President Obama, a man who loves to make his own country look as bad as he can, has approved of the release of documents detailing interrogation methods used on terror suspects. There are many good, decent, honest citizens living in our country with great respect for our land and the law.  Personally, I do respect the law, and strive never to break it, the worst I've ever broken the law is when I got a ticket for going through a red light, and I will admit to speeding anywhere from 5 to 10 miles an hour above posted limits.  While I always do my best to abide by the law..., if it comes down to having to make a choice ..., I would say that I love and respect the freedom and life of my fellow countrymen more than I love and respect the exact letter of the law of the land, and so my view is in that regard when it comes to interrogation of captured terrorists or suspects. For the sake of moving past the surface debate, I will concede the point of view of those who wish to call interrogation methods like waterboarding torture.  For me, it's irrelevent in that matter. For me, if it comes down to being the only remaining option then I don't care if our CIA or military have to skin the captured "combatants"  alive to get them to cough up information. And if they don't... and they die while being "tortured" ... then that's one less vile beast out roaming the wilderness who will try sinking its fangs into my neighbors and family or blow up one or more of our courageous soldiers on the battlefield. Should the law be changed to allow torture of captured terrorists if other methods of interrogation fail?  Absolutley. The sooner the better. Should torture be an option now to potentially be used on captured terrorists and terror suspects, while the law technically forbids it?  Absolutely, if that's what it takes. But those who do so while it is illegal, should be prepared to take the potential risk of being tried and imprisoned for breaking the law.  And I am certain the list of volunteers willing to take that chance would be long enough to encircle the globe. For his part, Obama at least did the right thing in saying there would be no prosecution of those who already engaged "torture" interrogations. Obama calls it a "dark and painful chapter in our history" while ignoring how it saved lives and that is was never the first option.   I have seen enough unclassified material on the results of intelligence gained through "torture" to feel confident it has worked enough times successfully, not in every case, but then we have experts in the field of interrogation who should be able to determine the candidate on whom it would work best and , of course,  it should only be used as a last resort.  When all other methods of gaining intelligence have failed, and only when there is substantive reason to believe the individual facing it has covert knowledge that can save our lives. And just to be very clear, this is in regard to captured "combatants" at Guantanamo prison who, in my humble opinion, do not, and should not,  fall under the protection of the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. 
 

- Mike Silverman

Many people lately have been discussing the DHS ( Department Of Homeland Security ) report on the alleged threat from people who are basically Conservative issue folks. The report is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment".

 I read this report recently and the report singles out three big issues that are alleged to be indications of potential threats to the country because they may spur people who are concerned about these issues to violence.

The issues are;

Increased Gun Control, lack of action on the problem of increasing illegal aliens, and expansion of government control. And yes... Right To life as well.

These are looked at as extremist issues in this report. Now here's the really withering part..., and the most significant part ... you need to pay attention to this... a footnote in tiny print at the very bottom of page two of the report says the following in defining who the dangerous right-wing extremists are...,  this is an exact quote from the DHS report...,

 "* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
 
When I read this I felt a wave of absolute disgust and a chilling concern come over me with regard to the attitude and objectives of people in the Obama administration. This definition of who poses the dangers expounded upon this the report is broad in scope and potentially inciteful in context. This is what has most people outraged. And rightfully so.
 
The news media, excepting FOX news, yesterday tried to basically lump the Tea Party protests in with the violent extremists that report from the DHS was meant to warn law enforcement about. But all that the liberal press needs to do is look at many of the liberal protests that take place in our country and make a fair comparison. They would see that by comparison, the Conservative issue concerns being expressed at the Tea Parties were handled much differently.

  Look at some of the truly nasty left wing protest groups who interrupt military funerals, throw condoms at priests, rant and rave and scream with hateful rhetoric... and compare that to the Tea Party protest groups yesterday who were wildly enthusiastic while also presenting an image of respect and maturity in a reasonably controlled atmosphere for thier cause without the vicious name calling and hanging effigies that you would see in more liberal types of protests... which type of rally presents a more dangerous uncontrolled atmosphere? The most negative and vicious attacks coming out of the tea parties was from the left wing media who were there to try to throw a monkey wrench into the works and spin the protests as crazy kook fringe nuts who had no case. 
 
- Mike Silverman

Recently, on his little world tour including the G20 economic summit in London, President Barack Obama said to the gathered European socialists that his country, we..., the United States Of America.., have been arrogant.  That we need to practice humility.

United States citizens gave approximately 306 billion dollars to charity in 2007, more than at any time in our country's history according to the center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
 
Is that arrogance, Mr. President...?

According to the government agency USAID which works through the State Department to aid countries who have suffered disasters or extreme poverty, The Us provided $1,620,422,634 in food and related assistance worldwide in 2007, $1,475,127,549 in 2008.
 
Arrogance, Mr. President...?  We need to practice humility, Mr. President?
 
Countless thousands of United States soldiers, our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, spilt blood and died defending freedom in foreign countries in defense of our values of freedom at home.
 
Yet, you say We are arrogant, Mr. President...?

The crux of the debate regarding GM and Chrysler and AIG and all the others is not the minutia of should the CEO be fired or not, the debate is on the principles of government's role versus the role of private business.  If we don't look at that, then we lose to the central planners, to the big government socialists who want our attention diverted precisely to the smaller argument of who should be running GM at the top, and the bonuses at AIG, and not the debacle of government taking over operations of privately owned business. I know it's difficult , with all the excitement and controversy, to step back and keep the big picture in focus, but if we lose that big picture we lose everything. This not a random romp by government egos who are trying to help one or two businesses stay afloat, this is nothing short of a complete flip of the government's role in limited interference. You have to understand that our freedom as citizens depends entirely on a very limited role of a central government. Up until the Obama Presidency, we have had some measure of restraint on this front. There has been a weak, but maintained modicum , a spark of respect for the principles of self determination and freedom to succeed or fail, allowing capitalism to absorb the failures and make successes from them.   But mass ignorance, driven by populist emotions have carried a radical socialist to the highest chair in government, and given him a fully functional right and left arm in the Senate and the House or Representatives that are working in conjunction with him put a hangman's noose around the necks of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and all the founders of our nation whose brilliance long ago gave us a foundation of freedom to grow a nation upon. We are fast forgetting what freedom is and what it means to lose it.   It was those great figures from our past who declared their freedom from a self ordained Monarch, a singular power-grabbing authority who in some ways is very like Barack Obama today. The founders of our nation were willing to fight to have their freedom from an oppressive King and to be able to choose their own destinies, to rise or fall by the merit of their individual efforts rather than to have their futures and lives determined by an overlord. The fight is not about whether AIG should give out bonuses, or GM should lose it's CEO, it's about whether we rule ourselves, or the government rules us.  It's about whether we declare for freedom, or lay down and let the central government crush us under it's boot heel. We need to remember how to be free, and not willingly tie puppet strings to our own arms and legs and let our government play us like fools in a side show in the name of saving us from ourselves.

- Mike Silverman

 
The Declaration of Independence: ( WITH NOTES ADDED BY ME... in parenthesis)

 This first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence lays out the basic reasons for pursuing redress of grievances against a government that has gone out of control.  My notes inserted into it were meant simply to point out the modern equivalence of some of those grievances. It seems that  far too many of our elected leaders have forgotten or forsaken the principles and ideas of our nation's founding. We have a governing body now that seems to have lost its way from the principles primarily embodied in the right to liberty. Freedom. From freedom all the rest of it becomes possible.
 
- Mike Silverman