Friday, November 10, 2006

Waterbording Exemplified

Don't know what water boarding is... come see and take note that the person who volunteered said he was gagging and scared during it, but that only minutes later he was fine.

It took Khalid Shake Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, twelve-seconds to spill info that led to the break-up of a terrorist attack on the tallest building in L.A.. Mind you, this technique may not be moral (I would never want it to be thought as such either), but it is necessary in this new war that was started in the 70's and we are only now realizing.

If you hit play, and then hit pause (the same button), it will start to load. Once it is done loading you can watch it with no interruptions.

No one has died from it!


From A Debate Some Time Back

Jim Bo, please read the following. I know its long… but consider it homework for the propagandus misleadingus ..

Bush Lied

“Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction,” this seems to be the general consensus that I hear from Democrats/Bush haters about Iraq. This consensus does not take into account the plethora of information from many sources about the weapons program in Iraq by Democrats themselves, and from the world’s intelligence organizations.

For example, if Bush lied about WMDs, then what did Clinton do when he said:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

~ President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Or how about Madeline Albright, John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the like?

"Iraq is a long way from the USA but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

~ Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb. 18, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

~ Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

~ Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

~ Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

~ Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

~ Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

~ Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

~ Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

If Bush lied, then all these persons did as well. You really can't have it both ways. You can't say President Bush lied while Senator Kerry and others, who said the same thing, were being honest.

There is no one who has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German evaluation was even more severe than America's estimates. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

Apparently, bush, while being called a dunce or ignoramus by the left is so intelligently diabolical that he got every intelligence agency - not to mention every Democrat - to lie for him as well. So is Bush still the "dunce of the class," as the left paints him, or is he so intelligent that he fooled the world? Which is it? Or are both views partisan?

If Bush lied, then he must have known there were no weapons in Iraq. There is no such thing as a lie unless you know the truth. If you say you believe something to be true, and it ultimately becomes false, that's not called a "lie," that's called a "mistake" – a mistake made by the CIA (and the world) that was beyond the Bush's control.

However, if Bush truly lied, then he knew there were no WMDs. Why would he do such a thing? That is: knowingly hurt his presidential chances and legacy? If he would be so diabolical as to lie to us about such a thing, why on God's green earth didn't he plant weapons over there. I mean, he's already a liar, right? We have been trampling around over there for quite a while . . . why not plant a weapon or two to set his legacy right?

The logic from the left is woefully lacking! The argument collapses on itself. And when an argument, whether political, religious, scientific, or philosophical, collapses via its own premises and logic (assumed), it is illogical, at best, or a lie itself, at worst.

Now, Jim Bo, has logic, examples, and proof (in the form of the historical record) made you rethink your statement that: "So Bush didn't lie about them? You come from Planet Moron?"

I now wish to deal with your ~ Jim Bo s ~ assertion that "Even the diehards admit that they were never there."

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Legal? Or Illegal?

An aspect that I hear all too often in regards to our entry into Iraq is that it wasn't legal. Is this truly the case?

During the First Gulf War, after the allies chased Saddam out from the fifth country he illegally attacked during his "30-years reign," a cease-fire was brokered by the UN and signed by the United States (Bush Sr.) and Iraq (Saddam).

The cease-fire agreement stipulated that Saddam was to disarm within 45-days of the signing. If not, the war would resume. This is key to our discussion of the Second Gulf War.

Fast forward to the Second War, let us switch gears a bit and discuss WMDs. The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" have a connotation of a military person turning a key that fires a fully operational ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) tipped with a nuclear warhead.

The real analogy should be understood as if you came home one day and found a chef dressed in his white smock replete with hat. In your kitchen you also find mixing spoons, flour, sugar, eggs, baking soda, vanilla, chocolate chips, and the like. You are right to assume that the chef is about to bake something. Just as the US and her allies in the Second Gulf War rightly assumed that Saddam hadn’t given up his WMD program.

Now let's discuss the actual phrase that the administration used to describe what was expected to be found. The words "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was, I believe, the biggest mistake the administration made in our understanding of what we were to find in Iraq. The phrase "Agents of Mass Destruction" (AMD) would have given the "Chef" analogy more legs to stand on.

And "AMDs" is what we found. That is - the chef, the ingredients, all the utensils, just no complete weapon.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The above photograph is of chemical agents used in making AMDs. They were found with a chemist being hidden in a safe house in a suburb of Baghdad. These are the ingredients with the chef, if you will . . . now, where are the utensils?

Below is a photo of lab equipment hidden/found in a mosque, the equivalent to a church.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

These are just a few examples out of the many that show the legality of not a preemptive strike against Iraq, but a resumptive entry into Iraq.

The "war-of-words," however, was not well defined nor defended by this administration. Much to my chagrin.

All this is behind us now . . . however, clearing up an old cliché from the opposition is always relevant to proper thinking on the subject of Iraq.

I will end this subject with a rare but frank admission from the Daily News about Iraq's continued violations of the UN’s resolutions

{Parts of the following are from:">David Kay's report on Iraqi WMDs; Also, Daily News - Sunday Viewpoint, "Altered Reality: Look Past The Dogma and You'll See the WMDs" (October 26, 2003), p. 3}:

>>>> A clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

>>>> A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

>>>> Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

>>>> New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

>>>> Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

>>>> A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

>>>> Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

>>>> Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

>>>> Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.


From: Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror:

>>>> Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

>>>> Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

>>>> Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

>>>> Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

>>>> Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

Updated More

>>>> 500 chemical shells, of which just 15 killed 5,000 people.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Glass Ceilings, Veteran benefits, and Other Liberal Mantras


Okay, a few things and then the point.

In politics, apples are always compared to oranges because the outcome is usually what a politician is looking for. I will give two examples of this comparison and correct them.

The Glass Ceiling
President Clinton said that women make .73 cents on every man's dollar. He used this as a campaign issue to try and smear Republicans. Kerry said that women make .76 cents on every man's dollar, and likewise used this stat as a political smear. The question then is this, are these two persons correct?

YES! If you compare all men to all women, then yes, there is a disparage. This stat doesn't take into account a few things. It doesn't consider the fact that women tend to choose the humanities when entering college and men seem to choose the hard sciences. So by choice women tend to choose professions that pay less. Not only that, when you compare Oranges to Oranges, you get something much different than expected, or that we would expect from the liberal side of things. If a woman and a man have had the same level of education and have been on the same job for an equal amount of time, the woman makes $1,005 while a man makes $1,000, a difference of $5 dollars every thousand dollars a man earns.


Draconian Cuts
During Bush's last run, I heard a lot of politikal talk about Bush cutting veteran benefits by 2-million dollars. "Bush is putting these vets in the poor house, " or, "Bush doesn't care about the military veterans." What is a person suppose to think if Bush is cutting 2-billion dollars out of veteran benefits? Well, as you can see from the graph below, this is merely a play on words/deeds. Bush was originally going to raise the benefits by almost 5-billion, but decided to trim the proposed increase for the next fiscal year by 2-billion. The opposing side took this decrease and used it as if Bush was actually cutting benefits, when in fact he was increasing them by 3-billion. In fact, as shown, Bush seems more compassionate about the veterans than do the opposing sides "cigar aficionado."

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Very similar to the above examples of comparing apples and oranges, many make the same mistake with the deficit. Mind you, I do not support Bush's spending habits, they are reminiscent of what Democrats always do when in office. Besides spending on the war on terror, I would take issue with much of Bush's increases of spending on education, farm-subsidies, Medical spending, and the like. He's a drunken sailor!

Take note that while the Democrats will take issue with Bush's spending habits, they would spend more... this is a tactic to try and dissuade Bush's fiscally conservative supporters from voting for him again (last election cycle) or to cause panic in our fiscally conservative base to vote for another "Ross Perot" so another "Clinton" can make it into office. Politics is about winning.

Even my critique of Bush is somewhat apples and oranges, what's the truth? I will quote from an article that will explain the situation in a more apple vs. apple friendly manner (*as I am not an economist):


Over the next few weeks, the unveiling of new budget forecasts, as well as President Bushs budget proposal, will be followed by predictable, sky-is-falling coverage of the "record budget deficits" that threaten to force up interest rates and devastate the economy. Many people will say that only tax increases can avert this calamity.

Don't believe them.

America's debt burden is actually below the post-World War II average. In fact, its lower than at any time during the high-flying 1990s.....

The misunderstanding flows from the obsessive focus on the budget deficit, which is not the proper measure of the debt burden. Here's why: Suppose a family borrows $5, 000 this year. Are they carrying too much debt? Answering that question requires knowing how much debt the family is already carrying. If they owe $95, 000 from previous borrowing, then the additional $5, 000 is less affordable than if the family had no prior debt.

The family's income also needs to be known. A debt of $100, 000 is easily manageable for Bill Gates, but not for many lower-income families.

The proper way to measure the impact of borrowing is to consider the total debt as a percentage of income. Banks use this "debt ratio" to determine how large of a loan families and business can afford. The same common sense applies to measuring the federal government's finances. Last year's $413 billion budget deficit says no more about Washington's debt burden than the $5, 000 loan says about a family's debt burden.

A better measure is the federal government's debt ratio, calculated as the total federal publicly held debt as a percentage of Americas annual income (the gross domestic product). The current debt ratio -- 38 percent -- is actually below the post-World War II average of 43 percent. America's debt burden is low by historical standards.

Heavy borrowing during World War II pushed the debt ratio up from 40 percent to 109 percent. Since then, it has typically ranged between 25 percent and 50 percent. The plummeting post-war debt ratio is no mystery: Economic growth has dwarfed the amount of new debt. Since 1946, inflation-adjusted federal debt has grown by 84 percent, while the economy has surged 429 percent. Just like a family with rising income can afford to buy a more expensive home and take on more mortgage debt, the growing American economy has been able to easily absorb its modest new debt.

This is especially true since 1994, a period in which the economy has grown six-times as fast as the federal debt. This kept the 2004 debt ratio lower than it was at any point in the 1990s.

(NRO Article)


So when we compare apples with apples, Bush comes out looking better than even his predecessor, Clinton. I always say: context, context, context! Whether in religious statements, or political, context is always key.

Papa Giorgio (class dismissed)

Monday, November 06, 2006


I’ll Be Back/Gova’nator

Lieutenant Governor

Tom McClintock

Secretary of State

Bruce McPhearson

State Controller

Tony Strickland

Insurance Commissioner

Steve Poizner

Attorney General

Chuck Poochigian

State Treasurer

Claude Parrish

Board of Equalization

Michelle Steel

Propositions (Yes=Y / No=N)

1A – Y

1B – Y

1C – N

1D – N

1E – Y

83 – Y

84 – N

85 – Y

86 – N

87 – N

88 – N

89 – N

90 – Y

(City of San Clemente Referendum – Y)

Superior Court Judge – support…

Office 8: Deborah L. Sanchez

Office 18: Davianne L. Mitchell

Office 102: Hayden Zacky

Office 144: David W. Stuart

Supreme Court Justice

Joyce L. Kennard – No

Carol A. Corrigan – No

Court of Appeal Justice

2nd Appellate District

Division One

Robert M. Mallano – No

Frances Rothschild – No

Division Two

Roger W. Boren – Yes

Victoria M. Chavez – Yes

Division Three

Patti S. kitching – No

Richard D. Aldrich – Yes

Division Four

Norman L. Epstein – Yes

Thomas L. Willhite – Yes

Nora M. Manella – No

Steven Suzukawa – Yes

Division Five

Richard M. Mosk – No

Sandy R. Kriegler – No

Division Six

Arthur Gilbert – No

Division Seven

Dennis m. Perluss – No

Fred Woods – Yes

Laurie D. Zelon – No

Division Eight

Candace D. Cooper – Yes

Madeleine Flier - No

City of L.A. Propositions

Prop H – No

Prop J – Y

Prop R – No


Water Replenishment District Div. 4

Sergio J. Calderon

West Basin Municipal Water Dist. Div 1

Ronald C. “Ron” Smith

Cetral Basin Municipal Water Dist. Div. 3

Arturo Chacon

West Basin Municipal Water Dist. Div. 4

Paul Koretz