No references to blonde attention whores here since April 1. And my blog has not sunk into oblivion yet. But I sure feel good about it. Go figure.
But bad mouth America, and Obama sits there like a little lawn jockey. How dare President Ahmadinejad call Israel “racist.” But listen to a fifty minute speech by Daniel Ortega about how rotten the United States of America is, and how Cuba is just a peaceful little country that is fighting for its independence and The Crown Prince of Darkness Himself just sits there and enjoys it–and gets a Hugo Chavez book as a present to boot. He can’t help it–hates America just as much as Chavez and Ortega do.
Would Jesus torture? Or would Jesus authorize the use of torture under any circumstances? To ask the question settles it in the minds of many who are only vaguely familiar with the Bible and church doctrine. But the answer is not so simple.
First, would Jesus kill, or want his followers to kill? I believe that the answer is definitively yes. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God…and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Some deduce from his “second commandment” that Jesus therefore would never, under any circumstances, kill anyone, or want his followers to kill anyone. However, that is a simplistic view of “love your neighbor.” Are you “loving your neighbor” if you allow terrorists to break into their house and kill them? Are you loving your own family if you allow that to happen to them? Sure, killing somebody in those circumstances is not exhibiting love towards the evil doer, but it sure is a godsend to the victims. So yes, absolutely, I say that Jesus would kill or authorize killing under the proper circumstances.
From that premise it is but a small leap for me to conclude that he would torture or authorize his followers to torture, under certain circumstances. Certainly, if a life-and-death emergency existed (such as a “ticking time bomb” scenario) and lives could be saved by torture and nothing else. If Jesus would authorize killing a human to save a life, certainly he would authorize torture–a lessor punishment than death–in the same circumstances. Continue reading
A little Rule 5 action (I don’t do nudes or, hopefully, anything that is in poor taste, FYI). Continue reading
Liberals are doing what they do best in regards to the enhanced interrogation performed on terror suspects during the Bush Administration. They are lying. The mere fact that the memos recently de-classified by the Obama Administration are almost universally called the “Torture Memos” should tell you everything that you need to know about the liberals. Instead of debating whether in fact the CIA under the Bush Administration did indeed “torture” suspects, the liberals jump to the conclusion that they did and move on from there. And then they repeat the lie repeatedly ad infinitum until the masses–who are uninformed or inattentive–come to accept it as the truth. “Torture Memos” is the current version of “Bush lied, troops died.” Both are bold-faced lies or at least unproven assertions that are just repeatedly passed off as truth by the liars on the left.
“Torture” is indeed illegal in the United States. But what exactly is “torture” is open to debate. Liberals do not bother determining whether a particular act–such as “water-boarding” as practiced by our agents– is indeed “torture.” They merely claim that it is and then move on from there. But our Government has been “waterboarding” selected members of our armed forces for years. Are we “torturing” our own troops? Or could it be that waterboarding isn’t really torture? I realize that reasonable persons–and I exclude most liberals from that definition–can disagree on what is and is not “torture.” But I do not defer to liberals’ idea of what is and is not “torture.” They are no more enlightened nor reasonable nor an authority than I am or than you are to determine what is torture.
I say let’s have the debate about what is and is not torture, and then pass laws specifically outlawing certain techniques if we have a consensus. But let’s not outlaw actions taken in the past, which were made in good faith by good people who were trying to protect our nation from terror. Sure, liberals disagree that the Bush Administration acted in good faith. I get that. They also think waterboarding is “torture.” I disagree. But just because they say it is does not make it so.
And certainly whatever we do we should not broadcast to terrorists exactly what we will and will not do to them. Personally, I want the bastards to be uncertain whether we will or will not waterboard them, or even rip their finger nails off, if they don’t cooperate. (Perhaps a little derangement in our President would scare the terrorists, especially if they were not certain what the President would do to them, would be a good thing.) If I were a terrorist, and I knew that the USA could not kill me, inflict permanent psychological or cause severe physical pain to me, I would be less inclined to tell a thing. But that is my personal opinion, and the definition of torture is not just up to me in a republican form of democracy. Neither is it up to any other individual, such as John McCain, nor to groups of mindless liberals.
But I also do not believe waterboarding meets the current legal definition of “Torture.” Here is the U.S. Code which defines “torture.” Waterboarding does not “inflict severe physical pain.” I think everybody would concede that point. The question is whether it inflicts “severe mental pain.” The U.S. Code (linked to above) defines “severe mental pain” thusly: Continue reading