May 29, 2009

Reversing the myth

This was a post from a good friend's Christian blog that I also contribute to from time to time. Since the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop 8 decision this was in the news we had a discussion here on this subject a few days ago. I edited the religious bias out to keep within the secular parameters of this blog:

APA revises ‘gay gene’ theory

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AM

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

That contrasts with the APA’s statement in 1998: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.

“People need to understand that the ‘gay gene’ theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years,” he points out. “Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they’re much less likely to resist the gay agenda.”

Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. “Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they’ve lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization,” he states. (Hear audio report)

With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

Again I make the statement that people are not born homosexual. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue, but a lifestyle choice. I would love for those who see differently to debate me on this.

White House concedes Sonia Sotomayor misspoke in 2001 - Carol E. Lee -


White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to tamp down criticism over controversial comments Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made in 2001, regarding whether a Latino judge might render “better” rulings than a white judge, saying the judge would choose different words if she could give her speech all over again. Especially in light of the fact that her word choices in 2001 are very telling and damaging to her cause.

“I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor,” Gibbs told reporters. “She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences impact your understanding … and that, on a court that’s collegial, that it can help others that are trying to wrestle with the facts of those cases.”  What “facts” would your life experience  make you more aware of?  I though we were supposed to judge cases on the evidence presented not with a lot of preconceived notions of “empathy” and “fairness”

Gibbs came prepared for the question about the remark, which Sotomayor critics have seized on to call her a racist. The president’s spokesman read a few quotes he had with him on the podium from Justice Samuel A. Alito describing how his heritage informed his work as a judge. What did Judge Alito say that being of Asian descent was helpful in fulfilling his role as judge and that it made him more qualified than a Black Woman, or a Hispanic?

Sotomayor’s comment, made during a 2001 speech to a University of California, Berkeley conference, suggested that her ethnic background would make her a better judge. Can we just skip the pretense that she was NOT picked for her a) Race, B) Gender, and C) political leanings?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said.   Explain to me how that is not bald faced Racism.  She Is saying that her struggles as a Hispanic Woman (bonus points for being in two “groups”) will allow her to have a better ability to weigh facts of a case against the law…

Gibbs sought to temper the comment, walking back her use of the comparative term “better.” AHA it depends on what the definition of “Better” is… more liberal parsing one and two syllable words.

“I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she’d change that word,” Obviously because the words she chose are causing her trouble now.  If she was sorry for saying it then, then she could have corrected herself at the time or at any time within the last 8 years.

Gibbs said, adding as he walked away that Sotomayor has said that herself “in discussions with people” 

“With who?” reporters asked.

“People who talk to her,” Gibbs said as he left the briefing room.   People like the president and staff no doubt who do not need her going around acting all racist before her confirmation.

Gibbs also shot down criticism from the right, particularly former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, who today compared Sotomayor to David Duke.

"I don't think you have to be the nominee to find what was said today offensive,” Gibbs said. “It's sort of hard to completely quantify the outrage I think almost anybody would feel at the notion you're being compared to somebody who used to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan. It's amazing.” And yet there are former Klansmen in the Democratic party Right now.  The Dems were on the wrong side of the 1964 civil rights issue, but somehow being racist one way is not as bad as being racist another way.  It seems even Bias is Biased.

White House concedes Sonia Sotomayor misspoke in 2001 - Carol E. Lee -

Here is my childhood in a nutshell

A Different World – Bucky Covington

We were born to mothers who smoked and drank Not mine
Our cribs were covered in lead based paint Probably
No child proof lids no seat belts in cars yep
Rode bikes with no helmets and still here we are,               still here we are exactly
We got daddy’s belt when we misbehaved got our own belt from mom when we needed it too
Had three TV channels you got up to change Dad said he didn’t need a remote if he had me.
No video games and no satellite Saw my first satellite TV in probably 1983, had pong from radioshack, colecovision, Atari 2600
All we had were friends and they were outside,               playin’ outside  Never even saw the inside of one of my best friend’s houses. There was no MyBook or FaceSpace or Tweety Bird or whatever, no cellular telephones, no such thing as texting,  There was not even Blogger.  I remember my uncle had an 8086 computer and it was “Boss”.
It was a different life
When we were boys and girls
Not just a different time
It was a different world   we played cowboys and Indians or Army where the Russians were always the enemy, we used toy guns that were exact replicas of the real thing, no stupid orange parts…  Everyone knew that the Indians were not really our enemies, but we all knew that you could not trust a “Commie” at all; the thought that we would end up with similar policies (not that we would have understood the words) would have been about as bizarre as alien invasion (Green not Brown)

School always started the same every day
The pledge of allegiance then someone would pray led over the intercom everyone had to stand up and do it, even foreigners and  non christians (not that there were many of either)
Not every kid made the team when they tried I rarely did
We got disappointed and that was all right, we turned out all right Dad said I was young, and I would overcome it.
No bottled water, we drank from a garden hose Still Do!
And every Sunday, all the stores were closed  BLUE LAWS!
It was a different world

Bucky Covington, A Different World Lyrics

What happened to us?  Apparently the childhoods and values taught to much of those in power now were markedly different from mine.  Calling someone a Commie or a Socialist when I was kid was almost as bad as calling their parentage into question.  We were all red blooded Americans. Loved our country, knew it was not perfect but it was the best there was.  

I remember the Secretary of Agriculture of Missouri back in the 80’s was from my home town, I went to school with his kid.  When Glasnost and Perestroika were just getting rolling good there were some Soviets who came to our town and surrounding area to learn about our farming methods.  They spoke at my school, we were all sorta intrigued and yet a little scared maybe, but we were respectful to them.  They were absolutely amazed at the types of crops we could grow, the sophistication of the equipment we used, and the yields per acre that we were achieving. They were even impressed with our Jr. High Gymnasium! Of course, I am not sure that anyone told them that the Bootheel of  Missouri is some of the most expensive farmland in the nation.  It is a small area but it is extremely valuable land.  So they may have thought that the whole state or the whole Midwest was like that, I do not know.  Long story short we could tell they were amazed at everything they saw and I remember we discussed it in class and talked about how Capitalism was better in every way to their system… APPARENTLY this was not a conversation taking place in other places a couple decades previously.

May 28, 2009

MAinfo: Face to Face With My Own Extremism


Thursday, May 28, 2009

Face to Face With My Own Extremism

This was written by Matt on Resist Net: "My name is Matt and I am a right wing extremist. One of King Obama’s Court Jesters, Janet Napolitano, has designated me as such not too long ago. This, of course, is hardly the first time that the Orwellian Left has called patriots who love America “Extremist.” If you listened to these people you’d think a mad scientist cloned a mixture of Hitler, Hoover and Torquemada and got him elected president every time a Republican sat in the White House. Isn’t it sad to be so tightly wrapped? But then, as I looked back over the course of History, I realized that the Left was right (ha!) to label us extremists. We are. People who love Liberty and hate Tyranny are a threat to tyrants, obviously. But also lovers of Liberty are, by definition, extremist.
Of the two hundred and some countries on this planet, more than half are governed by Dictators whose main virtue is they aren’t as bad as Idi Amin. Not every country is that lucky, however. Most of Europe is free, but the Socialist Bureaucrats of Western Europe are strangling what Liberty remains in those parts. Political Correctness is disseminated by a thoroughly Leftist Dominated Media in most of those countries. If a bunch of Right Wing Extremist Libertarians don’t rise up and restore Western Europe to the great Christian civilization it once was, Old Europe has a generation or two before it joins the Third World, either as Socialist rust-belts, or under Sharia law, whichever happens first. Eastern Europe is free and does have some chance of remaining so. All thanks to America’s 40th President, who Leftists called a Nazi. And that was one of the nicer things they called him. Several countries on the Asian fringe have decent republican governments, but these are beach-heads on the great landmass of Asia, most of which is not free. Latin America pays lip-service to republicanism, and a few countries do better than that. However, behind our backs, Hugo Chavez has eliminated much of Venezuela’s freedom and used his petrodollars to illegally finance Left Wing rogues in nearly every country there. The freedom that Nicaragua enjoyed, after a long struggle and so much blood, is now a memory, that country being back in the hands of its once and future thug dictator, Daniel Ortega, who recently lectured our president on the evils of America. And our so-called President didn’t hesitate to kiss his rear. Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay and others are similarly ruled by Leftist thugs. Colombia, the one truly free country, is besieged by the Communist FARC who deal cocaine and commit horrible acts of terrorism to rival those of Osama bin Laden.
There is not a lot of Liberty left on this planet, and that which exists is under fierce assault by Neo-Marxists and Islamofascists. It is far easier to kneel to a tyrant than to think for oneself and be free. And mankind has a long history of taking that easy road. Thank God for the extremists throughout history who didn’t take it.
Who could argue that Leonidas and his 300 at Thermopylai were extremists? That is precisely why they are so admired, for their extremism in defense of Liberty. Their equivalent of the UN, the Persian empire, demanded earth and water of them. Totally reasonable, argued all the many who knelt to the Persian King. But Leonidas and many of his fellow Greeks knew that if you allowed someone to tyrannize you in small things, the day when they tyrannized you in greater things was not far off. Thus they rudely refused the Great King’s “reasonable” offer. If Leonidas had been a moderate and sent earth and water, who would remember him today? Many Greeks “medized” and submitted to the Persian King, such as Macedon and Thebes. Do we remember any of their great leaders who were oh-so-wise, oh-so-moderate and not at all extremist? Are they worth remembering?
Cato the Younger, aka Cato Uticensis, was held to be an extremist for resisting the Monarchical ambitions of Caesar. All too many sheep believed Caesar was SAVING the Republic.
The Dutch in the 16th century were a prosperous province of Spain. The Spanish had run up large debts and had wars against France to fight. They began taxing the Dutch, as well as demanding religious conformity of the Dutch Calvinists. Now the moderate, reasonable thing to do would have been to kiss the Spanish King’s ring, submit to his religious decrees and, naturally pay the ever growing tax burden. But the Dutch had to go and be extremist, fight for religious and political freedom. The Dutch Calvinists were very scary extremist people to the moderates who licked the boots of monarchs across Europe at that time. They formed the first modern Republic, treating women and commoners far better than anywhere else. This caused great offense. The fear grew when their fellow Calvinists, the Puritans of England, tried to turn England into the second modern Republic. To this day, the statue of their right-wing Christian extremist leader, Oliver Cromwell, stands outside Parliament, honoring the man who first made that body supreme to any King.
Likewise those rascally Sons of Liberty and the Minutemen of Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill were big time extremists. Moderates back in 1775 and 1776 wondered why they didn’t just pay their taxes and obey their King. Indeed, had there been a UN in 1776, they no doubt, most nations representing their Kings, would have condemned the rascally insurrectionists and demanded forthwith that they submit to their lawful sovereign, George III. And many Americans were indeed good Loyalists. In the North, most Patriots tended to be from the countryside. “The Country People” they were called. The Loyalists tended to be more of an urban cultural elite, the forerunners of modern Liberals, who follow 240 years of tradition in wanting Americans to submit to European and other Old World Dictators. New England’s “Country People” are the ancestors of the people in Utah, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas and similar places. Together with George Washington’s southern Army they fought for America’s cause. And we Conservatives, their descendants, more of us by adoption than blood, ARE extremists. We’ve always been since we fired the shot heard round the world!
Janet Napolitano, a barking , running dog for a tyrant, is correct in labeling me as a right wing extremist. She, like her fellow monarchists, do fear lovers of Liberty. So do most of the Idi Amin wannabes around the globe. Yes, I am an extremist. In the tradition of Sam Adams. And I am frickin’ proud of it. It’s time for another shot heard round the world!"

MAinfo: Face to Face With My Own Extremism

This is where I fit on the Nolan Chart.


Your answers suggest that you are a conservative libertarian. The yellow star shows more precisely where you fall within the conservative libertarian region of the Nolan chart.



Nolan Chart

I have decided what I am politically -A Constitutional-Libertarian


Will The People please stand up
columnist: Ken D. Berry, MD

Topic: Libertarianism
The constitutional-Libertarian
A partial description of a creature who understands and believes in the core concepts of libertarian philosophy, but who also realizes that America was the closest the world has yet come to these ideals, and who judges this experiment cannot be allowed to fail either by defeat, by treachery or by slow attrition.
by Ken D. Berry, MD
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The title of constitutional-Libertarian should not bring to mind a new splinter group of libertarian thought, but rather an umbrella with room for many, from the conservative who happens to also believe in absolute freedom of speech, to the liberal who just happens to believe in smaller government.

It is the smallest of compromises for the pure libertarian, but it allows room for thousands who are not (yet) quite so dedicated to liberty in its absolute form(s). I respectfully submit that pure libertarianism does not sound at all attractive to the average man on the street because its precepts are so foreign from his present paradigm. While true that lengthy debates and diligent study, I believe, would bring most around to the libertarian view, it must finally be admitted by libertarians that most people don't like lengthy debates or the diligent study of philosophy, economics, governance or anything else.

Now one can almost sense the strictest of libertarians beginning to grumble, but hear me out. In order to actually change the course of our federal government, we must eventually have a voice that can be heard by more than just the choir; in order to start to set things aright, Libertarians must develop a voice that is palatable, and eventually be elected to office; and no matter how hard you blog and believe, polling 6% will NEVER get your man elected. I'm not advocating selling out or giving in, just of putting our best foot forward. By becoming a party with a platform that doesn't scare 95% of the electorate away after reading the first 10 words, we increase our ability to change the shape of American politics. God-forbid we might actually win an election or two...

Believe it or not, the clothes you wear to a job interview actually matter, and the quality of your grammar matters, and the packaging of your ideas and philosophy matter. There was a time in my young idealistic libertarian youth when I would have ruffled at such thoughts, but now as a more mature business owner, I know these things to be facts of life. Leading off with ideas such as the dissolution of all borders and the legalization of certain substances and the immediate closing of all government offices does not sound good to the average American, it sounds kooky (even has my name in the article) or even scary. The speaker is immediately demoted to the category of fanatic, and the debate trudges on without him. However, leading with lower taxes, less government control and more freedom is much less abrasive and confrontational, and more likely to win minds and votes. If after reading more about their newly discovered love of liberty, these neophytes move (as I think they will) towards a more pure version of liberty, then that is ok too.

This title can be looked upon as a promise to the average American that I am not some screw-ball who intends to turn America into a borderless, lawless, substance-enhanced orgy. Pure libertarians do not seem to understand this, but that is how the party is currently viewed by many who have gotten the wrong impression after speaking with some or reading a website by some, that is if they have even heard of the libertarian party.

Can we all agree that if the political and economic measures of our countries happiness and success were pictured as a number-line, any move towards Liberty would tend to increase both happiness and wealth? Similarly, any move towards Statism must lead to more unhappiness and decreased prosperity. Thus, any move towards liberty should be viewed as a success, however small, and a whet of The People's desire for more liberty.

I know for some, compromise is a dirty word, but there were quite a few wise men in Philadelphia a couple of centuries back who realized that compromise was the way to start, the way towards the light, the way to begin this great experiment that has been the envy of the whole world. For hidden in some of their compromises was the seed of future freedom for millions. So, if you decide to lump me into this group of learned, well-read "sell-outs", I will take the compliment, for perhaps the word compromise has, when studied, a much deeper meaning and more subtle power than the mere sell-out. Do not doubt there were founders and ratifiers who would have banned slavery from the outset, but to utter such things in public during their time would have been considered kooky (talking about me again), or even scary. But, the seeds of freedom they were able to plant in the founding documents were the beginning of freedom for entire races of Americans; had it not been for their measured compromise on language and moderation of obvious intention, liberty might have been many more decades in coming to those in bondage.

There is no doubt that government is and always will be less efficient than the market in providing services, and be susceptible to abuses of power as would be expected according to the laws of human nature. Any man given power over another will abuse that power; however slight the abuse may seem to him, his servant will feel nothing but the whip. The large majority of the people, if the matter is properly framed, currently believe that government is better suited at providing for such matters as defense and infrastructure, and strict adherence to the constitution prevents such a government from metastasizing. Of course the market can provide virtually every service more efficiently than any other method, but we must move the people slowly back to these forgotten ideals by using gentle wisdom and diplomacy, and calm persuasion. No matter how right our cause, sophomorically clubbing people over the head with liberty has not and will not work.

Over the past eight years the Republican leadership has utterly succumbed to the temptations of empire and has revealed itself as a political prostitute without a care for the Oath. The Democratic Party leadership will, over the next four years, reveal its love affair with Fabian socialism, leaving millions of liberals disenchanted and looking for a different answer. This irrefutable failure of both ideologies will leave a huge leadership vacuum which, if libertarians are willing and able, can be filled with a well-presented, well-spoken constitutional-Libertarian party with a message that appeals to the disgruntled and disappointed from both (formerly) major parties. Former democrats will love our guarantee of personal freedoms and human rights, and reformed Republicans will prosper within our truly free markets free from a withering I.R.S.

This idea if properly framed, widely disseminated and vigorously pursued has the potential to change the face of American government over the next twelve years. The people of the world and The People of America are ripe for this movement back to the American ideal of Liberty. Democrats want personal freedom from government prying, and Republicans want freedom from business regulation; let us give them both, and teach them about Liberty along the way.

The constitutional-Libertarian

May 27, 2009


KMBR just did a post on empathy and how mr. o thinks he can use it to his advantage. Here is "empathy" defined. It is not exactly a bed of roses.

Our pResident has used the word "empathy" to describe how he want's his pick for Supreme Court Justice to decide cases. Let's take a closer look at the word "empathy" for a minute or two.

Wikipedia defines empathy this way:Empathy is the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior.

Empathy is actually a communist code word for action. It used to hide Anti-capitalist, anti-American , and anti-Christian actions. Roe V. Wade was a supreme court decision that demonstrated empathy for women that were undesirably pregnant for instance. What about empathy for the Unborn, not to mention the fact that it takes action by 2 people to make the unborn children being aborted (murdered). Glen Beck pointed out on his T.V. show yesterday that Adolph Hitler figured out how to enact the "final solution" that caused 6 million deaths by an act of empathy in which a severely handicapped child was "put down." This was sold as an "act of mercy" to the German people. When there was no outcry, others were mercifully "put down."

The bottom line is: Empathy cannot be acted on in masse without discriminating on others. You can feel sorry for those who's circumstances are worse than yours but when special rights are given to such people, others have to pay for those rights. Take illegal immigrants for instance. How can illegals be moved up as a group without pushing American Citizens down? It is one thing for individuals to help others out of empathy but when government steps in and extends rights to such groups, others must move out of the way. Just ask the Jews and Gypsies that survived the NAZI holocaust and ask those who are trying to survive the environmental holocaust being put on people here in America. Ask the children that were never born about their parents actions...oh I almost forgot that they never had the chance to be born. I have stated before that I believe we are quietly following the path of the Weimar Republic/Nazi Germany pre World War II and this is another example that reinforces this view.

Sotomayer - The end of judges actually ruling based on law.

Empathy trumps legality - from

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Get ready for some sweet bench legislation coming our way, as she did in the New Haven Firefighter case where she was on a panel that tossed out a case based on empathy rather than legality. But that shouldn't be surprising from someone who says stuff like: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life” -Sonia Sotomayor. She's also smooth. After her comments on legislating from the bench she says "This is on tape, I probably shouldn't be saying this." Obama sure knows how to pick em' eh?

In a Stunning CA Supreme Court Move

There is a very dim light at the end of the tunnel when CA is not toeing the Left Wing Loon MoonBat party line. I fully expected the Government of CA to reject a legal vote of the public to change their constitution. But in a stunning upset; the Courts did their job appropriately and got it right. Now how do we break it to the gay/lesbian/bi/transgendered/polyamorous/ community that the people of California have spoken 3 times and the Supreme Court of CA finally held up that the PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. There is no where else to go; there is no higher authority on this. A woman on the news said that "no civil rights movement has ever failed" well, not to put too fine a point on it; the 60's civil rights movement was a HUMAN rights movement on an entire ethnic group of people based on something that had no bearing on actual behavior. I am not going to get into the debate as to whether homosexuality is a choice or a genetic thing. I will tell you that the issue is one of BEHAVIOR though. This is not about Sexism or Racism and it is a fallacy that the GLBTP community tries to draw a paralell between what Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks and others did, and trying to validate a behavior and really not even that.

NO ONE HAS EVER SAID not to allow them all the rights and priveleges of marriage, what has been said repeatedly is that it is not marriage, call it something else and we will be happy. I am for them having FMLA, Funeral leave, even what meager tax breaks married couples have, just leave marriage between a man and a woman.

As I have said before and I will say again, Once you redefine marriage to between WW, or MM, instead of between MW, then there is nothing to keep if from being MMWWW;WMW, Man and Sheep, whatever. It will be anything goes and there would be no legal way to say "just this; but not that"

So there is hope; it CAN be done.

May 26, 2009

Is nationalization Constitutional?

I also received this in an E-Mail from a good friend and Scholar:

Something to ponder:


This is part of a letter from a Chrysler dealer as quoted by Mark Steyn in a recent column.


“On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.


Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.”


The article this was lifted from was at Referring to this incident, note the call to property rights as enjoined in Law. What Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution states in part: “No State shall …pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…” While Amendment 14 Section 1, also states in part – “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Notice in every case it states "No State..." 


So carefully note that not the Federal Government, not the President, the Executive Branch, Congress or Judiciary are anywhere mentioned or are anywhere prohibited (that I know of) against pursuing such things throughout those mentioned documents. Could this be the end of story?


If it is then say goodbye to the Republic as we have come to understand it. Someone does indeed understand this caveat.


May 22, 2009

Putting the Nation back to work, how to get out of this mess.

I re-read something today that I thought needed posting on the front page, just to remind everyone. This speech was from 1981. It is Still the blueprint that will have to be used to get us out of this mess if we are ever to do so. Read and Enjoy. They didn't call him the great communicator because HE was good at reading a teleprompter, you also didnt get Tennis Neck watching him give a speech and he didn't stutter and uhhh and ahhh around.

Putting the nation back to work

Full transcript: Dick Cheney's speech -

Read this speech and then read a transcript of Obama’s speech given the same day, and see who you THINK:

a) Is telling the truth from the heart

b) is the master and who is the student

c) sounds more authoritative and who sounds like a mealy-mouthed yellow-bellied coward who is still trying to impress people.

Full transcript: Dick Cheney's speech
By: Politico Staff
May 21, 2009 04:45 PM EST

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI [American Enterprise Institute], where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.
I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.
Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.
The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.
Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.
When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.
That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.
That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.
We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.
For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.
To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.
We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.
So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.
In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.
Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.
The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.
Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.
For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward– the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.
To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.
Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.
To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.
Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.
For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.
Thank you very much.

I can only hope that History ( and it will have to be written in other nation’s history books because as it stands now it will certainly not be written in ours) will be truthful regarding the good things that Dubya and Cheney did. I always said that Bush was not a great president but he was honest, did what he felt was right, and kept us safe. He was not good on Domestic Policy, but to be honest he had his hands full.

Pelosi is a big fat liar: call it what you will

When you are steadfast in your lie despite evidence you are lying there is some sort of pathology at work. You are either narcissistic personality Disorder (closely related to Sociopathic), in complete denial of reality, criminally arrogant (if there is such a thing), or just plain ‘ol batshit crazy. Maybe it is the Botox, or the repeated face stretchings.

Kind of reminds me of the Dennis Leary bit where his three year old scratches her name in his new car and says it wasn’t her that did it.

My Dad has a saying, “She would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.”

Where is Stuart Smalley (Al Franken) when you need him he made a career calling people Liars.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she stood by her statement last week in which she accused the CIA of lying to Congress about Bush-era interrogation methods, but then refused to make any more remarks on the topic.

In her first public comments since her accusation last week, Pelosi attempted to tamp down a story that she fueled and now Republicans say she either has to prove or apologize for.

"I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this. I don't have any more to say on this," she said at her weekly news conference. "I stand by my comments. And what we are doing is staying on our course and not being distracted from it."

Pelosi: 'I Stand By' Accusation Against CIA - Presidential Politics Political News -

Paul Ryan – A small part of the solution, Rate the Weasel.

Paul Ryan (politician)

Paul D. Ryan, Jr. (born January 29, 1970) is an American politician and Congressman from Wisconsin. He is a member of the Republican Party, and represents Wisconsin's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ryan worked as an aide to U.S. Senator Bob Kasten beginning in 1992 and as legislative director for Sam Brownback of Kansas from 1995 to 1997. He worked as a speechwriter to "drug czar" William Bennett and to Jack Kemp during his run for the vice presidency.

He defeated Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. In the general election on November 4, 2008, Ryan defeated Marge Krupp, the Democratic candidate

On May, 21st, 2008 Paul Ryan introduced H.R. 6510, "A Road Map for America's Future". This proposed legislation outlines a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its objectives are to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America.[1]

Paul Ryan (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record:

Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance

For Prohibiting transporting minors across state lines for abortion:

Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment:

YES on banning partial-birth abortions

Rated 36% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action:

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance:

YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman:

YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation

Rated 91% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record

Favors Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws

Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes

Favors Absolute right to gun ownership

Rated “A” by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record:

Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record

YES on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits:

YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay:

Rated 10% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record

YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits:

YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable:

supports Parents choose schools via vouchers

Rated 8% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes:

Rated 10% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes:

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence:

NO on tax incentives for renewable energy

NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol

NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR:

YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries:

YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries:

NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore:

NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies:

Rated -10 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance:

YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC:

Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation:

YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent:

YES on providing tax relief and simplification:

YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends:

Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance:

YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules

YES on building a fence along the Mexican Border

Rated 22% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record:

YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses

Paul Ryan, you stand for conservative American Values and the principles that founded and made our nation great, for being true to Founding Principles, strong on Family, Strong on National Security, Being for Sane Immigration policies, for being Strong on Free Markets, Against eroding of morals and standards You get an:


It used to be said as a joke...but now it is getting truthful

My Uncle has said something for a couple of years now that, although it has always had a kernel of truth in it, was mostly just funny. Now we are getting dangerously close to that situation. His quote goes something like this,

"When the average working man cannot afford to get in his monster 4x4 to run down to the store for beer, cigarettes, and Doritos on a Saturday night to get ready to watch the NASCAR race on Sunday on his 54" big screen, then and only then will we have a revolution"

I will add to that just a little bit, "when fishing is outlawed because of the environmentalists, and deer and turkey hunting is likewise restricted, as if you could find or afford the ammo anyway, they no longer make vehicles that will pull a boat, even if personal boating were not functionally killed by emissions standards making it such that only a brand new boat is legal, then the people in my neck of the woods will get seriously and unconditionally pissed off".

Well let's check it off:

Getting ready to pass cap and trade legislation that will make energy bills skyrocket, which will make the 54" TV an unaffordable luxury.

Govt set to control GM and Mopar virtually guaranteeing small econo boxes; signaling the eventual death of pickups; killing your boating fun as well...two birds with one stone there

Emboldened by all their other successes, Evironmentalist will no doubt move on the outdoor sports next, either to Tax it to death, or Regulate it to death.

Cigarette tax...Check.

Beer the works see BBCW's post

California is set to make outdoor power eqipment part of the CAFE standards. That means mowers and weedeaters and such, it is a short matter of time before my old '89 Force outboard that you still have to mix oil and fuel manually for is part of some boat clunker law. Never mind it still runs like a dream and smokes less than a new one.

NASCAR... Has been hurting a lot recently anyway. Cap and trade will hurt them, Govt running of GM and Chrysler will probably kill those two sponsorships, rising cost of fuel will probably keep people from going to the races. Recent accidents will lead to furthur govt oversight.

At least there will still be LOTTO... got to fund government programs and get tax dollars from the poor folks somehow.

May 21, 2009

BBCW: If You Think This Car Review is Bad, Just Wait Until Obama and the Government Starts Building Cars: Honda Insight Hybrid

If You Think This Car Review is Bad, Just Wait Until Obama and the Government Starts Building Cars: Honda Insight Hybrid

Rush Limbaugh featured this review of the Honda Insight on his show today. Before he read this, which had me laughing at times and crying for the state of my country at other times, he pointed out that Obama's CAFE standards will kill more Americans on the highways than the total American deaths in Iraq. He cited a statistic by the National Highway Safety Administration, and something this blog has tried to drive home with Obama's plans to shink cars.

For every 100 pounds lighter they make cars to meet the CAFE standards, thee NHSA estimates there are up to 715 more deaths on the highway per year. Obama wants the biggest cars off the road, and chances are we are going to have cars we hate.

This review of the Honda Insight Hybrid by Jeremy Clarkson shows what a sad state the auto industry will be in with more forced oversite and government mandates.

Honda Insight 1.3 IMA SE Hybrid

Much has been written about the Insight, Honda’s new low-priced hybrid. We’ve been told how much carbon dioxide it produces, how its dashboard encourages frugal driving by glowing green when you’re easy on the throttle and how it is the dawn of all things. The beginning of days.
So far, though, you have not been told what it’s like as a car; as a tool for moving you, your friends and your things from place to place.

So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.

The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).

It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.

And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.

So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit.

Because the Honda has two motors, one that runs on petrol and one that runs on batteries, it is more expensive to make than a car that has one. But since the whole point of this car is that it could be sold for less than Toyota’s Smugmobile, the engineers have plainly peeled the suspension components to the bone. The result is a ride that beggars belief.

There’s more. Normally, Hondas feel as though they have been screwed together by eye surgeons. This one, however, feels as if it’s been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats, finished in pleblon, are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton. This is hairy-shirted eco-ism at its very worst.

However, as a result of all this, prices start at £15,490 — that’s £3,000 or so less than the cost of the Prius. But at least with the Toyota there is no indication that you’re driving a car with two motors. In the Insight you are constantly reminded, not only by the idiotic dashboard, which shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle (pass the sick bucket), but by the noise and the ride and the seats. And also by the hybrid system Honda has fitted.

In a Prius the electric motor can, though almost never does, power the car on its own. In the Honda the electric motor is designed to “assist” the petrol engine, providing more get-up-and-go when the need arises. The net result is this: in a Prius the transformation from electricity to petrol is subtle. In the Honda there are all sorts of jerks and clunks.

And for what? For sure, you could get 60 or more mpg if you were careful. And that’s not bad for a spacious five-door hatchback. But for the same money you could have a Golf diesel, which
will be even more economical. And hasn’t been built out of rice paper to keep costs down.

Of course, I am well aware that there are a great many people in the world who believe that the burning of fossil fuels will one day kill all the Dutch and that something must be done.

They will see the poor ride, the woeful performance, the awful noise and the spine-bending seats as a price worth paying. But what about the eco-cost of building the car in the first place?

Honda has produced a graph that seems to suggest that making the Insight is only marginally more energy-hungry than making a normal car. And that the slight difference is more than negated by the resultant fuel savings.

Hmmm. I would not accuse Honda of telling porkies. That would be foolish. But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.
The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

Why doesn’t he just buy a Range Rover, which is made from local components, just down the road? No, really — weird-beards buy locally produced meat and vegetables for eco-reasons. So why not apply the same logic to cars?

At this point you will probably dismiss what I’m saying as the rantings of a petrolhead, and think that I have my head in the sand.

That’s not true. While I have yet to be convinced that man’s 3% contribution to the planet’s greenhouse gases affects the climate, I do recognise that oil is a finite resource and that as it becomes more scarce, the political ramifications could well be dire. I therefore absolutely accept the urgent need for alternative fuels.

But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the G-Wiz and the Tesla, don’t work at all because they are just too inconvenient.

Since about 1917 the car industry has not had a technological revolution — unlike, say, the world of communications or film. There has never been a 3G moment at Peugeot nor a need to embrace DVD at Nissan. There has been no VHS/Betamax battle between Fiat and Renault.

Car makers, then, have had nearly a century to develop and hone the principles of suck, squeeze, bang, blow. And they have become very good at it.

But now comes the need to throw away the heart of the beast, the internal combustion engine, and start again. And, critically, the first of the new cars with their new power systems must be better than the last of the old ones. Or no one will buy them. That’s a tall order. That’s like dragging Didier Drogba onto a cricket pitch and expecting him to be better than Ian Botham.
And here’s the kicker. That’s exactly what Honda has done with its other eco-car, the Clarity. Instead of using a petrol engine to charge up the electric motor’s batteries, as happens on the Insight, the Clarity uses hydrogen: the most abundant gas in the universe.

The only waste product is water. The car feels like a car. And, best of all, the power it produces is so enormous, it can be used by day to get you to 120mph and by night to run all the electrical appliances in your house. This is not science fiction. There is a fleet of Claritys running around California right now.

There are problems to be overcome. Making hydrogen is a fuel-hungry process, and there is no infrastructure. But Alexander Fleming didn’t look at his mould and think, “Oh dear, no one will put that in their mouth”, and give up.

I would have hoped, therefore, that Honda had diverted every penny it had into making hydrogen work rather than stopping off on the way to make a half-arsed halfway house for fools and madmen.

The only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates. And that the cash this generates can be used to develop something a bit more constructive.

BBCW: If You Think This Car Review is Bad, Just Wait Until Obama and the Government Starts Building Cars: Honda Insight Hybrid

Blog Widget by LinkWithin