While I may have been duped when a Cudahy police officer emailed me a fake email chain hoax that snopes.com did show was false.  I posted info on the blog stating it was a fake.  It is just too bad CNN doesn’t know about snopes.com or many other checkers.

From news busters

“CNN Duped by Sarah Palin Bikini Photoshops”

CNN got duped! The supposed photo of Sarah Palin in an American flag bikini holding a rifle is a proven photoshop.

Oh well, CNN isn’t known for doing any actual fact-checking.  They leave that to us bloggers.  But, they could at least keep updated on the stuff we debunk.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/09/09/cnn-duped-sarah-palin-bikini-photoshops

When is a flip-flop not a flip-flop?  When the in denial Liberal Democratic Party and its followers says it is not!

Obama remarks on Iraq prompt flip-flop charge.

Sen. John McCain's campaign again called Sen. Barack Obama a flip-flopper after the Democratic candidate held two news conferences to clarify his remarks on the Iraq war.

Obama on Thursday denied that he's shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

However, he told reporters questioning his stance that he will "continue to refine" his policies as warranted.

Full Story

Democrat Barack Obama's appeal to centrist voters has further opened the door to Republican claims his message of change only applies to the positions he has taken in the past.

Full story

While I do not support a Windfall Tax on the oil companies I have been reminded that during the golden years of 1980-1989 of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush had a windfall tax that was signed into to law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.  It is my understand that at any time the sitting president could have taken it out.  It was not taken out until 1989.

When it comes to gas and oil I have to differ with my fellow conservatives.  I have blogged on that fact that I feel ethanol fuel is fine as long as it is not being made by taking away from food, but rather by waste by-products.

I do feel we need to open up more drilling and push for other alternative fuels.  I would even go as far as adding tax breaks and a tax income for startup companies to pioneer in alternates.  Yes, you read that correct a tax.  It would not be an added/new tax, just take a small percent of the federal gas tax that has to be used for roads and like wise and use that money.

 Instead of going to oil companies or chemical companies, this would be for small business looking at R/D.  Once they are gobbled up by a big company, pull the money.  Once they have a product, take the subsidy away.  This would be an incubation for businesses to look for alternate methods and solutions with “seed” money. 

Our economy is truly done on the small companies and this is who needs to help take charge.  Now a few of my friends say to add a windfall tax and use that money to do that very thing.  It sounds appealing, I just don’t know if it would work.

Instead of looking for one fix, we need to attack this from many directions with many different ideas.  We can drill our way out of the problem, but we need to be working on the next step now.  We have to drill now so our economy and that of the people is not damaged beyond repair.  There is noting wrong with make an incentive for the next thing now while we do have plenty of oil rather then wait until there is a real problem.  It has to be a two step process to work correctly for now and the future.

Before I give my views on the highly controversial subject, we should all have an idea of what we are talking about.  Keep in the back of your minds that the terrorists use any means and don’t follow the Geneva Convention, unless they are caught, then they want protection under the Convention.  It is our sons and daughters that get tortured by all means and then killed.  I am not saying we need to lower ourselves to the terrorist’s level, I am just stating a fact!

What is water-boarding?

Water-boarding involves a prisoner being stretched on his back or hung upside down, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face.  He gags almost immediately.

Does it come under a technical definition of torture?

Torture is defined by the 1949 UN Convention against Torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." in order to get information.  The U.S. is signed up to the Convention.  Human rights groups and many governments say that it does constitute torture.  The United States does not agree.

So why has the U.S. used water-boarding?

Because it does not classify water-boarding as torture and regards it an effective method in a small number of cases.  It makes a distinction between "torture,” which it accepts is banned by U.S. and international law, and so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques.”  These include not only water-boarding but sleep deprivation, subjection to cold and long periods of standing, holding your arms out in front of you for extended periods of time, and some slapping. The U.S. feels no physical long-term effects linger.  It works by finding people’s fears and exploiting them.

Isn't the U.S. military banned from using water-boarding?

Yes.  In 2006 a new army manual on collecting intelligence banned torture and degrading treatment, including water-boarding, forced nakedness, hooding and sexual humiliation. The manual's publication followed the scandals at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the passing of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, which prohibited the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees.

So why is the CIA allowed to use it?

President Bush excluded the CIA from the restrictions imposed on the military.  He did so in an executive order in July 2007, which sought to define the American commitment to the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 prohibition on cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment and torture. The order declared that a CIA "program of detention and interrogation" complied with the Geneva Convention. The order listed interrogation methods and practices that are not allowed.  These range all the way from murder and rape to acts of humiliation. The banned methods did not, however, include the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.  In a separate memorandum, President Bush drew up a list of allowed methods, but these have not been made public.

Is water-boarding effective?

A retired CIA agent has said a top al-Qaeda suspect was interrogated using a simulated drowning technique, but that he believes it was justified.  According to John Kiriakou, al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah "broke" within half a minute.  "From that day on, he answered every question," the retired agent said.  "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”  The arguments about the efficacy of water-boarding reflect all arguments about similar methods.  Do they produce information or lies?  Can the information be obtained by other means?  And are they counter-productive?  So far, most information has been very helpful it stopping terrorists attacks.  This information may not have been made available without this technique.

Is water-boarding still used?

According to CIA officials, it has been used three times since 2001 but not since 2003.  The CIA Director General Mike Hayden, who took over in May 2006, indicated that he had taken the technique off a list of approved methods.  I would guess it is still being done.

Are there any moves in the U.S. to ban it by law?

Yes.  The US House of Representatives passed a bill in December 2007 that would ban the CIA from using water-boarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.  The bill has to go before the Senate and could be vetoed by President Bush.  The proposed legislation would require the CIA to follow the rules in the Army Field Manual.  It seeks to remove the ambiguity that surrounds the use of water-boarding.  The U.S. attorney-general has declined to rule on whether the method is torture.

Some say that our “Principles” are compromised using the enhanced interrogation technique of water-boarding.  I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that water-boarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the water-boarding technique.  And I struggle with it.

And as time has passed, and as September 11th has, you know, has moved farther and farther back into history it would be so easy to let down our guard. 

In the end, if it will save lives, not just American lives, but any lives it is worth it.  Is it torture?  Yes, but I will not lose any sleep, nor will I feel my morals and principles compromised.

Source Info

Source Info

Source Info

Source Info

While listening to the Jay Weber show Wednesday May 21, 2008, Jay was talking about how the Democrats have changed after the Vietnam War.  When I would hear my dad talk to and about my Grandpa and how he was a Democrat until after the Vietnam War, I never really understood it.  The Democrats, lead by the Liberals, went on a campaign to hate the military, our military, and work to dismantle it.

It is not the Democrats, but the Liberals that are the problem.  The far left people are the ones that give Democrats a bad name.  In a discussion with fellow blogger Greg Kowalski, I was misinformed that he was a Liberal.  You can be a Democrat and be a Liberal or you can be a Democrat and not be a Liberal.  They are not the same!

Here is a letter from Democrat Joseph Lieberman about his party and a youtube video called “In 52 Secs Why Barack Obama Cannot Win A General Election” that shows Obama's disgust and dismantle of American values.

The far left has taken over the Democrats and have earned the title “Liberals - The Loony Left”.

The Greatest American President in my lifetime so far was once a Democrat, until he felt the Democrats were moving to far off course and switched to become a Fiscally Social Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan was that man.

I have used many of President Ronald Reagan’s quotes and have had some Liberals and Democrats quote their Presidents, but it is the old Democrats that were not far to the left’s quotes.

Please give the letter a read and watch the video even if you are a Democrat or Liberal since they are both from your party.  Give each one the proper thought.

Democrats and Our Enemies

By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

May 21, 2008; Page A19

How did the Democratic Party get here?  How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.  In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders.  It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam.  In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party.  Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest.  Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved.  In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

Of course, that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged.  Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide.  But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world.  Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected.  In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.

This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power.  He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense.

By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions.  The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001.  The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on.  He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life.  If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead, a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush.  I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own.  But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made.  When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.  By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them.  That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments.  Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK.  But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini.  And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez?  I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned, "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”  This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.  This article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine.

In 52 Secs Why Barack Obama Cannot Win A General Election

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States 5-9-08

The high gas prices Milwaukee saw a few years ago (2002-2003), boosting our prices to California prices, was a test by the oil industry to see what price people would still pay for gas.  What better place to test then Milwaukee, Wisconsin a test bed, if it sells here, it will sell elsewhere.  High prices are here to stay, we proved it years ago.

There is enough oil, but we cannot turn it into gas.  The gas refineries do this to fatten the bottom line.  Our problem is the oil companies control the refineries as well.  Gas does not follow the supply and demand that we all learned about in school. 

Oil futures shot to a new record above $100 Tuesday for the first time since Jan. 3 as investors bet prices will keep climbing despite evidence of plentiful supplies and falling demand.

Just a search on Google for “oil jumps” gives us these and more:

Oil jumps more than $2 on U.S. spending report

Oil climbs $2 on surprise drop in supplies

Oil jumps on US stockpile report

Oil jumps 3 percent on supply worries, weak dollar

Oil Jumps on Turkish Iraq Incursion

Oil jumps $4 on central bank move

Oil jumps $4 after pipeline blast

Crude oil jumps $2 barrel on gas concerns

Oil higher on possible strong dollar

Oil jumps more than $1 - Oil pipeline fire kills 2 in Minn.

Oil jumps as Opec refuses to lift production

Crude jumps nearly $3 after mortgage plan; natural gas rallies ...

Oil and Gas jump holiday time

Oil jumps $3 on central bank plan, U.S. stock draw

Oil jumps after attack on U.S. ships, Ecuador halt

Oil jumps to $98 on winter fear - New Jersey Gas Prices

Oil Jumps on News of Nigerian Strike

Oil jumps on tough Iran talk

Oil Jumps As Saudis Shift Policy

Oil jumps $4 after Canada-U.S. pipeline fire

Oil prices push up higher by speculation that there wouldn't be enough when summer driving season begins.  Memorial Day opens that season.  Oil can jump on anything even fear.  Only if the U.S. were in a recession, then it would bring down the price of oil and gas.

It once was if oil moved up so did gas.  That is not necessarily the case now.  Crude oil makes up about 45% of the price of gas; federal, state and local taxes are 23%.  The rest mainly goes to refineries, with a few percent to retailers.

High gas prices raise questions of gouging and when they are found guilty, they get a slap on the wrist.  So where is that money going?  Are profiteers manipulating the market?  Economists say oil producers and refiners, not gas stations, are reaping a windfall.  Judging by history and laws of the market, it will be very hard to find evidence of impropriety if you truly want to look for it.

Collusion: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has investigated the U.S. oil industry several times over the years but did not find that companies worked together to raise gasoline prices.

It is not illegal under U.S. law for a company to act on its own to restrict supplies or close a refinery that may lead to higher pump prices.  Oil companies are also permitted to practice so-called "zone pricing," where they charge different gasoline prices in a specific location or city, which often result in pump costs being higher at service stations located just blocks apart.

Gasoline could go from 10% ethanol up to 20%

Algae for Fast-Growing Biodiesel

A Texas plant scientist and entrepreneur thinks the microscopic algae plant, aka pond scum, could be the next big thing in the energy sector. About 50 percent of an algae plant is oil that could be used to create biodiesel to fuel vehicles.

Glen Kertz's innovation is a patented system called "Vertigro," in which algae is cultivated in long rows of vertically hanging, movable plastic bags.  This system optimizes surface area for growth, yielding 100,000 gallons of oil per year per acre.

Kertz says that cultivating algae is another way to derive useful energy from solar power, and that his solution could help deal with global warming.  Algae plants are among the world's fastest-growing plant species.

More cars use pricier premium gas

Should there be tighter gun controls in the US?

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The idea behind allowing citizens the right to bear arms is a necessary check on government.  The provision of the US constitution that guarantees us this right was not an unintended aspect of this country's beginnings, but rather a deliberate tool of construction.  The direct intention was to establish a check that even the most powerful government could not overcome.  Although gun control may seem specifically applicable in a broader sense, an American gun ownership rights (not an illegal’s right, notice the word illegal, they do not have rights under the Bill of Rights since they are not citizens) is a necessary check.  Gun control alone is not the solution for crime prevention.  The package to achieve the goal should include the control of guns shown in movies or on TV, family guidance and stricter sale of guns (to find those mentally unstable and keep guns out of their hands) with strict background checks for which Congress has only partially addressed.  Gun crimes in the US are more of a moral issue, with a failure at the core level of family values.  We have good gun laws; we only need too enforce them.  More un-enforced laws will not change a thing.

There are more guns per head of population in Sweden and Finland than in the US, but only a tiny fraction of the gun crime.

Why?

The problem is the justice system that continually releases repeat offenders back into society and the overwhelming concern for the criminal’s civil rights, while ignoring how badly the victims and their family’s rights have been violated.  There needs be tighter controls on the politicians and judges who allow this sort of thing to get out of hand in the first place.  Gun laws have gotten stricter for decades.  Gun crimes have increased at the same level.  If these stricter gun laws were working, we would have seen results by now. 

Stricter background checks for the purchase of firearms is a nice idea; unfortunately, this will do nothing to curb their malicious use.  Gun control laws fail because firearms can easily be obtained from sources other than your local gun store.  There are an estimated 200,000,000 unregistered guns in the worldwide black market for criminals to purchase!  Someone planning mass-murder would have no qualms about illegally obtaining semi- or fully automatic weapons, which are plentifully and available from "private" sources.  No matter how well meaning legislation is, twisted killers will never be stopped!

I am a gun owner.  I own 5 rifles and 2 shotguns and no handguns as of yet.  For me, shooting and hunting is a great hobby and an excellent form of exercise.  I eat what I kill.  I respect the law and deeply value life.  I believe all of my family and friends are responsible, safe and cautious gun owners.  Most of us were taught this disciplined behavior by our parents and grandparents back to the founding of the country.  We keep the peace and obey the laws; we are NOT the ones using guns illegally.

If the goal is to reduce gun crime, perhaps instead of the government passing more laws that in effect change nothing, there should be a focus on enforcing the current laws.  Presently, the police are out gunned by criminals with larger more sophisticated weapons, who don’t care about the laws and don’t value human life.  I will happily give up all my guns when the bad people out there can promise the same thing.

While the opinions stated here are mine, they are just that opinions.