President Obama picks a racist

(2001- Sonia Sotomayor)

"...(I believe) that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a White male judge..."









We can rest assured, people...

President Obama and his sidekick, (the part- time stand up comic) Bobby Gibbs- has said that Sonia Sotomayor would NEVER use that wording today.

Sonia "mis-spoke" about speaking.

Sonia’s mouth was moving, however; her brain wasn’t thinking, back in 2001.

Democrats are quick to point out that Sonia was talking about how a female Hispanic judge would understand Hispanic problems BETTER than some old "cracker" White judge.

That is what Sonia meant to say.

But those mean old neo-con’s are trying to destroy Sonia. (By using her own words.)

Folks, the democrats are taking a long walk on a short pier.

LET THEM.

The American people realize that a fair minded judge, who is following the constitution, doesn’t have to be a particular skin color.

To say that they must have a particular skin color is- racist.

President Obama might have an opportunity to appoint 3 justices to Supreme Court during his presidency.

All three are liberal.

Try as he might, Obama CANNOT change the balance of power in the court.

So let the democrats spend all of their political capitol trying to appoint Sonia. (Because she is female, and she is Hispanic.)

Folks, do you know how many democrats talked to me this week and are upset that President Obama picked this person..?? (A racist.)

As I tell all democrats who are concerned with Obama’s performance, I will print it here:

President Obama is a GREAT speaker, and a smart man.

However, Barack doesn’t care about the "little" details involved in the job. He would rather delegate authority to lower figures, so that he (Obama) can continue to make speeches.

The problem is: Obama surrounds himself with shady people who make "back- door deals."

That is why Obama; a smart man, can pick several tax cheats for his administration. (Because Obama didn’t really check these people out. Obama was too busy giving speeches.)

That is why Sonia, a racist; slipped by.

Because President Obama isn’t concerned with the details in the job. Obama is only interested in the speeches.

Second- Obama has too big of an ego to admit that he isn’t making the decisions.

Obama MUST lose all these shady people from his past. (Like we conservatives tried to tell you folks during the election.)

If Obama continues to run with this crowd, he will spend the entire 4 years defending all of his (their) choices.

I’m not to concerned about this court pick.

Obama can only replace a liberal judge with another liberal judge.

However, we should fight this pick.

She is a racist.

We have no room in America for racists.

Nancy Pelosi- Rush Limbaugh and I disagree

Rush Limbaugh ended his broadcast week by joking that Nancy Pelosi could help the "women’s movement" by being THE FIRST female "Speaker of the House" to resign.

Many conservatives and some democrats are also asking the same thing:

Democrat; Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi should resign.



I respectfully disagree.

Ms. Pelosi should stay right where she is.

The American people MUST see the face of the democratic party.

They must experience it for themselves, or they will never learn.

As many of you know, I was not always a conservative. When I was younger, I was a liberal. For years, I thought that the democratic party stood for "freedom" and that they cared for the poor.

As I grew older, I realized this wasn’t true.

Democrats create "half- assed" programs, that are not planned out good enough, that keep people living next to the poverty level, FOR LIFE.

Democrats say they will help the environment and stop global warming. And in doing so, they will restrict your freedom MORE than anytime in American history. (Just wait until you see what democrats have in mind for the Internet; to protect you from cyberbullying, phishing, identity theft and more.)

Freedom...

In the future, you will look back on pre- 2009, and remember how FREE you were.

As I learned many years ago, younger Americans today must also learn;



Democrats DO NOT stand for freedom.

Democrats restrict freedom, (in the guise of helping the environment, or the Internet, etc.)

Democrats do not help the poor.

They create programs that keep people poor, and they raise taxes on us people who try to better ourselves.



Nancy Pelosi

Harry Reid

Joe Biden

Barack Obama

These people MUST remain right where they are. (At least until 2012.)



Folks, we can tell Americans (until we are blue in the face) that these people are NOT sincere. However, until they see it with their own eyes, they are never going to believe it.

(Just as I had to witness it for myself, many years ago.)

Nancy Pelosi should stay right there. Stumbling and bumbling through answers like: "..I was NEVER briefed on waterboarding.." "..OK, there were briefings, but I thought that the CIA was talking about interrogation methods that they wouldn’t use.." "..OK.. I changed my mind, the CIA lied.."

The American people MUST see President Obama say he will close Gitmo, but he doesn’t.

That Obama will release photos of CIA interrogations, but then he doesn’t.

That Obama will end military tribunals, but then Obama starts them back up.

Yes, people MUST see it for themselves.

President Obama is becoming President Bush’s third term.



And this scares the crap out of the liberals. Go read a few liberal web site. They are stunned and confused. (Though, publicly, they are blaming "outside forces" and NOT Obama, at this point.)

To his credit, "The Daily Show’s" host: Jon Stewart has been taking a few shots at President Obama and his "waffle house." But even Jon is holding back the "tough" humor and reserving it for the always safe- republican bashing.



It’s happening folks, and I am very optimistic about the future.

We are facing a different time, today.

In the past, democrats would rarely criticize their own party. However, America as a whole, had no problem criticizing Presidents Clinton and Carter.

But with the FIRST Black President, America as a whole will never truly take Obama to task.

I believe that President Obama could restrict free speech on the Internet, (which he might) and America will say nothing. Liberals will defend Obama, claiming: "..Well, we had too much freedom on the Internet, anyway.."

We had too much freedom..??

On the Internet, too much free speech..??

I will take some time, and Obama will never be criticized the way that Bush, Clinton, and others have been in the past.

It is a shame.

Racism is still very strong in America.

You would think that by now "all men would be equal." But a White man cannot criticize a Black man. (It just doesn’t "look" good.)

So, we will have to tolerate the silence, (in the media and on talk shows) about Barack’s performance.

We will have to put up with the "blood sport" crowd who are living in the past, (and defying Obama’s wishes) who want to see Cheney, Rummy, and Bush in prison. These pundits want a HUGE trial of everyone involved in "torture." (Except, of course, any democrat who went along with it.)

NY Times columnist Frank Rich is sure to be the talk of the talk show circuit this week.



Rich wrote an editorial Saturday in which he believes that President Obama is trying to "turn the page" on the Bush years, to move past all of this "stuff." In that: Obama doesn’t want to release the interrogation photos.

Rich’s editorial is filled with the usual liberal propaganda that you find on the Internet. That there is "..much, much, more than JUST water boarding that the EVIL Bush administration did, and if we just hold a MASSIVE public trial, I am sure we will find more EVIL things that Bush did.."

This is stuff that we have all heard before. Razor blades on prisoners genitals, women’s underwear on terrorist’s heads, secret memos between White House staff, yada, yada yada.

Every single case, (razor blades, genitals, ladies underwear) are all being tried and those responsible are being prosecuted. Even Gen. Richard Sanchez resigned over these matters.

However, this is not good enough for Frank Rich and the liberal left.

They want BIG news and they want blood.

What I find interesting about Frank Rich’s "story" is the blatant contradiction contained within.

I cannot believe that the NY Times editorial board, or Rich himself didn’t catch this error..??

At the beginning and at the end of Rich’s editorial he talks about the importance of holding massive hearings on the Bush administration. To "shed some light on where every body is buried.." (Please..!!)

Rich even claims that the Arab world would see how we handle and respect law, and the Arab world would gain respect for America.

Yea, that worked out REALLY well when President Clinton held the "Blind Sheik" for the FIRST World Trade Tower bombing, and Clinton tried him as a criminal. (Not a terrorist.) Terrorists gained so much respect for America that they came back again eight years later and killed 3,000 Americans.

But here is the mistake in Rich’s column...

In the middle of his editorial, Rich claims that if secret memos from Rumsfeld to President Bush ever leaked out, it would incite the Arab world and cause MORE violence to US Troops.

OK, do you follow me on this..??

First, Frank Rich says that releasing this information WILL HELP our standing in the Arab world.

But then Frank Rich says that releasing this information would piss off the Arab world..??

Which is it..??

It cannot be both ways..!!

Frank Rich is not a stupid man. He is just liberal.

But I am beginning to wonder if Rich is even reading his own editorials and double checking them..?? Because this was a blatant mistake.

It is almost like the NY Times and Frank Rich are pumping this stuff out, without checking it. Like some kind of sewage plant. "..We ain’t got time to check it, just pump the shit outta here.."



Liberals are not concerned with the truth. Because if they were than they would want to try Nancy Pelosi and the 40 other democrats who knew about the CIA interrogations.

Liberals are not concerned with the troops who are still fighting the war. Because if they were, than they would take Frank Rich’s advice and NOT piss off the Arab world with a MASSIVE trial.

(That would be Frank Rich’s advice from the middle of his editorial, not the other Frank Rich who wrote the beginning of his editorial.)

Yes...

Nancy Pelosi MUST stay right where she is.

We MUST continue to shed the light on President Obama’s "waffle house."

It is the only way the Americans will realize just what they voted for.



Required Reading..??

Frank Rich- The New York Times

Watch as Rich explains how a trial on "torture" will HELP America, but yet HURT American soldiers.

More "flip- flopping" by Frank Rich

The Huffington Post- John Cusack



Cusack wrote a similar post about the importance of releasing all of our military secrets.

To give John Cusack some credit, he does take some of the responsibility for what happened. John states that we (democratic members of congress- Pelosi) should have known what was going on. (Exact quote:) "..If we are to be honest, most Americans knew or should have known- (what) was being carried out in our names.."

Click here to read

Liberals discover the Christian female breast

Over the past few weeks, liberals have been SHOCKED to find out that religious women have breasts.

This must be true because look at the "out- rage" over Carrie Prejean, Miss California, and modeling pictures that she took years ago.

I was NOT shocked to find this information out because I already knew that Christian women had breasts. (I discovered it years ago.)

Liberals were also stunned to learn that Christian men enjoy looking at women’s breasts. (This too, I already knew about.)

So it was a learning experience for our democratic friends.

Liberals learned that Christian women have breasts.

And progressives learned that Christian men enjoy the female body.

(Sorry, but I just do not find the SHOCK value in this story that our progressive friends do..??)

Hypocrisy..??

Hypocrisy...

That Religious people might except nudity..??

Michelangelo, who happened to be religious, lived 500 years ago, AND PAINTED PEOPLE IN THE NUDE.



The church, (remember, this was 500 years ago) the church; knowing that Michelangelo painted and sculpted people naked, the church HIRED (commissioned) Michelangelo to paint churches.



Liberal / progressives; you really do not know anything about us religious people, do you..??

You do not study history.

Liberals have this strawman image of what a religious / conservative person is. They do not research further than "media matters" or "truth dot org" or "move on dot org."

"..If somebody put it on a web site, it must be true. Because I read it on the Daily Kos.."

This whole story was about free speech.

Nothing more or nothing less.

Free speech.



Miss California, Carrie Prejean; spoke her mind using her belief system which she described as the "way that she was raised." (That marriage should be between a man and a woman.) No offence to anyone.

Angry Gay boy; Perez Hilton, didn’t like her answer, and began calling Miss California a: "Bitch."

The media, along with the "thought police" (1984, anyone..??) didn’t like Miss California’s answer, either.

You see...

Today, in America, YOU MUST all think the same way. You cannot be an individual. (We will have none of that.)

If you do not think like we do, you must be taken down.

Destroyed.



Semi- nude photos surfaced of Carrie Prejean.

The media, along with the "thought police" and members of the progressive / liberal community used these pictures to destroy Miss California.

Hypocrisy...!! (They shouted.)

But it didn’t work.

Yesterday, Donald Trump "ruled" that Miss California can keep her crown. She broke no rules.



Today, Miss California is BIGGER than the girl who actually won the pageant.

And I want to sift through this mess to make a couple of points, on my web site: The Angry Republic.

First: Carrie Prejean is searching for her 15 minutes of fame. That is true and lets make note of it.

However, so is Perez Hilton, and Donald Trump. (Trump is actually searching for his 50 years of fame..!!)

So we can remove "fame" from the equation, because everyone involved is looking for "stardom."

"..Marriage should be between a man and a woman.."

Free speech means: "The freedom to speak your mind." You may not like the answer, but they have a right to speak it.

(Which, by the way, so does Perez Hilton.)

On the issue of "gay-ness."

I do not want to see a man having sex with another man. It sickens me.

Then again, I do not want to see a man have sex with a goat. That sickens me too.

Why can’t you understand that..??

If I do not want to except these images, why do you feel that you MUST force me to except these things..??

What is ingrained in your mental make-up that causes you to believe that I MUST except the image of a man having sex with another man, (or a goat)..??

What causes you to think that way..??

You do not like it when a religious person "preaches" to you. So why would you preach to me..??



Let me put it another way...

After the election, I was very close to excepting gay marriage. You know, what the hell..??

I said, on this web site, that: "Republicans may have to consider getting out of people’s bedrooms.."

Republicans might want to drop the issues of gay marriage and abortion on a federal level.

If a media hack asks a future republican candidate: "Where do you stand on gay marriage..??"

The future republican could answer: "It is really none of my business. Gay marriage isn’t a federal issue. States must decide these kinds of issues. I do not agree with gay marriage but the issue shouldn’t be a federal one. Let the states decide.."

That’s it. You are done..!!

Get the issue out of the White House.

But...

Along comes the Angry Gay Boy: Perez Hilton.

To think that: before Perez Hilton made those statements about Miss California, I was considering that the republican party DROP the issue of "right and wrong" with gay marriage.

But after Hilton’s statements...

I will get off the couch and RUSH down to the voting booth, to vote NO for gay marriage.

Before Hilton, I might have Not showed up to vote, or even given a yes vote on gay marriage. Because really; I don’t give a shit about what you do in the privacy of your house.

You lost my vote because of Perez Hilton.

To the gay community...

I do not really think that you understand how badly Perez Hilton crippled your cause..??

Sure, I am "one voice."

But how many millions of Americans were "standing on the fence", with the issue of gay marriage.

With an election that was filled with "hope and change", the first Black President; how many Americans were thinking about voting for gay marriage..??

But then the Angry Gay Boy: Perez Hilton, trashes a girl for using free speech, and your whole cause gets flushed down the toilet.

The "gay rights" issue is dead, for now.

President Obama is not going to push for gay rights. (But you already knew that, because he told you.)

President Obama MUST appeal to the Black community and the religious democratic voters. (He already has your vote.) So, Barack will not show any favoritism to your cause.

Sure, you can pretend that "Perez Hilton" didn’t say what he did, or that it isn’t "that important."

You could point to Maine and now New York State voting for gay marriage, and you could give yourself a false sense of security.



Yet, you are smart enough to know that states were voting for gay marriage during the Bush presidency. So, nothing has changed.

How many people were "turned off" by Hilton’s statements..??

We will soon find out..!!

Your first mistake was to let Miss California drown in a media swamp, just because you didn’t like her "free speech."

Your second mistake was to allow Perez Hilton to grab his 15 minutes of fame, while you giggled in the background, and did nothing to oppose him.



Your third mistake was trying to destroy a person with semi- nude pictures. (You thought that we would be upset over nude pictures..?? The "church" excepted nudity 500 years ago.)

It didn’t work, did it..??

Miss California won her cause. Perez Hilton lost his cause.

Miss California is MORE famous than the winner of the pageant, and Perez Hilton.

Hard lessons learned.

While I’m on the subject; why is the gay community allowing "gay- exploitation" on TV and movies..??

In the 1970's, we had "Black- exploitation" films that showed a Black person with a big afro and all "pimped out" in rags. He would say things like "right on" and "that’s groovy man.." Usually he was portrayed as a pimp, or a hustler of some kind.

Today, the gay community is shown this way in movies and TV. The gay man is dressed in traditional "gay-ness" type outfits. He is emotional and cries at the drop of a hat. He "shops" and is a natural at home decorations.



I know several gay people and they are nothing like this.

Why do you stand silent while TV, the media, and Perez Hilton destroy your cause..??

I’m just asking..??

Should the Republican Party be- Larger? or Purer?

If you are a conservative...

Then this is the question of the year.

Should the republican party be LARGE and inclusive? Should we welcome ALL people, no matter if they are pro- choice on abortion? Or homosexual and looking to vote for gay marriage..??



What if a person believes in some kind of a national health plan? Should we welcome their voice..??

OR...

Should the republican party become purer..??

Should we tell "pro- choice" people to "hit the road."

Should we tell people who favor some government programs: "you are outta here."

Should we tell homosexuals: "It is my way, or the highway."



I was going to add a poll question here to see what you think.

Unfortunately, not all the blog systems that my site is seen on will handle poll questions.

So, after this paragraph, some of you will see the poll question, others will see a link to the poll question.



Basically, the poll question is: Should the republican party become purer, or larger?

This will probably be the most lopsided poll I have ever done. Most conservatives believe that we need to return to the basic principals. (Smaller government, less taxes, more personal freedom, etc.)

Any liberal who reads my site will laugh and vote for a purer republican party. Democrats; believing that if republicans become an exclusive club for conservatives ONLY, republicans will never win another election- ever.

And many moderates probably voted for Barack Obama in 2008. They are not really interested in the "republican party house cleaning", and moderates haven’t paid enough attention to politics to even CARE what republicans do next.

If we cleanse the republican party, we may pick up a few seats in the House and "maybe" the Senate in 2010. But democrats will still hold a strong majority.

If we stick to strict conservative principals, (and President Obama still holds a 51 to 60 % approval rating), we will lose the 2012 election.

(Which means 8 years of Barack Obama, and others.)



However, if we stick to conservative principals, and we have the right candidate, we will win in 2016. By then, even the stupidest moderate will realize that giving money to the government doesn’t fix things. So why give more than you have to..??

The only way that a republican can win in 2012, is to sound like a "liberal version of the republican party." (Or, Obama has to fail miserably.)

Let’s face it...

The media is in love with President Obama.

Average Americans, (who do not pay as much attention to politics as we do) think that President Obama is doing fine.

Barring some huge scandal, Barack Obama will have no problem winning a reelection.

In my humble opinion, we need to get back to conservative principals. So what if we lose in 2010 and 2012? We have to offer an alternative to democratic socialism. "Republican lite" just isn’t working.

This reminds me of an "old time" method for teaching children not to like something.

My grandfather was "old school" when it came to lessons on life.

He was "old school" on many issues and made his own wine and beer. I was about 7 or 8 years old, and I was fascinated by this "stuff" that my grandfather was brewing. I had noticed that my grandfather would whistle, and seem happy after having a few glasses of this "secret" stuff.

One day my grandfather caught me with an open bottle of his wine, and I was sniffing the contents.

I was sure that he would be mad, but he wasn’t. Instead, he poured two glasses of homemade wine and slid one to me.

In a heavy Italian accent, he said: "You gonna drink with the big boys..??"

I was proud, yes...

I was going to "drink with the big boys."

Grandpa chugged his glass of wine. (Yes, grandpa’s wine was sooo strong, that you chugged it like whiskey.)

So I did the same.

I was NOT prepared for the "taste" of homemade booze.

I went running for the door and spit up every last drop of that vile drink.

Never again, did I ever go anywhere near grandpa’s homemade brew.

And he knew that.

(I always wondered what grandpa’s lesson for "sex" would have been..?? Maybe I don’t want to know? I could have become a forty year old virgin.)

Maybe this is what America needs..??

Americans NEED to taste the democrats’ homemade brew.



After hearing their democratic president say he will close Gitmo. (But Obama doesn’t REALLY close Gitmo.)

After hearing their democratic president say he will end the war. (But he doesn’t really end the war.)

Obama says he is sympathetic to gay rights, however he hasn’t done anymore than Bush did on the issue. (Or Clinton, for that matter.)

Obama says he cares about the poor. However, taxes and prices will rise on power, (electricity, heat, fuel). These increases in price on the necessities of life will effect the poor, most of all.

Once Americans remember that democrats "talk about doing things", but never seem to get around to "doing those things", we conservatives will have nothing to worry about.

However, it may take 8 years.

I vote for strict conservative principals.

Smaller government.

Lower taxes.

More personal freedom.



When I say "more personal freedom", I mean "more freedom for everyone."

Torturing you Silly- The Prequel

OK...

You could argue that I am "milking the clock", on my web site, with the topic of torture / enhanced interrogations.

However, it is a very important issue to me. And, considering that the topic has generated 16 pages of comments from the readers, it MUST be an important topic for you, as well.

Besides, everything has a beginning..!!

If the movie: "Star Wars" can have 3 prequels;



If "Batman" can have a beginning;



Well, then my crappy little web site can also present a beginning for my editorials on "Torturing you silly."

Where did "this" all begin..??

I know that progressives and liberals WANT to believe that President Bush and VP Cheney were sitting in a dark, dirty room at the White House.

Picture Dick Cheney speaking in a monotone voice. George Bush is sitting next to Cheney; giggling like a little school girl, in the background:

"..I like to watch people suffer.." says Cheney.

"..I want to torture someone.." Cheney continues. All the while, Bush can be heard laughing in the background.

"..Nothing blows wind up my skirt more than hearing someone scream in pain.." Cheney offers.

Bush says: "..Don’t worry, Dick. I am the decider. We’ll water board those towel heads. We’ll find out every thing, including where they tied their goat.."





When you read the comments and posts from liberals, this is the impression that is given. That the liberals believe that Bush and Cheney picked these interrogation methods out of thin air, and made the decision (on their own, without constitutional guidance) to use these methods of interrogation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will explain, but first; we must return to the relevant time in history.

America had just received the worst attack since Pearl Harbor.

For the first time in American history, we had a NEW problem...

This enemy didn’t wear uniforms. They didn’t identify themselves. They were living amongst us FOR YEARS, before they strike.

The pile of rubble, that once was the World Trade Towers, was still smoking from the fire, while letters filled with anthrax began arriving in the mail; to prominent American’s offices.

To top it off, someone was killing innocent people around Washington DC. They were using a high- powered sharp shooter’s riffle and acting like an assassin.

It looked as though America was under a FULL attack.

The battle in Afghanistan was in it’s beginning stages and we had rounded up a few "key" terrorists.

We needed to know two things, and we needed to know them right away:

"Were there any MORE al Qaeda sleeper cells in America?" We COULD NOT allow another 9 /11 attack.

And: "Where is bin Laden?"



The problem was, the terrorists that we had captured were not talking.

We MUST find out what the enemy will do next.

If President Bush couldn’t stop another attack on America, then he would have failed at his primary job to protect and defend the United States.



We needed to know where the enemy was.

The CIA had methods of interrogation that had been effective in the past. All of the enhanced interrogation technics offered to the Bush administration by the CIA, were authorized by past US presidents. (With, maybe, the exception being water boarding.) LINKS BELOW.

The Bush administration charged John Choon Yoo with the job of finding out whether "water boarding" was constitutionally acceptable. And if water boarding detainees would break our agreements with the Geneva Conventions. (War Crimes Act.)



John Yoo argued that detainees were NOT prisoners of war. That "modern" water boarding did not cause any permanent injuries, death, or any permanent metal injuries, therefore; water boarding was constitutionally acceptable and did not break the War Crimes Act.

At the time (2001 to 2003), John Yoo was in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Council.

Before that time, John Yoo was a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley.

Now...

Before you think that I am trying to "pass the buck" and blame John Yoo for this whole mess, don’t get ahead of me.

President Bush was the one who signed off on all of this. After all, Bush is "the decider." Right..!!

However, a president isn’t necessarily a constitutional scholar. It isn’t part of the job description.

So a president must rely on his Department of Justice.

I agree with John Yoo’s assessment of enhanced interrogations.

Most conservatives also agree with John Yoo’s legal argument.

Considering the fact that no other country is formally charging the United States with "torture", I must conclude that John Yoo’s legal argument could hold up.

However, the progressive left does not agree with John Yoo.

So, for the liberal left; I want to talk about Mr. Yoo.

A guy like John Yoo doesn’t just pop out of the womb and enter a courtroom, sighting constitutional law. We do not create a "John Yoo" in a conservative laboratory fill with smoking test tubes and machines that make a "buzzing" noise.

They MUST learn the trade- somewhere..??

For John Yoo, this education came from Akhil Reed Amar.



Akhil Amar is said to be one of America’s premiere constitutional scholars.

Why heck, the TV show: "The West Wing" used Amar as a technical adviser.

I tried to study and take a "crash course" on the history of Akhil Amar.

Here is some of what I have found:

Amar argues that the Oklahoma City bomber: Timothy McVeigh’s trial was unconstitutional.

What..??

Amar suggests that the whole McVeigh trial was unconstitutional BECAUSE they moved it to a different state.

Amar states that the constitution protects each state and gives each state THE RIGHT to try, and convict their own criminals. Therefore, moving the McVeigh trial to another state violated Oklahoma’s State rights.

OK, I can understand what Amar is saying. But I do not agree with him. Do you realize how dangerous this line of thinking is..??

If we didn’t have the death penalty, (Which Amar is strongly opposed to) if McVeigh were alive today; he could use Amar as a way to form an appeal.

Timothy McVeigh could become a free man by using Akhil Amar’s logic. (Being that his trial was deemed "unconstitutional" by Akhil Amar.)

Let me give you some of Akhil Amar’s own words:

"...Europeans are increasingly challenging Americans on the issue of the death penalty and claiming the moral high ground.

This approach to the Eighth Amendment raises an obvious question: If American judges may properly canvass the evolving principles and practices of democratic states on this side of the North Atlantic, why shouldn't they also consider the evolving norms of other advanced democracies? When regressive States lag, the Constitution brings them up to speed; shouldn't judges also be concerned when America as a whole lags behind the civilized world?.."

If you have read my site for any length of time, you know that I am NOT a "one world order", globalization type guy.

I hate it.

"One world order" destroys the individual. It hampers personal freedom. And it cannot be tolerated in America.

To the liberals who read my web site:

You will hear many of us conservatives talk about the "permanent constitution."



We do not believe that the constitution is a "living- breathing" document, that is meant to be changed. A "ball of wax" that can be shaped by future generations.

Akhil Reed Amar wants to change the way America does things.

Matter of fact, as I write this, Akhil Amar is attending a conference in New York City TODAY- May 4^th 2009.

What is the topic of this debate, you might ask..??

"Is the American Constitution Obsolete..??"

OK...

To be fair...

I have no idea what Amar might say at this conference. (Because it hasn’t happened yet. It’s happening later today.)

For all I know, Amar might defend the constitution as it was written.

However, if people walked up to me and asked: "..Would you like to attend a conference on whether the US constitution is obsolete..??"

I would smile and say, as kindly as I could; "..That question is so f**king stupid, get the hell out of my face.."

Why would you give this conference any attention, Mr. Amar..??

Folks, if you really want to get to the bottom of this whole "torture" topic, you must follow the money.

Yes, Bush was the president and made the ultimate decision to use these technics.

However, who gave President Bush the legal advice that water boarding was not torture..??

John Yoo.

Where did John Yoo gain his knowledge, which formed his educational foundation, which allowed Yoo to come to this conclusion on water boarding..??

From Akhil Reed Amar.

Again, I believe that John Yoo is correct in his thinking. However, you the liberal, does not. You believe that Yoo was very, very wrong.

So you must ask yourselves where John Yoo developed this "thinking outside of the box" mentality when it comes to the constitution..??

I have given you the answer.

The next time you hear conservatives talk about "strict constitutionalism," understand this...

This isn’t something that we say for the hell of it, or to make ourselves sound "patriotic."

It is a way of life. Of freedom.

There is a danger of "rethinking the constitution", and "beefing up the constitution to fit modern times."

The Danger: You might not agree with the guy that is doing the "rethinking."

As I just proved to you today.

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic



LINKS:

All of the enhanced interrogation methods had been approved before.

Article: Presidents do not prosecute their predecessors.



Akhil Reed Amar- in his own words



Who is John Yoo..??



Happy Days..??

New York City is debating whether the constitution is obsolete..??

Torturing you silly- conclusion

"...They (the CIA) water boarded Sheik Mohammad 183 times..."


Jon Stewart- "..You would think that after the 90^th time of water boarding, that Mohammad would say: OK, I’m not going to die.."

David Letterman- "..183 times..?? You would think that after a while, the terrorist thugs would realize that they were not going to die.."That is funny stuff..!!

But, it is completely and factually false.



Sheik Mohammed was water boarded 5 times during the month that this statement and these jokes were talking about.

5 times.

Liberals did this very same thing with Gov. Palin.

Liberals take some obscure statement or law, (like victims of rape in Alaska having to pay for "rape investigation kits"), a law which was on the books BEFORE Palin became mayor, and liberals claim that Palin wanted to charge women for "rape kits".

Sarah Palin NEVER charged a single women for a police "rape kit". But it didn’t matter to the left. They went ahead and pushed this story because the truth doesn’t matter to liberals.

Feelings are the only thing that matters. And liberals hated Palin. So lying was justified.

Today, liberals are lying about water boarding. (Because they feel that it is torture.) So, liberals believe that they have a right to lie about it.

But a lie is a lie. (It doesn’t matter if you think that you are on the "right side.")

Sheik Mohammed was water boarded 5 times during the month in question.

When they water board a terrorist, they do not just pour one cup of water on the guys head and send him back to his cell. They continue to pour water on him until he begins to struggle. They continue to pour water on the terrorist until he talks, or the doctor says: enough.

The figure: 183, represents the number of times water was poured on his head. NOT the number of times Mohammed was water boarded.

The left doesn’t tell you that.

Progressives pick the high number, bend the truth, and toss it out there as a fact.

But it is all based on a lie.

Oh, and by the way; yes they did try peaceful methods of questioning on all terrorists. They only resorted to enhanced interrogation after peaceful methods no longer worked.



"...Winston Churchill did not resort to torture.."




Well, that is not exactly true.

Churchill probably didn’t bother to pour a bucket of water on a Nazi’s head. More to the truth, the British probably place a gun to the Nazi’s head and said: "Tell us what you know, or you are dead.."When you have the enemies bombs dropping on your beloved city of London, on a nightly basis; you are not so concerned with the creature comforts of your enemy.

President Obama has proved to me that he doesn’t pay much attention to his staff members paying their taxes.

President Obama has proved that he doesn’t write, pratice, or learn his own speeches. Because when the Teleprompter screws up, Obama is lost.

Obama doesn’t seem to control what happens with presidential equipment. (Air Force One "buzzing" New York City.)



And President Obama has proved to me that he never studied Winston Churchill’s WW1 escapades.

Winston Churchill (plus) pouring water on a terrorists head (equals) torture..??
Ha... Ha... You are one funny guy, Barack Obama..!!


The words of Sir Winston Churchill: "..One ought NEVER to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and WITHOUT FLINCHING, you will reduce the danger by half.."Flinching- is the KEY word in that statement.

Flinch- to avoid through fear or anxiety.

Progressives are afraid to interrogate these terrorists because they FEAR that they will be seen as mean, or ruff, or uncivilized. Liberals have anxiety that the "rest of the world" will look down on them.

But that is precisely what Churchill was warning of: "Flinching."

You MUST not hesitate during a war. You could double the danger, and the amount of people killed.



President Bush didn’t use enhanced interrogations to get his "rocks off."

These technics were used to try and find out where other terrorist cells could be located inside the United States.









"...The outing of these two interrogation professionals on ABC News; placing their names and faces on TV, is exactly the same as the Valerie Plame case. Liberals should be outraged, and calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration on who leaked their names..."




This one is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.


That someone loyal to the democratic party has leaked out the names, faces, and addresses of the CIA contractors who designed the water boarding practice.

Remember how outraged the left was about Plame..??



Where are they now..??


Those same people should be hounding the Obama administration until we find out who did this.

It’s not going to happen, people.


The left didn’t give a rat’s ass about Ms. Plame. (Or they would be equally outraged with this current leak.) The left only cares about politics and power. The left doesn’t care about people like you and I who get stepped on by this administration.



I have been willing to give President Obama the time to prove that he can be "presidential."

But that time is running out.

Obama’s political decisions (and endless speeches) are proving that he hasn’t become "presidential." Barack Obama is still running for president and someone on your side needs to explain the job of the president to him.

This "attack" by the left has become personal. Even naming publicly; the people who did the water boarding. People who believed that they were doing their jobs to protect this country.

People who were promised secrecy.

The American left has betrayed this agreement for political gain.

President Obama MUST put a stop to this "circus" immediately, or he will pay the price.

As I write this, CIA and FBI agent’s morale is dropping. They no longer feel that they can do their jobs. They fear that anything that they do can be prosecuted by some future liberal. I do not blame any CIA agent who drops out and enters private security.



This is how the intelligence community erodes. This is how America gets attacked.

We get attacked NOT because the terrorists get smarter. (Come on, 19 guys with box cutters taking over 4 planes is not a master plan..??)

We get attacked because America gets dumber. Our CIA gets blinded by the left’s restrictions placed on them.





In conclusion:


I would like to build on a couple of statements made by Bernard Goldberg and Dennis Miller.

Bernard Goldberg: "..I am against enhanced interrogations 99.9 percent of the time. I am against ET’s for jaywalkers. I am against ET’s for theft. However, if you have a terrorist in jail, and he knows of a bomb that could kill thousands of Americans, then I am for it.."I agree with Bernard. A president MUST keep this option available. We do not want to "torture" people for the hell of it. However, we must have this option to save American lives.

Dennis Miller: "..Liberals are being disingenuous. I mean; are they really saying that they could live with themselves knowing that a school filled with children BLEW UP because they refused to pour water on Sheik Mohammad’s face..?? How could they wake up that next morning..?? Would they really pat themselves on the back and say: ‘ Oh well, the American kids are all dead. But at least we didn’t get the Sheik’s hairy backside wet.."People on the left who believe that water boarding is torture...



Just because you, or some retired FBI agents claim that water boarding is torture, doesn’t mean that it is.

That is for an American court to decide.

If federal judges want to claim that water boarding is not a method for us to use in the future, I will go along with that. Because we have other methods.

If you want to investigate whether President Bush was justified to use this method? That is fine, I am all for that. (Because we plan on investigating President Obama in the future. And Obama’s record isn’t that great right now.)

But if you are trying to say that America can never use enhanced interrogations for ANY REASON...

I, and millions of Americans will fight you on this.

It is uncivilized to allow thousands of Americans to die because you are afraid to pour a bucket of water on someone’s head.