Yesterday, the Senate passed H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008. The Act included a ban on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. It passed by a vote of 51 to 45, with 4 not voting. The vote was largely upon partisan lines, with Democrats voting for the ban and Republicans voting against it. Here is a roll call of the Senate vote.

Among our senatorial presidential candidates, John McCain voted against the ban. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were 2 of the 4 senators who did not vote. McCain's vote is interesting, because in the past he has come out against waterboarding. McCain could have other reasons for voting against H.R. 2082, since it is also an appropriations act, but at first glance, this sure looks like a position reversal by McCain, which almost certainly will be reported as him caving to the conservative base (a curious move, since he already has the Republican nomination in the bag). The Obama and Clinton non-votes are also interesting, because they didn't take a position on a controversial issue and a close vote. At least McCain cast a vote, even if it does open him up to charges of waffling. Obama and Clinton didn't show any leadership. You can bet "scheduling conflicts" will be the reported reason for their absence. I can't say as I blame Obama too much from a tactical standpoint here. Not being "on the record" has served him fabulously well in his presidential campaign of soaring rhetoric. I assume if he does become president, he will henceforth become "present and accounted for". Leadership is a nice quality for a president.

The White House has long said it would veto this type of legislation, with president Bush saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.” Bush's problem is, waterboarding isn't looking all that legal these days. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners. It limits interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army Field Manual, which doesn't include waterboarding. The justice department also said it doubts that waterboarding is legal now.

At this time, waterboarding is still technically an option available to the CIA, but it requires the consent of the Attorney General and the president on a case-by-case basis. CIA chief Michael Hayden says waterboarding has not been used since 2003. Hayden also says he prohibited waterboarding as a CIA technique in 2006, doubting it's legality in light of the new laws. Bush's position is weak and getting weaker.

The Democrats outcry against harsh interrogation techniques by the Bush administration has resonated far and wide these days, with tons of partisan rhetoric being bandied about, but back in 2002, the Democrats were singing a very different tune. At that time, so close to the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, the Democrats who were briefed on the interrogation techniques were not only supportive of waterboarding and other harsh techniques, they even wanted more done to extract the needed information about future Al Qaeda attacks from high level Al Qaeda detainees, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (one of the 3 who were ever waterboarded by the CIA). You can read a Washington Post article about it here. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was one of those briefed. From that article comes the following:

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

How times change, eh ? Or, perhaps I should say, how politics change. Opponents of waterboarding say that the world isn't an episode of 24, with Jack Bauer running out of time to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. They are correct. 99.9% of the time is isn't.

But .1% of the time it IS. And what do we do then, after harsh interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by law, when the needed information is paramount ? Do we tell someone like Khalid Shakh Mohammed that if he tells us what we need to know, we'll give him a cookie ? It's probably more likely that someone in the CIA would break the law anyway, if the information was important enough, don't you think ? Then the Democrats can prosecute that someone for saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of americans, because he poured water down the next Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nose. So I'd vote nay on that ban. I would leave it with waterboarding requiring the express approval of the attorney general and the president on a case-by-case basis, that would stop it from being abused, but I wouldn't ban it altogether, whether you want to call it torture or not. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, as Mr. Spock would say.

I've been reading some dangerous and subversive writings lately. I have to share some of it with you, because I think these radical views could upset our liberal democracy if they become mainstream. Get a load of this claptrap:

“[A] wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” —Thomas Jefferson

Obviously, this Thomas Jefferson guy is some kind of greedy right wing extremist who is only looking out for the rich. He must be a conservative talk radio host or something. Whoever he is, we definitely shouldn't listen to his crazy rantings. Nothing good can come from it (other than the United States Of America - premier superpower, economic powerhouse, and beacon of freedom for the entire world, that is).

If you think that's bad, listen to this next wingnut's anti-government rambling:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington

Holy Pelosi ! This guy is very unamerican, right Nancy ? The deranged loon sounds like the next Timothy McVeigh, or, even worse (shiver), Rush Limbaugh (oh, sorry, I meant 'that fat druggie Rush Limbaugh'. I didn't mean to be politically incorrect and omit the required pejorative adjectives) . This George Washington nut must not understand that it takes a village. Sounds like he wasn't educated in public schools either, the heretic. If Hillary wins, she should get his FBI file to the White House asap. We can't have that kind of Revolutionary language being bandied about. It might disturb the collective.

This next guy is one of those NRA gun nut types. I think he owns a brewery. He was probably drunk when he said this:

The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms - Samuel Adams

Now, I did a little digging, and I discovered all these fanatics are members of some cult known as The Founding Fathers (must be some right-wing militia group), very dangerous. Here's another one of them, who is obviously one of those supply sider sob's, a heartless person with no compassion for the poor:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer - Benjamin Franklin

This Founding Fathers group (they're probably associated with the KKK) also talks about freedom an awful lot, man. War too. They must be a bunch of fascist uber-nationalist gung-ho Christionista Marine types that go around talking about God and Country. What a bunch of squares. They should just smoke some weed and chill out, already. Check this out:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry

The radical right-wing Founding Father nazis also have published some manifestos that you definitely want to avoid reading if you wish to remain a member of our liberal democracy. Among these subversives tomes are The Federalist Papers, The Declaration Of Independence, and The US Constitution. I don't think you really need to read them, because they are all really old, and don't apply to us today. Of course, there is that old saying - Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it….

Adding weight to the theory that far left liberalism is just a case of arrested adolescence, the loons have been acting out and disrupting class more than usual lately. From the bloody hands assault on Condoleeza Rice, to the Code Pink disruption of the Petraeus hearings, to the 'don't tase me, bro' guy, to the shout down of David Horowitz at Emory University, to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts on the Bill Maher show, to the protesters outside of Nancy Pelosi's house, it is clear that the moonbats think freedom of speech means the freedom to interject themselves into any venue at any time. They also think freedom of speech means the freedom to stop any speech that they don't like, which is a very old leftist tune. Just like Chavez in Venezuela nationalizes the radio stations to prevent any anti-Chavez sentiment from being heard on public airwaves, so does the american left propose the (Un)Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to muzzle the conservative dominance of talk radio. Ah, can't you just smell the democracy ? The left touts civil rights, tolerance, and diversity — but not for you, you nasty conservative devils. You neither, Christians. The left loves the free exchange of ideas, as long as they are all leftist ideas. If you don't believe me, go to the nearest university and find out for yourself. Somehow, our universities can tolerate Islamic fascists like the Iranian president Ahmadinejad, but our universities can't tolerate conservatives like David Horowitz speaking about Islamic fascists like Ahmadinejad. If anyone can find a nugget of sense in that, please explain it to me.

As we can see from the cases of Maher and Pelosi, you don't even have to be anti-liberal to feel the wrath of the moonbats. All you have to do is step out of line on any one tenet of liberal theology. Bill Maher, the moonbat's best TV friend, made the sole mistake of stating the obvious (for once), by saying the 9/11 truth nuts were NUTS. Yeah, no kidding, Mr. Wizard. The next week, the 9/11 truthers were acting up on his show and had to be thrown out. Nancy Pelosi's sin is bigger. She hasn't ended the Iraq war like the Democrats promised they would do if elected in 2006. Apparently, there are people in this country who really believed that San Fran Nan and company would end the war. They didn't realize that was just campaign rhetoric, that most Democrats know we can't just pull up stakes and leave Iraq tomorrow without suffering serious consequences. There isn't even one Democratic presidential candidate with a snowball's chance of getting the nomination who would exit Iraq immediately. You have to sink down to the level of moonbat touchstone Dennis Kucinich to hear that kind of talk, which is why Dennis polls at about 1%. I hear even Kucinich's wife is leaning towards voting for Edwards.

It won't be long until somebody gets hurt in these escalating hissy fits being thrown by liberal lunatics. If their precious little intolerant ears are so offended by conservative speakers and non-liberal speech, I suggest they do what they've been telling conservatives who are offended by pornography or pictures of Jesus in urine to do; don't attend, change the channel, or whatever. For security, I also have a suggestion: tase them all, bro. If the moonbats can't behave like civil human beings, they don't deserve to be treated as such. The communists haven't taken over america yet. Until they do, we all have freedom of speech, not just the ones YOU agree with. Code Pink THIS, you jerks.

The other day, Mitt Romney said the USA should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Much to Romney's chagrin, the USA is already boycotting the UN Human Rights Council, so we don't have a seat. Oops. Mitt made a mistake, but he also said a mouthful.

The former Massachusetts governor said the U.N. Human Rights Council has repeatedly condemned Israel while taking no action against nations with repressive regimes.

"The United Nations has been an extraordinary failure of late," Romney said in response to a question at a pancake house along the coast of early voting South Carolina. "We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council."

Irwin Cotler, Canadian Parliament member, details some of the discriminatory policies of the UN council in this Boston Globe article. The UN condemns an Israeli attack on Palestinians even as they ignore the Palestinian attack that provoked it. Ditto on battles between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has been so singled out, that even former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the entire UN loses credibility over the discriminatory and obsessive targeting of Israel. There were even three special sessions held to condemn Israel in 2006 before the Council ever got around to thinking maybe the genocide in Darfur might be a bad thing. I guess they couldn't figure out a way to blame Israel for that. No wonder Mitt Romney also called for a new coalition:

Romney also said he would support a new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together".

"We should develop some of our own - if you will - forums and alliances or groups that have the ability to actually watch out for the world and do what's right", Romney said.

I hear you, Mitt.

Ironically, the UN Human Rights Council was started in 2006 due to the disappointing performance of it's predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. Guess what the big failure of the Commission on Human Rights was ? If you guessed 'discriminating against Israel', you win first prize.

In June 2007, the UN Human Rights Council voted to 'permanently indict' Israel, with Israel being the sole nation in this singular category. No word yet on whether the next special session of the Council to condemn Israel will take place at Auschwitz, so they can put the Jews in yet another 'singular' category. In all, four UN resolutions have been passed against Israel, and none against any other country. None. Maybe the Council heard Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech where Mahmoud said that there aren't any homosexuals in Iran, and forgot about the reason: Iran executes homosexuals. When a member of UN Watch, a United Nations watchdog group, called attention to the inequities of the Council, his speech was banned.

The UN Human Rights Council also condemned 'defamation of religion' following the dustup over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Somebody tell me what this has to do with human rights, please. The resolution was introduced by Pakistan and passed easily, with 16 of the 17 Council members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference voting for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa (anybody notice the miserable human rights records of most of these countries ?). Opposing the resolution were all of the European Union, Japan, Ukraine, and South Korea (aka, the non-repressive regimes). It's pretty ironic that a so-called 'Human Rights Council' would advance a resolution stifling freedom of expression, no ? The resolution claimed that things like the Mohammed cartoons cause "negative stereotyping" of religions and "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism". Right. Everyone knows it's those crazy Methodists who are blowing sh*t up all over the world. Looks like politics rule the day over at the UN, and the wrong politics at that. It's time for the nations that really promote freedom to take the lead. This nonsense has gone on long enough. The UN Human Rights Council is a joke.

My friend Roysoldboy sent me an e-mail this morning that I have to share with you. Roy got it from the man behind the Redstate blog, who also goes by the name of Flagstaffan for any of you who have been on any of the Mclatchey forums. I hope he doesn't mind me telling you that. I don't think he will.

I can't vouch for the origin of this e-mail, but I think it reflects some commonly held sentiments of the american public.

——————————————————————————————-

: NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA.

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!) Then, get a JOB !!

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(Lastly….)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

If you haven't seen the Real Time With Bill Maher show yet, you are missing something. I'm not sure exactly what you're missing, but you're missing something….maybe the downfall of western civilization (but funny !). I watched part of a rerun of the october 12th episode on HBO last night while I was waiting for the Indians/Red Sox game to start (Go Tribe !). The basic premise of the Bill Maher show is: Republicans suck, Christians are stupid and delusional, americans are a bunch of ignorant hicks, and marijuana is cool. Needless to say, liberals LOVE the show, since it reflects their values. I watched this particular episode because I wanted to see if New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could possibly be as wrong about everything in person as he is in print. He was one of the panel guests, along with Joy Behar, alleged comedienne from The View, and MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, who played the token conservative, even though he isn't that conservative. A centrist on Real Time looks like a hard right-winger compared to a typical assemblage of Maher moonbats. Once, Christopher Hitchens played the role of the 'evil' conservative on the show, even though he is a socialist and an atheist. The conservative role was forced upon Hitchens for the sole reason that he acknowledges that Islamic fascism exists and realizes it's important that we fight against it. That's all it takes to be considered a crazed conservative fundamentalist fascist extremist by Maher's people. The audience booed Hitchens so much that Hitchens actually flipped them off at one point. I think that might have been a tv talk show first, unless you count the Jerry Springer type shows (I don't), where it's part of the act.

There is usually one token pseudo-conservative present on Real Time, because that way the rest of the panel and the audience will have someone to boo and shout down, and Maher can pretend he's being fair. There is never more than one conservative, though. That might shift the balance of power too much, and they can't have that. A liberal's idea of fair and balanced is when the liberals control 90% of the discussion (at least), just like in the mainstream media. When conservatives control more of a media audience than liberals, as in talk radio, liberals start looking for ways to legislate away the conservative advantage (i.e. The Fairness Doctrine). I think this must be because liberals love diversity SO much and are SO tolerant of the viewpoints of others.

Since Real Time is a contained sea of liberal self-congratulation, the absolute dumbest comments are treated as brilliant examples of liberal insight, as long as they bash Republicans, of course. For example, during a discussion of blogger Michelle Malkin's revelations about the Democrat's 12-year old S-CHIP poster boy Graeme Frost (his family owns 3 vehicles, sends all their kids to private school, owns their own business, and have a $300,000 home, yet the taxpayers are picking up the Frost's heallth care insurance tab) , Joy Behar put her finger on why Malkin was talking about the Frosts and S-CHIP. "Because she's a selfish b*tch, probably", bleated Behar. Huge applause from the crowd followed, naturally. Behar beamed. Ms Behar also called Republicans "p*ssies" earlier in the show, another Hallmark moment that drew huge applause from her fellow policy wonk sophisticates in the Maher audience.

I was disappointed with Krugman, because he didn't say much. He was soft-spoken, and was overshadowed and seemed cowed by the loud, boisterous, tv veteran blabbermouth trio of Maher, Carlson, and Behar. What little Krugman did say WAS wrong, such as his pronouncement that Iran is not a threat (I wonder if Israel and our soldiers being blown up by Iranian IED's agree), but mostly he just mumbled.

So, if you want to hear 1001 Bush jokes, you will LOVE the Bill Maher show. If you like to know what clueless overpaid Hollywood actors think about politics, you'll like it even more. If you want to hear a nonstop stream of leftist propaganda, Maher's your guy.

But if you are looking for serious issue discussions, look elsewhere.

I don't usually write about religion, but I stumbled across a CNN article about Ann Coulter making comments concerning Christianity and Judaism. Notice the hate directed at Coulter in the reader comments after the CNN article. I have to admit, I was kind of shocked at the reaction to Coulter's words. I understand the need for tolerance, but it strikes me that a lot of people are calling Coulter a bigot and demanding that she lose her job here all because Coulter is MOUTHING THE TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY. Here is the crux of what she said (Deutsch is the interviewer, who is Jewish):

Deutsch: It would be better if we were all Christian ?
Coulter: Yeah.

Deutsch: We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians then?
Coulter: Yeah. Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

Deutsch: You can't possibly believe that. You can't possibly. You're too educated.
Coulter: Do you know what Christianity is ? See, we believe your religion, but you have to obey. We have the fast track program.

Later in the interview Deutsch asked Coulter if she doesn't want any Jews in the world:
Coulter: No, we think - we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
Deutsch : Wow, you didn't really say that, did you ?
Coulter: Yeah, no, That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners.

Deutsch said he was personally offended.

Coulter: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe - this is just a statement of what the New Testament is - is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

Deutsch continued to call Coulter's comments anti-semetic.

Coulter: No, no, - I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [the late Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins". We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

Now, Ann Coulter is a pretty blunt speaker here, as usual, but what bigoted and hateful remarks did she make ? It IS the teaching of Jesus that Christianity is the true religion. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me". Does that make Jesus an anti-Semitic hate-filled bigot too ? Jesus said he was the fulfillment of scripture, which is Jewish scripture. That is what Christians have to believe if they are to be Christians at all. Is it now bigotry to espouse Christianity ? Or are you allowed to be a Christian as long you shut the heck up about it ? I don't think Jesus was in favor of that either, or he wouldn't have given all those sermons, and the Apostles wouldn't have gone out to spread the word following his death, regardless of how politically incorrect it was, either then or now.

Or maybe, in this brave new world of moral relativity, equal validity of all views, and no absolute truth, you are allowed to say you are a Christian, as long as you don't really believe it, like certain presidential aspirants who get coached on how to fake religiosity so they can fool the bumpkins out in the heartlands of america into voting for them, not that I'm accusing any of our candidates of that (Hillary).