THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Once again, a left wing columnist that reflexively dislikes President George W. Bush has decided to criticize him and his administration as supporting torture.

Once again, the Tygrrrr Express has to take on the role of being an unofficial ombudsman to prevent a liberal position from being accepted as truthful.

Below is the article.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/jewschoose2008/item/torture_what_did_we_know_and_when_did_we_know_it_20080627/

Allow me to offer the least delightful passages of the above link before ripping them to shreds in what I can only describe as a mercy killing.

“The story of torture as US government policy is one of the most shameful episodes in American history…”

No, that would be slavery, with the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II coming a close second. Both of those were enacted and enforced by democrats.

“Democrats are scared of appearing weak on terror.”

Gee, I wonder why.

“Even when it was revealed this year that a committee of top Bush administration officials went to Guantanamo to supervise torture, and when the president acknowledged that he knew of and approved of this committee’s work, we were still told by the president a few days later that it was all the responsibility of a few errant soldiers.”

Guantanamo Bay is like the Poconos (Big Bear for those of you not familiar with East Coast Culture), except with nicer weather.

“Finally, though, we have to ask: who are these people? How did a small band of fanatics get themselves into position to so pervert America’s ideals? How did they run roughshod over the protests of those in the military and law enforcement communities who protested, much more than Congress did? Do these people bear some responsibility for their actions for which they should be held to account? Do we?”

Apparently the author does not believe in elections. Then again, perhaps he was referring to Moveon.org, at which point I would completely agree with him. Nobody elected them.

“There is something about torture that is profoundly hostile to Jewish tradition. To me, torture has always gone hand in hand with superstition, the Dark Ages, ignorance, absolute authority, terror, and intolerance. I see the rack, straining horses, and the other tools of official torture. I always associate torture with the Inquisition, which in the old phrase, was not good for the Jews.”

I associated every woman who agreed to meet me for dinner as wishing to have sex with me. Thinking does not make it so.

Without offering any more words from the other column, which truly would be torture, here is some piercing logic.

The arguments made in the other column are disingenuous. Examples of “Torture” include the rack, thumbscrews, and cutting off limbs and other body parts. The United States does not behead people, nor do we burn our enemies with cigarettes. I wish our enemies were as civilized and decent as we are.

Coercive interrogation methods save lives. Stress positions, altering room temperatures, sleep deprivation, and playing loud music are not torture.

As for waterboarding, the United States has never killed anybody using this method. It has only been used on three people, one of them being 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. This broke him, and led to the disruption of other plots.

The occurrences such as Abu Gharaib were less serious than what kids suffer at various Summer camps, and college students suffer at fraternities. Our soldiers gave the prisoners the equivalent of “wet willies” or “zerberts.” Nevertheless, we conducted an investigation, and the people responsible were punished. We also apologized. I am still waiting for the murderers of Daniel Pearl to apologize.

We are nothing like our enemies. We are not even close. We do not torture. We do use coercive interrogation methods.

Personally, I think we should force the terrorists to listen to Helen Reddy sing, “I am woman, hear me roar.” On so many levels, that would be justice. Even liberals would not find this a violation of the eight amendment.

I once asked former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney why we shouldn’t just simply have a public list of what does and does not constitute torture. Like abortion, guns, and other issues, there are shades of gray. Why not just make the issue black and white?

Mr. Romney’s answer was perfect, and it instantly swayed me.

He pointed out that my suggestion to define torture would tell our enemies exactly what we did and did not do. We have to leave the language ambiguous to keep our enemies off balance.

While this answer might not satisfy people who want clearly defined parameters, Mr. Romeny’s answer is still sensible and correct.

Besides, my father used to tell me that the music I listened to tortured him and my mother. My attitude was that if rock music was good enough to bring down Manuel Noriega, it was good enough for me to have a small amount of power in a house that was never a democracy.

One issue that is rarely discussed is the issue of turning a blind eye to the practices of our allies. If we have a captured terrorist, and he refuses to talk, could and should we turn him over to an ally, such as Pakistan, that may use harsh interrogation techniques, and perhaps, even real torture?

Sure. Absolutely. At the very least, this should be a bargaining chip. After all, once we walk out of the room, our hands are sparkling clean. Many mothers simply tell the child that things will get ugly when their father gets home. The message gets through.

Plus, liberals love a humble foreign policy. Who are we to tell other nations not to torture terrorists? Their countries have their laws. They are unconstrained by the ACLU. I wonder what that must be like.

The terrorists do not distinguish between liberal democrats and conservative republicans. They want to kill us all. It would be nice if liberals would stop helping them achieve their objectives.

Americans are good people. We do not torture. We use coercive interrogation methods, and we save lives.

As an American who wants to win the Global War on Terror, which again is Islamofacism, I accept the thanks of the world. You are more than welcome.

eric

One person I have had the pleasure to get to know over the last couple years is Jonathan Hoenig. He runs a hedge fund known as Capitalist Pig Asset Management. As his name suggests, he is an unabashed unashamed capitalist who worships at the altar of Ayn Rand and free markets everywhere.

I have had several conversations with him over drinks and over the telephone. Those conversations are off the record. I consider him a friend, and look forward to sharing drinks with him again the next time I am in his neck of the woods. I will be doing an interview with him shortly, with a heavy part of the interview focusing on oil.

Yet today the focus is on the latest attempt by elitist liberals to convince other Americans that the left are not a bunch of liars, hypocrites and screwups. The most recent liberal lie comes in the form of carbon credits.

Before getting to a brilliant article by Mr. Hoenig, a little background is necessary.

Carbon credits, also known as carbon offsets, are basically screwup credits. It is equivalent to buying indulgences to get into Heaven, rather than actually doing good deeds.

The way a carbon credit works is as follows. Many limousine liberals, or in this century, lear jet liberals, use a ton of excess energy that supposedly hurts the planet. Rather than cut back on this energy usage, these gasbags purchase carbon credits, which are promises for other people to use less energy.

Why not have Hollywood celebrities throw lavish banquets with fancy food that goes uneaten and gets thrown away while people in third world countries eat less and starve to death? Actually that already happens, but if these celebrities gave food credits, the poor nations and their people would be paid to not eat.

An even better example would be a murderer sitting in prison for the rest of his life. The prisoner then finds out somehow that some innocent human being needs a kidney transplant. The murderer donates a kidney, saving the innocent person. Newspapers love these feel good stories. Liberals hail the story of how a man could take a life, and then give one. He is now neutral.

How about being life positive? How about not being a murderer to begin with?

Why can’t these leftist greeniacs just use less energy and convince others to use less energy, and be carbon positive?

The reason is because then these people would not be liberals.

I am not against energy usage. I am against others telling me how to live, when they live in the very same way, with greater excess.

It’s the hypocrisy stupid.

Now comes the investment world getting into the act. We are living in exciting times, and virtually anything can be wrapped into a financial product of some sort.

The other day, people had a chance to purchase shares in a carbon offset financial product with the simplicity of purchasing a stock.

http://selectdl.staging.smartmoney.com/tradecraft/index.cfm?story=20080626-carbon-credit-trading&adv=articles&advtype=Tradecraft

So how many million shares traded on the first day of trading?

100.

100 million is pretty impressive. However, I did not say 100 million. I said exactly 100 shares.

With all the money in this world, 100 shares traded.

Here are some observations by Mr. Hoenig.

“WITH A WHOPPING 100 shares traded its first day, the iPath Global Carbon ETN (GRN: 50.20, +0.58, +1.16%) got off to a quiet but historic start on Wednesday. The exchange-traded note tracks the Barclays Capital Global Carbon Index, one benchmark of the quickly growing carbon credit market. With exchange-traded notes and funds on everything from platinum to pork bellies launched in recent months, this unequivocally takes the prize as the most obscure.

What’s worrisome about the notes, and “carbon finance” in general, is that the cap on carbon emissions is totally manmade and, unlike an investment in a bond or stock, serves no economic purpose whatsoever. The value of these worthless slips of paper is only what governments, spurred on by what I consider environmental heretics, dictate they are.

Even iPath’s promotional material admits it, stating clearly on page 7 that “the regulatory environment is the main driver of both supply and demand. If regulations change, increasing (or decreasing) supply, it will subsequently affect the market price of carbon credits.”

If you think the market for crude oil is manipulated by powerful interests, then consider carbon finance to be the ultimate rigged game. Carbon credits trade, by definition, on the whim of a regulator. In reality, there is no limit to carbon-based economic activity and no economic purposes served by passing out worthless credits. “Cap-and-trade” is simply a tax dressed up to appear like a free-market solution. But with the government behind the scenes pulling the strings for both supply and demand, there’s nothing free market about it. Tree-hugging politicians, egged on by the environmental lobby, will make up the rules as they go along.”

The bottom line is that the left knows that they are wrong. They just don’t care. Government regulation is not the means to a policy. Government regulation is the end result itself. Regulation equals power. It is control.

The left simply does not believe in the concepts of supply and demand. Liberals truly believe that governments function better at setting prices than free markets.

This is why liberals try to shut down conservative talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine. They tried competing with entities such as Air America. They failed in the marketplace.

Liberals try to get the government to regulate the game because they have colossally failed at it themselves. Lose an election? So what. It only takes one left wing activist judge to overturn most elections.

I am a conservative. I support big tobacco, big oil, big guns, big alcohol, and big red meat. I do not drink alcohol or smoke, but I support the right of the companies to engage in commerce in legal products.

The problem is not with liberals that want to ban everything (Ironically they do not want to ban abortion. After all, why bring a child into the world if it will be strangled by the government anyway.). Those people are bad enough. The problem is with the liberals that want to ban everything for everybody else while partaking in those supposed sins themselves.

When a right wing politician spends his life proposing anti-gay legislation, and then is discovered to be gay, the wolves and jackals in the media exact their pound of hypocritical flesh.

Yet crickets chirp when a left wing columnist is found possessing a handgun to defend himself while writing columns about why citizens should not own handguns.

The crickets chirp even louder when environmentalists gather on college campuses to bash President Bush, Dick Cheney, and big oil, right before leaving their signs on the lawn to ruin the grass as they head to their next rally.

Crickets chirp at the sound of a sonic boom when leftists at peace rallies shout antisemitic epithets and other obscenities linking President Bush to Hitler, all in the name of peace.

Carbon Credits is not the biggest liberal lie. After all, the Clintons did not come up with the idea.

Yet it is the most current liberal lie. Luckily, once this investment idea fails, liberals will get bored, and start wearing a new color ribbon to support the newest social cause that they know nothing about, and will soon not care about.

The idea will fail because liberals don’t actually care about these things when the cameras are off. The idea will also fail because people do not want to invest in a market unless it is a truly free market.

eric

Oil. O-I-L. Awl. Black Gold. Texas Tea.

The following scene took place in the 1990s.

J.R. Ewing: “With Bobby back in the oil business, and your mom back at the ranch, you get to learn about the business from the greatest oilman in Texas.”

John Ross: “Gee dad, the way you talk it almost sounds like you planned it.”

J.R.: “You see John Ross. You’re learning already.”

Dun, dun dun, dun dun dun dun dun dun, dun dun dun, dun dun dun…dun dun dun, dun dun dun, dun dun dun, dun dun dun dun dun, dun dun…

Man I miss “Dallas.” From the opening credits with the gusher to the view of Texas Stadium and the Cowboys, Friday nights were about Larry Hagman wheeling, dealing and stealing in the world of oil.

“Let’s not waste any time. I’ve got a town to take back.”

Yet while art can imitate life, there is nothing glamorous for many people about the sky high price of oil, or as we in the business call it, the barrel of light, sweet crude.

First of awl, I mean all, I work with oil brokers. Yes, life is pretty d@ng sweet right now indeed.

Nevertheless, many are crying over the high prices of oil. While suffering is legitimate, profits are not equal to greed. High prices do not mean collusion, price gouging, or any illegality of any kind.

For those who think I am a shill for Shell, an excuse maker for Exxon, or a cheerful chirper for Chevron, hear me clearly. I am absolutely a rah rah cheerleader for letting legal business make as much money as possible legally.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/forcing_oil_companies_to_subsi.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/lets_shoot_the_speculators.html

http://www.rjchq.org/Events.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=852

There are several ways to bring down the price of oil, as if that must happen for all to be right with the world. The first way is to heed the wisdom of Sir Charles of Krauthammer.

“In its search for scapegoats, Congress seems unable to understand what the futures markets are for. It’s a place where risk is traded. If you are an airline or trucker and you want to know what the price of oil will be in a year or two because it fluctuates, you buy a contract so that you don’t have a risk. There’s somebody at the other end with a lot of money who can gamble who purchases that risk, so one side is acquiring certainty and the other is acquiring a risk and making a profit, but with a risk that he can actually lose if the price will decline.

The minute you intervene in the markets as the democrats and a few republicans as well want to do in the Congress you are going to create situations in which people will not be able to unload risk who need it and want, to which is insane…that’s why you have these markets and liquidity will dry up.

I think Congress are being unreasonable pikers here. If you want to bring down the price of oil, you do what you suggested at the top of the show. You abolish the law of supply and demand. Just repeal it. I mean who passed that law anyway?

I am sure democrats would insist on those making $20,000 per year. The House will pass a law repealing the law of supply. The Senate will give us a law repealing the law of demand, and they’ll get it done together in conference with a majority. I am sure that the President will not override…no, he will stand.”

Capitalist Pig Jonathan Hoenig offered his own tactless solution, another reason to like this guy.

“If you want to bring down the price of oil, just blow up Iran.”

For those who find this approach barbaric, sit down and sing Kumbaya while I explain the logic.

Iran is a terrorist nation run by terrorists. They are the ones who took American citizens as hostages for 444 days. President Armageddonijad was one of the hostage takers. These people refer to America as the Great Satan, and refer to us as imperialists.

They have no idea what imperialism is. We should show them imperialism. We should blow up the palaces where the Mullahs live, and simply seize the oil. That’s right. We should just take it.

Some will say that we cannot take it because it does not belong to us. So the heck what? They did not have to kidnap our soldiers. They have been at war with us for 30 years, and to the victors go the spoils.

Oil companies are not the enemy. The enemy is OPEC, and the various Arab Governments that allow these less than human beings blackmail the world. American oil companies are on our side.

Yes, we need to develop other energy sources. Yes, we should drill everywhere and anywhere, every second of the day. We should drill on the foreheads of teenagers and suck oil off of their faces if that works. We can drill holes in the heads of liberal members of Congress. We might find waste in there, which can be used to make fuel.

What we cannot and should not do is blame speculators for playing by the same rules as everybody else. Speculation did not begin in the 21st century. Supply and demand has been around forever. Speculation is as old as the hills.

Yes, greedy speculators are now the replacement for greedy bankers, greedy mortgage lenders, and every other person that has the nerve to get rich by being more enterprising than the person complaining from the sidelines.

For those who have a problem with speculators, I have several questions.

Do you own at least one share of stock? If so, liquidate it. You are a speculator, and have no right to own it.

Do you have an IRA or a 401k? Sell it. You are greedy.

Have you ever gone to Las Vegas, Atlantic City, or Gulfport, and played any casino games? If so, you must cease immediately.

Have you ever gone to OTB, Aqueduct, or Belmont or Roosevelt Raceway? You must stop attending these places immediately.

Have you ever bet on a sporting event, such as football? If so, you are a greedy speculator trying to earn profits.

The above scenarios are all examples of taking risks. Taking risks is what this nation was founded upon.

Have you ever tried to start a small business? You are taking a risk.

The greater the risk, the greater the reward. Nobody is forced to take risks.

Ok. Fine, some people say. People have a right to make profits. They should just not make obscene profits. They should not make excessive profits. They should not make unreasonable profits.

Who the bloody hades has the right to decide that somebody else’s profits are too high?

Also, why is it that those who try to make this determination are often people who produce nothing, such as liberal members of Congress?

I think that Congressional salaries are unreasonably high. They should have to give back a certain amount over and above a certain level because I say so. I have never been a public servant, but I am arbitrarily deciding that I know better about a sector I have never partaken in.

That is what public servants do when they bully and harass the private sector for being successful. Make no mistake about it. For every noble person that truly loves public service, many members of Congress are public servants because they would not last five minutes in the private sector, also known as the real world.

Elections are popularity contests. Running a business demands actual results.

Now, as for these “speculators,” they have always existed.

Speculators bet for and against markets. They bet on prices moving upwards and downwards. They do not trends. They follow them. In the mid 1990s, speculators bet up the price of internet stocks. In the beginning of the 21st century, speculators switched sides, and the prices came crashing down. In both cases, and in all cases, speculators are reactive, not proactive. They see an investment in their favor, and they capitalize. They see an investment moving against them, and they bail to avoid further pain. This is rational behavior.

Yet since oil is a commodity that people use, and not a piece of paper, as is a stock, the rules should be different. No. The rules should not be different.

What about the emotional argument that it is costing more and more to fill up the gas tank?

So the heck what!

There are buses, trains, bicycles, and other options. More people are working from home. Teleconferencing is replacing face to face meetings. While I refuse to do so, other people are buying hybrid cars. I would consider buying one if the auto makers create one that is not ghastly looking. For those that do not care that the Prius is hideously ugly, they have that option.

I chose to work a few minutes from my home because I drive an old car. My previous job had an hour commute, and now I put almost no miles on my car. It will last longer.

If speculators were betting against oil, that the price would go down, would that be any different?

For those worried about the price of oil, a deeper question remains.

Why did you not join the speculators? Why did you not take a risk? Why did you not invest in oil?

The reason does not matter. People took high risks, and earned high rewards. Yes, I used the word earned.

Others chose to play it safe. This is necessary for some. People with a family to feed often have less ability to take risks. They put money in the bank, yet get hurt by inflation.

Therefore, not taking risks can be even riskier at times.

The bottom line is that there are not enough speculators in the world to override the will of the free market and the law of supply and demand. Oil at some point will have a violent pullback. I have no idea when. What I do know is that some people will decide to lock in profits. Others will get in, see it come down, and decide that they got in at the top. They will decide to cut losses. Either way, the reversal will be ruthless, as all reversals are.

Many people will see the price crashing, and they will have to determine if it is a pullback in a bull market, or if the market has entered bear territory. If the market develops a bearish trend, these same greedy speculators will bet on the price to go down. This may drive the price down further.

This would lead to cheaper gasoline prices. Will we then throw the speculators a ticker tape parade? Will we then forget about alternative sources of energy? Will our government give back the profits they seized from the oil companies?

Of course not.

Liberals will spend the next few years doing what they have done the last few years. They will refuse to drill. They will fight nuclear power. They will fight building more refineries. They will blame greedy speculators.

Maybe if they cared less about trees and animals and more about human beings, the price of oil would come down.

Yet bringing the price down is debated only in terms of how. It should be debated in terms of why.

Why not have oil prices right now? The market wants that. When the market wanbts them lower, they will be.

Big Oil? Big flipping deal.

I support big freedom. I do not want freedom lite. I want freedom in the form of a Texas sized gallon hat.

To quote the character that Larry Hagman mastered, complete with the grit eating grin, I say this.

Get in the oil business. If you do, you’re learning already.

eric

Few things bore me as much as golf, guns, and fishing. To sit all day and whack a ball, shoot a target, or try to catch a cod that is actually a sneaker with a funny shaped stick is colossally dull to me.

Nevertheless, I absolutely defend the right of individuals to own guns, fishing rods, and even golf clubs. I do not let my personal animus interfere with the liberty of others. It is about freedom.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/26/gun-battle-heller-time/

The Bill of Rights were all individual rights. Those on the left that wish to use contortions to try and apply a collective right to one part of a document while acknowledging the individual right behind the other nine amendments need to stop the intellectual dishonesty. They don’t like guns. Well I detest fishing and golf. Too bad. The issue is one of legality, not social popularity. This is why Paris Hilton exists. The law says she has the right to exist, and normal people do not have the right to prevent this.

The Supreme Court is referred to as the “Conservative Supreme Court” when sensible decisions come down. They only seem to be referred to as the Supreme Court when the decision is boneheaded.

This is why, as Michelle Malkin states, liberal 5-4 rulings are “Landmark,” while, conservative 5-4 rulings are “divisive,” and “controversial.”

Make no mistake about it. Conservatives and liberals understand that the 2008 election will be critical regarding the Supreme Court.

There are four conservatives, four liberals, and one sometimes conservative that sometimes swings towards lunacy.

It was four liberals and one swing that gave us Kelo vs New London, where eminent domain became a curseword.

It was four liberals and one swing that decided recently that child rapists should be considered more important than their victims. By that one swing vote, child rapists no longer get the death penalty.

(Memo to John McCain. Force Barack Obama to uphold this decision with all the compassion of Michael Dukakis. Mention it during every debate. The media won’t. You must.)

Some of the most important decisions did swing towards decency.

The swing vote prevented Al Gore from trying to steal an election from George W. Bush. That allowed President Bush to appoint two more legal giants to the court, while making it more conservative.

For those on the right who are not thrilled with the President, send him a thank you note for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. They were hired to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it according to their own evolving whims.

It is this strict constructionism that allowed the Second Amendment to survive liberal judicial activism.

Gun control advocates have no leg to stand on anymore. The Supreme Court has spoken. Those same people that were cheering for the rights of child rapists to live another day (Life without parole? So what? People escape from jails. There is no recidivism for those that have been administered the death penalty.) will now curse this same court for actually upholding the liberties of law abiding citizens. What a novel concept.

John Roberts is more than one of the finest legal minds on Earth. He is also a minimalist. He wants narrow rulings with consensus. He prefers 9-0 decisions to 5-4 splits. Yet to liberals, consensus means telling conservatives to shut up and agree with liberals. That is their version of compromise. Justice Roberts can want consensus, but when four justices routinely decide to use the Constitution as toilet paper, there is little he can do.

Narrow rulings prevent chaos in the future. One reason Roe vs Wade is so controversial is because it was a broad ruling. Even many people who are pro choice see it as liberal judicial activism. This is why the abortion issue remains unsettled.

Justice Roberts could have tried to engineer a broad ruling. His court could have declared all gun control laws unconstitutional. While that would have been a delightful ruling, it would have been an activist ruling. Justice Roberts focused on the narrow issue before his court. Was the outright ban on handguns in Washington, DC, simply going too far? Yes, it was.

What should be shocking is that four liberal justices were comfortable with an outright ban on guns. The National Rifle Association is constantly claiming that liberals who favor “reasonable” and “sensible” gun control measures are really trying to ban guns outright. Liberals then claim that this is fear mongering.

We now have the evidence. This case was not about gun control. It was about gun abolition. Four justices felt comfortable with an outright ban.

While the NRA has every right to be pleased tonight, there is a deeper issue. All gun control is unconstitutional. Does either side want to bring that to the court?

The liberals will not bring it in front of this court. The conservatives are not ready to rely on Justice Kennedy. The Supreme Court itself is not known for bravery. The conservatives prefer to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. True, the liberals want to change the world, but they prefer to do it under the radar. The Supreme Court is too public a forum. It is more dangerous than slipping one sentence into a 1000 page omnibus bill.

Those against gun control simply feel that the law supports them. Those favoring gun control simply do not like guns, and in many cases, wish they were banned outright. Anybody who thinks that the four liberals on the court are moderates need to be reminded over and over again that this case was not about gun control. It was about a complete and utter abolition of guns.

More people died in Washington, DC, last year, than 30 years ago when the ban was enacted. Liberals do not care. They hate guns.

States with looser gun laws have lower crime rates. Liberals do not care. They hate guns.

Some people have been victims of tragedies, and become gun control activists. Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and Dianne Feinstein all owe their political careers to gun crimes. They would rather not have these careers. The suffering they went through was enormous. That does not change the fact that these three people simply, for understandable reasons, hate guns.

Maybe if the liberals on the court spent more time allowing the death penalty for more violent criminals, who by definition do not obey laws, there would be less of these animals eventually obtaining guns.

The left will argue that no rational person needs a gun that can fire 30 or 40 rounds at a rapid clip. This is disingenuous. The Founding Fathers made crystal clear what they wanted. Just because many in America choose to either fail to understand or deliberately misconstrue those words does not mean those people are right.

People who claim that they want guns regulated have voted to confirm justices that want to ban all guns.

The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down. In the words of the late Charlton Heston, let them try and “pry my gun from my cold dead hands.”

This is not about guns. This is about liberty and freedom. Those who cherish the First Amendment had better understand that once the Second Amendment goes, the rest of them rapidly disappear, with nobody left to speak up.

Child Rapists get to live, and homeowners have their property confiscated. This is the world that liberal justices want to inflict upon America. Thankfully today, they did not have the votes. May they never have the votes again.

eric

I have decided to start acting like a white person today.

This may seem startling for those who have always seen me as white, but I have decided to be even more white.

I have often said that it is wrong to judge a man’s race by the color of his skin. How dare we let melanin content and pigmentation determine our race. I would be outraged about this, but according to my “how to be a white guy” handbook, white people have no reason to be outraged. Nothing bad ever happens to us.

I would elaborate about Ralph Nader, but he makes Al Gore seem relevant by comparison.

I could speak about Charlie Black, but what I want to know is why most men named black are white and vice versa? This is false advertising indeed.

Don Imus has decided to act like Don Imus. Water remains wet.

Barack Obama has spoken about typical white people, but given that he is biracial, he is only half as qualified as others to discuss this.

Therefore, I have gone straight to the source of true whiteness. That’s right. I have rented “The History of White People in America,” starring Fred Willard and Martin Mull.

I am not sure I am cut out to be caucasian, much less white.

First of all, I detest golf. In the past I mentioned turning Iran and Syria into 50,000 hole golf courses. What I truly meant was relocating all golf courses to Iran and Syria. Instead of executing or waterboarding the Mullahs, we could just force them to wear those checkered pants.

Also, given that intolerance is wrong, I am glad that I am not lactose intolerant. After all, white people supposedly eat a good amount of cheese. I don’t mind it on a burger, or as a snack, but as three meals a day, that seems much for any non-mouse.

I have decided to go to work in the financial services sector today, because apparently white people have white collar jobs. Some may say I am doing this because that is my job, and not showing up is grounds for being fired, but today I am going to work in the name of white people acting white everywhere.

I shall no longer listen to rap music or find Snoop Doggy Dogg funny. From now on, classical music will be my music of choice.

I shall adopt heartland values, as soon as I find out exactly where this heartland is. I suspect it is in Middle America, but can all of these states be at the exact median location?

Also, since I am stereotypical today, I shall be male. White females are still minorities, and therefore atypical. To truly fit in, I have to be a white male.

I shall wear a white shirt today with a diagonal red and blue tie. While I do hate missing out on Pink Shirt Thursday, I must live up to my image.

I am not a smoker, but I suppose I can find a pipe and a tweed smoking jacket, or perhaps a jacket with elbow patches. I wonder if a bubble pipe qualifies.

Perhaps my cheese sandwich can have the crusts cut off.

I have heard that white people have 3 martini lunches. I do not drink alcohol, but perhaps I can just get a glass, pour some soda in it, and stir it for an hour.

In the 1980s white people watched the Cosby Show and Family Ties. In the 1990s it was Friends and Seinfeld. I wonder if white people still watch television.

I guess I should read the business section today. I shall see a complete white stranger on the street and ask him, “How about that market?” I heard the price of tomatoes is too high.

I need to buy a sweater. I do live in Los Angeles, but I have heard that golfers wear sweaters.

Until Imus, Nader, Black, and Obama opened their mouths, I did not know that so much effort went into my being white. I just figured that rolling out of bed and looking in the mirror would be enough to confirm my race. Apparently acting white is an attitude, and being white is a state of mind.

This is so confusing. I used to think that Clarence Thomas was black and Bill Clinton was white, with David Duke and Jesse Jackson being disgusting in any color. Apparently it is not that simple.

I do not have any cousins named Biff or Muffy. I hope this is not a problem.

I do not own a yacht. I will have to buy one. After all, if I am truly white, I am sure I can afford one, regardless of what my bank statement says.

I might have to remove all of my bling. Apparently white people do not wear bling. I guess I can give the necklace from my late grandmother back to my mother.

I shall not allow my personality to have any color. After all, white is colorless by definition. Some say black is colorless, but when I take all my crayons and write over them with other crayons, the picture gets darker, not lighter.

I hope nobody accuses me of dressing in whiteface today. I look the same as yesterday, only with more determination.

I read somewhere that white people are tall, thin, and perfectly coiffed. Wow, I already look like John Edwards and Mitt Romney, minus all the millions that I apparently misplaced in my other trust fund.

Perhaps I can buy a monocle. Maybe I need a first initial. Better yet, perhaps some Roman Numerals after my name. I do not have the same name as my father or his father, but I am sure we can correct the records.

White people are movers and shakers. I need to get an earpiece so I can talk to nobody out loud and look like I am really conducting business. This way, I will not get carted away.

I could start power walking, but I was under the understanding that being white itself implies having power. Plus, I walk every day from my car to the elevator to get to my office. White people walk a certain way. I am not sure if “The Rock” is white, but he put out a movie called “Walking Tall.” I can learn from him.

I can feel myself being confused with Chief Justice John Roberts already. I have my white guy smile perfected.

Perhaps I can go to the opera or the ballet tonight, even though in my previous life I would want those people to be hunted like golfers.

The only thing I cannot figure out is if I am acting like a white person who actually is acting white, or a white person that wants to be black or Latino. I used to wear my baseball cap on backwards, and I do like tacos. Normally I would not think that means anything, but if I am truly acting white today, I have to be completely unaware of how anybody who is not white lives. I wonder if actor Jamie Kennedy can help me with this.

If only Nader, Black, Imus, and Obama would have kept their mouths shut. Then I could have simply been a regular guy, whatever that means.

No, they had to intervene. Now I am not even eggshell or creme. I am lily white.

I do hope that this racial enhancement comes with free stock options. Otherwise, it will be a stereotype, rather than a stereotype of a stereotype living inside a stereotype.

I just hope I don’t get asked to join the television show “Law and Order.” Those shows have powerful white guys, but they are bald powerful white guys. In fact, the severity of the crime is determined by the number of powerful bald white guys.

A low level crime has Captain Don Cragen yelling, “1 PP (Police Plaza) is all over my @ss!”

More serious crimes require the second powerful bald white guy to show up wearing all of his military medals. He barks out, “The Mayor is all over my @ss.”

If things get ultra serious, at least until recently, the ultimate powerful bald white guy, Fred Thompson, shows up. He says, “I’ve got the Governor asking questions and I have an election to face. Handle this.” Ok, so nobody is all over his @ss, but they are still asking questions.

Also, the Governor in the show is a powerful bald white guy.

Given the choice, I would absolutely prefer to be black as opposed to bald.

That is for another day. Today I am white, successful, and handsome.

Now if only my bank account would respect my right to be a cliche of perfection.

I may not be black, but I would not mind being in the black.

Now if only Buff and Miffy would get back to me with the name of that cafe that sells delightful cheese sandwiches, cut diagonal style, with a toothpick holding an American Flag in the center of each triangle.

eric

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Nevada Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I use the word pleasure because his staff was very easy to work with, and the Senator himself was nice to me when I met him.

While I have said more than once that I would break bread with him, that does not change the fact that on the fundamental issue of the day, Senator Reid is wrong. He does represent the democratic party very well. He is an effective Majority Leader. However, his entire party is defective, and he himself is running the risk of being on the wrong side of history.

When I asked Senator Reid about Senator John McCain, I received the following response.

“I respect his service to our country. However, he is just wrong on the war and wrong on the economy.”

Harry Reid will go down in history as being fundamentally wrong on one of the major historical world events.

The Iraq War was the right thing to do. It was legally and morally right then, and it is still right.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/the-iraq-war-legally-morally-right-then-now/

Senator Reid said that the war is lost.

No Senator. No sir. No. It is not lost. The surge is working. For those who want evidence that the surge is working, read the Jayson Blair Times. They have nothing to say. If the war was lost, the Jayson Blair Times would have front page columns from now until November.

A truly great source would be General David Petraeus.

If I want an expert on how to pass some arcane bill out of some subcommittee until it becomes a law, particularly in Nevada, I will consult Senator Reid. If I want to know how a war is being conducted, especially a counterinsurgency, I will consult the man who wrote the book on counterinsurgency.

Harry Reid calls this the greatest foreign policy blunder ever.

How can anyone committed to human rights, which Senator Reid has spoken about, object to Iraq and Afghanistan becoming democracies? Purple stained fingers matter. Women have gone from being beaten for being in public to voting and holding government positions.

No war is run perfectly. There has never been a war without casualties. World War II cost America thousands of lives, and I have yet to meet somebody that regretted winning that war.

We have not only toppled Saddam, but we have managed to get Khadafi in Libya to join the family of nations.

Senator Reid mentioned in his interview various achievements on everything from lobbying reform to ethics overhaul to stem cell research legislation, but in the long run this will not matter when it comes to his legacy.

The War on Terror trumps everything else. Iraq is the central front in that war. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

The world is better off because of President George W. Bush. The notion that we are hated around the world seems to be lost on the people of who are supposed to hate us.

From Nicolas Sarkozy in France to Angela Merkel in Germany to Silvio Berlusconi in Italy to Steven Harper in Canada, the world is electing governments that are tired of letting Islamofacism eat away at their societies like a cancer. The conservatives are winning in England, and the new left of center government in Australia is as Pro-American as the previous conservative government of John Howard.

Senator Reid has been accused of wanting America to fail in Iraq. That is a very serious charge. The theory is that anything that shows that President Bush was and is right must be defeated.

Senator Reid does admit to having an animus towards the President that goes beyond politics. He does not like the President. Is he so blind in his view of the President that he would let it cloud his judgment of an entire war? The charge is there, and that is between Senator Reid and the God he believes in.

The reason why I believe in President Bush and General David Petraeus is not because they tell me so. I listen to the soldiers. i receive emails on a weekly basis from soldiers that are in Iraq and Afghanistan. They speak of incredible progress.

If thousands of letters from soldiers were delivered to the Majority Leader’s office, would he ignore them?

Senators need to listen to their constituents. Senator Reid has been reelected in Nevada, so over 50% of his constituents are behind him. However, this war is serious. It trumps the politics of a single state. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was fired by the voters of South Dakota. He had high popularity at one point, but he simply chose to try and fight against a war that much of America supported.

Yes, support for the war is below what it was, but that happens in all wars. What Senator Reid refuses to acknowledge is that frustration with the war does not mean we want to pull all the troops out right now. Americans want to win. They want evidence of progress. They want results.

General Petraeus is delivering those results. Americans are seeing glimmers of hope. Yes, Americans are war weary. Americans do not want war. We hate war.

Yet we hate losing a war we must win more than anything else.

Senator Reid became the Majority Leader with a powerful left wing bloc of voters that wanted to pull out now. This did not happen. If Senator Reid truly had the people on his side, the measure to withdraw would have passed. Instead, Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

Senator Reid could be right about other issues. It does not matter. The war is the issue of my generation, and if Senator Reid continues flailing against the war, he will end up being on the wrong side of history.

The enemy is Islamofacism, not President Bush.

This will matter because as Iraq heals, Iran is saber rattling. If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, and President Bush did not stop them, he would be blamed for not keeping Americans safe.

President Bush gets blamed for a preemptive war in Iraq, and also gets blamed for not doing enough to protect America from Al Queda. Everything is his fault. It is for this reason that I suspect that Senator Reid’s criticism of President Bush is reflexive. President Bush is being criticized for not “getting tough” with Iran, but in my Neocon world, getting tough means taking people who want to kill you and obliterating them from Planet Earth. We can take out Armageddonijad and many of the Mullahs tomorrow  with targeted strikes that would not harm the Iranian people.  It is the democrats that have prevented  President Bush from a military strike against Iran.

Senator Reid dislikes President Bush. The war is President Bush’s war. Therefore, it has to be a bad war. The more the evidence mounts, the deeper Senator Reid digs in. He keeps doubling down, because accepting and embracing the truth would end his career. Senator Reid has a job to do, and that requires that he leads a political party that has a lunatic fringe that demands that this war ends right now. If he were to support the war tomorrow, he would be fired as Majority Leader.

The problem for him is that while he is the Majority leader, his constituency across America is a minority. They yell loudly, but the silent majority wants to win this war. The 2006 election that brought Senator Reid to his current position was a rejection of the way the war was being conducted. It was not a vote for ending the war. If it was, the war would have ended.

President Bush got the message, and brought General Petraeus in to fix things. He simply got the job done, and Americans can see this. Protests cannot overcome cold hard facts.

There are plenty of other issues that people can quibble about, but if we are all blown to kingdom come by an Islamofacist lunatic, the rest will not matter.

Our enemies have been at war with us for over 30 years. President Bush, when faced with an atrocity too great to ignore, chose to actually do something.

Senator Reid represents a political party that wants to close Guantanamo Bay, without saying where these people would be placed. I doubt he wants them in a Nevada prison.

Senator Reid represents a political party that wants to give habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants.

Senator Reid represents a political party that spends more time investigating alleged fictional atrocities by American soldiers who are trying to fight an enemy that beheads people.

Senator Reid represents a political party that wants to have dialogue with Iran, who has been at war with us for decades. Iranian President Armageddonijad was one of the hostage takers back in 1979. He should be in Guantanamo Bay now, not teaching at American Universities.

Senator Reid represents a political party that is against drilling for oil under the flimsy excuse that it will not completely solve the energy problem. It would absolutely be helpful. The American people support drilling by overwhelming margins. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed drilling in 1995, we would not be in this mess today.

Senator Reid represents a political party that insists that Iraq is a failure, even though many of the critics have not even been to Iraq. Liberal Congressman Brian Baird of Washington State has been to Iraq and seen the progress. He could not ignore the evidence.

Senator Reid represents a political party that is haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam. Our soldiers were winning in Vietnam. Democrats in America lost that war. Democrats are scared to death about being blamed again. This is why they say they support the troops, but not the mission, even though the troops support the mission.

Senator Reid on some levels is an American success story. He rose from a poor background to become the Majority Leader of the Senate. If America was at peace, that would be the Harry Reid story.

Unfortunately for the Senator, he is willing to throw away what could have been an inspiring story of American triumph over adversity. Perhaps it is because of his intense dislike for one man. Perhaps the left wing fringe has frightened him, although he does not seem to be a man that gets frightened easily. In all fairness, those people scare the daylights out of me.

The reason is not important. What matters is that America is in the middle of World War III. The struggle is civilization vs barbarism.

If Barbarism wins, then God help us all.

Senator Reid is an important figure in American politics today. Yet being a brief part of history is not the same as making history.

Those who will not go all out to help our soldiers win this war will be mere footnotes.

Senator Reid represents the modern democratic party perfectly. The modern democratic party has seen the face of evil in the world, and has chosen not to try and defeat it at all costs.

President Bush is one man, but his doctrine must live on. The fate of the free world depends on this.

Senator Reid can dispute this till the very end.

To the very end, President Bush will be right and Senator Reid will be wrong.

eric

About a month ago I met Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the Senate. He was speaking on the UCLA campus about various issues, including his autobiography.

One thing he made crystal clear was that he felt that President George W. Bush had broken his word. According to Senator Reid, on two separate occasions, President Bush lied to him.

While I hope that this is a misunderstanding, I was delighted when Senator Reid agreed to do an interview with me by email. Given how passionately he spoke about the issue of integrity, I wanted to see if he walked the walk.

With me, he absolutely did. His staff was overwhelmingly gracious. In terms of cooperation, they might have been among the best I have ever worked with. The entire process took less than a month.
On more than one occasion, his staff emailed me or telephoned me to let me know that they had not forgotten about me. I made it clear that I more than understood. The man is busy. The entire Senate hinges on him. This is an awesome responsibility.

Promises were made on both sides. I gave the Senator my word that the top democrat could do an interview with a conservative republican blogger and be treated fairly. His staff vetted my blog, and felt comfortable that integrity would be valued on both sides.

More than one person I know expressed that the only reason the Senator agreed to do the interview was because (insert sinister motive here). This is unfair to Senator Reid because it makes him a bad guy whether he does the interview or not. Overanalysis leads to silliness. He graciously accepted my offer, and followed through. On this point, there is no reason to delve further.

I want to make it clear that I am absolutely not embracing many of Senator Reid’s policy views. He is left of center, and I am right of center. We have differences. Having said that, opponents should never be confused with enemies. I would absolutely break bread with the Senator.

Before meeting the Senator, I had two major concerns about him. The first concern was that he came across to me on television as dour. I don’t recall him smiling much. After learning about his hardscrabble life, I had a better understanding of him. He has had pain in his life that nobody should have had to endure. I have not walked in his shoes, and his serious demeanor is that of a man that has walked a long hard road.

The second concern I had about Senator Reid is his intense dislike of President Bush. I do not know if it is a hatred, but it is definitely a dislike that goes beyond politics. Senator Reid has given his reasons. I wish he felt differently, but again, his shoes are his own.

With that, I bring my interview with Nevada Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid.

1) Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole is known to have expressed that those in the minority can
afford to resort to tactics, but leaders, especially the Majority leader, have to get things done. This involves working with the other side. What major legislation has become law because of your leadership, and which republicans did you work with to get these bills passed?
Senator Reid: Despite our differences with our colleagues from the other side, we have accomplished a great deal for the American people. For instance, last year out of the gate we passed sweeping lobbying and ethics overhaul, we passed legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, and with 17 Republicans joining us we passed funding for stem cell
research. Unfortunately, this bill was vetoed by this President. Furthermore, it was a bi-partisan group of Senators that fought for and passed legislation to provide health insurance for low-income children, which the President also vetoed. Not too long ago, a strong bi-partisan group of Senators came together and passed an energy bill, which for the first time in decades, raised CAFE standards.

2) To put it mildly, you do not have a warm relationship with President Bush. It appears to be more personal than political. How is your relationship with Senator John McCain? Given that he is a staunch backer of the War in Iraq, could you still work with a President McCain on other issues?

Senator Reid: I came to Washington with John McCain in 1982. I served with him in the House and we came to the Senate at the same time. I respect his service to our country. However, he is just wrong on the war and wrong on the economy. Despite our differences, as mentioned above we have always found ways to work with Republicans on a number of issues, accomplishing a great deal for the American people.

3) With gasoline prices reaching all time highs, some Democrats have talked about taxing the profits of the oil companies. Aren’t the real villains the foreign Middle Eastern governments? Doesn’t blaming
corporate America put us in a circular firing squad?

Senator Reid: At a time when oil companies are making record profits on the backs of American families, our neglected energy policy under this administration needs to be revisited. I think the better question is, how do we get America on the path toward energy independence, and that is something Senate Democrats have repeatedly worked to do. We passed and got signed into law the first increase in fuel efficiency standards in decades. We are also pushing energy legislation that seeks to roll back tax breaks for oil companies and invest that money in renewable energy, protects consumers from price gouging, forces big oil to pay its fair share, curbs market manipulation, and stands up to OPEC.

4) 2008 is a year of political boldness. Who are some people Barack Obama should consider for Vice President that have not been bandied about yet? What do you think of former Senator Max Cleland as a bold choice? Is America ready for a potential handicapped President such as Cleland, or New York Governor David Patterson?

Senator Reid: That is a decision Senator Obama can only make and I wouldn’t presume to tell him what to do. As for your question about America being ready for a Vice President who is physically disabled, I think we should all give Americans more credit. Certainly the right person for the job is someone who can fully support the agenda of the Obama administration, being disabled has nothing to do
with that.

I would like to thank Senator Reid for taking the time out to visit the Tygrrrr Express. I again would like to thank his staff for their professionalism. The manner in which they dealt with me was exceptional. I would also again like to extend regards to the Senator’s wife Landra, who when I met her was as pleasant as they come.

With regards to issues, I still would prefer to see Senator Reid as the Minority Leader. It is not personal. We disagree on issues, and those disagreements are normal and healthy.

As for his charge that President Bush is a liar, I was not in the room. As for Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell charging Senator Reid with being a liar, I also was not in the room.

What I can say is that with regards to me, Senator Reid absolutely kept his word.

I cannot in good conscience wish the Senator success from an electoral standpoint, but I genuinely wish him well personally.

eric

At the Santa Barbara retreat organized by David Horowitz, I met David Keene, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union. Mr. Keene is a big, burly guy who likes his tobacco in a pipe, old school style.

Cutting to the chase is not my style, but it is Mr. Keene’s style. Therefore, I shall present his remarks forthwith.

“Democrats only win elections when republicans screw up. This was the case in 1974, 1992, and 2006.”

In this last election, just as in 1974, republicans were seen as crooks. Democrats then made the mistake of completely misreading the results. It was not just Iraq or Mark Foley. It was everyone’s fault.”

“Losers blame winners, and winners claim false mandates. Hillarycare was only one sentence in 1992.”

“In 2006, democrats claimed a false madate. They claimed a mandate for higher taxes, a mandate for government run health care, and a mandate to move to the left. Congresswoman Maxine Waters even claimed a mandate to have government take over industry.”

“The taxes on gasoline come to 18 cents per gallon. The profit they earn is only 8 cents per gallon. Government produces zero, and then collects the tolls.”

“John Kerry could not win because the United States is optimistic. Obama gets this. Kerry was incapable of giving an optimistic speech. The question is how Obama will stand up when the pressure hits. Obama often voted “present,” to stay clean on issues. He has a glass jaw. He kept failing to put Hillary away, when most democrats don’t even like her. Yet Obama gets credit for running a good campaign.”

“In 1972, I worked for Spiro Agnew. George McGovern told a reporter to ‘kiss his @ss.’ Agnew, despite being on the other side, identified with McGovern.”

“The rules change after winning the nomination. Americans see more than a thematic speech. Unlike primaries, in the general election voters are not in synch with government solutions.”

“Young people are economically libertarian.”

“McGovern warned the democrats about 2008 becoming 1972, if they treat Iraq as they did Vietnam.”

“Democrats argue that their is one bad world actor, and that is the United States. Americans do not believe that the world is pleasant. America is a peaceful island in a dangerous world. They will vote for John McCain because of the world we live in.”

“It is about the War on Terror. A republican screwup gave us Jimmy Carter, who surrendered to Iran. We have too much at stake to do that again.”

David Keene was nice to talk to, and like me, he is a supporter of the National Rifle Association. My family also supports GOAL (Gun Owners Action League), as well as JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). Mr. Keene understands that liberty is vital, and that starts with respecting the Constitution as it was originally intended, free from liberal activist and spin.

I do not agree with Mr. Keene on every issue, but in terms of liberty, the Second Amendment, and the national inclination for Americans to lean towards conservatism, our synthesis is solid.

eric