Would you give up your life for your children? Or your spouse (or significant other)? Most of us would. I would gladly give up my remaining years for my children or grandchildren; or for my sister or brother if I knew that doing so would save their lives.

I believe that most of us would give up our lives in order to save the lives of those closest to us – those we love. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I believe.

Would I volunteer to be waterboarded if I knew it would save lives – even of strangers, yes, I would. Waterboarding, as practiced by our CIA was not, nor was it ever intended to be, lethal. I understand that it may be perceived by the person undergoing the waterboarding to be life-threatening and the individual may believe that he or she is drowning. Now don’t misunderstand, I do not believe that waterboarding could be considered remotely pleasant and I certainly don’t want to be water boarded, BUT, if I knew that it would save lives – bring it on.

I'm attempting to draw a distinction, an important distinction, between an unpleasant and scary procedure (waterboarding) and some other action which could result in "severe physical or mental pain or suffering".

I believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans would agree to undergo waterboarding if it would save lives. By saying that, I’m implying that anyone who would agree to be waterboarded is not likely to believe that waterboarding known terrorists should be outlawed.

You may have noticed that until now I’ve purposely not used the “T" word. And that’s because I’m avoiding the trap intentionally laid by the democrats to attempt to equate waterboarding with that word.

They’ve done their best to equate the two terms to create the impression among the inert in our population that waterboarding = torture (there, I said it). And I’ve no doubt that it was done purposefully. The term “waterboarding” doesn’t have the ugly, negative connotation that “torture” has, (at least, not yet) thus it was not sufficient to cause revulsion among the populace. But “torture,” ah ha, that will do the trick. It is part of the democrat plan to use the terms interchangeably so that waterboarding can be interpreted as repulsive and abhorrent, and by association, the Bush team approved actions which were repulsive and abhorrent.

Because we’ve all heard tales of the rack, the iron maiden, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, electric shocks to the genitals, etc., we have mental images of hooded sadists gleefully inflicting pain on innocent victims and enjoying every minute of it. We don’t, despite the accusations of the democrats inflicted with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), torture prisoners.

The Bush administration sought legal advice to identify a line of demarcation separating permissible interrogation techniques from crossing over into what could be called “torture.” By doing so, that PROVES that they did NOT want to torture, but did want to use all permissible methods to secure information that could used to stop additional terrorist attacks.

I believe that to do less would have been a dereliction of their duties.

Now, the Obama administration has a different opinion. His lawyers say that Bush’s attorney’s advice was flawed. Well whoop-de-do, opposing lawyers disagreeing on each other’s interpretation of the law. STOP THE PRESSES! Isn’t that what lawyers do? When I engage an attorney, I expect him/her to take my position and oppose the other side’s stance. Obama would certainly not hire an attorney unless he or she was terminally infected with chronic BDS.

Our military has waterboarded over 26,000 of our personnel as part of its Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training, so our military hasn’t considered waterboarding to be torture. All 26,000 survived the experience, by the way.

“We understand that for a small number of detainees in very limited circumstances, the CIA may wish to use the waterboard technique. You have previously explained that the waterboard technique would only be used if: (1) if the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent; (2) there are “substantial and credible indicators the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack;” and (3) other interrogation methods have failed or are unlikely to yield actionable intelligence in time to prevent the attack.”

“As in Techniques, we understand that in the event the detainee were perceived to be unable to withstand the effects of the waterboard for any reason, any member of the interrogation team has the obligation to intervene and, if necessary, to halt the use of the waterboard.” Sounds like we're coddling a detainee who has already qualified for waterboarding under the three required conditions.

And this one from Memo 4:

“Technique-specific advanced approval is required for all “enhanced” measures and is conditional on on-site medical and psychological personnel confirming from direct detainee examination that the enhanced technique(s) is not expected to produce ‘severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’ As a practical matter, the detainee’s physical condition must be such that these interventions will not have lasting effect and his psychological state strong enough that no severe psychological harm will result.”

“As an additional precaution, and to ensure the objectivity of their medical and psychological assessments, OMS personnel do not participate in administering interrogation techniques; their function is to monitor interrogations and the health of the detainee.”

For anyone who has doubt about the Bush administration's adherence to the various applicable rules of law, I encourage you to read through the Memo 3 (20 pages) and Memo 4 (46 pages) of detailed discussion regarding all aspects of the types of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques – especially waterboarding. I concentrated on the waterboarding specifically, and was surprised at the amount of consideration given to the health and well-being of the detainees.

The Third Infantry Regiment at Fort Myer has the responsibility for standing a very formal sentry watch at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

This piece is not about the tons of marble, the 21 paces in each direction, or those interred there. Hard facts relating to the Tomb are easily found via an Internet search. This is about the men and women who guard the Tomb.

The source for this post was an e-mail from a friend that struck a nerve when I read it and I felt compelled to relate the story.

In 2003, hurricane Isabel came through the area and tore the hell out of everything. The Regimental Commander of the U.S. Third Infantry sent word to the nighttime Sentry Detail to secure the post and seek shelter from the high winds, to ensure their personal safety.

They refused.

During winds that turned over vehicles and turned debris into projectiles, the walking post, the measured steps continued.

Soaked to the skin, marching in the pelting rain of a tropical storm, they said that guarding the Tomb was not just an assignment; it was the highest honor that can be afforded to a service person.

When questioned by a female reporter regarding the “silly purposeless” personal risk, the soldier replied, "I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's a military thing."

It was simply their duty, and one that they took seriously – the guards continued without respite through Isabel’s wind and rain.

God bless them ... In a time in our nation's history when spin and total BS seem to have become the accepted coin-of-the-realm, there beat hearts - the soldier’s hearts that fully understood that devotion to duty is not a part-time occupation. While we slept, we were represented by some damn fine men (and three women) who fully understood their post orders and proudly went about their assigned responsibilities unseen, unrecognized and in the finest tradition of the American military.

Without diminishing the sacrifices made by our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan who risk life and limb daily, the symbolism of the duty so honored by the Tomb guards struck me and made me proud to have been a small part of a military that honors the concept of duty.

Dear President Bush:

I voted for you four times: two times for Governor of Texas, and twice for President. I think you did a good job during your two terms as Governor of Texas, but your performance degraded considerably in your second term as President and even more nearing the end. Excessive spending and your position on immigration and amnesty (regardless of silk purse packaging) were disappointments to many who think like I do. But importantly, you did keep this country safe for the remainder of your term following September 11, 2001, and for that, the entire country owes you our undying gratitude.

I think that you are an honest man and one of conviction. To your credit, you didn’t let public opinion affect your decisions – that is the mark of a true leader. And even though I disagreed with you on several issues, on the whole, you were your own man.

But you made one mistake that enabled Barack Obama to gain the power of the Presidency, you consistently “turned the other cheek” while being savaged by the left. And that mistake may prove disastrous to the United States of America.

You allowed the democrats and their subcontractors, the major television networks and print media, to define the Bush Presidency and to spread the toxic venom of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) far and wide over the entire eight years of your Presidency without fighting back. You LET them define you in the most vile and slanderous manner and seldom responded.

The widespread indoctrination of the uninformed into the BDS mindset was accomplished with little rebuttal from you and therefore, became an urban legend – assumed to be true because it was repeated time and time again. Lies repeated often enough are perceived as “reality.”

Surveys have shown that a large percentage of voters were voting against “Bush’s Republicans” rather than voting for Barack Obama. And many of the attributes of “Bush’s Republicans” were based on the lies and ridicule spread by the democrat political machine (including the “mainstream” media). I sincerely believe that few of the BDS-stricken Obama voters could have related any real reasons for their stance. If the democrat talking points and untrue Bush-bashing propaganda (“Bush lied, people died,” etc.) were filtered out of their reasons for dissatisfaction with your administration, there’d be little of substance left.

In other words, the democrats were continually throwing rhetorical dung against the wall and a lot of it stuck.

That was to be expected. We all knew that the dems were intent on regaining power at any cost and would do and say anything to achieve their goal. The unexpected activity was that your team allowed lies and inaccurate statements to go unchallenged. We, your supporters, were extremely disappointed to watch rhetorical bombs lobbed at you and your staff, and all you did was “hunker down.”

One of the democrats (and Obama’s) most effective campaign strategies was to never let anything negative go unchallenged. They reacted quickly and vigorously to any and all accusations and even created a website (http://fightthesmears.com/) to refute all claims that could be detrimental. That approach would have served you well.

The good that was accomplished during your two terms is about to be overshadowed by the long-term damage being done to the country by Omama and his Congressional cronies. They are in power because your unresponsiveness allowed them to define you and all Republicans in the worst possible light.

I’m not sure that I can ever forgive you for that.

Even now, as Speaker Pelosi blames torture and misleading Congress on “the Bush Administration,” and Obama’s cabinet members blame the worsening economy and quadrupling deficit on “an inheritance” from the previous administration. The only voice defending your activities is Dick Cheney. Is he the only one with the cojones to speak up? Why won’t you defend your own policies and directives? Allowing the “enemy” to attack without counter is what got us here.

Continued silence will only accelerate further diminution of your Presidency.

You owe it to your supporters to fight back.  

Sincerely,

“Everybody I saw at that tea party is racist,” and “I will not apologize.”

Intelligent people don’t make generalizations like that when they know that everyone “at that tea party” can’t be racist. That only proves that while Ms. Garofalo fancies herself an “intelligent” woman, she exposes her ignorance by first making the idiotic statement and then confirms it by refusing to retract any part of her obviously inaccurate conclusion.

About the tea parties, she challenges the interviewer by saying “if you don’t want to admit the racist element to those people who were there, then you are in deep denial.”

“They’re not just honest protestors,” she says, like she knows? And she equates the “fiscal imprudence of the last eight years” to what is happening today when the deficit is four times what it was in 2008, with no real end in sight. She says that the protestors can’t be protesting excessive spending, otherwise they would have been protesting during George Bush’s term. Does the term “magnitude” mean anything to this IQ-challenged rabble-rouser? Obama will quadruple the deficit this year, and the long-term outlook shows them rising, not falling, under Obama’s plans.

In her feeble little mind, Bush’s projected deficit of $482 billion for 2009 is the equivalent of Obama’s projected deficit of $1,750,000,000,000 – what kind of “logic” is that? We were already pi$$ed at Bush for his increase in spending. When Obama quadruples it, we are accused of being racist for protesting?

She is obviously angry and bitter. Why is she so angry and bitter? Her Messiah is in the White House and will undoubtedly fix everything that is wrong with the U.S., won’t he? I’m quite sure that she expects him to add several inches to her height or make her funny – both actions requiring real miracles.

A quote attributed to her: “I guess I just prefer to see the dark side of things. The glass is always half-empty. And cracked. And I just cut my lip on it. And chipped a tooth.” Now that pretty much paints a picture of the kind of woman who has a real problem. Of course, being negative isn’t her only problem; she’s literally loaded with them. A better career for her would be to become a full-time case study for postgraduate psychologists – she is a natural goldmine of research material and destined to receive “Thesis Subject CumLaude” honors.

This is America, where the Constitution guarantees her right to freedom of speech. She might want to try living in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan for a year or so to “augment” her intellectual education.

The sun rises in the east, water is wet, and (almost) all politicians lie; three generally true statements. Another true statement: we Conservacrats are more honest than democrats. I know that is a statement that will be enthusiastically challenged by the brainwashed democrat faithful. That challenge is part of their playbook. It is to be expected. In fact, it is mandated by the Democrat “Winning At All Costs” playbook. Along with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the playbook reveals the democrat’s strategery for winning and staying in power.

Pesky Truth’s operatives have spared no expense to secure a copy of the eyes-only, ultra-secret political field manual for democrats. Selected rules from the Strategery section are listed here. They are in no particular order.

Rule 1: Never admit to an error by a Democrat

Admitting to an error, even a small one, might seem to be a trivial matter, but it creates a weakness, a crack in the armor and may lead to the perception that we are not infallible. We must avoid admitting to even the smallest mistake. Nothing is to be gained by admitting that we are not perfect.

Rule 2: Never allow a republican error to go unnoticed

In order to maintain the “Democrats = TRUE, republicans = FALSE” formula, we must make sure that any error or misstatement by a republican is immediately exposed as typical of the party of lies and falsehoods. Ensure wide distribution by directing our associates at the major networks and print outlets to incorporate news stories detailing the intentional deceit and moral decay of republicans.

Rule 3: Never allow an attack to go unchallenged

When we allow any attack to stand without challenge, it implies that the attack is valid and may be true. For this reason, every attack, no matter how small and seemingly unimportant, must be met with an immediate and vigorous counterattack to refute the accusations. If necessary, also combine with other techniques, such as: lying, blaming someone else, etc. Consult a party strategist to be sure that a challenge is appropriate, rather than simply instructing our media associates to refrain from reporting on the issue (see Rule 8).

Rule 4: Never admit guilt

Deny, deny, deny. As long as we continue to maintain innocence, the most rabid faithful will rally to us and help to create the impression that we are the aggrieved party. Even if we are faced with irrefutable evidence, we should continue to deny while shifting to another technique to mitigate the effect of the evidence (blame someone else, faulty memory, lie, etc.).

Rule 5: In the case of an error or guilt, blame someone else

Always predetermine a guilty party who will fall on his/her sword for the party if it becomes necessary. Evaluate each participant’s “culpability” factor when selecting individuals to head up a team or implement a plan. Have the scapegoat identified beforehand so blame can be placed immediately if a quick reaction becomes necessary. Be sure to place blame on a team member who is easily replaceable, and NEVER allow blame to be directed at ANY of our elected representatives.

Rule 6: When all else fails, lie

When it becomes necessary to lie, lie with conviction. Lies are neither good nor bad, they’re just another tool that may be used to achieve a desired result. It may be helpful to practice lying in everyday situations in order to polish our skills as professional prevaricators. Remember to keep a fabrication as simple as possible and be sure to make others aware of the “facts” so they can confirm the authenticity of the details if it becomes necessary.

Rule 7: Use intimidation

Intimidation can force our enemies to retreat from an accusation, it can eliminate the necessity to refute it and we can use the attempted accusation itself against them. Better to be on offense than defense, and no one is more offensive than we are. The Research Group can secure damaging information available to leak to the enemy describing what could happen if he/she pursues an ill-advised course of action. The Legal Group can also be useful to threaten legal measures unless the matter is dropped.

Rule 8: Obfuscation is our friend

Obama is a master of obfuscation. It is his natural communication style. It is natural for him to refrain from making definitive statements and instead rely on natural verbosity to unnecessarily complicate and confuse the perception of what he actually said. This is why the masses all seem to hear what they want to hear. In order to polish this skill, practice rewording a statement by using two or three times as many words as necessary. Draw on a good thesaurus to help in saying the same thing several times during the exercise with minor variations so as to muddle the perception of the vital point of what was said. In other words, talk like an intellectual.

Rule 9: Depend on our media associates

Many times, simply ignoring a negative story will allow it to run its course without any lasting damage. This technique is a companion to challenging an attack (Rule 2) and the determination of which method would be most successful should be made by a party strategist. Communicating our strategy to our media associates will eliminate any chance of stories inadvertently appearing in print or electronic news when we want them suppressed.

Rule 10: Change the rules

When it becomes evident that we can’t win a conflict, change the rules. We should always obfuscate when negotiating any agreement with republicans. It will be easier to prevail when we are able to redefine the rules after-the-fact. We should take advantage of our alliance with the media to leak our version of the redefined “rules” to them. Once printed or stated in the electronic media, the previously unaware public will apply the “new” rule to the contested positions and interpret our actions as following those rules – resulting in a win for us.

Rule 11: Constructive reinterpretation

Our plans and/or policies must never be distributed as definite statements. If redefinition becomes necessary, it is more difficult to adjust our position when archive versions exist that contradict later contents. Therefore, talking points must contain certain subtle variations from version to version to allow for later constructive reinterpretation to yield the desired result. Once again, a timely leak to our media associates will allow us to maintain that the “final” version is consistent with what was originally said. This technique can counter any accusation of “flip flopping.”

Rule 12: Cultivate a faulty memory

Use the time-honored Clinton/Pelosi defense (“I don’t remember”) when accused of any action that could be viewed as detrimental to our cause. No one can prove otherwise. Facts can prove that a memory is faulty, but facts can’t prove that an event or a conversation is remembered when we maintain that we don’t remember. Selective memory is a time-honored political technique and will not result in any negative repercussions.

Rule 13: Tell them what they want to hear

Focus groups and opinion polls are our friends. They tell us what the public (the voters) want to hear and that tells us what we should say. We will always tell them what they want to hear. It is not productive to incorporate our real motives or objectives in our statements or press releases, only to assure the target group that we are the party to give them what they desire, regardless of what that is. Given the attention span of the average citizen and the reluctance to admit an error in judgment, the voters will never require us to account for previous statements or promises.

Rule 14: Pander to our base

It is important to retain our core constituency. We must say whatever it takes to influence gays, minorities and unions to believe that democrats are their only choice. Reinforcing a distrust of our racist republican enemies and their big business fat-cat enablers is part of our strategy to keep the unions, gays and minorities voting Democrat.

Rule 15: Depend on The Formula – it works

The formula that won the 2008 election will be valid for years to come. Commit it to memory and use it often. It is:

Rule 16: NEVER concede an election

If we appear to be on the losing end of an election, it is important to immediately identify how many votes will be required to win. Once known, we can call on our associates at ACORN to apply their creative resources to find those votes that were initially overlooked. The Legal Group can also file legal challenges disallowing the other side’s ballots for cause. As a guideline, any election that is within 20% is subject to creative reconstruction.

Rule 17: Play the “race” card

"Us Against Them" should immediately prompt the question, “Which us, and which them?”

And that, my friends, is the point.

I just read an article by Byron York writing in the Washington Examiner that prompted my thoughts on the subject.

This article was titled, “The black-white divide in Obama’s popularity,” and he quotes a number of results from a survey conducted by the New York Times. The first two paragraphs set the tone:

“On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.”

“Asked whether their opinion of the president is favorable or unfavorable, 49 percent of whites in the Times poll say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. Among blacks the number is 80 percent. Twenty-one percent of whites say their view of the president is unfavorable, while the number of blacks with unfavorable opinions of Obama is too small to measure.”

These results mimic a problem that many big city urban areas find in the black perception of law enforcement. It’s “us against them.”

In a number of high-visibility cases, a portion of the black population jumps immediately to the defense of the black person(s) involved – before facts are in, before any objective investigation has been completed. It’s a “knee-jerk” response based on the belief that the black person will be treated unfairly.

Remember Tawana Brawley? A hoax, pure and simple; with the NYT and Al Sharpton feeding the politically-correct charge of racism.

Finally, when the truth came out, the The New York Times was forced to report on its front page on June 18, 1988, that, “A former aide to the Rev. Al Sharpton testified yesterday before the grand jury investigating the case of Tawana Brawley, a day after the aide publicly charged that Mr. Sharpton and two other advisers to Miss Brawley had fabricated the family's story ''as they went along.''

The story was proven false and a grand jury refused to indict the accused.

And how about the Duke lacrosse players?

The Durham County prosecutor, The Duke University faculty, the NAACP of Durham, and the mavens of political correctness that dominate the staffs of publications like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and the various broadcast news outlets, all crucified the lacrosse players long before any real evidence was gathered.

When all the evidence was presented, this episode turned out to be so egregiously wrong that the prosecutor, Mike Nifong was disbarred for what was termed, “"intentional prosecutorial misconduct." The Duke players were exonerated.

Once again, a steamroller of racism automatically “convicted” the lacrosse players because they were white and “poor” Crystal Gail Mangum was black.

It’s becoming apparent to me that the same mindset is prevalent among much of the black population today. They immediately go into a defensive mode when it comes to Obama. They just know that any criticism of him or his policies is based on racism and they’re just trying to offset that inherent racism by a show of approval in their response to a poll or a survey.

It’s a “He’s one of us and we have to protect our own” mindset. That’s a not-so-subtle variation on the “us against them” theme.

But there is a major problem with that blind support for Obama just because he is black. That personal support for a black president completely ignores (or is ignorant of) whether his policies will be good for America.

There are no global affirmative action policies that mitigate Obama’s effect on our economy because he is black. Twelve percent unemployment or rampant inflation won’t be ok because it occurs under a black administration. Our enemies won’t scrap another terrorist attack simply because we have an African-American President. In other words, the macro workings of the nation won’t give us a mulligan just because Obama is black. So, if a black President spends too much, raises taxes too much and reduces our military preparedness, he doesn’t get a pass just ‘cause he’s the first black President. At this level, there are no “do-overs.”

His policies and his actions impact this country and its 300-plus millions no less than a white President and so, an automatic, blind approval given to Obama, without consideration to the impact of his actions, is racist. Would that approval have been forthcoming under a white President? If a policy is wrong for a white President, it will be wrong for Obama. And in fairness, the reverse is also true - a good policy is a good policy, regardless of the skin pigmentation of the chief executive.

It’s easy to understand the pride that the black community has in a black President. It confirms that voters in the U.S. have put aside racist attitudes to the point of large numbers of whites voted for a black candidate. That is undeniable progress.

However, at some point, the black population of the U.S. has to hold Barack Obama to a standard no lower that it would apply to a white President.

I’ve maintained for some time that Barack Hussein Obama probably couldn’t pass a security clearance investigation. Although I’ve blogged about the issue before, I didn’t do it justice when compared to the specifics noted in the following article.

The process of applying for a national security clearance starts with the Questionnaire for National Security Purposes. Even a cursory review of the application shows there are a few sections that could have been troublesome for Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Obama.

The process is explained:

“Background investigations for national security positions are conducted to gather information to show whether you are reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the U.S. The information that you provide on this form may be confirmed during the investigation. The investigation may extend beyond the time covered by this form when necessary to resolve issues. Your current employer may be contacted as part of the investigation, even if you have previously indicated on applications or other forms that you do not want your current employer to be contacted.”

Note the requirement of loyalty to the US.  Obama’s recent canoodling with anti-American tyrants would merit further investigation if he were applying for a security clearance.

Barack Obama would benefit from the magnanimous seven year limit on requests for information about illegal drug use.  A bullet dodged, if Obama were required to have a basic national security clearance.  A private in the military could be required to be cleared if assigned a position which gives access to classified information.  Access to the nuke codes will be gleefully granted without preconditions.

Section 9: Citizenship.  This could be a bit of a sticky wicket.  At last, Obama would have to produce that birth certificate he claims to have but has invested nearly a million dollars in keeping secret.  We can assume that he currently holds a US passport, but take a look at Section 10.  While Barry may well have been born in Hawaii, his father was not a US citizen, nor was his stepfather.  Barry went to live in Indonesia at the age of six and was enrolled in a Muslim school by his stepfather.  A truthful applicant would certainly provide detailed information about his years in Jakarta.

While we’re at it, could the reviewer be interested in Barry’s travels to Pakistan in the early 1980’s?  The nation was under martial law at the time and United States citizens were not permitted to enter.  We know Barry took one trip, possibly more.  More cynical types of reviewers would probably want to find out a little more about those trips.  All of the other kids went to Daytona that year for spring break.

Section 16: People Who Know You Well. Should provide interesting reading.  In my research for Obamanutz:  A Cult Leader Takes the White House, I came to the inescapable conclusion that Barack Obama does not know a single normal person.  If he were a truthful man, he would have to list Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers among those who know him best.  That ought to generate some further probing.  The process would be streamlined by the large volume of information about many Barack associates already in the possession of various law enforcement agencies.

Section 19: Foreign Contacts.  This could be vexatious if the Commander in Chief were required to apply for a security clearance.  A vigilant examiner may want to probe Obama’s relationship with the murderous Raila Odinga of Kenya, a fomenter of radical Islam and yet another Friend of Barry about whom questions could be asked.

The security questionnaire takes another whack at the passport issue in Section 20B, 6. 

Have you EVER held or do you now hold a passport that was issued by a foreign government? 

Personally, I’d like to know this about any potential Commander in Chief.

Section 29: Association Record.  Another potential snare, if Barack Obama had been required to obtain a security clearance.  Note, there is extra space provided if needed.

Have you ever been an officer, member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to terrorism?

Another germane question!  We know about Obama’s ties to Jeremiah Wright, who gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, a creature Wright characterizes as the “epitome of greatness”.  The Nation of Islam makes no secret of its wish to destroy white society and has no discomfort with using violence.  Obama’s relationship to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam certainly would have to be explored by any halfway competent examiner, if the president were required to obtain a security clearance.

Barack Obama’s friendship with Rashid Khalidi could prove inconvenient as well.  Former Arafat spokesman, Khalidi, uses his post in academia to champion Islamic extremism and anti-Semitism while raking in funding from the UAE.  Obama has made grants via Bill Ayers’ Woods Fund to Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network - another relationship probably worthy of scrutiny before granting the applicant access to sensitive government data.

Section b. asks about associations with organizations dedicated to overthrowing the US government.  Surely, Obama would acknowledge his membership in the socialist organization, Chicago’s New Party.  Support for Obama from the New Party required his membership and it was made abundantly clear that there would be zero tolerance for an in name only type of membership.  In the interest of veracity, Obama couldn’t disregard his former mentor, Alice Palmer an unashamed supporter of the Soviet Union and member of the US Peace Council, identified by the FBI as a notorious Communist front group.  Even the most somnambulant bureaucrat would raise a red flag and feel compelled to dig a little deeper.

A personal interview may be required of the applicant, providing an opportunity to explain information on the form more completely.  It’s a safe wager that Obama’s application would earn him a personal interview.  That is, if the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world were required to obtain a national security clearance.

Here’s a link to full article http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10498

A statement by Garnet92:

 I believe that we conservatives not only have the right, but the responsibility to use whatever measures necessary to preserve and protect our American way of life. If adopting Saul Alinsky’s methods will help us reach that goal, so be it.

How the left and Obama have successfully used the Alinsky Method

As we all know, Obama not only learned the “Alinsky method” while working as an organizer in Chicago, but later taught Alinsky to other community organizers. He was well versed in the Alinsky philosophy and has used the tactics in his political campaigns and now, in the activities of his administration.

He has played down his association with Alinsky’s philosophy because it would be politically damaging to be viewed as having had a Marxist mentor, but he has stated that while a community organizer, he got the "best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School."

It is very easy however to find Alinsky’s fingerprints all over Obama’s campaign for the Presidency and the actions of the democrat party and other left-wing organizations for many years.

As you read through the following dissection of the Alinsky philosophy, you’ll recognize how its use has been successful in influencing those citizens who were not really engaged in the political process, how that impacted the Presidential election, and how it’s still propping up Obama’s approval ratings.

Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Marxist who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States since. His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results."

In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution" -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure.

• Right now, we conservative Christians are the “oppressed segment of the population” and we want change.

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapse -- to be followed by the creation of an entirely new system upon its ruins.

Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal "changes" are needed.

• Like Barack Hussein Obama, for instance?

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People's Organization. "The organizer," Alinsky wrote, "is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."

• Like “The Messiah,” Barack Hussein Obama?

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and "single out" precisely who is to blame for the "particular evil" that is the source of the people's angst. In other words, there must be a face associated with the people's discontent.

• So they demonized George W. Bush.

Alinsky summarized it this way: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. There is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks."

"The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification," said Alinsky, "will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure."

• Until now, we have attempted to thwart the advance of the left by way of logic and merit – and generally it has been, as Alinsky says, a futile exercise. Against all logic and merit, Obama won didn’t he? And his approval ratings (while dropping) remain high.

Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People's Organization was vast and unbridgeable. "Before men can act," he said, "an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil."

In Alinsky's brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying). He said, “In war the end justifies almost any means.”

• We’ve seen ample evidence of this in the radical left-wing of the Democrat party. To them, there is no reason not to lie, fabricate, and obfuscate, those activities are neither good or bad, they are merely useful tools.

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care, when first unveiling their particular crusade for "change," not to alienate the middle class with any type of crude language, defiant demeanor, or menacing appearance that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions.

• It looks like Obama, who Joe Biden called “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” fits Alinsky’s pattern to a “T.”

Alinsky stressed the importance of "learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse." To appeal to the middle class, Alinsky continued, "goals must be phrased in general terms like 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'; 'Of the Common Welfare'; 'Pursuit of happiness'; or 'Bread and Peace.'"

But Alinsky understood that there was a flip side to his strategy of speaking the palatable language of the middle class and the reassuring parlance of morality. Specifically, he said that organizers must be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing -- for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they claim to act -- to watch society descend into utter chaos and anarchy. He stated that they must be prepared, if necessary, to "go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion."

• Doesn’t that beg the question, “could it be that our current economic upheaval is part of a grander plan”?

One way in which organizers and their disciples can broadcast their preparedness for this possibility is by staging loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing deep rage and discontent over one particular injustice or another.

• Take heed, my brothers and sisters, the Tea Parties could and should become our Genesis.

“Such demonstrations can give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present (already formidable) size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become.”

• This is why we need to dramatically increase the number of participants in the upcoming July 4 Tea Parties. It will reinforce the impression of our coming together and at the same time, display evidence of a gathering momentum, drawing more to the movement.
• One of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” states: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. They’ve been conditioned to think that our power has diminished. But the 623,000 (Pajamas Media) that showed up for the April 15^th Tea Parties awoke a few from their complacency. We need to follow that with another, even bigger turnout on July 4^th to help create Alinsky’s impression.

In Alinsky's view, action was more often the catalyst for revolutionary fervor than vice versa. He deemed it essential for the organizer to get people to act first (e.g., participate in a demonstration) and rationalize their actions later. "Get them to move in the right direction first," said Alinsky. "They'll explain to themselves later why they moved in that direction."

• We need to convince Americans of all persuasions that it is time to protest the government’s gradual elimination of the freedoms that we hold dear and the movement away from our revered Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Alinsky taught that in order to most effectively cast themselves as defenders of moral principals and human decency, organizers must react with "shock, horror, and moral outrage" whenever their targeted enemy in any way misspeaks or fails to live up to his "book of rules."

• We can certainly do that. Every time that an opposing high-visibility administration member or congressperson misspeaks or is caught in a lie, that event needs to be brought to the attention of everyone. Sooner or later, even the unengaged will notice. We need to pound their fallacies over and over into the public’s awareness. 
• Another “Rule for Radicals,” Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

Moreover, said Alinsky, whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt.

• Isn’t this exactly the way that President George Bush was treated? As unworthy and intellectually deficient? Again, they were following the Alinsky method.

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength," said Alinsky.  He advised organizers to "laugh at the enemy" in an effort to provoke "an irrational anger." "Ridicule," said Alinsky, "is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

• If you want to see a perfect example of the left’s use of this tenet, simply watch the video of Keith Olberman and Janeane Garofalo right here on Pesky Truth. 
• We must ridicule and deride the opposition; based on their actions, they are worthy of little else. This action is intended to belittle them in the eyes of the voters.

According to Alinsky, it was also vital that organizers focus on multiple crusades and multiple approaches. "Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…" "Keep the pressure on," he continued, "with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

A People's Organization, said Alinsky, can build a wide-based membership only if it focuses on multiple issues (e.g., civil rights, civil liberties, welfare, rent, urban renewal, the environment, etc.) "Multiple issues mean constant action and life," Alinsky wrote.

• In our case, there are many issues we can focus on: 
  • Illegal immigration / amnesty
  • National security / war on terror
  • Reduced federal spending
  • Tax cuts
  • Rights of the unborn / abortion
  • Second amendment gun rights
  • Supreme court and judicial appointments
  • And other issues, like Obama’s unreleased records 
• And remember that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.

During the 1960s Alinsky was an enormously influential force in American life. In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky's circle. After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky's shakedown."

Alinsky died in 1972, but his legacy lives on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution (which he and his disciples euphemistically refer to as "change").

Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

And on the lighter side …

 

I’m still pumped after attending our Dallas Tea Party (with Bob’s My Uncle). Our attendance was estimated at about 7,000.

It was great to be amongst so many like-minded Americans. You got the feeling that we really can make a difference if we work at it together. We talked with some, (BMU’s sign was a big hit) and nowhere did we see any activity that could be construed as less than staunchly patriotic.

But then this morning, I came across a video on Hot Air that I couldn’t ignore.

Now, here’s the disclaimer: I don’t remember the last time I watched MSNBC, or the last time I watched Keith Olberman. Life is too short to waste any part of it being subjected to the liberal propaganda being passed off as “news” on MSNBC. And Olberman just plain “reeks.”

And yet this video demanded that I watch. Bad enough having to expose my sensibilities to K.O., but he was interviewing (gasp) Janeane Garofalo, the Bwitch (Bitchy Witch). It is appropriate to say that she is even more repulsive to me than Susan Sarandon or Jane Fonda. Based on the presumptive success of Al Franken, Garofalo will probably run for the Senate soon.

But I digress – we, all of us, who believe in the Tea Party movement need to understand how the left sees us, and this video will open your eyes. I knew that they believe that we’re all too ignurnt to understand that we should be giving thanks now that the U.S. will be saved by Obama and his democrat conspirators. But it’s even worse than that. Apparently, according to Ms. Garofalo, our brains are actually dysfunctioning, we are physically deficient rednecks who can’t possibly understand because our brains just don’t work right. And we’re all racist. And the Tea Parties were all organized and promoted by (gasp) Fox News (the Anti-Christ of networks). We’re all just mind-numbed lemmings following a memo from Fox News and those pesky Republicans.

I can’t go on with this. Last night’s dinner will come up.

[… please wait while I scan around the Internet … counting hands …]

Hmmmm, that was easy. Both of you can put your hands down now.

Not a scientific survey, you say? Balderdash! The only raised hands belonged to Barack D’ohbama and John Kerry and we know that they both had designs on taking the Ruler of the World position. Let’s face it, the UN is about as popular in the U.S. as the proverbial turd in a punchbowl.

It’s easy to see why. Does the term “feckless” mean anything to you? One can define feckless as meaning “without feck,” and if there is any organization that is totally devoid of feck, it is the United Nations.

But let’s be clear, feckless also means: ineffectual, worthless, irresponsible, incompetent, and weak. These are not adjectives of which someone should be proud, yet they define the UN beautifully. In fact, I’m surprised that “the United Nations” wasn’t definition “3.” Under feckless.

For example, the UN Security Council met for 3 hours Sunday (April 5) and couldn’t even agree on a “Please don’t do that again,” statement to North Korea. The UN already had sanctions in place that “bar” the North from ballistic missile activity. Sunday’s missile launch was in flagrant disregard of those UN sanctions.

When apprised of his faux pas, Kim responded, “Was I not supposed to do that”? “I didn’t know – what’s a sanction?”

Pesky Truth has learned that the Council is finally close to agreement on a new sanction that would require the 5’3” “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Il to reduce his “elevator” shoe lifts from 4 inches to 3 inches.

That’ll show him.

The UN’s Security Council is supposedly charged with maintaining peace and security among countries, a task that it has performed fecklessly for years.

The UN, in a sophomoric, rose-colored, unicorn-populated world could be a valid idea. But, in its current configuration, it is worse than benign, it is a black hole of U.S. largess. The U.S. is on the hook for 22% of the UN’s current operating budget, or $922,000,000.00 - more than any other country.

And let’s not forget that sneaky Senate bill (S.2433, introduced by then-Sen. D’ohbama hisself) that authorizes a UN assessment of 0.7 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 13 years, amounting to a tax on U.S. citizens of $845,000,000,000.00 – that’s BILLIONS - that would be used to socialize the entire world (after UN officials and their families and friends skim off a few billion for themselves).

Could it be that D’ohbama has outfoxed us? Could it be that his economic policies are aimed at dramatically reducing our Gross Domestic Product so that we won’t have to give so much to the UN? Damn, he’s smarter than I thought he was – what a noble goal – reduce the TRIBUTE to the UN by flushing our GDP down the crapper – wow – what an intellect [sarc].

The U.S. already pays more of the UN’s budget than 178 of the lowest paying member states combined. Yet, under the “one state, one vote” structure, Nauru, Lesotho, Eritrea, Comoros, Benin, or Andorra all have an equal vote in the General Assembly. Is that the kind of “fair play” that the left is always harping on?

Were it not for the Security Council, the U.S. would have no more power to influence the UN than any of those aforementioned “lesser” countries. But the Security Council is hardly a useful tool since China or Russia (even France) can veto anything if it goes against their interest.

In other words, one nation state (the U.S.) is paying more of the expenses of operation than any other country, furnishing the most “peacekeepers,” and providing the headquarters in “international territory” in New York City, and has literally NO power in the General Assembly and only 20% of the power in the Security Council – and even that is subject to veto.

So, even in the unlikely event that a Security Council Resolution is issued against a “rogue” nation, it will be ignored – think Iran and North Korea. And Iraq had ignored the UN until “Cowboy” Boosh went in and enforced the resolution(s). The UN is feckless.

And, I think that history will prove that Barack Hussein D’ohbama is every bit as feckless as the UN – they’re out of the same mold.

It is for this reason that I believe that if president D’ohbama is confronted with any sort of aggressive action which ordinarily might require a military response, he will always dump the problem into the ample lap of the United Nations. This would give him “cover” and he could then respond to any question regarding his actions that he did what was necessary to achieve peace and harmony.

This is exactly what makes him so dangerous. He apparently believes that you can negotiate with terrorists and rogue governments. On that point, he is correct. You can negotiate with them – you just can’t gain anything by doing so.

Iran (and North Korea) will negotiate D’ohbama right out of his pink, polka-dotted boxers. He will concede, they will appear to, all so he can claim success. But in the end, D’ohbama will get it in his end.

California’s Plan to Increase its Deficit

The first part of this story actually happened in August of 2008, but it so clearly represents the liberal left-coast mindset regarding illegal aliens, I just couldn’t help myself, I just had to bring it up again – it’s worth a reminder. And it’s still not a settled issue, there’s an update at the end, bringing it to its current status.

These are excerpts from Michelle Malkin’s blog on the subject.

(August, 2008) A San Francisco city commission has taken a defiant stand against Mayor Gavin Newsom’s directive on young immigrant felons by urging officials to permit the (ILLEGAL, FELONY) offenders to remain in the city and help pay for their housing, job placement services and immigration lawyers.

Newsom announced last month - in an attempt to quell a growing controversy involving San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy - that the city would no longer shield young illegal immigrant felony offenders from federal authorities for possible deportation.

Three weeks later, the city’s little-known, 15-member Immigrant Rights Commission approved a resolution that ran counter to the mayor’s directive, urging the city to let young (ILLEGAL) immigrant (FELONY) offenders stay in the city. The commission advises the Board of Supervisors and mayor about issues involving immigrants.

It called on San Francisco to pay nonprofit community groups (ACORN?) to screen juvenile offenders to determine whether they should be entitled to city-paid immigration attorneys who would help them seek asylum as victims of abandonment, trafficking or abuse.

It also urged the city to provide adequate resources for placing the youths in “culturally appropriate” community programs approved by the juvenile court system; a policy that federal prosecutors have said was akin to harboring illegal immigrants.

And it advised the city to develop and expand safe housing, jobs and other opportunities for unaccompanied immigrant youth “because these youth are extremely vulnerable to exploitation by adult criminals.”

So now, San Franciscoians will be expected to pay for safe housing, job placement and immigration attorneys for these poor, disadvantaged ILLEGAL FELONS?

Ooowee, I guess I’m glad I’m just an ignrunt Texas hick. Around here, we aren’t as enlightened as the intellectual elite out there in California. The “enlightened” state’s deficit has roared past $40,000,000,000 and is expected to top $42,000,000,000 soon. So, I guess it does make sense (to liberal Californian democrats) to spend more money they don’t have to coddle YOUNG ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT FELONIES.

RIGHT.

“And whereas, San Francisco’s sanctuary policy should protect immigrants from being separated from their families and communities through deportation, while also protecting public safety by ensuring that persons who commit violent felonies cannot take advantage of the sanctuary policy, Therefore be it resolved that the San Francisco Democratic Party takes a recommitted position in support of our constitution and our city’s sanctuary position for immigrants, And be it further resolved that the San Francisco Democratic Party supports continuation of the sanctuary policy without extending the protection of that policy to persons who commit violent felonies.”

This “sanctuary” crap is just that … CRAP.

To tax already overburdened citizens to pay for ILLEGAL alien’s housing, medical care, job placement and legal aid to fight deportation, is just plain asinine.

What a sorry state (not state of affairs, just a sorry state).

California was created by God to be one of the most beautiful and climate-friendly areas on the planet. Ocean beaches and mountains just a short drive apart and climate varying from cool and foggy to warm and sunny. California has it all. Were it not for the politics and the cost of living, most folks that I know who’ve been there would like to live there. Myself included.

But California’s voters have elected liberal democrats who spend taxpayer money to help everyone “feel good” about everything, without concern for fiscal responsibility – after all, they’ll just go back to the taxpayers for more. There’s a never-ending supply, isn’t there?

Well friends and neighbors, the gravy train has left the station and it ain’t coming back. People are leaving the state in droves and they’re not the dregs of society – they’re the educated, upwardly mobile citizens who are tired of the mess that politicians have made of the state’s economy. They’re going where jobs are plentiful and taxes are low.

California lost a net of 144,000 people in the year ending in July, 2008 – more than any other state. While at the same time, California’s nearly 3 million illegal aliens cost taxpayers over $9,000,000,000 each year.

I guess us ignrunt Texas hicks just aren’t as smart as you enlightened intellectual elite liberals are – we somehow bumbled our way to an $11,000,000,000 SURPLUS – and we don’t even have an INCOME TAX. The remaining good people in California need to take their state back … or, leave it to taken over by Obama’s federal government, just like GM and the big banks.

I can’t wait to see how Obamafornia deals with the influx of new welfare recipients looking for a handout and millions of new illegals.

Apparently, us dumb, unenlightened, clods are just stuck on stoopid, right?

P.S. – almost forgot – to show how seriously California lawmakers take their responsibilities for the needs of their constituents, they passed a bill to ban pâté de foie gras statewide in 2012. Wow, that’s representative government at its finest!