Still Trying to Find Sympathy

Lately I have been developing a moderate case of Obama Drama fatigue. It is partly my own fault to be sure, no one forces me to watch the news or spend hours reading and researching, always hunting the truth or at least as close as I can get to the truth...

Last week however, the Obama drama increased again when Dear Leader released the "torture memos" In spite of strong warnings from men much wiser than I, he released them. Now, he is going to release photos. Does anyone think that besides Dear Leader and Nancy Pelosi and probably Harry Reid, the Islamic extremists are going to just smile and nod and say "O thank you so much Dear Leader of the Infidels" or is it more likely they are going to default to howling in outrage and increase their violent attacks against our soldiers still in Iraq and Afghanistan? These are the same people who rioted and murdered because of a couple of cartoons.

I don't like the idea of torture. It makes me cringe. I am not sure I could interrogate someone using the methods that were allowed by the government during the Bush administration. But, I sleep at night with gratitude knowing there are men who are willing to live with deliberately inflicting fear and pain on another person, who is intent on killing other Americans. We, Americans did not ask for this fight. Why then are the Democrats trying to undermine everything we have fought for in the last 8 years? Why are they so intent to tell our ENEMIES just what they can expect in case they are captured? Do any of them realize all the enemy has to do to become stronger is simply open schools and train with the same methods outlined in those memos?

How were those terrorists tortured? Did they have acid poured all over their bodies and were they left alone in a dark room to gasp and cry until they finally died? Were they sealed up in plastic garbage bags and tossed into a dumpster until they suffocated? Were they pulled limb from limb and then ground up and sucked through a plastic tube? Were they stabbed in the back of the skull and their brains were vacuumed out until their skulls were collapsed? No? Well, then what happened to them?

They were slapped, kept awake, made to sit in uncomfortable positions, denied food and water for a time, oh...and forced to stand naked and horror of horrors, the Fuzzy Caterpillar technique. The really stubborn ones got the special of the day--water boarded. Wow...they had water poured over their faces until they cried "Uncle" Yeah, that's just horrible. Of course, they had a choice. First, they didn't have to become terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorist, so they had a choice. Since they bypassed their first choice, let's look at the second choice--cooperation. They refused. Oh well...sorry. If you don't want to get treated like a Terrorist---then try not to act like one...at least they have a choice.

Bloodman Obama and his bunch of Democratic lapdogs are willing to deny a helpless infant, medical care in the event of a botched abortion. They are willing to sign the death warrant for millions of Americans not yet born using methods that are beyond anything that was ever done to the terrorists in GITMO. But, the Democrats are convulsing in false outrage over the "torture memos" when they endorse, encourage and facilitate actions much worse in the name of a woman's right to choose.

I can show you videos of torture. I can show you videos of jihadis sawing off a captured Pakistani soldier's head as he lay bound and writhing on the ground. I can show you video of Talibani justice in which a woman is buried up to her chest in dirt and then stoned to death. I can show you videos of a woman being beaten and burned by the Taliban for accidentally showing her ankles in public. I can show you videos of torture, but please don't try to tell me what happened to those TERRORISTS in GITMO was torture.

Maybe when Bloodman Obama finds his elusive moderate taliban, I will find my elusive sympathy for GITMO detainees...or maybe not.

What does Babe Ruth, Jamie Foxx and Eleanor Roosevelt have in common?

Life. Give it a chance.This video is the second in a series, I posted the first one back in January. I think this one is even better. Pass it along.

Call me Paranoid

I don't believe I am alone when I say every day I can feel the noose of tyrany drawing tighter and tighter around the personal freedoms that I have enjoyed these 40+ years. I am not sure I even believe that a socialist state is the end game for the current thugocracy in power. I'm starting to believe it is totalitarianism--I sure hope not, since socialism is faster to type.

Back in the winter I posted a few blogs voicing my concern about the doctrine that isn't the Fairness Doctrine and was promtly blasted for contributing to the uneducated redneck stereotype because I didn't fully "comprehend" my blogging subject for the day. Well, I disagree.

In the past months I have watched a local columnist link local "right wing" bloggers to Tim McVeigh, Missouri issue an alert for people who oppose the current administration,support pro-life,Israel,the Constitution, Ron Paul, the One wants to raise an army of Obamites, the FBI inflitrate and photograph the TEA parties, the Dept of Homeland Security classify returning veterans, religious, pro-lifers,Constitutionalist, etc...as potential terrorists, then the article posted by Butch Cassidy yesterday about the protections for sexual deviants over the rights of ordinary citizens, and then this gem today, HR 1966. This act is designed to protect people from cyberbullying (how that makes any sense I have no clue since no one forces another person to log onto a website) with this type of language in the bill

[Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.]

What?? Does that mean if I am engaged in an internet debate with a fellow living in England and I hurt his feelings --that he can then file charges against me under this new bill? Who decides my "intent"? Or more locally, what if I'm engaged in defending myself from being called raaaacist for the umpteenth time and I hurt someone's feelings--am I then guilty of intent to cause substantial emotional distress by using electronic means in a repeated and hostile manner?

Now, I know the first intent of this bill was to protect youngsters on the internet in the wake of the tragic death of Megan Meir---but, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles isn't happy with just protecting young people. In the terminally stupid mode of those liberals among us who just do not understand that we will fight to the death any attempts to try to remove our right of free speech,she has extended that protection one giant step further---to everyone.

So, riddle me this--if the doctrine that isn't the fairness doctrine says we all have to play nice and get along or go to jail--will it be applied equally and fairly to both sides? Doubtful. Fairness only seems to be something the current administration applies when it benefits one side--their side. The preferred method of operation for a thugocracy it seems.

100 days of change and lies (video)

Dedicated to those who still believe in this man's promises.

Sorry Mr. President, you ain't all that special

The President's approval rating has dropped 27 points in the last 100 days. A strange anomoly for the One who was going to fix all of our souls and stop the rise of the oceans etc. etc...can it be the One is just a man after all, that maybe more and more Americans are waking up from their HopenChange stupor and realize that he is not the one we've been waiting for or in the words of Homer Simpson---D'oh!!

------------------------------------------

President Obama is just average.

At least by the standard of approval ratings.
Though Obama's job approval score is strong and has been since he took office, historical polling data shows Obama's popularity during his first 100 days is right in the middle of the scores other new presidents received from the public over the past 60 years.

Obama's 63 percent average, according to a study released by Gallup last month, is the highest for a new president since Jimmy Carter (he clocked in at 69 percent during his first 100 days).
But John F. Kennedy bested Obama by more than 10 points, with 74 percent. Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed a 71 percent rating early on.

Even Richard Nixon averaged a 62 percent approval rating, just 1 point shy of Obama's.
Overall, Obama's average for the first three months matched the historical average of 63 percent for presidents since Eisenhower.

When you include presidents who took the oath mid-term -- after the death or resignation of a president -- Obama's 63 percent looks paltry.

Harry Truman enjoyed 87 percent approval, while Lyndon Johnson enjoyed 76 percent.
Obama might have benefited, too, from the unpopularity of his predecessor.

Even after the contested 2000 election, though, George W. Bush averaged 58 percent in his first 100 days, according to the study.

Ronald Reagan averaged 60 percent, George H.W. Bush averaged 57 percent and Bill Clinton
averaged 55 percent.

(same numbers--I just lined them up because I'm helpful that way)
Historical average of 63 percent for presidents since Eisenhower.
Harry Truman 87 %
Lyndon Johnson 76 %
John F. Kennedy 74 %
Dwight Eisenhower 71%
Jimmy Carter 69 %
Obama's 63 %
Richard Nixon 62%
Ronald Reagan 60 %
George W. Bush 58 %
George H.W. Bush 57%
Bill Clinton 55 %