Obamanomics – Natural Born Citizen – Gov. Jindal – Glenn Beck Hypocrisy – Commander Kerchner – Iran – Israel – Anti-Missile Systems – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report

Natural Born Citizen and Glenn Beck -

 

Just like Obama is not Malcolm X - Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen"! Obama may look like Malcolm X and Obama may be a "Citizen"; but being a "Citizen" does not necessarily mean that Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen"! Joint Chiefs of Staff’s new mottos: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil & Don’t rock the boat!

Commander Kerchner has written Glenn Beck a second letter asking him to get involved the ‘natural born citizen’ issue.  I’ve written Glenn a couple of open letters and it appears that Mr. Beck has no intention to look into Obama’s eligibility to be President. 

I’ve taken a little different approach recently by pulling a Pelosi and pole vaulting over Obama to get a media discussion started regarding Gov. Jindal’s eligibility to serve as President.  Gov. Jindal is not a ‘natural born citizen’ either. 

I do wish that Gov. Jindal would man up and address his ineligibility to serve.

How could the media ignore a Jindal press conference? 

Feel free to send Gov. Jindal either of my last three articles:

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=785:the-2010-democratic-birther-strategy-media-bias-liberty-and-the-jindal-response&catid=94:breaking-news&Itemid=156

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=508:obama-eligibility-dear-talk-radio&catid=71:zach-jones&Itemid=124

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=447:trumping-political-and-judicial-courage-&catid=71:zach-jones&Itemid=124

From the blog of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. -

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Glenn … Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner

For Immediate Release — 1 February 2010

Glenn … Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck

By: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Posted: 1 February 2010 at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Dear Glenn Beck :

Are you listening to the People? Are you listening to the members of your “912 Project” who are trying to talk to you on air about the “elephant in the room” of American political discussion and legal question about the 2008 election. Or are you still telling your call screeners to block their calls and/or moderate them out of your chat rooms just like the members of Congress do? Congress is not listening to the People. The election in Massachusetts showed you the results of what happens when the elected officials do not listen to the People. Are you not listening to the People anymore either or just selectively listening? The questions are not the questions of a fringe percentage of the people. See this recent survey: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=5697

A very large percentage, probably 75%+, of the “912 Project” folks and “Tea Party” folks believe that Obama is NOT constitutionally eligible to be the President or certainly at least want the matter fully and thoroughly discussed in public and investigated by the courts and Obama’s hidden and sealed early life original paper records unsealed and revealed. Photoshop’d digital images on the internet are legal proof of nothing. And then there is the issue for the 1961 newspaper ads you tout as infallible proof. They were not placed directly by family members but instead generated by the Hawaiian Health Department upon any birth registration in their system no matter what the source. Have you heard of the GIGO effect for birth registration systems. Falsified birth registration records in yields false record reports in Hawaiian newspapers out. This was likely done by the grandmother to get her newborn grandson U.S. citizenship, despite of where he might have really been born. Births could be registered with a mail-in form filled out by one family member for “at home” births. No one back then in Hawaii checked the credibility of the facts placed on that form. No one at the time was thinking 45 years into the future that this child might someday be a candidate for President and thus someone would question and check the underlying credibility of the facts on the mail-in form. Citizenship is the goal of any falsified birth registration in the U.S. Simple as that. Listen to this discussion on the Bill Cunningham radio show.

Glenn, are you giving these people who have supported you a voice? Or are you silencing their voices from getting on the air? If you don’t believe me, take a survey of them. …Continue Reading

I like Glenn Beck but the hypocrisy involved with saying ‘question with boldness’ and then ridiculing those who question Obama’s eligibility makes me believe that Glenn may be becoming half full of crap.

Like you Glenn but instead of ridiculing those questioning Obama's eligibility - question Jindal's eligibility. Take an enema and come back to the light!

Obama’s Foreign Policy –

 

Hillary's 3am Call vis-a-vis the Omnipresent Teleprompter to Obama!

Obama supported Chavez supporter/follower Zelaya during the Honduras crisis and ignored the opposition protesters in Iran when Ahmadinejad stole the election.  Is the deployment and sales of arms to Iran’s neighbors merely an attempt to buy time and keep Israel from attacking Iran?  Buy time to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? 

…The moves, which include the sales of anti-missile systems to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, are designed to deter Iran from launching attacks against its Sunni Muslim neighbors and to send a message to Israel that a preemptive strike against Iran is unnecessary….

From FOX:

U.S. Missile Shield in Gulf Ups Ante With Iran

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran rose Monday after the Obama Administration quietly increased the capability of land and sea-based missile defenses in several Gulf nations to protect American allies.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran rose Monday after the Obama Administration quietly increased the capability of land and sea-based missile defenses in several Gulf nations to protect American allies against a potential Iranian strike.

Administration officials said over the weekend that the U.S. was speeding up arms sales to a number of Gulf Arab states and that it had also deployed warships capable of knocking down hostile missiles in flight to the region.

The moves, which include the sales of anti-missile systems to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, are designed to deter Iran from launching attacks against its Sunni Muslim neighbors and to send a message to Israel that a preemptive strike against Iran is unnecessary.

The deployments come as President Obama enters a new phase in efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program after the failure of a diplomatic offensive….Continue Reading

Obama’s Iranian Policy?

 

Teleprompter holds Whitehouse Protocol Classes. Obama preparing for bow to Iran!

Unlike Obama, I take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word and will be paying attention on February 11^th.

CNN — Two top Iranian opposition leaders have called on supporters to protest on February 11, the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, an opposition Web site reported.

According to The Green Way Web site, a meeting took place Saturday between opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Moussavi at Karroubi’s home.

They discussed the two executions that happened last week and the cases of 16 protesters who went on trial Saturday, the site reported.

“The widespread arrests of political activists and university students, the silencing of the media, and the forced confessions of prisoners are against the principles of Islam and the constitution of Iran,” the leaders said in a statement.

They also called for people to take to the streets on February 11 to demand their rights back as citizens of Iran, The Green Way reported.

Meanwhile, state-run Press TV quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday as saying that the nation will deliver a harsh blow to “global arrogance” on February 11.

Press TV offered no details on or explanation of the statement….Continue Reading

 

Obamanomics –

Obamanomics - It's a Crap Shoot! Spending Freeze? Not hardly!

 

This quote sums it up:

…. When the deficit is that size and you want to cut it meaningfully, you have to do more…

Analysts View: 2010 budget deficit to hit new record

7:43am EST

NEW YORK/LONDON (Reuters) – Following are analysts’ comments after President Barack Obama on Monday projected in his budget for the fiscal year to September 30, 2011 the budget deficit would soar to a fresh record of $1.56 trillion in 2010.

LATEST COMMENTS

ANDRE BAKHOS, PRESIDENT, PRINCETON FINANCIAL GROUP, NORTH

BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY

“We’re talking about a record budget with record deficits. In it we have I believe $100 billion stimulus on top of what’s already been approved in the past, and it’s going to be interesting to see how that plays up.

“I don’t believe it’s going to make a (stock) market impact. People are aware of the deficit and the record budget. I don’t think the average investor will trade on the back of that.”

PETER BOOCKVAR, EQUITY STRATEGIST, MILLER TABAK & CO., NEW

YORK:

“I don’t think there is anything out there that is job creating and I don’t have much confidence that some of the spending cuts will actually happen.

“I would rather come in today and focus on fundamental earnings rather than what the government’s budget deficit is going to be. It’s going to be large, it’s going to be big and that’s what’s the most disappointing thing and this doesn’t change that.”

MARC OSTWALD, CURRENCY, RATES STRATEGIST, MONUMENT

SECURITIES, LONDON:

“When the deficit is that size and you want to cut it meaningfully, you have to do more….Continue Reading

The 2010 Democratic ‘Birther’ Strategy, Media Bias, Liberty, and the Jindal Response

The 2010 Democratic ‘Birther’ Strategy, Media Bias, Liberty, and the Jindal Response

This week there appears to be numerous Google ‘news’ search results concerning Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, an up tick.  Not surprisingly, the dominant theme the media is using to present this subject is to closely associate any and all eligibility questions with the pejorative term ‘birther’ and little else.  The ‘birther’ term probably began innocently enough as a quick and easy way to describe someone who does not believe Obama is a ‘citizen’ or believes he was born in Kenya or some other place back in 2008.  While in fact, the ‘eligibility’ issue is much broader than either of these meanings.

Notwithstanding the eligibility issue’s complexity, when Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ appeared online, media supporters quickly realized it would likely appear farfetched to the casual reader that the document could mean anything other than absolute proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.   As such, Obama’s support in the media seized upon the possibility that they could easily ignore the actual parameters of the issue and shape the news to redefine the ‘eligibility’ issue to mean: if Obama has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate, of course he is a ‘citizen’, and of course, this equals Obama is eligible to be President.

Voila, the media found their vehicle to infer that anyone questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States was a complete and utter fool.  

Because, most people pay little attention to and/or fail to verify the details of news stories (most barely read past the headlines), the media has been able to pull off their slight of hand.  And as the media is well aware, once people commit to a version of the facts they are reluctant to revisit an issue. Especially, given that many of the normal players (Hillary, Republicans, and the courts) for their own reasons have been reluctant to touch this story, it makes the casual observer’s commitment to his or her position even stronger. Thus, the term ‘birther’ has become an effective tool for the media and politicians to use to ridicule their opponents. 

Allow me to give a quick statement regarding those sincerely questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve.   Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution requires anyone serving as President must be a ‘natural born citizen’. The ‘natural born citizen’ provision was originally put in place to make sure that whoever held the Office of the Presidency would not be conflicted by allegiances to any other country.  This is why questions about where a candidate was born matters.  It is also why questions regarding the citizenship of the candidate’s parents matter; and any extensions of the parents’ allegiances to the candidate matter.

The Presidential eligibility issue is (for obvious reasons) entirely focused on complete allegiance to the United States. Therefore, where a candidate was born (being a U.S. ‘citizen’) is only a part of the determination of his or her status as a ‘natural born citizen’.  The two terms do not mean the same thing.

Just as a warning – if you happen to read a ‘news’ article about the Presidential eligibility issue and you see the term ‘birther’ throughout, never or rarely see the term ‘natural born citizen’ or when you do, you see it equated with the term ‘citizen’; you can be fairly sure that you are having the wool pulled over your eyes.

Naturally, I did a few advanced Google ‘News’ searches this morning.  (Google is funny in that it does not always give completely consistent results, but trends can be established.) This past week there were 74 articles identified as news that contained the term ‘natural born citizen’, 44 of which did not include the term ‘birther’.  There were only 40 articles that included both terms.  In contrast, this past week there were 233 articles identified as news that contained the term ‘birther’, 200 of which did not include the term ‘natural born citizen’.  Talk about media bias!

Think about it. 

Article II, Section I of the Constitution reads as follows:

No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President….

So of 233 ‘news’ articles this week that use the term ‘birther’ only 33 used the term ‘natural born citizen’?  Utterly amazing.  Do you feel manipulated yet?

Anyway, as stated above, the term ‘birther’ has become a tool for the media and politicians to use to ridicule their opponents without actually having to look closely at the issue. 

Now we learn that  ‘birther’ is going to be part of the Democratic Party’s election strategy for the 2010 elections. Politico reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is distributing a memo containing a series of questions that Democrats should force their opponents to answer.  

The very first question is: “Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?”  (Notice that they left out the appropriate terminology, ‘natural born citizen’.)

Given that the media (for the moment) seems to have successfully redefined the eligibility issue, this gotcha question must be approached cautiously by potential candidates.  Rest assured, it doesn’t concern the media or Democratic politicians one little bit that there are legitimate Constitutional questions about Obama’s potential lack of eligibility.  Ridicule, misrepresentation and villification are front and center in the 2010 Democrat election playbook and the ‘birther’ strategy is in fact already being deployed by Chris Matthews.  Therefore, every candidate must be ready for this question!

I happen to have a few ideas how Independent and Republican candidates can answer this question. 

The main thing, be honest.  If you do not believe that this is an issue, just answer I have no reason to believe that Obama is not a Citizen.  However, I would suggest that you are careful not to say you have ‘no reason’ to believe that Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ because that answer may come back to bite you.

If the question is asked about Obama being a ‘citizen’, a candidate might answer –

*Well (Chris Matthews), as you know there’s a difference between being an ordinary ‘citizen’ and being a ‘natural born citizen’ – and the Supreme Court has not adequately defined the term ‘natural born citizen’ with any degree of specificity as far as I can tell. 

Historically, it involved making sure the person leading the country and our military does not have divided loyalties. 

As to the question is Obama a citizen – I haven’t seen anything that would cause me to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii.  However, Obama could have easily put the issue to rest by being more forthright about releasing documents that every other similarly situated candidate would have released.  That would have been the common sense thing to do. He still can!

*Well Chris, I’ll be happy to answer your question if you answer three questions for me.  As you know, Gov. Jindal may be running on the Republican ticket in 2012 and his parents were citizens of India when he was born in Louisiana.  Do you believe that Gov. Jindal is a citizen?  Do you believe he is a ‘natural born citizen’?  What’s the difference between  ‘citizens’ and ‘natural born citizens’?

If Chris answers Gov. Jindal is a citizen, is a natural born citizen and there is no difference between the two terms – then simply shake your head affirmatively and indicate that whatever the law is that applies to Gov. Jindal should apply to Obama. Follow up by saying that you would hate to see Gov. Jindal have to address these types of questions if they are not necessary. You might add that you’ve seen no evidence indicating that Obama is not an American ‘citizen’. Then ask: Chris, would you mind having your staff research the question about the differences between ‘citizens’ and ‘natural born citizens’?  (Maybe this would force the media to actually research or reveal their research regarding the Constitutional question of who is eligible to serve as President.)

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t like the media (or anyone else for that matter) manipulating how Constitutional questions about who can serve are answered. It’s not Chris Matthews job. It’s not the media’s job.  It’s not the candidate’s job.  It is the sworn duty of the courts, State Secretaries of Elections, Members of Congress, the FBI, the military, et. al. to make sure the Constitution is protected. 

One thing is for certain – it is the media’s job to make sure those in power are doing their jobs and that the American people know every relevant detail about those seeking office, especially for the Presidency.  They are failing. What can be more relevant than knowing if a candidate is eligible to hold the office he or she is seeking?

This sort of ad hock, de facto, amendment of the Constitution of the United States by slight of hand, turning a blind eye is not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the left, right or center.  It is a slippery sloop that undermines the principles America was founded on and enumerated in the Constitution more than two hundred years ago.  These principles and protections have served America well and should not to be trifled with -especially, by the media.

Today the left and the media might not think the eligibility issue is any big deal. However, next time this comes up, or something else, it may be a BIG deal to the left. It depends on who holds the reigns of power and how they view that power. That’s the danger inherent in viewing the Constitution as a living, changing document as the far left favors. It’s the danger of having the Supreme Court look at a diminished Constitution and interpreting it to suit their purposes, image, or to do their appointer’s bidding.  The Constitution will mean nothing.

We must all remember that when free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to prosper – our liberties – are temporarily entrusted to our leaders – it is with the deep understanding, knowledge and conviction that how they handle our liberties are limited by the Constitution of the United States.  We do not want Chris Matthews or any other media personage to impose some watered down version of Constitution upon us. 

The reasons the ‘Founders’ included the Article II, Section I eligibility restrictions remain as relevant today as they were in the 1700’s.  All one has to do is look to the shenanigans Obama and his minions have been attempting in Washington to see how true this is – prosecuting Navy Seals, persecuting CIA interrogators, giving Terrorists the same rights as American citizens, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, surrendering U.S. sovereignty, trying to close GITMO for purely political reasons, socializing healthcare, etc., etc., etc. 

- You know what would really put the media on the defensive and maybe cause America to get to the bottom of this eligibility issue? 

What would happen if Gov. Bobby Jindal found the opportunity and encouragement to respond to a question about Presidential eligibility by saying that he very much doubts that he (Jindal) is a ‘natural born citizen’? The media would have a cow!

Any ideas how to make that happen?

A Wink and Nod to Torture – Spain – Obama – Misdirection – Transnationalism – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

A Wink & Nod to Torture –

Will Spain Genuflect to Obama’s Misdirection?

Recently, I wrote an article concerning the Democratic left’s (Obama & Harold Koh) misguided infatuation with transnationalism, its undermining of American sovereignty and how transnationalism vis-à-vis unforeseen international actions/prejudices could jeopardize Obama’s precarious hold on the Presidency.   I basically warned Mr. Obama that he should be careful what he wished for because he might just get it. Now, the transnational view from the Oval Office reveals more thunder clouds gathering several hundred miles behind the Azores in Spain.

In the Obama Transnational Irony, I recounted…a news article that indicated that “Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. “  The action appears to be based in part on the fact that the United States is a signatory to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture that requires states to investigate allegations of torture committed on their territory or by their nationals, or extradite them to stand trial elsewhere.  The argument goes that because these six officials were giving critical advice to President Bush, without which “it would have been impossible to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantánamo]“, they can be held criminally liable.

If Spain does issue arrest warrants for Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Douglas Feith, William Haynes, John Yoo or Jay Bybee and subsequently seeks extradition, Obama is going to be put in a fairly difficult position.

…If Obama orders or causes a real criminal investigation of these individuals or extradition, surely he will be opening himself up to Dr. Orly Taitz’s eligibility dragon raising its head and talons coming to the aid of these defendants.  Dr. Orly Taitz is one of a number of attorneys across the country who have brought over 50 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States….

If Obama is in fact not eligible to serve, he cannot legally order extradition and his appointment of Mr. Holder would also be invalid. To date no judge has allowed an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the basic allegation that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution.  However, given that the rights of the criminally accused to be heard, confront their accusers and to due process are paramount in American Jurisprudence that might have to change.

A day or two after writing the Obama Transnational Irony, it began to look like Obama had managed, either through luck or some sort of backroom wheeling and dealing, to avoid the possibility that his probable lack of eligibility to serve as President of the United States would be raised as a defense in a criminal proceeding.  The Attorney General of Spain was recommending that matter be dropped.

However, this week it appears that Spain is continuing on its crusade against anything – anywhere that has even a hint of coerciveness to it, regardless of the views of their Attorney General.  It seems Spain might be suffering from some sort of internalized guilt from their history during the Spanish Inquisition and under Francisco Franco’s rule; and now, they’re assuming the role of Don Quixote de la Mancha.  In my opinion, Don Quixote had a much better grasp of reality and dangers faced in the world than the modern day Spanish judges, who appear only to pander to public opinion of ostridges.   One Spanish judge has recently made a procedurally required inquiry to U.S. authorities seeking to find out if their targets were currently the subjects of judicial inquiry.  A different Spanish judge has started another probe into torture allegations at Gitmo and a third is asking to interrogate eight Chinese officials concerning deaths and/or disappearance of hundreds/thousands of Tibetans.   (I’m only going to address the torture aspect involving Americans.)

Earlier, I had suggested a few options available to Mr. Obama to try to avoid Spain’s pesky transnational interference with the limits of what advisors to the President should be allowed to proffer.  Obama’s Administration has added a clever twist one of these.

…He will need to either start a criminal investigation here in the United States or deal with an extradition request from Spain.   It might be possible for him, with a wink and a nod, to start an investigation and conclude the accused were simply giving advice that every President needs to govern and end it; or he might start an investigation and drag it out until he’s out of office.  I believe the wink and nod would have to be there for Obama to pull that off….

Obama has been in the uncomfortable position of having to placate his mostly irrational Democratic left, trying to keep some level of CIA intelligence coming in from those who do the interrogating, and trying to show Spain that he is handling the matter (providing political cover) so they will drop their investigations.

First, Obama tried to float the let’s just move on argument that it would serve no purpose to pursue criminally members of the Bush Administration. We want to look forward and not back. That blew a fuse with the far left. Moveon.org said move back and think again.

Then, in less than 24 hours, Obama came out and said that the CIA interrogators would not be pursued if they acted within the four corners of the interrogation documents.  But as for others in the Bush Administration, he would leave it up to Holder.  This sent a chill through the CIA and increases the likelihood that we will not be able to discover as many terrorist plots because we now have a gun shy CIA.  (In the Art of War, Sun Tzu expresses his deep awareness that foreknowledge is a critical factor for success in war and that foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits.  It comes from people.)

…Those in intelligence are “gong to become increasingly wary about doing dangerous things,” Lowenthal said. “They feel at the end of the day they won’t be covered. It’s not irreparable right now, but it’s problematic.”…

Now, Obama is allowing the release of many more troubling photographs and refusing to provide any memos/documentation showing how successful these interrogation techniques have been.  In fact, these interrogation techniques have provided critical information that prevented a 9/11 type attack in Los Angeles and another planned attack against the Brooklyn Bridge saving many lives.

Of course, Obama has given several speeches condemning torture, apologizing to the world, saying that Churchill never condoned “torture.”  However, he was totally mistaken.

And finally, we find out that Mr. Holder is not likely to prosecute these former Bush officials, but may try to get several of these individuals (Yoo & Bybee of California) disciplined by their respective Bar Associations.  Disbarment is in fact a very fairly sever punishment for an attorney or Judge.  Lucky for Mr. Gonzales, he is from Texas and Texans seem to use more “common sense” when balancing interrogation and preventing the possible deaths of thousands, if not millions, of Americans.  (This Justice Department inquiry may be released in the coming weeks.)

All of these self-serving actions put America’s security and her troops in greater danger by telegraphing to our enemies just how far we will go (allowing enemies to prepare against our interrogation attempts) and by casting a disparaging light on our military and CIA personnel (undermining moral and resolve). Obama epitomizes the President who looks at the issues of interrogation, “torture”, and war through the lens of one beholding to the people who got him elected.   To appease his supporters and cover his liabilities, Obama seems willing to do whatever he can as quickly as possible.

However, the group most culpable for endangering America’s security is the American media.  Their Bush hating war reporting during the last eight years has emboldened our enemies and caused a concurrent lack of resolve in the American people. The media’s gushing support for and failure to vet candidate Obama brought to power the most divisive and extreme person ever to sit in the Oval Office.  (Rezko, Ayers, Socialism, Larry Sinclair, ACORN, campaign funding issues and lack of “natural born citizen” status should have derailed Obama’s candidacy early on.)

Will America’s enemies respond positively to Obama’s apologies and showings of weakness?  I doubt it and the damage can’t be undone easily.

Will this last step of hoping bar discipline to allow Obama to once again sidestep answering the allegations that he is not a “natural born citizen”- and is therefore ineligible to hold the Office of the Presidency?  Maybe so, since Holder vis-à-vis Obama would not be involved. (Passing the buck to protect the golden goose?)

Will the self-righteous left be placated?  Seems unlikely to me.

However, the bigger question is – Will Spain be placated by this result and submissively genuflect to Obama because he’s basically one of them, a transnationalist, who has gotten himself into a pickle with this whole birth certificate/eligibility mess? It depends if Spanish judges, looking at Obama’s wink and nod of political cover, believe it is sufficient for them.

It’s probably appropriate to share my opinion/bias about war and interrogation.

I am strongly opposed to torture.

But-

With the exception of water-boarding being used only when “ABSOLUTELY” necessary, the interrogation techniques that were described in the memos that Obama released do not constitute “torture during war” if the individuals subjected were legitimately believed to have actionable intelligence that could prevent loss of life at the hands of terrorists and the methods were carefully monitored.  I realize that this is a broad harsh statement and arguments are always present concerning who is defining who a “terrorist” is, what a “legitimate belief” is, what “careful monitoring” is, and what our ethics are.

Interrogations are not pleasant and they certainly should bother everyone involved – the interrogator and the people interrogators are trying to protect.  Harsh interrogation must never become common place; but it must be recognized that under certain circumstances, circumstances where lives are at stake, we must have interrogators who can do what we and they hate.  (I do believe that if an interrogator truly enjoys the rough stuff, they need find some other way to serve.)

Rough techniques, much rougher than those described in the memos, have been used by almost all countries when lives are at stake.  I certainly believe that Obama would try to get CIA interrogators to utilize every technique if people he loved were in imminent danger.  However, considering the recent political actions of Obama regarding interrogation techniques and possible prosecutions, it is possible that interrogators would refuse out of fear Obama would send the Justice Department after them at some later date.

Interrogations are not nice and wars are horrific.  Wars are horrific so as to be avoided if at all possible. However, sometimes both are unavoidable.  It would be great if Obama could get information from terrorists with foot rubs and Jacuzzis; and fight wars with paint balls.  However, when fighting a determined adversary, the only thing such thinking will accomplish is defeat, loss of liberty and even greater loss of life.  We don’t live in a politically correct world and we can’t fight wars that are politically correct on one side and hope to remain free or even survive in the face of the Sharia world as envisioned by people such as the President of Iran.

There is a differentiation between the ethics we have when survival is at stake and those when we are at peace. There are basic survival instincts that shape and compromise our abilities to hold high and ideal ethics. There are also desperate situations that call upon individuals to bend society’s ethics for the moment, regretfully, but resolutely. If your children are hungry or seriously ill, the ethics of taking a loaf of bread that you can’t pay for pales in comparison.  Ethics are struggle. They are not black or white – in life or war.  (Unless you’re a politician or in the main stream media, then your ethics can seemingly go as far as you can get away with.) What would you parents do to keep your daughter from being forced to wear a burka? What would you parents do to keep your son from be forced to change his religion to suit Sharia law? What would you parents do to keep your children alive? Would you say to the interrogator please do what you need to do to stop this – I thank and forgive you?  The interrogators hopefully understand that your children are in jeopardy, that their lives, freedoms and futures are at stake.  Hopefully, with your forgiveness, their own, and their God’s – they will make it though the days remaining to them.

I do realize that there are some who genuinely believe that it is better to perish rather than lift a hand in anger or self defense, and they live that way. Are they walking unattached in this world, unattached to this world, unattached to country, unattached even unto themselves? Christ like? I don’t know. However, it seems that such a position takes a lot of courage and awareness.  I suspect their numbers are very few; and that for most who profess such belief, it is more or less a notion that has not been put to the test. Regarding the far, far left, it seems me that they are mainly dominated by self-righteous, intolerant, arrogant, America bashing elitists. One thing that’s for certain, America can’t count on them to protect our friends, family, freedoms or Constitution.

My thanks go to the United States Military and militaries of our allies.

Unless a person is one of the very few as described above, the following quote sums up my feelings on defense of family, freedom, America and her Constitution:

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

My fear is that one day many may come to believe that under Obama’s ideology and control, America has ceased to be something that is worth fighting for.  If the people who Janet Napolitano believes could be domestic terrorists won’t fight for America, who will? Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Chris Matthews? Katie Couric? ACORN? The extreme left? The Media? George Soros?

We are not there yet, but our rights and freedoms are being quickly eroded by the Obama Administration and Congress.  We need to organize and vote out people who are not fiscally responsible, vote out people who do not adhere to the Constitution, and vote out people who are more concerned with their own power than the people’s power.  We need to boycott companies like GM, Chrysler, Citigroup and others who are acting as parasites clinging to the nation’s teat.  We need to buy from companies like Ford who reject government control of business.

If America ever does become something, whose ideals and values are not worth fighting for, the only advice I can give is to sell your stock in Anheuser-Busch, iron your burkas and grow your beards because life is a changing – for the WORSE!

Senator Obama’s Patriotism – a Veteran’s Perspective

Patriotism is the cloak we wear to announce our love of country and our bond to our neighbors. It reflects our commitment to each other and to the ideas upon which this country was founded. It is that which trumpets the chorus “We Stand Together.” The threads are our highest and noblest principles and they remind us to be vigilant in regard to their protection, lest they become bare, frayed, distorted and lose their luster. It is not blind obedience, but is thoughtful and reflective. It is that of a caretaker. Mindfully practiced, it can shape the essence of the individual and thus be reflected in our society. It is a simple thing and is profound in its potential.

It is also a simple and profound thing that occurs when it is neglected, distorted, or diminished. We lose the We. The We becomes strangers who have forgotten what price has been paid in blood for our individual Freedoms and Obligations. The We becomes we who are less committed and connected to our neighbors and common values. When the cloak is removed, it is harder to recognize from a distance what principles are within the heart, what they are striving for.

Patriotism is not a dangerous word when it is grounded in precious truths that we have to aspire to and frequently fall short of. It is not a dangerous word when it is practiced sincerely, inclusively and humbly. It is the journey of a group that wants the Nation to radiate warmth and love. It is why individuals have the courage to stand up to the government when the nation’s principles seem to be lost or off tract. Because the principles mean something, many hearts weep when the next generation appears to have forgotten or never were taught about the journey, the price. Freedom is not free and there are those that would take it away.

Just as Senator Obama said in February during this election cycle, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?” I agree with the Senator that words do matter.

I would also add, “Don’t tell me that symbols don’t matter. Putting your hand over your heart when saying the Pledge. Just a symbol. Treating the Flag with reverence. Just a symbol. Wearing a Flag lapel pin. Just a symbol. And guess what, – symbols matter. It should matter even more for the representatives of our government. It is a part of being mindful about our freedom. It is part of showing the next generation that these ideals are the principles of this Nation. These principles are why our fathers, mothers, sons, daughters are called upon sometimes to risk losing their lives. Symbols matter. They slow the decay of ideas by causing us to remember.

That is why this photo creates in me such distress. Sen. Obama might become President and he doesn’t have a clue about what being Patriotic means. There is a level of arrogance in his actions that slaps everyone who has had to answer the call to arms. I believe he refers to us as the clingers. The clingers to guns and religion whose forefathers founded this great country and in January of 2009 might become his subjects. The Senator seems to only see the negative in America and not its strengths. He must have learned that from his pastor.

“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.”
William J. Clinton

NOTE

To Follow the Larry Sinclair story that the media is trying to suppress and for up to date information regarding Mr. Larry Sinclair’s allegations, “Senator Obama and Larry Sinclair engaged in the illegal use of cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999”, see links below:

Larry Sinclair’s Blog

CitizenWell’s Blog

Obambi.com Blog