There has been an awful lot of discussion surrounding the torture subject again since the Obama administration has floated the idea of criminal investigations into the harsh interrogation methods used by the CIA to extract information from al-Qaida operatives. The Obama administration has received both harsh criticism and demands for further investigation after the releasing the CIA memos detailing the interrogation methods used by the CIA and the decision making process surrounding them. I believe this is a reckless step aimed at political gain and poses a great risk to our nation on many fronts.

To begin this discussion, one must first decide what exactly torture is and what remains a harsh interrogation method that does not cross this line. This is a question over which much debate has raged throughout the last few years. While some clearly see water boarding as torture, others disagree and find the practice perfectly acceptable when used in high level, critical interrogations where other methods have failed. Many would also argue that these interrogation methods are ineffective and do not produce reliable results. However, it appears that the evidence in hand on that point tends to demonstrate otherwise.

This is a difficult question to answer, as Americans have always fought against regimes that torture and abuse people. Therefore to even consider such measures must place great strain on our core beliefs. Herein lies a question faced by many of our great leaders in the past, to what lengths can we go to protect this nation without destroying what this nation stands for? When President Lincoln was faced with the dissolution of the Union, he suspended the basic rights guaranteed under by Constitution under the Bill of Rights and marched a standing army against American citizens to preserve that Union. When President Truman faced the decision to invade Japan at the cost of millions upon millions of American and Japanese lives, or to drop tremendously devastating weapons of mass destruction on civilian population centers in an attempt to force a Japanese surrender, he chose the lesser of two evils and the lower cost of life. When President Bush was faced with another impending terrorist attack on this nation, he authorized what methods he thought legal and justified to extract the information from our enemies that allowed us to prevent these attacks. For none of these men were these decisions light, but they were easy ones to make. They did what they must to protect this nation in dire times of need. They chose the only path they could to save this nation or the lives of her citizens.

For me this question is simple. I for one do not consider water boarding to be torture, nor do I consider many of the other methods detailed in the memos that were foolishly released by the Obama administration to be above the uncrossable line. When dealing with a ruthless enemy who will slowly cut the head off of an innocent American contractor while filming it for propaganda purposes, I find it perfectly acceptable that we would pour water over his head until he decides to talk. When dealing with a people who believe it acceptable to murder their own children in ‘honor killings’ because they have not behaved in some particular way, I find no problem sticking them in a room with an insects that they fear. When dealing with a people that strap bombs on to women and children, teach that it is acceptable to beat your wives and kill indiscriminately innocent people who will not yield to their way of life, I do not see a problem with slamming them up against a wall and threatening to beat the information out of them.

Someone asked me a very simple question one day in an attempt to define what I saw as torture. If your children had been kidnapped and the man sitting before you had the information that would save their lives, to what lengths would you go to obtain that information? Where ever you chose to stop or whatever you decided you could not do, was your definition of torture. After contemplating the question for some time, I realized that it is not that difficult of a question for me to answer. This may make me a horrible person in some people’s eyes, but I could think of very little that I would not do to save the life of just one of my children, not mention all of them. If the person still possessed the ability to draw breath once they gave me what I needed, they should consider themselves very fortunate indeed. I would gladly water board him and his entire family to save my children and I would sleep well at night knowing I had done so. I would stop at nothing to protect my children. How could I think less of a nation that did likewise to protect her citizens?

Someone once argued with me that I would be sacrificing my morality by taking such actions, even in the defense of my children. I disagree. I feel that it would be a moral imperative to do anything and everything possible to save my children. Failing to do so would be the ultimate moral failure. These people have sworn to kill as many innocent Americans as the possibly can by any means that they can. We are at war with an enemy that knows no rules and respects no boundaries. Our citizens and soldiers are offered no quarter and are brutally murdered and hung in public as examples of their barbarism. How there are people in this country who have a problem with pouring water on these people to scare them into releasing information that will thwart their horrific plans is far beyond me. Failing to do so, to me, seems the ultimate failure of a nation and its moral obligation to protect its people.

Holy shit! I am sorry; I cannot put it any other way. What has this country come to?

The following video is some to the most disturbing footage I have seen in a while. It shows the abuse and eventual arrest of Asa Eslocker by the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department and the Denver Police Department. Eslocker was taking pictures of Democrat Senators and financial donors leaving a private meeting at Brown Palace Hotel. The video shows Eslocker standing on a public sidewalk when a Boulder County Sheriff’s Office approaches him and tells him to leave. Eslocker tells him to hold on and the officer tells him that he will not hold on. At this time, the officer grabs Eslocker and forces him off of the sidewalk onto a busy public street. As Eslocker attempts to retreat, the officer continues to push Eslocker into a street with moving traffic while the reporter continuously asks him not to push him. Eslocker ask the officer why he is being forced off of a public sidewalk into oncoming traffic, but he simply continues to force Eslocker into harm’s way. The officer shows absolutely no concern for the safety of the ABC reporter and continues to force him farther and farther into the street. It is plain to see that Eslocker is seriously concerned for his safety as he continues to look side to side watching for oncoming cars.

The video then cuts to a scene where officers of the Denver Police Department, lead by a cigar smoking Corporal, arrest Eslocker at the location where the Boulder County Sherriff’s officer forced him to go. The Corporal grabs the reporter by the throat when he approaches and then twists his arm behind his back so that he may handcuff him. Another police office, if these men deserver to call themselves that, forces Eslocker’s camera crew to once again move from a public sidewalk and instructs them to turn off their camera. All this for a reporter who dared take pictures from a public place of Democrats meeting with their political fat cats.

Watch the video for yourself:

Check out the ABC News story for further details, ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors.

I normally have the highest respect for law enforcement but this is insane. These officers were acting unlawfully and without regard to the safety of Elocker. Is this the change that Obama keeps promising? First, he attempts to use the law enforcement arm of the Federal government to silence political opponents by requesting that Justice Department officials force stations to stop airing an ad linking him to William Ayres paid for by the non-profit organization American Issues Project. Now we get to see how Democrats handle individual civil liberties and freedom of the press.

Take a moment to seriously understand what happened here. A reporter, standing on a public sidewalk, was assaulted by a police officer who placed his life in jeopardy by forcing him into traffic and then arrested. What crime did this man commit? He was trying to investigate the VIPs who donate money to the Democrat Party. A reporter, trying to investigate public officials from a public place had his rights violated and life punt in jeopardy by officials doing the bidding of whom? The people? I think not. How was what these officers did in the interest of public safety in any way? Who are they protecting, the people or the politicians? The creed to protect and server is supposed to be made to us, the people, you assholes not to the politician.

Welcome to the Obama Nation, a police state where freedoms are trampled upon to protect the secrets of those in power. This is a preview of a nation which oppresses political opponents through the strength of the government and arrests those who threaten to expose them.

I hope ABC sues the City of Denver and Boulder County for violating the freedom of press rights guaranteed to them and I hope Asa Eslocker sues the living shit out of them for violations of his civil rights, assault and unlawful imprisonment. I wonder if the ACLU will jump to his defense for these obvious civil rights violations?

This is what we have to look forward to, folks.

Well, I couldn’t wait for tomorrow. I knew there was a reason I had not posted the Blithering Idiot of the Week Award. Little did I know that I would be presented with such a fine example, nay the perfect example, of what it means to be that very idiot.

This week’s award for Blithering Idiot of the Week goes to U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for her asinine ruling on the Federal government’s NSA intercept program. This also presents another fine example of why the ACLU is a threat to the national security of this country and should therefore be considered a valid target for military action.

For starters, the suit the ACLU brought against the Federal government attempted to cease the NSA foreign intercept program and telephone data mining program. In a surprise stroke of lucidity, Taylor threw out the case challenging the data mining program on the grounds that not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets. She then proceeded to slaughter the most successful surveillance program currently in operation.

The ACLU filed the suit claiming that journalists, scholars and lawyers have suffered and have the potential to suffer due to the program has making it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government has defined this program as interception of communications with suspected terrorist or terrorist organizations. In other words, they are listening to the calls of our enemies. You remember them, don’t you? They are the people that are trying to kill us. So, then the ACLU’s claim is that their clients are in communication with our mortal enemies and this program discourages that.

To have standing in such a suit the plaintiff must prove that some form of injury or violation of liberty has occurred. The ACLU claimed that their client’s First Amendment rights had been violated due to unlawful monitoring of their communications with our mortal enemies with whom we are at war. In a moronic stroke of liberal activism, Judge Taylor granted that the plaintiffs had standing in that their treasonous actions should have been protected under the First Amendment.

She then proceeded to rule that the President of the United States violated the Fourth Amendment in regards to unlawful searches by his failure to obtain a warrant. By ruling this way, she ignored multiple Supreme Court precedents which clearly show that the monitoring of enemy communications and gathering of foreign intelligence is well within the Constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief, especially during a time of war. Never in the history of this country has a President needed any type of authorization or even probable cause to monitor the foreign communication of another nation and has expressly possessed the right and the duty to gather foreign intelligence on our enemies or any threat to the security of this nation.

In a final act of stupidity, the Jimmy Carter appointee ruled that the President had violated the separation of powers. Judge Taylor stated that the President violated FISA by collecting information about our enemies. Even though congress stated the following:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Taylor argued that this does not mention the gathering of intelligence in any way and thus the President was in violation of the FISA law created by Congress. Therefore the President was not authorized to conduct intercepts of calls to foreign terrorists without gaining a FISA warrant.

To justify this logic you must assume that it was the intent of Congress for our President to conduct “all necessary and appropriate” military action without the benefit of intelligence gathering. Furthermore, the National Security Act of 1947 set forth the manner and means by which the military and chiefly the President of the United States could conduct foreign intelligence gathering. Nothing FISA changes any of the rights and duties set forth in the National Security Act and nothing in the NSA’s intercept program was in violation of the National Security Act.

I have to admit that Jimmy Carter was going to be my idiot of the week for his lashing of this administration’s dealings in the Middle East, since after all he was the President who hid in the White House and begged the Shaw of Iran to be nice to us. It was his administration that caused the rise of the phrase, “Death to America!”

I guess it is appropriate that one of his appointees bumped him into a position of Dishonorable Mention.

I thought the ACLU protected freedom of expression and an individual’s right to self determination. I guess not if you are a Christian. The ACLU is requesting that St. Bernard Parish, LA cease its plans to erect a memorial for the 129 parish citizens who died as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The ACLU is protesting the monument because it will be a thirteen foot tall cross bearing the face of Jesus Christ. Even though this monument will be built on private property by volunteers and paid for from private donations, the ACLU says that by the Parish Council approving its construction that they are violating the mythical “separation of church” and state that they claim is part of the First Amendment.

I love the response that the ACLU has received from St. Bernard Parish leadership:

Alarmed by newspaper reports that a hurricane memorial in St. Bernard Parish will feature a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is reminding parish officials of the Constitution’s separation of church and state.

Never one to back down, Parish President Henry Rodriguez has a simple reply: “They can kiss my ass.”

That’s right! You tell ‘em Henry! I think it is time that the United States takes the Israeli approach to dangerous groups such as the ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberals Union) and bomb them into oblivion. Simultaneous, precision targeting of all ACLU holdings and support structures would be a breeze. I would even do the research and provide the GPS coordinates for the JDAMS weapons that would be required for such a strike.

I think anyone who reads this site should do as I have done today and link to Stop the ACLU. A site devoted to doing just what the title says..

They have to be stopped or the hand in this image might as well be the ACLU ripping away the cross from around your neck.

You can read the whole article here.

Well today is just full of good news. First, you all need to check out the new Vent by Michelle Malkin and view some of the articles on EU Referendum dealing with the possible staging of the photos coming out of Qana. EUR post a very convincing article detailing the chronology of the photos and the inconsistency of the images. They also point out that the mysterious Green Helmet appears to be posing the bodies in almost every image you see him in, which is practically every one. Watch the video:

Second today is a story that I am sure will not get nearly the media coverage it deserves. This story will not dominate the news channels for weeks. It will not be the only thing you hear from the talking heads. CNN will not run entire blocks of time dedicated to complete coverage of this story and ABC News will not launch an investigative series over this issue. I am sure you will hear about it on Fox News, but even they will simply fire a glancing shot at it and not go into the depth it deserves. This should be covered like Abu Ghraib and any incident accusing our soldiers of murder.

Yesterday the Associated Press released a story detailing major abuses at our Guantanamo Bay facility. These atrocities include assaults with fans, shoes, bodily fluids, human excrement, food, radios, toilets and even a bloody lizard tail. This report also detailed several instances of desecration of the Qu’ran (Koran). This behavior is outrageous and far below the standards of proper humane treatment. These assaults have endangered the safety of and violated the rights of those who have been intentionally and viciously targeted because of their beliefs. This unforgivable and inhumane treatment has to stop and those responsible have to be held accountable and severely punished.

Now for those of you on the left, you probably have already decided that I am referring to US soldiers. Well, I am. They are the victims of these horrible assaults. In a freedom of information suit against the government Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation forced the Federal Government to release ALL reports of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay facility. There were over 400 reports of abuse, assault and inhumane treatment of American personnel at the facility. These ranged from the stabbing of a guard with a bloody lizard tail, to the throwing of semen and human excrement and finally to almost gouging a guard’s eyes out when a prisoner was being removed form a cell. Here is an article detailing the issues.

What action will be taken to protect the human rights of these soldiers and guards?

What out cry will come from humanitarian organizations around the world?

What condemnation will the United Nations lay on the detainees for such violence and inhumane behavior?

How many lawyers will the ACLU send to assist these victims in suing their attackers?

NONE!

You watch, not a thing will happed. Just as the world expects Israel to sit back and take its soldiers being captured and missiles raining down on its cities, they will expect America to take abuse after abuse and do noting. These people should be rounded up, taken outside and shot as examples to others on what it happens when you attempt to gouge out the eyes of an American soldier. They wish to die for their cause. Grant them that.

Let me quote something from A Few Good Men, that doesn’t seem so crazy in today’s world:

Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I think I’m entitled to them.

Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Jessep: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you 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 my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…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.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punchline. 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, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!

Some of you may remember an article I wrote entitled Thank God For Dead Soldiers commenting on the indefensible actions of the Phelps family from Kentucky. Well, apparently I was mistaken. Their actions of protesting over the graves of our fallen soldiers are not indefensible, at least not for the ACLU. That’s right. The ACLU (or Anti-Christ Liberals Union) has come out in opposition to a law designed to protect the sanctity of our soldiers funerals and the rights of a family to grieve the loss of a loved one in peace.

The ACLU asserts that it is the right of these whackjobs to protest during the funeral service of fallen soldiers using what ever means they see fit. The Kentucky law that makes protesting within 300 feet of such an event a crime also limits the use of sound amplification devices such as bullhorns. Now let me see… My community has disturbing the peace ordinances for everything from loud music from your vehicle to needlessly discharging a firearm at night. So why can’t you have a law that says these nut baskets cannot disturb a memorial service. It is at least aimed at protecting the rights of the mourners. What are the noise ordinances aimed at protecting, the rights of old women not to have to hear Snoop or K-Fed? Not that a more worthy goal exists, but I should have the right to listen to crappy violent rap music of my choosing at the volume I set while cruising down Main St in my vehicle. If the law can regulate that, then why can it not regulate these protests?

I am going to follow the lead of Mark Glense on this one and post something that I think everyone should be aware of. While Superintendent Paul Ash of the Lexington School District in Lexington Massachusetts is having parents arrested because they did not what their seven year old children exposed to the homosexual curriculum that he was promoting, other students who have been touched by God and Christ’s love are barred from expressing the feelings and opinions on what made them successful during a valedictorian speech at graduation.

This is the story of Foothill High School’s Valedictorian Brittany McComb, a student who maintained a 4.7 GPA and credits her success to that of divine inspiration. Of course this kind of example must be silenced. Could you imagine the response of liberals if something good was credited to faith and done so in public? The very fabric of universe might start to unravel if one o f the liberal articles of faith was challenged. I am referring to the separation of church and state. That is obviously an article of faith since you can find no Constitutional law anywhere to support the opinion of a liberal judge that has become the anti-religious mantra for the left.

District pulls plug on speech

Foothill valedictorian criticizes decision to censor her proclamation of faith

By ANTONIO PLANAS
REVIEW-JOURNAL

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her — Christ — her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb’s commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb’s mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb’s speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

(Read entie articel)