There's been a lot of news media coverage of memos released by President Barack Obama regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques used by the U.S. or what the clearly biased media calls torture. Unfortunately the average person has absolutely idea what torture actually is in the real world. The United Nations defines torture as:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
While that definition is as clear as mud to most people, others would like to know what actions actually constitute torture. So, as I so often do, I'm going to make it easy for people. I'll do this by listing a number of activities that are and are not torture:
Panties On Head = Not Torture (done in College hazing)
Red Hot Poker in Eye or Orifice = Torture
Caterpillar In Room = Not Torture (they don't bite)
Staked to Ant Hill Covered in Honey = Torture
Sensory Deprivation = Not Torture (people pay for this)
Flaying/Skinning= Torture
Stress Positions/Long Standing = Not Torture (did this in Little League)
Flagellation/Whipping = Torture
Belly Slap = Not Torture (drinking game)
Impalement = Torture
Waterboarding = Not Torture
Knee Capping = Torture
Shirt Grabbing = Not Torture
Public Stoning by Taliban for Playing Music = Torture
Sleep Deprivation = Not Torture (most Americans are sleep deprived)
Being Next In Line After Jihadists Behead Your Friend = Torture
Forced Isolation = Not Torture (even in Liberal courts)
Tried, Convicted, Stoned/Whipped for BEING RAPED by your Uncle Achmed = Torture
Listening to Eminem's "Slim Shady" or Britney Spears = Not Torture (unpleasant I'll admit)
Listening to Self-Righteous Know-It-All Liberals Blather On and ON and ON= Torture
I hope this partial list has been helpful for you. God Bless America.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Diane Sawyer and 20/20 Anti-Gun Bias
When I was growing up I was told that journalists were people that reported the news in an objective, unbiased manner. I wasn't told that by my parents or even my teachers. I was told that by journalists on TV and in newspapers. It turns out that they lied to me. Did you know that news organizations like ABC's "20/20" and their star "journalist" Diane Sawyer don't worry about being biased? They have no problem providing only the information that helps their cause. Don't believe it? If you want proof all you have to do is see 20/20's special called "If I Only Had A Gun", a blatant anti-gun hit piece.
I didn't watch the show the Friday night that it aired but due to the miracle of modern technology I got to watch it on ABC's website (thanks to Al Gore or Ira Einhorn). I got to see it, rewind it, and see it again. I have a headache.
The major portion of the show was devoted to convincing the public that there's no way to defend themselves with a gun. They did this by conducting an "experiment" that was rigged right from the beginning. The producers of the show recruited university students and gave them a couple of hours of training with a handgun. The object? The students were to sit in a classroom attending a lecture while carrying a concealed pistol they're supposed to use to defend themselves. In the experiment an attacker armed with a handgun bursts into the university classroom, fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the concealed gun. The attacker doesn't really try to gun down any of the unarmed students and succeeds in "killing" the armed student each time. Well isn't that all very convenient.
I have a few problems with the experiment. First, the "attacker" is a highly trained Police Firearms Instructor, not some untrained or poorly trained whack job wanting to commit mass murder. Second, the students with the concealed handgun are made to sit front row center in each run of the experiment and the attacker apparently knows this. Third, "for safety" the students are wearing helmets and thick padded gloves which hinder them from drawing their handgun. In the real world outside the bias of ABC and Diane Sawyer the attackers are seldom (maybe never) an experienced police firearms instructor, the person with the concealed handgun wouldn't likely always be front row center with a helmet and padded gloves hindering the draw of the weapon. The students were set up to fail. Lastly, they didn't try that BS with someone that has good training and experience...any idea why?
At no time did Diane Sawyer or anyone else mention that in the U.S. people do successfully defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones 2.4 million times a year with their own guns (Source: U.S. Congress). In fact I've made a couple of entries containing reports of people that successfully defended themselves at: entry 1, entry 2, or entry 3. You can find even more examples of people using guns to defend themselves on John Lott's Blog, Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, or the Armed Citizen section of the NRA's website.
Another segment of this anti-gun show was about how horrible the "gun show loophole" was and how it was a way for criminals to get guns. How? Well, the story goes that there is a loophole in the law that allows criminals to buy guns at a gun show without a background check. A lie by omission. All gun dealers are required to perform background checks at gun shows just as they do in their stores. Only private individuals selling their privately owned guns are exempt from the background check requirement. However, they tried to prove their point by getting the brother of a woman killed in the Virginia Tech killings to go to a gun show and buy guns without showing an ID. Of course he succeeded in buying quite a few guns without a background check because he bought them from private individuals, not gun dealers. Imagine that, people selling their personal property to someone. No crime was committed.
What the show failed to mention is that a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) had obtained their gun from a gun show. Some loophole.
There was more anti-gun bias exhibited but like I said earlier...it gave me a headache. The show aired to coincide with the anniversary of the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shootings, but I think there's more to their anti-rights bias. Sure there was an anniversary but there's also an anti-gun President in office they worked very hard to get elected. So, to support their guy they have to get people to believe a few things that aren't true including:
Lie 1. Guns kill people all by themselves without human intervention;
Lie 2. Guns are mysterious machines that you can't possibly understand well enough to use in your own defense;
Lie 3. The bad guy is always going to be a better shot;
Lie 4. There's an evil loophole in the law that helps criminals buy lots of guns and we need to curtail your rights to fix it;
Lie 5. Criminals will be defeated by the next new gun law even though they don't follow the thousands already on the books.
If enough people believe the lies it will be easier to take away their rights. Don't believe the lies.
I didn't watch the show the Friday night that it aired but due to the miracle of modern technology I got to watch it on ABC's website (thanks to Al Gore or Ira Einhorn). I got to see it, rewind it, and see it again. I have a headache.
The major portion of the show was devoted to convincing the public that there's no way to defend themselves with a gun. They did this by conducting an "experiment" that was rigged right from the beginning. The producers of the show recruited university students and gave them a couple of hours of training with a handgun. The object? The students were to sit in a classroom attending a lecture while carrying a concealed pistol they're supposed to use to defend themselves. In the experiment an attacker armed with a handgun bursts into the university classroom, fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the concealed gun. The attacker doesn't really try to gun down any of the unarmed students and succeeds in "killing" the armed student each time. Well isn't that all very convenient.
I have a few problems with the experiment. First, the "attacker" is a highly trained Police Firearms Instructor, not some untrained or poorly trained whack job wanting to commit mass murder. Second, the students with the concealed handgun are made to sit front row center in each run of the experiment and the attacker apparently knows this. Third, "for safety" the students are wearing helmets and thick padded gloves which hinder them from drawing their handgun. In the real world outside the bias of ABC and Diane Sawyer the attackers are seldom (maybe never) an experienced police firearms instructor, the person with the concealed handgun wouldn't likely always be front row center with a helmet and padded gloves hindering the draw of the weapon. The students were set up to fail. Lastly, they didn't try that BS with someone that has good training and experience...any idea why?
At no time did Diane Sawyer or anyone else mention that in the U.S. people do successfully defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones 2.4 million times a year with their own guns (Source: U.S. Congress). In fact I've made a couple of entries containing reports of people that successfully defended themselves at: entry 1, entry 2, or entry 3. You can find even more examples of people using guns to defend themselves on John Lott's Blog, Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, or the Armed Citizen section of the NRA's website.
Another segment of this anti-gun show was about how horrible the "gun show loophole" was and how it was a way for criminals to get guns. How? Well, the story goes that there is a loophole in the law that allows criminals to buy guns at a gun show without a background check. A lie by omission. All gun dealers are required to perform background checks at gun shows just as they do in their stores. Only private individuals selling their privately owned guns are exempt from the background check requirement. However, they tried to prove their point by getting the brother of a woman killed in the Virginia Tech killings to go to a gun show and buy guns without showing an ID. Of course he succeeded in buying quite a few guns without a background check because he bought them from private individuals, not gun dealers. Imagine that, people selling their personal property to someone. No crime was committed.
What the show failed to mention is that a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) had obtained their gun from a gun show. Some loophole.
There was more anti-gun bias exhibited but like I said earlier...it gave me a headache. The show aired to coincide with the anniversary of the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shootings, but I think there's more to their anti-rights bias. Sure there was an anniversary but there's also an anti-gun President in office they worked very hard to get elected. So, to support their guy they have to get people to believe a few things that aren't true including:
Lie 1. Guns kill people all by themselves without human intervention;
Lie 2. Guns are mysterious machines that you can't possibly understand well enough to use in your own defense;
Lie 3. The bad guy is always going to be a better shot;
Lie 4. There's an evil loophole in the law that helps criminals buy lots of guns and we need to curtail your rights to fix it;
Lie 5. Criminals will be defeated by the next new gun law even though they don't follow the thousands already on the books.
If enough people believe the lies it will be easier to take away their rights. Don't believe the lies.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
National Home Foreclosures
In an online article CNNmoney.com staff writer Catherine Clifford broke down a RealtyTrac report regarding home foreclosures. The last paragraph said, "The national report also found that the worst of the foreclosures were centralized in a handful of worst-hit states. California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Illinois accounted for nearly 60% of the total foreclosure activity in the first quarter, with 479,516 properties received foreclosure filings in those states."
Hmm, all of those states, excluding Arizona, were "Blue States" in the last Presidential Election. Also interesting is that the "National Leadership" is from three of those states. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from California, Senate leader Harry Reid is from Nevada, and President Obama is from Illinois. Sure, John McCain is from Arizona but he might as well be a Democrat. I'm not saying it's because of Democrat leadership but it's interesting that the people saying they have the answers are from the areas hardest hit. They didn't do much for their home states did they?
Hmm, all of those states, excluding Arizona, were "Blue States" in the last Presidential Election. Also interesting is that the "National Leadership" is from three of those states. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from California, Senate leader Harry Reid is from Nevada, and President Obama is from Illinois. Sure, John McCain is from Arizona but he might as well be a Democrat. I'm not saying it's because of Democrat leadership but it's interesting that the people saying they have the answers are from the areas hardest hit. They didn't do much for their home states did they?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Happy Earth Day - Please Don't Murder Anyone
Today is April 22nd....Happy Earth Day! Earth Day is a pseudo-holiday co-created by a murderer to honor the planet and to raise the consciousness of man’s effect on the environment. Yes, you read correctly. Earth Day was reportedly born from the mind of left wing environmental whack-job Ira Einhorn, aka the Unicorn Killer. Einhorn murdered his girlfriend and stored her dead body in a trunk in his apartment. You'd think he would have buried her in the Earth to fertilize it...Happy Earth Day.
What does that have to do with anything? Well, a couple of things. First, if Adolf Hitler had founded Earth Day would you celebrate it? No? But it's ok if a woman beating murderer started it? Also, it just seems weird that so many left wing environmental, animal rights, anti-war weirdos care so little for humans. It's also strange how so many of them make the same grandiose claims....Like Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore, Einhorn also claimed to have invented the internet. Happy Earth Day.
In the interest of disclosure I have to say that the other co-founders of Earth Day did write a letter claiming that Ira Einhorn had nothing to do with Earth Day. They wrote this letter despite his 30 minute appearance on the stage during the first Earth Day. They did this in 1998, 28 years after the first Earth Day and not very long after the fugitive Einhorn was found living in France. Sounds like CYA to me. Happy Earth Day.
Anyway, I just thought you should know about this stuff and I'm gonna leave you with a thought.....two "environmentalists" claim to have invented the internet and the internet uses more electricity generated by coal and oil than just about any other electrically powered system ever devised. Happy Earth Day, Please Don't Murder Anyone.
What does that have to do with anything? Well, a couple of things. First, if Adolf Hitler had founded Earth Day would you celebrate it? No? But it's ok if a woman beating murderer started it? Also, it just seems weird that so many left wing environmental, animal rights, anti-war weirdos care so little for humans. It's also strange how so many of them make the same grandiose claims....Like Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore, Einhorn also claimed to have invented the internet. Happy Earth Day.
In the interest of disclosure I have to say that the other co-founders of Earth Day did write a letter claiming that Ira Einhorn had nothing to do with Earth Day. They wrote this letter despite his 30 minute appearance on the stage during the first Earth Day. They did this in 1998, 28 years after the first Earth Day and not very long after the fugitive Einhorn was found living in France. Sounds like CYA to me. Happy Earth Day.
Anyway, I just thought you should know about this stuff and I'm gonna leave you with a thought.....two "environmentalists" claim to have invented the internet and the internet uses more electricity generated by coal and oil than just about any other electrically powered system ever devised. Happy Earth Day, Please Don't Murder Anyone.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Someone In Congress Is Realistic
Want to see something interesting? The following is taken from Section 2 of HR 17 which is known as the Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009:
The Congress finds the following:
Isn't that interesting? If you read the whole bill you'll see it's pretty much like the "Castle Doctrine" we have here in Texas. Let your Members of Congress know you want this to pass.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
- (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.Isn't that interesting? If you read the whole bill you'll see it's pretty much like the "Castle Doctrine" we have here in Texas. Let your Members of Congress know you want this to pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Filtered Comment [show]
Findings are totally superfluous. Who gives a crap about all this? I know it's a practical argument, but any firearms regulation is immoral and unconstitutional.
Filtered Comment [show]
I agree with you, but...
Having worked in a legislature before, it is almost imperative that you convince your fellow legislators to vote for something. Often times you must make practical arguments as well as principled ones. This is also because in a bill (as opposed to the other method of passing a law, a Joint Resolution) has no preamble laying out the purpose of the bill.
Add A Comment