tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-293178292024-03-23T11:48:05.196-06:00Whatever Comes to Mind...Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-73653604924694607382010-11-06T22:28:00.000-06:002010-11-06T22:28:41.735-06:00Conservative Blog: The Ten Cannots<a href="http://conservativeprincipals.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-cannots.html">The Ten Cannots</a><br /><br />These have been attributed to Abraham Lincoln, when it was a conservative Presbyterian minister, William J. H. Boetcker, who published them in 1916. While they are not the words of Lincoln, the list was read by Ronald Reagan at the 1992 Republican Convention. That’s good enough for me.<br /><br />You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.<br /><br />You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.<br /><br />You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.<br /><br />You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.<br /><br />You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.<br /><br />You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.<br /><br />You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.<br /><br />You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.<br /><br />You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.<br /><br />And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.<br /><br />Seems like a nice way to start a blog entitled “Conservative Principles”.<br /><br />- Sent using Google Toolbar"Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-72471506226265296862010-07-07T21:54:00.006-06:002010-07-07T22:00:14.557-06:00I don't believe the Official Version: Netanyahu's Personal Security Guards' Guns Stolen Enroute to DC<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="entry-content">There issomething terribly wrong with this story. And yes, I believe thatsomeone in the BO adminstration had a hand in leaking the information on Bibi's itinerary. Something smells to high hell in DC. I do not believe that Netnayahu's guns are "ordinary." The theft was no accident.<br /><br /><div class="entry-body"><p>There is more to this story. I understand all fingerprints were wiped clean.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138469" target="_blank">Security Beefed Up for Netanyahu after Guards’ Guns Stolen</a> INN</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><strong>Security for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was tightened shortly after his arrival in Washington early Tuesday morning when it was discovered that four handguns belong to body guards had been stolen.</strong></p><p>The pistols were in a suitcase that was supposed to have been transferred from his chartered El Al plane, which landed in New York, to an American Airlines plane to Washington. The Prime Minister arrived in Washington on schedule, but the suitcase did not. It was later discovered in Los Angeles -- <strong>without the four handguns.</strong></p><p><strong>American Airlines has not commented on the incident and it is not clear whether the guns were stolen in New York or in Los Angeles. The theft was an embarrassment for airport security at JFK airport in New York.</strong></p><strong><span style="color: rgb(192, 0, 0);">Officialsdid not explain why the plane landed in New York instead of flying directly to Washington.</span></strong></blockquote><br /></div><br /><br /><br /></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-73747284344030805792010-02-01T19:35:00.002-06:002010-02-01T19:37:04.223-06:00Thomas Sowell says it best...<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">BO's desire to do something "historic" by succeeding, where previous presidents had failed, was perfectly consistent for a man consumed with his own ego satisfaction, rather than the welfare of the country or even of his own political party.<br /><br />Someone's president is a total disaster. Let's hope that Americans will awaken from the so-called messiah stupor and start using their brains at the ballot box.<br /><br /><div class="zemanta-pixie"><img src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=9833e0c6-53c7-8eb5-ac10-4fabd6e6a391" alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" /></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-16975158354376010262009-11-04T22:08:00.003-06:002010-01-19T17:25:37.106-06:00BO said...<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">BO said that all bills would be shown on the Internet for a week before they would vote on them.<br /><br />When is this going to happen, or was it yet <i>another</i> lie from the book <i>Rules for Radicals</i>?<br /><br />In BO's America the people don't need to know that's going on. Much like Mao's China.<br /><br />That stinks like BO. <br /><br /><div class="zemanta-pixie"><img src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=033e2655-7bd8-886b-a9fc-dcf3d5fc8418" alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" /></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-37420927381815313912009-08-27T11:26:00.000-06:002009-08-27T11:26:52.209-06:00CNSNews.com - U.S. Education Secretary Dodges Question on Whether Martin Luther King's Views on God's Law Should Be Taught in Public School<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=53061">CNSNews.com - U.S. Education Secretary Dodges Question on Whether Martin Luther King's Views on God's Law Should Be Taught in Public School</a>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-59913481215014528982009-08-27T11:25:00.000-06:002009-08-27T11:25:30.925-06:00CNSNews.com - Despite What Advocates of Illegal Immigration Say, There are No Jobs ‘Americans Won’t Do,’ Says Study<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=53058">CNSNews.com - Despite What Advocates of Illegal Immigration Say, There are No Jobs ‘Americans Won’t Do,’ Says Study</a>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-90902385927143360772009-08-27T11:20:00.000-06:002009-08-27T11:20:47.428-06:00CNSNews.com - Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055">CNSNews.com - Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications</a>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-89498337298870933292009-08-14T12:49:00.002-06:002009-08-14T13:06:16.334-06:005 Liberal Myths About Health Care 'Reform'<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This is from Redstate <div id="subtitle"> </div> <div class="post-meta-author"> <p class="storyauthor"> Posted by <a href="http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/">Jeff Emanuel</a> (<a href="http://www.redstate.com/users/jeff_emanuel/">Profile</a>) </p> <p class="storydate"> Thursday, August 13th at 8:00AM EDT </p> </div> <p>The debate over health care reform — what constitutes it and what public opinion of such reform really is — has become more polarizing as the summer has gone on. Below are five key liberal talking points about health care “reform” and an accompanying dose of truth their peddlers so desperately need to hear.<em></em></p><em> </em><p><em><em>1. Republicans, who either believe the health care </em><em>status quo</em><em> is perfectly acceptable or are in the pockets of lobbyists who pay them to say so, are </em><em>oppose</em><em>d to</em><em> t</em><em>he very idea of reform and want</em><em> to block any effort to fix our health care system. </em></em></p><em> </em><p><em>This is, of course, entirely untrue. Anybody can look at the American health care system — which is and continues to be the best in the world — and spot areas that are in need of improvement. Left and right differ in their views of what those problems are and how they are best dealt with. Republicans and conservatives only oppose “reform” outright if the term is limited to meaning the government-centric overhaul that the president and congressional Democrats are pushing.</em></p><em> </em><p><em><em>Actual </em>reform — a reduction in the dependence on third-party payers, increase in patient choice, reduction of costs, increase in personal freedom and control of health care dollars, added portability of health coverage, and reduced governmental interference — is almost universally supported on the right.</em></p><em> </em><p><span id="more-1117"><em>The two sides also differ in their approach to the other’s ideas. Conservatives look at the left’s proposals for “reform” and argue that — based on simple mathematics and economics, as well as on the physical evidence provided by states and countries who have already implemented the Democrats’ proposed solutions — implementing them will only make things worse. Liberals’ knee-jerk reaction to conservative counterproposals is to discard them out of hand because they do not rely on greater government influence and increased regulation to solve the health care system’s issues.</em></span></p><em> </em><p><em>This is followed by accusations that those on the right either favor the status quo or are being paid by lobbyists and “big insurance” to spread the falsehood that “everything is fine” in American health care. The latter deserves no more attention than the brief moment it takes to point out how insulated a worldview is required to believe, as many on the left do, that their proposals and beliefs simply cannot be honestly opposed, and therefore any who publicly disagree with their policies must be getting paid off to do so.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Of course, the right is not defending the status quo in any way, shape, or form in the health care debate. Rather, conservatives are simply offering alternative, market- and individual freedom-friendly solutions while seeking to prevent a fundamental shift in our nation’s economy from being enacted without the relevant legislation even having been read or carefully considered first.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>In fact, it is the left that has a recent history of declaring the status quo sufficient during a period of debate over reform. In 2005, when President Bush was pushing a partial privatization of Social Security in order to provide retirees with more control over their retirement dollars and to stave off the program’s looming bankruptcy (Social Security currently sits $20 trillion in the red), Democrats fought tooth-and-nail against the proposed overhaul, citing their belief that the program was not yet in “crisis” and therefore that no action whatsoever was needed.</em></p><em> </em><p><em><em>2. President Obama’s health reform proposal is vastly popular among the people, representing the “collective will” of the American population.</em></em></p><em> </em><p><em>This may be the number one myth driving the left’s passionate defense of their view of health “reform,” and the one which most reinforces their belief that opponents of President Obama’s proposal are in the pockets of Big Insurance or other special interests who pay them well for their active opposition. However, a simple look at public opinion polls will suffice to burst this bubble.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Support for Obama’s health overhaul proposal, which has been declining for months, is only 44 percent of Americans, according to Rasmussen. This is down from 46 percent who supported it in July, which is itself down from 50 percent in June. Further, <em>53 percent</em> of Americans are now <a target="_blank" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform">opposed</a> to the Democrats’ “reform” plan that many liberals think represents the “collective will” of the American population.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>The fact is, the more time that passes, and the more Americans learn about the Democrat proposal, the less popular it becomes — a key factor in Obama’s failed effort to rush his “reform” legislation through Congress as quickly as possible.</em></p><em> </em><p><em><em>3. Everybody</em> <em>in America hates their insurance provider</em><em> and has stories of themselves or someone they know being screwed over by an insurance company.</em></em></p><em> </em><p><em>This assertion is so widely assumed to be true among Democrats that it formed the basis for a significant shift in presidential messaging on health care. Throughout his campaign and the first few months of his presidency, Barack Obama referred almost exclusively to “health care reform.” With fewer Americans supporting the idea of a top-to-bottom overhaul of the health care system, Obama and his fellow Democrats changed tack and went for a target they were certain every American could support fighting: so-called Big Insurance.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a public speech in which she referred to HMOs (which, lest we forget, were created by that now-arch-enemy of Big Insurance, Senator Ted Kennedy) as “villains” (though she has said she will not give back the money insurers have given to her campaign over the years), and President Obama himself has replaced the phrase “health care reform” with “health insurance reform.”</em></p><em> </em><p><em>The problem with this assumption by Obama and the Democrats is that the sampling they relied on for this messaging shift is about as representative as that Pauline Kael consulted before her famous 1972 declaration that “everybody [she] knew” voted for George McGovern for president!</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Generalizations and assumptions like this are a major reason why rigidly ideological leftists like Obama are genuinely mystified at the failure of their ideas and proposals to sweep through and inflame the populace like wildfire. Were Democrats to listen to those they purport to represent, rather than simply relying on that which they “know” to be true, they would know that going after individuals’ health insurers and providers is a losing proposition in this country.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Simple polling shows this to be the case. A <a target="_blank" href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1344">July 1 Quinnipiac poll</a> found that <em>85 percent </em>of Americans are “satisfied” with their health insurance plan, with almost 58 percent of those being “very satisfied.” A <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSPOLL_June09a_health_care.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody">June 20 <em>New York Times</em>/CBS News poll</a> found that <em>77 percent</em> were satisfied with their health care. Further, that same NYT/CBS poll found that <em>77 percent</em> of insured Americans found health care “affordable.” At the end of May, a Rasmussen poll <a target="_blank" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/may_2009/70_of_insured_rate_health_insurance_coverage_as_good_or_excellent">found</a> that a comparatively paltry <em>70 percent</em> of Americans rate their health coverage “good” or “excellent.” Much like the Obama “reform” plan has grown less popular as people have found out more about it, Americans’ opinions of their own coverage and care have improved as they have gotten a better look at the government-run alternative.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Further, not only do fewer people than Democrats expect have stories of being “screwed over” by their insurance company, but there are myriad examples of people being denied treatment and care by government-run health care programs and so-called “public options” of the type Obama and his allies wish to implement here. State governments have even gone to court here in the U.S. in an effort to have bureaucrats ruled more competent arbiters of medical decisions than medical professionals themselves.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Pointing out such facts almost invariably elicits the rebuttal “private insurance rations/denies care, too” — a response that is a complete non-starter as long as the goal posts in the health care reform debate remain where the Democrats laying out the playing field initially put them. The rationale for a government-centric health care overhaul has from the beginning centered on the ability of government to somehow do health care <em>better</em> — more humanely, more fairly, and more universally — than the pseudo-free market we currently have. Sadly, empirical evidence shows that such is not the case. <em> </em></em></p><em> </em><p><em><em>4. Republicans and “opponents of change” </em><em>are </em><em>employ</em><em>ing</em><em> scare tactics and peddl</em><em>ing</em><em> misinformation about the cost or contents of the health reform legislation in Congress and about President Obama’s proposal.</em></em></p><em> </em><p><em>This has been the party line for the Democratic National Committee, MoveOn.org, the SEIU, and the Obama administration since opposition to their health care overhaul proposals began to take root among the general population. However, the actions of those pro-ObamaCare organizations — which amount to employing actual scare tactics and waging a misinformation campaign against those citizens who have turned out at town hall meetings across the country to express their concerns about the proposed health overhaul — have not been those of victimized policy proponents, but of professional agitators whose only experience dealing with people is as part of smear campaigns and astroturfing efforts, and whose knee-jerk reaction to dissent is to declare it “dangerous” and to quash it.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>The information being repeated by opponents of President Obama’s health overhaul proposal comes from cost analyses published by the officially non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and from testimony by CBO director (and joint Nancy Pelosi/Robert Byrd appointee) Doug Elmendorf, as well as from ordinary citizens actually reading the health overhaul bills — an exercise many in Congress (and the president himself) have turned up their noses at repeatedly.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Publicly stating the contents of legislation, and asking those who will vote on whether that legislation becomes the law of the land, is neither an illegitimate scare tactic nor a misinformation campaign. On the other hand, sending union thugs to threaten protesters, calling on American citizens to turn their fellow men and women in to the government for questioning the president’s policy proposals online or in “casual conversation,” and rallying Democratic supporters by repeatedly and publicly referring to civic-minded citizens as a “dangerous mob” that must be countered and stopped are examples of both scare tactics and misinformation.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>It’s just not coming from Republicans, or from those nefarious “opponents of change.” <em> </em></em></p><em> </em><p><em><em>5. Republicans are preventing health reform from taking place despite the best efforts of President Obama and Democrats in Congress. </em></em></p><em> </em><p><em>The persistence of this myth speaks to both the lack of civics education in our school systems and the prevalence of partisan finger-pointing in the political discourse. The Democratic Party currently has 60 seats in the U.S. Senate — a filibuster-proof supermajority. If Senate Democrats actually want to pass a health overhaul bill, there is absolutely nothing the few Republicans in that body can do to stop them.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>Further, Democrats have a 70-seat advantage in the House of Representatives. As Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) pointed out in July, this means every Republican representative could bring their surviving parents to a House vote and <em>still</em> not have a large enough contingent to defeat the Democrats on any legislation the latter wished to pass.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>The Democrats got what they wished for — total control of Washington, D.C., and of the lawmaking and enforcing branches of government. However, liberals traditionally specialize in owning intentions, not results or consequences, meaning many are having difficulty accepting responsibility for enacting those policies they so steadfastly claim to support.</em></p><em> </em><p><em>In the end, Democrats’ problems passing a health care overhaul bill are theirs and theirs alone, as are their problems enacting any other aspects of the sweeping liberal agenda so many of them — including the president — campaigned for office on.</em></p><em><br /><br /></em><div class="zemanta-pixie"><em><img src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=641e5763-3b9f-8b6b-b22d-04f195e82644" alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" /></em></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-88238899884974218962009-08-13T10:48:00.001-06:002009-08-13T10:48:53.781-06:0010 reasons Obamacare stinks like BO<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><span class='headline-topic'>1.</span> Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear. <br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>2. </span>Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you keep your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans will have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums. <div style='text-align: left;'> <div name='article_300x250' id='article_300x250' style='overflow: hidden; float: left; padding-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-right: 10px;'> <script language='JavaScript'> </script> <script src='http://ads.he.valueclick.net/jsmaster' language='Javascript'/> <script language='JavaScript'> </script> <noscript> <a target='_top' href='http://ads.he.valueclick.net/redirect?host=hs0004493&t=std&b=indexpage&noscript=1&v=0;msizes=300x250,200x125;bso=listed'><img border='0' src='http://ads.he.valueclick.net/cycle?host=hs0004493&t=std&b=indexpage&noscript=1;msizes=300x250,200x125;bso=listed' alt='Click here to visit our sponsor'/></a> </noscript> </div> </div><br/><span class='headline-topic'>3.</span> The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a healthcare plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later. <br/><br/>4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. ... If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your healthcare decisions? <br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>5. </span>Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: President Obama is open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans. <br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>6.</span> Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than in France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?<br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>7.</span> Who Makes Medical Decisions? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factor. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker. <br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>8.</span> Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these provisions do not exist. <br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>9.</span> It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that amount will likely continue to rise over the long term. <br/><br/><span class='headline-topic'>10. </span>Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before -- with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours -- without reading it -- or we would have 8% unemployment. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.<br/><br/><div class='zemanta-pixie'><img src='http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=947d6caa-1b99-8fd0-8126-17f143f6663a' alt='' class='zemanta-pixie-img'/></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-25803109183809367702009-07-20T00:21:00.002-06:002009-07-20T00:23:35.163-06:00Dick TracyAre there any Dick Tracy fans out there?<br /><br />I've began a new interest in Chester Gould's "Dick Tracy". I read them off and on from the 60's and recently became attracted to them again.<br /><br />If you know of any good Dick Tracy sites, let me know. This is too fun.Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-80101019080272280502009-06-14T22:04:00.004-06:002009-06-14T22:08:59.014-06:00Is Waterboarding Really Torture?<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This is a very touchy subject with some Congressmen and Representatives. Here's a very informative editorial.<br /><br />According to many, waterboarding is an exquisite form of torture, in the same category as the thumbscrew, flogging, electric shocks or having to listen to James Carville.<br /><br />Of the hundreds of suspected terrorists we have captured since 9-11, precisely three have been waterboarded by Central Intelligence Agency operatives who believed that their acts were legal because of written advice given by the Department of Justice in the so-called “torture memos.”<br />Now there is every sort of controversy surrounding these uses of waterboarding. The President, who ruled out prosecutions of the CIA interrogators, has specifically not ruled out possible prosecutions of the Bush-era Justice Department officials, and others, who were involved in approving the use of waterboarding.<br /><br />House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still at odds with the CIA, having denied -- as the CIA contends -- that she was briefed on the use of waterboarding on September 2, 2002. Pelosi said the CIA lies. CIA Director Leon Panetta says his agency told the truth.<br />But this is more than a high-stakes political game of “he said, she said.” It really matters what happened.<br /><br />HUMAN EVENTS has written before about the likelihood that the 2002 Justice Department legal opinion advising that waterboarding -- as the CIA did it -- was legal. But there is another side to this issue.<br /><br />Too many people who insist that the CIA tortured the infamous three are throwing out analogies insisting that the CIA waterboarding was no different from that of the Spanish Inquisition or war criminals of the 1940s.<br /><br />Let us suspend politics for a moment. Just what are the facts of waterboarding? What did the CIA do? How does it compare to historical waterboarding that we regard as torture?<br />In an August 1, 2002 legal memorandum for John Rizzo, then General Counsel of the CIA, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee described waterboarding as one of the 10 “techniques” used to retrieve information from Abu Zubaydah, one of Osama bin Laden’s confidants. According to the report, Zubaydah withheld critical information regarding “terrorist networks in the United States or in Saudi Arabia” and intelligence “regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against our interests overseas.” The waterboarding procedure used on Zubaydah is detailed in the memorandum as follows:<br /><br /> “The individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual’s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual’s blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than 20 minutes in any one application. […] We also understand that a medical expert with SERE experience will be present throughout this phase and that the procedures will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm to Zubaydah.”<br /><br />It is safe to say that the past iterations of waterboarding peppered throughout history -- from Iberia to Holland to Cambodia -- are not uniform and are notably more cruel than what terrorist prisoners, such as Zubaydah, and a few brazen (and self-motivated) reporters have been subjected to since 9-11.<br /><br />In light of the 2005 amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill which -- though unclear -- inarguably made waterboarding illegal, basic historical analysis can hopefully trace the evolution of waterboarding and give an answer to our basic question.<br /><br />In response to the pre-2005 amendment definition of torture, Bybee’s CIA memorandum advises that waterboarding cannot be classified as torture:<br /><br /> “The waterboarding, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view inflict ‘severe pain or suffering.’ Even if one were to parse the statute more finely to attempt to treat ‘suffering’ as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering.”<br /><br />This article is neither a legal analysis nor a comprehensive historical survey: It merely strives to explore the instances of waterboarding over time, to give a bit of contextual weight to the debate and illustrate that the waterboarding practiced during the Spanish Inquisition and beyond is not the same as the waterboarding described in Bybee’s memo.<br /><br />To begin, in medieval Europe water and fire trials were considered separate from more brutal forms of physical torture. Unlike other forms of abuse -- motivated by desperation to extract confessions or simply punish prisoners -- water torture was primarily used to determine culpability rather than inflict pain. These “trials by ordeal” were not only intrinsic to pre-modern justice systems, but were inherently religious: innocence or guilt was believed to be in the judgment of God, as indicated by the results of these relatively less debilitating and scarring tests.<br /><br />For instance, an early practice consisted of tying up the accused with rope and dunking him in water. If a knot along the rope far from the victim were wet after the dip, then the accused was deemed innocent. In another ritual, the accused was forced to submerge his hand in heated water. If, in three days, the blisters had begun to heal properly, then he was judged innocent. Such trials were banned by the Pope in 1215 due to corruption --victims began to pay bribes to have the water temperature lowered.<br /><br />According to the Bybee memo: “A defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his custody or physical control.” Interestingly, the idea of exacting justice, not torturing, is traceable in the medieval rituals as well as in the U.S. government’s legal justification. This is where the similarities end.<br /><br />Some of the earliest forms of what we now refer to as “waterboarding” are attributed to the practices carried out during the Spanish Inquisition -- a rather broad historical designation roughly covering the period from 1478 to 1834. During the Inquisition, Spain’s population was radically expurgated and subjected to inventive and horrific forms of torture. Waterboarding was one: It was knowingly administered with little or no concern for the long-term wellbeing of the prisoner and to extract false confessions. The Spanish form of waterboarding was an extension of mass hysteria -- there was no inkling of justice or intelligent motive involved.<br />In Spain, water torture was generally the second stage of the pre-interrogation intimidation process, following “squassation” -- the dislocation of the joints using a strappado, or rope mechanism. Prisoners were forced to swallow great amounts of water and would then have their stomachs pressed -- usually with a large wooden lid -- causing them to vomit. Eventually prisoners would lose consciousness, only to be resuscitated and repeatedly subjected to this sick procedure for days at a time. Organ distension caused terrible pain -- prisoners became bloated and felt as if their insides were aflame. In some instances salt water was used, leading to long-term injury and killing many of the prisoners.<br /><br />This particular process seems foreign and detached from waterboarding. It may well be. In fact, few characteristics of our modern use of waterboarding were in place. Even those elements that are similar were carried out with significantly more disregard and gusto.<br /><br />For example, a bostezo (iron bar) was used to hold the victim’s mouth open and toca (strips of linen) were forced down the victim’s throat by the rush of water, speeding up the choking process. More often than not, violently inserting the bostezo into the victim’s mouth would knock out teeth and the toca would emerge bloodied, having roughed the victim’s throat. According to some reports, in particularly brutal trials other much less appealing and hygienic fluids were substituted for water.<br /><br />While the Spanish spread these crude methods, the Dutch perfected the art. In 1622 the Dutch used water torture to extract information from British merchants who were suspected of plotting to capture the Dutch headquarters in Amboyna, East Indies. Wrote one observer:<br /><br /> “They bound a cloth about his neck and face so close that little or no water could go by. That done, they poured the water softly upon his head until the cloth was full, up to the mouth and nostrils, and somewhat higher; so that he couldn’t draw breath, but he must withal suck-in the water…which being still continued to be poured in softly, forced all his inward parts, came out of his nose, eares and eyes, and often as it were stifling and choaking him, at length took away his breath, and brought him to a to a swounce or fainting.”<br /><br />Clearly, the Dutch intended to extract a confession, fabricated or honest.<br /><br />17th century Dutch writer Ernestus Eremundus Frisius provided an eerily detached account in The History of the Low Countries’ Disturbances, which aligns more closely with what is now recognized as “waterboarding”:<br /><br /> “There is a bench, which they call the wooden horse, made hollow like a trough, so as to contain a man lying on his back at full length […] with his feet much higher than his head. […] The torturer throws over his mouth and nostril a thin cloth, so that his is scarcely able to breathe thro’ them, and in the meanwhile a small stream of water like a thread, not drop by drop, falls from on high, upon the mouth of the person lying in this miserable condition, and so easily sinks down the thin cloth to the bottom of his throat, so that there is no possibility of breathing, his mouth being stopped with water and his nostrils with the cloth, so that the poor wretch is in the same agony as persons ready to die, and breathing out their last.”<br /><br />Obviously, the intention was to cause severe torment, hanging on the brink of death.<br />In Europe, this period included a flowering of what might be referred to as “horribly enhanced interrogation techniques.” For instance, 16th century Italian lawyer Hippolytus de Marsiliis designed what has since been called “Chinese water torture” as a means of prompting confessions. For Europeans, forms of water trial -- such as the one described by Frisius -- are not comparable to “Chinese water torture”: While some forms of torture were designed to intimidate hostages and extract confessions and information, waterboarding was usually meant to abuse and terrify the prisoner. Generally it was administered rashly and cannot be described as accomplishing anything but flirting with homicide.<br /><br />Another process known as the “water cure,” which is liberally conflated with other methods, consisted of forcing the prisoner to drink dangerous amounts of water by pouring it directly into the mouth and nostrils, leading to hyper-hydration and death in many cases. To escape death, prisoners would have to drink and inhale all of the water, or else they would be smothered by the deluge. In medieval France, 8 pints of water was the standard amount poured into the prisoner’s mouth. If his offense was especially deplorable this volume was doubled to 16 pints.<br />During the Thirty Years’ War (1618 to 48), German soldiers relished in administering what they called the “Swedish drink.” Perhaps the most storied examples of the water cure come from its mass use by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. On display at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh are the worn watering cans and wood slates. Of the millions murdered by the Khmer Rouge, we have no way of knowing how many were killed in this manner.<br /><br />Certainly in the modern era -- from the 1899 to 1901 occupation of the Philippines, to the abuse of le chiffron by French troops during the Algerian War (1954 to 62) to the tortures recorded by detainees in Turkey during the infamous prison expose of 1980 to 85 -- water torture has been used as a cruel, sadistic and often fatal punishment accompanied by other manners of abuse.<br /><br />In the Philippines, the water cure was more often than not used to kill off suspected and leftover insurrectos. In Algeria, salt water was substituted, killing the victim or causing long-term organ damage. In Turkey, scalding water was forcibly poured into the mouths of political prisoners.<br />These instances of torture and cruelty took years to uncover. Similarly, when the issue of torture arises in the U.S., a lengthy and indecisive definition process has often followed.<br /><br />The common practice of locking prisoners in cubicles and showering them with ice-cold water was only abolished in 1882, 26 years after Simon Moore died in a New York state penitentiary after a half-hour session. (Whipping was legal in Delaware until 1935, and was administered legally in Maryland until as recently as 1961.)<br /><br />Despite investigations, forms of water torture have also been condoned by earlier U.S. administrations. In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt defended the “old Filipino method” used by American troops stationed in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. He noted that the “water cure” did not “seriously damage” detainees. His permission, or tacit consent, during the War set somewhat of a precedent. Despite Roosevelt’s opinion, however, a few U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for administering the “water cure” during the war.<br />One of the most publicized cases of waterboarding is its use by the Japanese and Gestapo during World War II and the subsequent trials for “crimes against peace,”<br /><br />“war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” This instance illustrates the difference between waterboarding as administered by the CIA and waterboarding as administered by despotic regimes.<br /><br />At the 1946 to 48 Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, 7 Japanese officials were sentenced to death and 16 given life sentences. It is important to note, however, that waterboarding was far from the sole offense committed by these criminals. Even the method of waterboarding in these cases can be called into question as especially violent and heinous: Prisoners were beaten between sessions, forced to drink large amounts of water and then had their stomachs bashed. Waterboarding was just one knot in a string of concurrent abuses: It was not necessarily applied to extract information or confessions, but as a sort of sadistic activity.<br /><br />Prisoners of war were subjected to atrocious human experimentation -- often given lengthy operations without anesthesia -- and deadly chemicals were tested on POWs. Prisoners were starved and cannibalized. Countless POWs died performing forced labor, and mass killings and individual executions were pervasive. Severe “waterboarding” was a mere notch on the belt with regard to the mistreatment of prisoners by the Japanese and Gestapo. It was used to excess, with little to no intent to extract information vital to national security.<br /><br />The historical records of waterboarding shed light on the current debate.<br /><br />“Waterboarding” has been used throughout history variously; under different circumstances and with different intentions. If anything, considering waterboarding in a historical context illustrates the opaqueness of its categorization and adds a grain of salt to the arguments of those who vehemently defend or deplore it. On the other hand, this analysis clarifies that the differences between the CIA’s use of waterboarding and its historical precedent are very different and share little in common.<br />The use of waterboarding most like the CIA’s was applied to military members -- pilots and special operations troops -- at the “SERE” (survival, evasion, resistance and escape) School. According to the Bybee memo of August 1, 2002, it was performed in accordance with the description of the CIA method set out above.<br /><br />Also according to that memo, from 1992 to 2001, 26,829 students were subjected to waterboarding at the SERE School. The Bybee memo found that because so few of the students subjected to it -- only 0.14% -- reportedly suffered lasting psychological harm, (which was the test under the 2002 law for torture) waterboarding by that method wasn’t torture.<br /><br />To equate the use of waterboarding by the CIA to extract information to its manipulation by rogue regimes to specifically cause lasting harm or death is unreasonable and not historically justifiable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-83013985298841531592009-06-08T21:12:00.003-06:002009-06-08T21:17:05.763-06:00Abortion Terrorist?Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually <i>are</i> peaceful.<br /><br />According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since <i>Roe v. Wade.</i><br /><br />In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.<br /><br />Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.<br /><br />So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.<br /><br />But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-72795173562066216542009-05-30T09:23:00.003-06:002009-05-30T09:28:47.748-06:00A Frightening EventSAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.<br /><br />Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.<br /><br />Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"<br /><br />The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.<br /><br />Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars."<br /><br />For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.<br /><br />News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.<br /><br />Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.<br /><br />Broyles also said this case has broader implications.<br /><br />"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-81194843213394877172009-04-11T18:29:00.003-06:002009-04-11T18:33:29.913-06:00Blah!Rick Warren is worthless.<br /><p>I suggest that everyone stop reading his books and start reading the Bible.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Anyone who gives credit to man is not of God. The Word of God is the only truth we can rely upon.<br /><br />Rick Warren wavers. God doesn't.<br /><br />Period.</p>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-57964151546883222162009-04-10T10:42:00.001-06:002009-04-10T10:42:15.715-06:00What does Rick Warren really believe?<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>I'm not a fan of Rick Warren. He's always struck me as a shady used car or insurance salesman.<br/>Yeah, he's said a few good things. So what?<br/><br/>This is from a article by Sandy Rios. I've cut what I believe is irrelevant but you can read the <br/>entire editorial <a href='http://townhall.com/columnists/SandyRios/2009/04/10/rick_warren%E2%80%99s_holy_week_crisis'>here.</a> <br/><br/>Rick Warren deeply influential, rightly told his congregation “…if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.” <br/><br/>Until this week … Holy Week. <p> On the first Holy Week Peter promised Jesus, “Though others may turn away, I will never deny you.” But then in the chill of night in a courtyard just outside the place of Jesus’ trial, as others around the fire began to probe his relationship to Jesus, he quietly denied even knowing him. No one was threatening his life, but the derision increased and with every barb, until Peter’s denial escalated to a curse as he emphatically denied he had ever known Jesus. </p> Peter was worried about his reputation. He didn’t want to be the odd man out in the courtyard over the fire… it wasn’t a Roman soldier with a sword who challenged him, it was a mere servant girl.<br/><p> “On moral issues I come out very clear,” declared Rick Warren when writing in the safety of his office. But when confronted by homosexual friends and Larry King this week, he folded just like Peter. Now, to be clear, he did not deny Christ, but he backpedaled so fast from where he previously stood and reinterpreted his previous statements in a way that strains credulity. He went on to describe how he has “apologized” to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of Proposition 8. He “never once gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment, he declared. </p><p> And in one fell swoop, he not only separated himself from the biblical teaching on marriage, but distorted the past in the process. Seduced by the pressure of fame? Driven by the desire to please his friends? Afraid to be seen as bigoted to a national television audience? Whatever the motivation, the behavior is no less significant.<br/></p><p> Rick Warren did not deny Christ on Larry King. But every believer who was watching had to question whether Rick was being faithful to the commission Christ left him with: Teaching others to “obey all the things I have commanded you.” And obedient biblical teaching on marriage is not a particularly difficult matter. Unpopular? Yes. Unclear? Hardly. </p><p> After Peter executed his betrayal, he went out and wept bitterly. On Larry King, Rick Warren went on to tell about his profuse apologies to his gay friends. In the broad scheme of things, I don’t think Rick Warren needed to apologize to them at all. An apology to Christ? Now that would be entirely in order. </p><p> This Holy Week, let’s pray America’s Pastor Rick Warren will not let this story end here. </p><br/><br/><br/><b><a href='http://townhall.com/columnists/SandyRios/2009/04/10/rick_warren%e2%80%99s_holy_week_crisis?page=2' class='continuedlnk'> </a></b><br/><br/><div class='zemanta-pixie'><img src='http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=f3cf74ed-f137-8739-ad5b-44128937f247' class='zemanta-pixie-img'/></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-47858545154724395072009-04-03T18:51:00.002-06:002009-04-03T18:57:41.571-06:00Lent: Do I Still Practice It?A few years ago I began adhering to the practice of Lent. At the time it made sense. However,<br />when I quit reading what man has to say and began reading what God reveals in His word, I quit<br />practicing Lent.<br /><br />Lent is a great idea and I don't condemn anyone for practicing it, but I can't find it as Biblical. It's<br />true that preachers who read more of what man says than the Bible says and aren't guided by the<br />Holy Spirit are practicing Lent in their churches. It's a cool thing to do.<br /><br />Now that I've awaken from a 5 year stupor of listening to the exegesis of man on what man says, I<br />no longer believe that practicing Lent is necessary.<br /><br />I'm going to worship the Lord and read the Bible. I'm not going to read what man says what they<br />want the Bible to say.Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-4811208540387151562009-03-10T21:27:00.002-06:002009-03-29T21:58:31.098-06:00Real Solutions for a Real Problem<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">12 American Solutions<br /><br /> <b>Payroll Tax Stimulus</b>. With a temporary new tax credit to offset 50% of the payroll tax,<br />every small business would have more money, and all Americans would take home more of what<br />they earn.<br /><br /><b>Real Middle-Income Tax Relief</b>. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect<br />establishing a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers.<br /><br /><b>Reduce the Business Tax Rate</b>. Match Ireland’s rate of 12.5% to keep more jobs in America.<br /><br /><b>Homeowner’s Assistance</b>. Provide tax credit incentives to responsible home buyers so they<br />can keep their homes.<br /><br /><b>Control Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget</b>. This begins with eliminating<br />Congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.<br /><br /><b>No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud</b>. Require state governments to adopt<br />anti-fraud and anti-theft policies before giving them more money.<br /><br /><b>More American Energy Now</b>. Explore for more American oil and gas and invest in affordable<br />energy for the future, including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable fuels.<br /><br /><b>Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains</b>. Match China, Singapore and many other competitors. More<br />investment in America means more jobs in America.<br /><br /><b>Protect the Rights of American Workers</b>. We must protect a worker’s right to decide by<br />secret ballot whether to join a union, and the worker’s right to freely negotiate. Forced unionism <br />will kill jobs in America at a time when we can’t afford to lose them.<br /><br /><b>Replace Sarbanes-Oxley</b>. This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with<br />affordable rules that help create jobs, not destroy them.<br /><br /><b>Abolish the Death Tax</b>. Americans should work for their families, not for Washington.<br /><br /><b>Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure</b>. This includes a new, expanded<br />electric power grid and a 21st century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in air <br />travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year.<br /><br /><br /><div class="zemanta-pixie"><img src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=37602b0c-2c92-4758-989d-cce3768f0f51" class="zemanta-pixie-img" /></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-11429968520541398822009-03-06T00:55:00.000-06:002009-03-06T00:55:29.782-06:00Political Compass Printable Graph<a href="http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=5.12&soc=2.77">Political Compass Printable Graph</a>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-81757826762328547302009-03-02T23:39:00.005-06:002009-03-02T23:47:23.578-06:00<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><table id="post204793" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr></tr><tr><td id="td_post_204793" class="alt1"> <div class="smallfont"> <img alt="Default" src="http://www.okctalk.com/images/icons/icon1.gif" class="inlineimg" title="Default" border="0" /> <strong>Re: Earmarks in Spending Bill - $58 million by Inhofe</strong> </div> <hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225); background-color: rgb(209, 209, 225);font-size:78%;" > Conservatives need to run Conservative. <br /><br />Moving toward the (barf) center is one of the most ridiculous or<br />deficient things a Conservative can to. <div id="post_message_204793"><br /><br />You will never see a hard-lined left-winged extremist knee-jerk<br />reactionary liberal, like Kennedy, Frank or <span style="font-size:78%;">algore</span>, who want to cram<br />their dogma of intolerance and hate down our throats, do anything<br />to attract the so-called (barf) moderate crowd.<br /><br />I contend that they, the so-called (barf) moderates, don't give a rip about<br />right or wrong. They want a leader. That's what BO did to attract them. He<br />did nothing that was (barf) centrist. BO ran on a left-winged extremist<br />campaign and didn't waver. The (barf) center liked that. He acted like a<br />leader. Note the word 'acted'. It denotes not being genuine or bona fide. In<br />other words, make believe.<br /><br />After all they - the (barf) moderates are the true idiots, or puppets, of the<br />political spectrum.<br /><br />JM tried to attract the (barf) center, while pushing the rational right from<br />him. He was disgusting. He should have paid attention to Sarah Palin. She<br />was a Conservative and ran on Conservative ideals.<br /><br />To the Conservatives:<br />1. Reagan was right.<br />2. Reagan will always be right.<br />3. Do what Reagan would have done. </div> <div style="margin-top: 10px;" align="right"> <img alt="" src="http://www.okctalk.com/images/misc/progress.gif" id="progress_204793" style="display: none;" /> <a name="vB::QuickEdit::204793" href="http://www.okctalk.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=204793" rel="nofollow"><img alt="Edit/Delete Message" src="http://www.okctalk.com/images/buttons/edit.gif" title="Edit/Delete Message" border="0" /></a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.okctalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=204793"><img alt="Reply With Quote" src="http://www.okctalk.com/images/buttons/quote.gif" title="Reply With Quote" border="0" /></a> <a onclick="return false" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.okctalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=204793"><img id="mq_204793" alt="Multi-Quote This Message" src="http://www.okctalk.com/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif" title="Multi-Quote This Message" border="0" /></a> <a onclick="return false" id="qr_204793" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.okctalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=204793"><img alt="Quick reply to this message" src="http://www.okctalk.com/images/buttons/quickreply.gif" title="Quick reply to this message" border="0" /></a> </div> </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><div class="zemanta-pixie"><img src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=02443bba-e447-421d-bb1d-67d44a3d0a09" class="zemanta-pixie-img" /></div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-21092915163336378852008-12-02T14:01:00.001-06:002008-12-02T14:01:50.794-06:00BO Waffles on Mrs. Clinton's Credentials<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>President-elect BO has designated the wife of former president Bill Clinton to be his secretary of state. This is quite a waffle considering BO spent much of the previous two years questioning her foreign-policy credentials.<br/><br/>BO claimed that she didn't possess the necessary foreign policy experience to be president. Here's a quote he made during a campaign event last March in Texas:<br/><blockquote><em/>“What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”<br/></blockquote>Now, BO says his new foreign policy team, which will be led by Mrs. Bill Clinton, would change America’s foreign policy for the better. He told reporters:<br/><blockquote>“I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security,”<br/></blockquote>BO had said exactly the opposite view of Bill Clinton's wife during the primary campaign.</div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-82753423752484902032008-11-19T11:21:00.003-06:002008-11-19T11:25:37.438-06:00Quotes of the Day<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." --John Adams<br /><br /><br />"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." --Theodore Roosevelt<br /><br /><br />"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." --W. Somerset Maugham<br /><br /><br />"He is a man of sense who does not grieve for what he has not, but rejoices in what he has." --Epictetus<br /></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-63439410085150793702008-11-19T01:37:00.004-06:002008-11-19T01:46:26.545-06:00Useless WordsHere is a list of useless words that are used in everyday language.<br /><br />Usually. This stupid word is used as an absolute. Why? Here's an example, "usually we don't do that..." When what they mean is, "we DON'T do that." What is the purpose of 'usually'?<br /><br />Kinda. Self explanatory. Why is it used as a comparison when it doesn't compare? Talk about STUPID!<br /><br />Actually. This is the ultimate use of stupidity. If it isn't already ACTUALLY, then what is it? C'mon, what's the purpose of it?<br /><br />The English language is so abused. Why do we allow these things to continue?Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-85401534737522415132008-11-19T01:34:00.001-06:002008-11-19T01:36:20.679-06:00Why?Why do people say...<br /><br />It's Ameeeeezing?<br /><br /><br />Why can't they say it's amazing?<br /><br />This is something I will never understand.Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-69255540619052169072008-10-28T17:21:00.000-06:002008-10-28T17:23:33.229-06:00THIS JUST IN...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div id='post_message_178565'><br /> <br /> <b>FROM CNN AND NPR...</b><br/><br /><br/><br /><font size='5'><b>THOSE ON THE democrat VOTE PROGRAM (welfare) WILL<br />RECEIVE EXTRA CREDIT ON THEIR democrat VOTING CARD INCLUDING BEER,<br />SNACKS AND CIGARETTES IF THEY WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER 5TH TO VOTE.<br/><br /><br/><br />REMEMBER, VOTE NOVEMBER 5TH!</b></font><br /> </div></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29317829.post-18689631251553067772008-10-22T22:23:00.002-06:002008-10-22T22:25:12.254-06:00Bill Ayers is a College Professor<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><br />"Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago; 40 years ago when I was 8 years old he engaged in despicable acts with a domestic group. I have roundly denounced those attacks."<br /><br />That's BO's story and he's sticking to it. (BO because his policies stink)<br /><br />BUT, and it's a big but, when BO was 40 Bill Ayers said he didn't regret what he did and that he should have used more dynamite.<br /><br />Come on, BO, you're in league with an unrepentant terrorist and you know it.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16324100909404612474noreply@blogger.com0