Monthly Archives: April 2009

Whoa Nellie! Guess which liberal Pol made this statement regarding “torture” in 2004

I realize that where one stands on an issue sometimes depends upon thefoxholelogopolitics at the time. I KNOW many liberals believe that “torture” is a moral issue and that only people that they consider to be conservative kooks like me thought this way.

I think there are probably very few people in this [Congressional hearing] room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: if we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believe that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most Senators, maybe all, would do what you have to do. So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the fox hole, it’s a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President’s in the fox-hole every day. So he can hardly be blamed for asking you, or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense, to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows and when the law allows it, and what there is permission to do.”  [Answer below the fold.] Continue reading

Republicans OPPOSE Democrat plan that could save thousands, maybe tens of thousands, from a fiery death

THIS IS NEWS THAT YOU WILL NOT SEE REPORTED ON ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE NET!  THIS ARTICLE IS A SMASH MOUTH EXCLUSIVE!This is absolutely gutless by the Republicans–the “party of no”–who refuse party-of-no-jsh021809dapcto enact legislation that may save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, and, without too much imagination, literally millions of lives.  The Pub opposition is not based upon economics. This  plan by the Democrats would not cost anything. Nor is the Republican opposition based upon effectiveness of this Democrat plan: The means of implementing this life-saving legislation already exist and have already been proven effective.

The problem is that this program proposed by the Democrats is arguably illegal.  The Democrats–and reasonably so–merely want their plan to be made legal.  Many opponents of the plan argue that, under current law, the plan proposed by the Democrats violates existing law.  Strident opponents even argue that the proposed plan is immoral.  Many so-called “social conservative” Republican opponents of the Democrat plan argue that the current law prevents abuses that might occur if the proposals of the Democrats are enacted into law.  And further, they claim that whether abuses occur or not, the lawmakers claim that their personal morality forbids them from voting in favor of such a proposal. 

Several polls over the past few years show public opinion is changing on this topic.  For instance, one poll taken in September, 2008 of “evangelical Christians” showed that the opinion of the persons being polled changed when they were first reminded of “the Golden Rule:” They were more inclined to oppose this Democrat proposal after having first been read “the Golden Rule.” [And by “the Golden Rule” I do not mean “Them with the Gold make the Rules,”  I mean “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”]

A June, 2008 poll showed that a “sizable minority” [44%] of Americans supported the Democrat proposal, up from 36% in a poll taken two years earlier.  

The most vocal opponent of this Democrat proposal is former V.P. Dick Cheney. Democrat operatives claim that Mr. Cheney’s opposition to this proposal shows that he is evil, that he does not care about Americans, that he is unpatriotic, and that he is out of touch with modern society and the Government’s need to protect American citizens. 

Can you guess what this Democrat proposal is?

Continue reading

If I was being interviewed and some ditzy MSM info-babe asked me what newspapers I read…

The honest answer would be none. I haven’t touched an actual newspaper in weeks, maybe months. I have not been a regular reader of real magazines or newspapers in years.   But I am still more well read than anybody I know. Here’s my daily (or ever other day or so if not all daily) reading list, all on the net. Not necessarily in this order: DrudgeReport, Conservative Grapevine, RichmondTimesDispatch, The DailyBeast, Hot Air, The Other McCain, Blognet News (to see what all the Sheeples are up to), TheFlintJournal, TownHall, Newsbusters, Ace of Spades, CNSNews, American Thinker, Digg, Reddit, iowahawk, instapundit, yahoo finance, RealClearPolitics, Patterico’s Pontifications, AOL, and various articles linked to by all of the above. I occasionally go to RushLimbaugh, although he doesn’t have enough info and he doesn’t update it enough for a non-paid user. I go rarely to Michelle Malkin, I don’t like her format. I also weekly or so go to such other places as NewsMax, American Sentinel, and a whole host of various blogs.

I avoid NYTimes like the plague. Never read Newsweek/Times any m0re–used to read them both weekly. I did read the WallStreet Journal daily when it was handy. 

What am I missing? I know liberals would want me to watch Hard Ball and Olberman and listen to PBS, but I think I hear about all the news that is worth knowing about. I actually get surprised whenever any of my acquaintances knows about anything in the news that I haven’t already heard about. But I always have the feeling that there are better or more up do date options out there. Anybody care to share any wonderful sources of info that you regularly use?

Smash Mouth Politics is six months old

We will get over 10,000 views this month. Sorry to all whom I have offended. Thanks to all who come here to read and to share. This photograph shows how the number of views per month has been doubling month over month, except for a couple of hiccups.   


If certain Virginia bloggers were in Miss California’s shoes when asked The Question

“Should same-sex marriage be legalized?”Miss USA

SWAC Girl: “The forsythia are blooming in Augusta County, and have you seen my latest sunset photos of the mountains behind my house?”

Loudoun Insider: “I would rather not discuss my personal beliefs.  I think that we should not discuss morals or social issues. The only thing that matters is fiscal issues. Will you change the question and ask me about whether we should raise taxes?” 

Vivian Paige: “Well, let me read an article written fifty years ago my father, the Rev. C. Thomas Paige, as it appeared in the Tri-State Defender on April 15, 1961…”

Fisherville Mike: “I’m no Carrie Prejean, but I would like to use pictures of  her on my blog. A little Rule 5 action never hurt the sitemeter, doncha know? And let me give a shout out to my bros, ‘The Other McCain’ and his side-kick Smitty!”  

The Richmond Democrat: [First, looks down at his cheat sheet to see what the official Democratic position on the question is.] “The Democrats believe blah blah blah. And Republicans have  horns and are evil blah blah blah.”

Belowthebeltway: “Does this dress make me look fat? Perez, you are one of my heroes. Are you making a pass at me?”

Smash Mouth Politics: “Fuck no. And you are an idiot for even asking the question. You faggot. You want some of this?  Come on up here, girly-boy.”

Obama’s popularity lower than George W. Bush’s after 100 days

The world’s greatest teleprompted One, beloved by the entire world, shined upon by heaven, The One Who Bows to Saudi Kings, has a lower popularity rating than GWB, Jimmy Carter, and Nixon.  But you know those polls must be wrong. He is the Obamassiah!

Should President Obama be prosecuted for “war crimes”?

Ted Olsen raises a good point: “If it’s prosecutable because black_bananaswe waterboarded somebody or deprived him of sleep, what about sending a drone to blow him up without a trial or a hearing?” Olson asked. “What if the person we blew up was carrying a three-year old child? We know things like that have happened. We know innocent people have been killed. We know this administration has done it. Are they going to be prosecuted for that?”

Oh, no! We selectively enforce the laws here in the U.S.A., depending upon who is currently in power. See “Definition of Banana Republic.”