Weekly Full Of Win Post 4/26 – 5/2

Weekly Full Of Win post Award 4/26 – 5/2:

Better late than never.  It was a busy busy weekend so I didn’t get a chance to go through all of the outstanding posts to narrow down to one winner.  There were many great candidates this past week, so it was exceedingly difficult to determine a winner.  However, one post did manage to peak out above the rest. 

This weeks winner comes from none other than Michelle Malkin for her recap of the One’s first 100 days.  Witty, snarky, concise and accurate, it’s a must read.  Enjoy! 

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/29/100-days-of-the-poser-presidency/

When in The Course of Federal Elections: Arguing the Case Against Social Conservatism

***In the interest of full disclosure: I am a rock-ribbed Conservative, both fiscally and socially.  I am also a fervent Constitutionalist and Federalist.  With that in mind – please read on.***

When in The Course of Federal Elections: Arguing the Case Against Social Conservatism… At the federal level.

Over the last several days the debate, or argument rather, about where so-called “moderate Republicans” stand in within the GOP tent has resurfaced anew.  In all of the back and forth in-fighting there has been but one clear, logical and applicable statement from which we can derive an answer.

“We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”

“As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

 

 

 

 

Wonder of wonders, it was none other than Olympia Snowe that pointed out this quote.  Ironically she fails her own litmus test – as do Collins and Specter, I digress.  What she did get right – and what should be highlighted – is the last sentence in particular.  What Snowe got wrong is the application of that particular pearl of wisdom. 

Before the discussion on the place of “moderate” Republicans, we must first know what a Republican is.  “Our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”  Please note that there are no “or”s in this statement.  That is because there is no room for discussion regarding these principles.  In order to be a Republican, one must believe in “D) All of the above.”

What does this mean for “moderates?  It means that they are either Republican or not.  If they do not pass the Reagan litmus test then they are not, in fact, Republicans – and are irrelevant to this discussion.  If they do pass, then they are Republican.  It is important to note that there is a difference between “Moderate” and “RINO.”  A “Moderate” is a Republican, but may not necessarily be a social conservative.  A RINO is a Democrat with an “R”. 

Beyond our core beliefs – which make it easy for us to determine who is a Republican –  is where we get into the weeds.  Social issues.  Social issues are the bane of the current GOP.  There is a simple reason for that: A progressive social agenda directly interferes with the aforementioned core principles.  However, that doesn’t mean that socially conservative values should be a litmus test for our Congressional and Presidential candidates.  Please make note: this is NOT in defense of Specter, Snowe, Collins and their ilk.  As previously stated – they are not Republicans at all, and are therefor inconsequential to the purpose of this discussion.

However, this is in direct conflict with many of the social conservatives that have been foaming at the lips, rabid with blood-lust, and seeking the heads of any Republican that disagrees with their dogma with regard to social issues – all in the name of cleaning out the RINOs and rebuilding the party.  To those that seek to behead our candidates (and in some cases those currently serving in Congress) for these social views… Slow down and take a deep breath because you are wrong.  The fierce riptide of emotion associated with social issues has pulled asunder the better sense of reason.

As a party we have gone astray and forgotten the words of the “Gipper.”  “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”  These are important words.  Many will take this pearl of wisdom to mean that we should allow the socially liberal openly into our ranks.  Others, myself included, see a greater meaning. 

First it means that we shouldn’t be wielding pitchforks and torches and chasing down our own candidates.  More importantly it means that the social issues should be non-issues to begin with… at the federal level.  Because these issues should not be decided in the halls of Congress nor the offices of the Executive.  Instead they should be decided by the people.  More specifically by the people in their given states.  The founding fathers and framers designed our Constitution in a manner that enforced the rights of the states. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Asking our candidates to define their stances on any of the myriad of social issues is antithetical to the Conservative principle of governance.  Instead the question should be “are you a Federalist?”  The proper Republican will respond to any social issue question by stating “my personal stance is immaterial, as that is a matter that is Constitutionally left to the states and has no place at the federal level.”  Or something along those lines.  Obviously, the only exception to this is the matter of abortion.  This is ONLY because an activist SCOTUS made it a federal issue.

Essentially by involving ourselves in social issues, no matter how strongly we feel on them, we are undermining our own principle of liberty.  The entire essence of liberty is the right of the people to self-governance.  Simply put, the people should be deciding.  Not courts and certainly not the federal government.  This also acts as a stiff bulwark against statism.

As for the debate of the so-called moderates themselves.  If they pass the Republican litmus test as outlined by Reagan, then they should be kept.  Because if they pass the litmus test, it is impossible for them to be socially liberal… as fiscal conservatism and liberty are the antithesis of social liberalism.  One will always override the other.  Reagan knew this.  He also understood that if Republicans campaigned and legislated on social issues that we would lose.  Not because the people disagree, but because the people want to choose – they will inherently reject restrictivism in any form – thus siding with the pandering Democrats.  Reagan ran on Federalism, as designed by our founding fathers, and so did the majority of successful Republicans during the Reagan Revolution.  It works, because it is right.

So in the future, fellow Conservatives, we should look for candidates that embody the Republican core beliefs and have a federalist stance on governance.  Leaving the social issues to the states.  These candidates may not necessarily agree with all of the dogma of social conservatism… but they will also resist allowing the opposite to be legislated as well.  And they will insist that the issue be left to the states, where it rightfully belongs – and in most cases the states will swing to the right.

Obligatory Specter’s Flipped Post

The big news in the Beltway today is that Arlen Specter has decided to join the Democrat caucus. This isn’t really news at all.  Specter has, for all intents and purposes, always been a Democrat. Anyone that has paid any sort of attention to his voting record knows that. Specter’s reasoning couldn’t be more obvious either. Specter knows that Toomey is likely to win the GOP nomination for his PA seat in 2010. Specter’s best chance of hanging onto his seat is as a Democrat.

Many seem to be concerned about a filibuster proof Senate once Al Franken is seated. These people are assuming that it wasn’t already. Specter would never hold the line in a filibuster. He refused to even tow the party line on the Porkulus bill. Even though every poll showed that a majority of Americans were anti-Porkulus.  What makes anyone think for one second that he would uphold a filibuster?

It takes a bit of backbone and conviction to uphold a filibuster, especially when political pressure is involved. Specter has neither.  Republicans could more readily trust the Blue Dogs to help hold a filibuster than Specter, Collins or Snowe.

In the end with blood in the water in the PA GOP primary, an angry base and an angry national committee, Arlen did what anyone would expect of the mental midget – He has taken his ball and gone home.  And like the playgrounds of yesteryear, Specter’s little tantrum was but a brief disturbance as Arlen stalked away like a five year old after a severe public spanking… Tears and flubbering lips all the way back to mommy.  A spectacle reconciled almost immediately by the sight and sound of ropes skipping, balls bouncing and raucous games of “Tag.”

Essentially nothing has changed… except perhaps to correct the letter following Specter’s name.  Which will now more accurately reflect his politics.  The only thing shocking about it is how long it took.

Update: GM Gets Bailed Out, Then Bails Out – UAW To Eventually Own GM

 

UPDATE:  (For the original post click here)

I hate to say it… but I was right. 

It looks as though the Fedzilla will be snatching up 50% of GM, the UAW gets 39%, and the bondholders (who have the most invested – $27.2 billion) get screwed with 10%.  This according to The Washington Post.

Government ownership is an unfortunate outcome of this, not a goal,” said one person familiar with Obama administration deliberations and who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to preserve his relationships with officials. He said the government “could have gotten nothing for something, or something for something” and that it insisted on a 50 percent stake to leave open the potential to recover some of the $18 billion the Treasury Department has already lent GM and the additional $9 billion that it would inject under the new plan.
….
Meanwhile, however, bondholders pose a major stumbling block to the restructuring. Under the proposed offering which GM filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, investors holding $27.2 billion of GM bonds would swap those bonds for 10 percent of the equity shares of the restructured company. The United Auto Workers would get up to 39 percent of the company in return for half of the $20 billion GM owes to a health fund for retired workers. Current shareholders would get 1 percent of the new shares.

Essentially what we have here is a good old fashioned shakedown – Chicago style.

• Fed invests $18.4 billion – This translates to a %50 share.
• UAW is owed $10 billion – This translates to a 39% share.
• Bondholders invested 27.2 billion – This translates to 10% share.

Someone call every accountant and mathematician, we’ve had it wrong all of this time!  Obamanomics 101, those who have least amount invested gain the most amount of shares – Fedzilla is of course the exception to the rule, as it will always get the biggest piece of pie.  There the whole world was thinking that the MORE one invests the more shares they get… Glad that’s been cleared up.

The simple fact of the matter is that this was the goal the entire time.  A full blown, gun to head hostile take-over, so brazen and obvious that even John Dillinger would marvel at it.  Granted, the bondholders have to sign on to this agreement for it to take place.  Which isn’t likely given that for the proposal to carry 90% of bondholders have to sign on.  Considering that they paid $27.2 billion – 10% share of stock is paltry.  However, if they don’t sign on GM will be forced into bankruptcy court and the outcome will likely be much the same.  Of course, the Fedzilla Chief Executive Stooge, Fritz Henderson eluded to as much.

But a letter to bondholders that was part of the GM prospectus issued yesterday warned that “if we seek bankruptcy relief, you may receive consideration that is less than what is being offered in the exchange offers and it is possible that you may receive no consideration at all for your GM notes.”

Asked about the fairness of the deal, Henderson said that the Treasury dictated the terms for the bondholders, requiring that their future stake be limited to no more than 10 percent of the company. “We went to the maximum and offered the 10 percent,” Henderson said in an interview.

If this were a bank robbery those statements would be the equivalent of a burst of gunshots fired into the air.  Only in this scenario the part of Dillinger is played by Obama, Gettlefinger as Baby Face Nelson and the bondholders are the citizens being forced to lay down and empty their pockets.

One must wonder who will play the role of Purvis?

Hyphenate This!

The PC liberal left has been hyphenating America for far too long now.  So long, in fact, that pretty much everyone in America does it.  Some without even realizing it.  It’s the politically correct thing to do, after all.  It is ironic though.  The entire purpose of hyphenating America was to give some form of validation to “minorities” and help create a more tolerant culture – by acknowledging their lineage.  Perhaps it helped, perhaps it didn’t.  That isn’t material at all.

What is material is: What is it doing now?  That is the million dollar question.  Ironically, it promotes racism.  It promotes division and discrimination.  Because it forces people to think of race… not only of race but also of the PC term for that race.  It is destructive to liberty and diversity – which is the exact opposite of  what was intended.

It also has a deeper impact.  It takes the pride out of our country and puts emphasis on another country.  Much like flags on a flag pole.  The highest flag, the one raised first, is given the most importance, the position of honor.  The one below simply signifies respect.  Simply showing respect for America is unacceptable.  Frankly put, if some one is American then they should be just that.

Why put any emphasis on race, religion, creed or country of origin?  It simply furthers divisiveness and undermines the core of American culture.  The beauty of American culture is being American.  Please note the lack of a hyphen.  Perhaps as a nation we have lost sight of that.  Lost sight of the ideal that being an American is not just locality, but also a state of mind.  As such a person cannot be both African and American, Chinese and American, Mexican and American, Canadian and American, etc.  A person is one or the other.  Irregardless of where an individual’s ancestors or they themselves originated, if they are American, then they are American.  So drop the hyphen and stop telling Americans that they are something else other than American.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Shariah Law: “C’mon, You Know You Want It”

Recently Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative – described as  “an independent, non-partisan and multi-national project that works with state and non-state actors to improve Muslim-West relations.” – wrote a piece describing how akin Shariah Law and U.S. law are… at least in essence. 

Rauf is correct when he opines that when thinking of Shariah law: “It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice.”  It conjures these images, and many more, because that is what actually happens.  It is not a case of rare extremism or of a few select groups abusing power.  It is the norm throughout the lands that adopt Shariah law. 

Rauf goes on to discuss the core essence of Shariah law, which is where it gets interesting.  Rauf affirms that Shariah law is not unlike Western Secular Law… and what is outlined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God’s law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” The Declaration says “men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Rauf may be right.  More right than he realizes… if one keys in on the word “men.”  However, in the U.S. we interpret that passage in the pluralistic sense of mankind or all people.  However, under Islamic law it tends to be far more literal.  The fair and equal inalienable rights of women and non-believers, or lack thereof, in Islamic law set it drastically apart from U.S. law.

The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law – that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

American law is secular for those very reasons… to ensure freedom from religious persecution and to ensure liberty for American citizens.  To state that secular law and religious law are similar, even in so much as what they aim to achieve, is duplicitous.  Throughout history it has been shown that religious law leads to persecution and the loss of liberty and property, particularly with non-believers.  Despite the stated goals, it achieves the exact opposite.

What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Qur’an and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

This may very well be the case.  However, show me an interpretation of the Sharia that does NOT subjugate women or use brutish and unfair punishments.  There isn’t one, at least not yet.  No set of laws, religious or otherwise, that fail to  support equal application of those laws can be just.  Granted, there have been darker times in the U.S. when ethnicity and gender determined the rights that citizens had by law.  However, that was not an issue of interpretation.  That was an issue of narrow mindedness and piss poor judgement.  The difference here is that the Constitution did not have to be re-interpreted… simply read and applied.  Thusly, those unjust laws have since been repealed and society has changed.  Whereas, Sharia’s interpretations have not… and likely will not for the very reasons that Mr. Rauf states.

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Both of those things are long overdue.  However, it probably won’t be happening any time soon.  The entire premise of the penal code is misogynistic and persecutorial.  Until the men in power are willing to relinquish that power, misogyny and totalitarianism the penal codes will remain unchanged.  And the branches of government will never be on kilter as long as they remain Theocratic.  History has shown us this.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

Free countries fear Shariah law not because we don’t understand what it is, but because we understand what it DOES.  The theory behind it may be great on paper, but its inception is inherently flawed.  To create laws based on religion is to bend the people under it TO that religion.  Since religious freedom is at the very heart of liberty and theocracy is the antithesis of liberty, the likelihood that free world will embrace Shariah as a positive system of law is nil.

Weekly Full Of Win Post Winner:

This week has seen many excellent posts worthy of much “Internet Win”.  But, Manly Rash of Manly’s Republic gets the top honors for his post “A Liar Among Liars.”  Mainly because this post is chock full of squishy global warming idiots getting squished and there is even video!  I also saw no other blogs covering this particular angle, and I read a ton of blogs.  Of course, the snarky witticisms help… We all know how much I LOVE a good snark.

So without further ado I give you the week’s Full Of Win post:  (Please click the image or Headline to view the entire post at Manly’s Republic)

A Liar Among Liars – How Convenient

Posted on April 24, 2009, 7:37 pm, under Economics & Finance, Energy, Politics, Science, Taxes.

It’s easy to spot a Liberal – among other things, he’s the one shutting down any debate about or inquiry into whatever cockamamie statist scheme he’s proposing. Liberals dread the cleansing sunlight of open inquiry and discussion because it tends disintegrate their arguments in much the same manner sunlight makes vampires crumble into a pile of ash.

That much will become painfully evident today at the audience with His Greenness, Pope Albert a Congressional hearing on climate change, where Al Gore – leading advocate of the climate change hoax who has lined his pockets with over a hundred millions dollars pedaling his pseudo-scientific snake oil – emoted testified before a bi-partisan committee at the behest of the Democrats.

The Republicans originally planned to summon Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to testify jointly with Al Gore as a rebuttal.

Bill Maher & Garofalo: Match.com Called – You Were Meant To Be.

Detestable human being.

The LATimes ran an opinion piece from Bill Maher, the host of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.  As anyone who has ever seen Bill Maher’s show or seen him in an interview would expect… it was filled with invective.  Humorless invective at that.  Much like Garofalo, Maher is characterized as a comedian and entertainer.  Yet, much like Garofalo, Maher couldn’t even make his vile race baiting and class warfare filled diatribe even the least bit funny.  It’s almost as if he saw all of the attention, negative attention as it were, that Janeane got for her tripe, and decided that he would join in.  After all, ratings are in the tank and he needs a boost, right?

Well, Mr. Maher, I sincerely hope that you enjoy being the butt of the joke… If you want to know what that’s like, just ask Chris “the tingle” Matthews.  And by butt of the joke, I mean the little dark hole in the center… you know, the one that spews feces?  That’s you, Maher.

Of course, Mr. Maher, you have to know that I’m going to respond.  But unlike Matthews, the only tingle that you’ll be feeling is the splash-back while I piss in your Cheerios.

If conservatives don’t want to be seen as bitter people who cling to their guns and religion and anti-immigrant sentiments, they should stop being bitter and clinging to their guns, religion and anti-immigrant sentiments.

First and foremost this country was founded and preserved by men who clung to religion and guns.  What’s wrong with that?  Why are you anti-Christian?  Why do you hate guns, or more importantly, gun owners?  One of the greatest aspects of this country is the fact that we can practice whatever religion we want.  We also have the right to bear arms.  If you don’t like religion, fine.. be an atheist.  If you don’t like guns, don’t own one.  Outside of that, sir, feel free to keep your condescending ignorance out of everyone else’s lives.

As for anti-immigrant sentiments… It is painfully clear that you’re just another blowhard touting the liberal propaganda meme.  Conservatives support immigration.  We have no problem with immigrants.  We have a serious problem with ILLEGAL immigrants.  Please note the capitalized word – illegal.  It means against the law.  We want our laws and borders upheld.  They are there for reason.  There is no quarrel with people coming here legally.  Unless, of course, you count our wanting said LEGAL immigrants to conform to OUR society and not the other way around.  Like NOT flying the American flag upside down under the Mexican flag, at an American school where we teach them in their native language, not ours.

It’s been a week now, and I still don’t know what those “tea bag” protests were about. I saw signs protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy who’s going to win “American Idol.” But it wasn’t tax day that made them crazy; it was election day. Because that’s when Republicans became what they fear most: a minority.

If you don’t know what the Tea Party protests were about, then you are just plain ignorant, and willfully so.  I won’t bother to explain in detail what the protests were for… if you can’t figure out Google, then perhaps you should do the world a favor and refrain from procreating.  The last thing this world needs is more ignorant race-baiters.  Which is precisely what you are, as proven by your own words.  If we’re to believe you, then every Conservative is a racist that fears minorities…  Do you and Janeane Garofalo get together on the weekends and go bowling or something?  Sure seems like a page out of her book.

Get your own lines, Bill, that one’s used up and tired.  Moron.

The conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because … well, nobody knows. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Even though they’re not quite sure what “it” is. But they know they’re fed up with “it,” and that “it” has got to stop.

We’re angry for a lot of reasons.  Chiefly, the D.C. spending spree and ridiculous economic policies being rammed down our throat.  Everything from the TARP, TARP II, Recovery Act and proposed budget… The trillions of dollars that we are borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia, etc to pay for them.  Not to mention the trillions in interest we’ll be paying on those loans.  Of course, that was all in the name of the economy… that’s still tanking.  Just like we said it would.  By the way, where DID all of that money go, anyway?  No idea?  Exactly!  Not to mention the nationalization of banks and industry.

Essentially the problem is the stripping of my children and grand-children’s future earnings, and the stripping of American liberties.  You’re damned right we’re angry.  You should be too.

Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.

Well, you got one thing right.  Those are the issues.  Those are the things that we’re upset about.  You’re just too drunk on the Kool-Aide to realize that we’re preaching the solutions to those problems; and the current administration is making them worse.  The irony here is that you mention rule of law.  Considering your aforementioned stance on ILLEGAL immigration.  By the way, if you still think that that our current enemies in the middle east are interested in “mending fences,” then you are even more willfully ignorant than I thought.

And here’s the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.

I believe that the birth certificate issue was raised, and pressed, by a Democrat lawyer by the name of Phillip Berg.  I also haven’t seen a Conservative blog, write or even talk about it since before November 4th.  Just another case of not knowing how to Google, eh, Bill?  We also don’t say that he uses a teleprompter too much… it isn’t an issue.  It’s a joke, Bill.  You haven’t told a good one in a long time, but you should still remember what they are.  Personally, and I’m sure that everyone else is with me here, I couldn’t care any less about Michelle Obama’s upper arms.  I believe that it was the main stream media drooling all over them.  Just ask the idiots at MSNBC, their janitors are still mopping up the slobber.

As for the foreign heads of state gaffes.  Guilty as charged.  I cannot fathom why anyone would NOT have a problem with the President bowing to the KING of Saudi Arabia.  It wasn’t some “Saudi guy.”  It was a monarch.  U.S. policy dictates that no American, especially the President, ever bow to a Monarch.  Bowing shows subjugation.  So, yes, I have a problem with that.  Naturally, I have a problem with Obama getting nice and cozy with a tin pot dictator that is vehemently anti-America.  Chavez funds narco-terrorists, denounces our country, and allies himself with the likes of Ahmadinejad.  Who, by the way, also funds and supports terrorists and denounces the U.S.  I also have a problem with Obama cow-towing and apologizing to their ilk, especially when we have NOTHING to apologize for.  If you, Bill, were anything other than a Kool-Aide drinking oligarch… you would have a problem with it too.

It’s sad what’s happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of the big tent; now they’re the party of the sideshow attraction, a socially awkward group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand. Like Trekkies, but paranoid

It is sad what happened to Republicans.  It is sad that they left their principles at the door and started acting like Democrats.  That is very sad indeed… for this country.  Naturally you don’t get it, you think that our principles ARE the problem.  They’re not.

Then again, you also think that we’re just a bunch of paranoid angry white people.  It is also only natural that you do not understand the language of principle… the language of our founding fathers.  You’re an oligarch, what do we expect, other than race-baiting — which you didn’t fail to deliver on either.

The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is not afraid to say publicly that thinking out loud about Texas seceding from the Union is appropriate considering that … Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on 5% of the people? I’m not sure exactly what Perry’s independent nation would look like, but I’m pretty sure it would be free of taxes and Planned Parenthood. And I would have to totally rethink my position on a border fence.

You say “Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on 5% of the people?” like it’s a good thing.  The top 5% already pay more than 60% of the income tax.  It is class warfare and socialistic redistribution of wealth.  It is the very opposite of what our founding fathers envisioned and protected with the Constitution.  You do know what the Constitution is, right?  It’s that paper that you and your ilk like to wipe your asses with…

If you ask me a republic without income taxes and Planned Parenthood sounds great!  I know that’s where I would like this country to be.  Wait!  Isn’t that how the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, constructed this republic?

But Obama hasn’t made any moves toward taking anyone’s guns, and with money as tight as it is, the last thing the president wants to do is run a camp where he has to shelter and feed a bunch of fat, angry white people.

He may not have made any moves to take our guns, but given his stance on firearm regulation, and the stance of his Attorney General, I won’t be surprised at all if he does.  Since money is so tight, and Obama is so worried about it, then why is he pushing forward with socialized health care?  Which, if Europe and the UK are any kind of indicators, will run up a tab far greater than all other social and military programs combined.  The fact of the matter is, he isn’t worried about money at all… He can just get it from the rich, right?  He also doesn’t want to just “shelter and feed a bunch of fat, angry white people,” he wants to shelter and feed the entire nation.  Naturally, from your standpoint conservatives are just fat, angry white people… I’m beginning to think that Garofalo should sue you for plagiarism.

But it’s been almost 100 days, and your country is not coming back to you. She’s found somebody new. And it’s a black guy.

I’m glad that your white-liberal-guilt can finally be satiated knowing that we have a black president.  I got passed the historical nature of it after he was sworn in.  Right now, it is about what the President does in office.  Frankly, I couldn’t care less what color he is.  In fact, I don’t know of a single Conservative that does.  The ONLY people that I see harping on race is… well, the Left.  More specifically you and your soul mate.

The healthy thing to do is to just get past it and learn to cherish the memories. You’ll always have New Orleans and Abu Ghraib.

Wow, just wow!  So, now, somehow Conservatives caused the hurricane in New Orleans. Ohhh wait, I get it.  We hate black people, right?  Funny, isn’t it, how easily vile invective and racism drips from your tongue.  Of course, to believe you we would have to overlook the fact that at that time the Mayor of New Orleans was Ray Nagin, a Democrat.  And the Governor during Katrina and the fiasco that followed was Kathleen Blanco, also a Democrat.  We would also have to forget that even though ordered to evacuate, many people CHOSE to stay behind… Some due to transportation issues.  That too is the fault of Conservatives right?  Whoops! I forgot that there were lots filled with buses but Nagin and Blanco refused to get them on the street to bus people out.  I guess that’s Bush’s fault, right?  Do you even bother to research anything before you spout off at the mouth?

Abu Ghraib was also Bush’s fault right?  Let’s forget about the small fraction of Army soldiers that committed those acts.  Let’s also forget that when the Republicans in Congress and White House found out about it, those few were immediately placed under arrest, charged and many were consequently found guilty and punished.

I wouldn’t expect you to remember that, after all, you can’t use Google.  That’s probably a Conservative’s fault as well, right?

Mr. Maher, in short I find you a detestable, vile, ignorant, racist oligarch with the mental acuity of a jackass – which is rightfully your party’s symbol and precisely what you are.  Your reprehensible remarks and distasteful bitterness make it easy to see why you are so inconsequential and why your ratings are about floor level.  You and Janeane are just perfect for each other… just… please don’t breed.  I’ll even send you condoms for life… just promise me that you’ll use them.

Humerous Palate Cleanser: Crowder Punks Perez Hilton.

Perez, you vile nasty little worm… Consider your punk card officially pulled.  Crowder knocks this one out of the park.  I’m in tears, here, real tears… and my sides are killing me!

You Need Me On That Wall!

Col. Nathan R. Jessep, protrayed by Jack Nicholas

Every time the issue of torture use resurfaces for more debate, I am reminded of the famously angry and potently visceral monologue of Col. Nathan R. Jessep.  The character played by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”.  I’m not referring to the now overly used cliche: “You can’t handle the truth!”  No, I am referring to the far more appropriate dialogue that followed.

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

The monologue is especially apropos to the current political faux outrage over the use of water-boarding on captured terrorists.  Granted, Col. Jessep is talking about the ordered hazing of an under-performing junior Marine.  Change “Santiago” to “terrorist”, “death” to “interrogation”, and “Marines” to “CIA” and you have a perfectly apropos statement. 

The simple fact of the matter is that Col. Jessep, or rather the writers, have it right.  The world does have walls, and they need vigilant, armed guards on them.  People who don’t stand on those walls have the luxury of not knowing, or rather, they prefer to ignore  what it takes to keep them safe.  Most politicians have an idea of what it takes, but prefer to look the other way until it becomes politically untenable.  However, once the story breaks they turn on the ones that have kept them safe… because it’s the “right” thing to do.

Just how right is it?  The masses demand their freedom and safety, yet once they hear of what it takes to accomplish that, they turn on those that they demanded provide freedom and safety.  However, if those “grotesque and incomprehensible” men-on-the-wall did not do everything, including “torture”, to ensure the safety of the general public and an attack occurred — and it would — these same individuals would demand the heads of our men-on-the-wall for NOT dragging the information out of terrorists by any means necessary.  It’s astoundingly hypocritical.  The hypocrites won’t admit to it though. 

At least most of the fervently “anti-torture” crowd have given up the “torture doesn’t work” argument.  Because it does.  Even the Executive Editor of lefty site Salon.com, Gary Kamiya, admits it.  Of course, he goes on to say that it still isn’t appropriate.  Unless, it is a “ticking bomb” situation, and then it’s debatable.  The “ticking bomb” scenario is one in which you have all certainties.  The suspect DID plant a bomb.  The bomb WILL go off at a specific time.  Accurately, Gary states that this doesn’t actually happen in the real world.  However, he errs in using this assertion to defend the stance that while torture works, it is never justified.  I’m going to have to disagree there.  I draw particular issue with his statement that breaking up terrorist networks is not the same thing as stopping the attacks.

No one can say whether those captured would have carried out other terrorist attacks. There are too many unknown factors. Dick Cheney recently argued that classified documents will show that the use of torture stopped “a great many” terrorist attacks. But unless those documents reveal a “24”-like situation in which the use of torture somehow actually stops an imminent attack from taking place, a situation that has never come up in the real world, his statement is false. Breaking up terror networks is not the same thing as “stopping” terrorist attacks.

There is plenty of history to show that had the terrorists not been captured, or had been released, they would certainly carry out other attacks.  It’s a given.  A known quantity.  It is as certain as death and taxes.  To deny it is show a certain naivete.  Also, to state that a “24-like” scenario has never played out is presumptuous at best.  There are a great deal of classified operations that we know nothing about… and a “24-like” scenario isn’t too far fetched in today’s world.  Furthermore, breaking up terror networks IS the same thing as stopping terrorist attacks.  It is actually better.  Terrorists terrorize.  It is what they do, it is what they signed up for.  There is no other purpose for a terrorist organization than to commit acts of terrorism.  One cannot sit back and hope to simply stop an ongoing attack.  It is that mentality that led to 9/11.  Conversely, the post 9/11 policy of being proactive is what has kept this country safe from attack for the last seven years.  The evidence to the contrary of Mr. Kamiya’s statement is illustrated by the fact that some 70% of released detainees immediately return to terrorist cells.  Breaking the networks IS the same as stopping an attack.  Rest assured that if the networks are not stopped there WILL be an attack.

However, the populists don’t want to recognize that.  They don’t want to know about it.  They would prefer their heads collectively remain in the sand.  They want the benefit of the Bush interrogation policy… without the policy.  Absent the latter, they would simply rather not know about it.  Making the second half of Col. Jessep’s monologue all the more fitting.

You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

That is the plain and simple truth of it all.  As regrettable as it is to need “enhanced interrogation methods”, we do need them.  Without them, terrorists would not give the information necessary to thwart their plots.  They won’t talk if you ask them nicely or even forcefully.  They won’t talk because they truly want and wish for us to die.  There is no leverage to use against a terrorist to coerce information… outside of the enhanced interrogation methods.  

Personally, as someone who has experienced water-boarding many times, being stuck in the hot box for hours on end, stress positioning, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, wall standing and a myriad of other supposed “torture” techniques.  I can state flat out that those things are NOT torture methods.  Things that were done to Nazi prisoners, POWs in Korea, China and Vietnam were torture.  Water-boarding, the harshest of the methods, does not even compare.  Many still argue that it is, in fact, still torture.  Even if it were, how is saving American and innocent lives not justification for causing discomfort to an enemy? 

Populists can rest their case on supposed “moral authority” but just how moral is letting your own people die so that a politician can say that they don’t support torture?  At the end of the day the only thing that that “moral authority” has gotten them will be a bunch of dead Americans and a smiling enemy.  It goes without saying that  I would also much prefer a terrorist be water-boarded than have a plane hijacked and crashed into a populated building… or worse.  The entire civilized world knows this, the only difference is, they don’t put their methods on public broadcast – so that the populists can pretend it doesn’t happen. 

Perhaps the populists should pay attention to what Col. Jessep had to say…  As I am certain that those who are being drug through mud right now, for the sake of politics, share the sentiment.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way.

In closing, If I may, myself, borrow a line from the Colonel.  Mr. Obama, when you released those memos and started a fire-storm on Capitol Hill for your own political gain… “all you did was weaken a country today. That’s all you did. You put people’s lives in danger. Sweet dreams, sir.”