hyperlinks over at Big Peace.

VIDEOS: CLUELESS HARRY REID POURS GASOLINE ON TEA PARTY FIRE

What do you get when you ask a D.C. politician to comment on a very passionate movement he knows absolutely nothing about? The answer is twofold. Number 1, he says something that clearly demonstrates his ignorance and number 2, he says something that only emboldens the movement. When asked about the Tea Party, Harry says it will 'disappear' when the economy gets better. If he meant when government gets serious about downsizing itself in the form of debt and deficit reduction, he might have a point but we all know that's not what he meant at all.

He's banking on the printing presses spitting out enough money into the economy that the people shut up. Not gonna happen, Harry.

CLUELESS

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's another one from Harry. This clip more tellingly expresses Harry's fear - that the Tea Party movement is going to force the Senate to vote on the Obamacare repeal legislation and Obama to veto it. He knows that there are far more Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2012 than Republicans and that they will put themselves in further danger of losing if they're forced to defend the health care albatross hanging around America's neck. Harry calls it a 'futile gesture,' again displaying two things. Number 1, that he really doesn't want the repeal movement to go forward. If he did, he wouldn't care. Number 2, as in the previous clip, he says something that will only embolden the Tea Party movement, which sees such a push as anything BUT futile.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t Hapblog

VIDEO: BEER SCANDAL OUTRAGE

On one hand, you have to give Qwest Field Concessions credit for mastering the art of the optical illusion. On the other hand, this is deceptive gouging that warrants a class action lawsuit if there is any truth to it. What do you get when a large beer at Qwest Field in Seattle costs $1.25 more than a small beer and the only difference between the two is the appearance of the cups they're in? The answer very well may involve attorneys. In fact, it may be relatively easy to prove how much money has been stolen from fans who purchased large beers.

How many sold x's $1.25. Simple.

Outrageous. The good news? Height is overrated.



h/t Hot Air