WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) issued the following statement upon receiving information she requested from the National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just hours after she issued her public statement yesterday:

“Two months ago, I requested that NOAA submit information regarding its decision to move its Marine Operations Center-Pacific (MOC-P) location from the Puget Sound to Newport, Oregon.  Just hours after I issued my public statement criticizing the agency for failing to respond to my request, NOAA delivered many of the requested documents to my office.

“As Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, these are standard questions to be asked of any acquisition or procurement process within my jurisdiction. I look forward to reviewing these materials, and hope that we’ll discover NOAA did all its homework. The flaws already uncovered by the GAO decision makes this review even more important to get right – so we’re not going to get too far ahead of the reading of the material. The most important thing is to determine whether NOAA followed clear, fair and transparent rules in making its recommendation to the Secretary.”

Ms. Cantwell can we expect the same from you regarding the Health Care bill about to be passed in the Senate?  Have you personally reviewed the material?  The bill was written behind closed doors, is that what you consider transparency?  As well, this bill is so complicated that very few people understand it, including the majority of politicians.  Is that how you define “clear”?  Then to use tax payer dollars from Washington state to buy a Ben Nelsons vote in Nebraska is beyond egregious.  Is this your definition of “fair”?

It appears Senator Cantwell wants it both ways.  She is doing her duty to expect a government agency to be fair, clear and transparent in the decision process.  She should hold NOAA to the fire and expect nothing less than the decision process to be examined and critiqued.  If NOAA failed to do due diligence, then the decision should be reexamined. With that in mind, as taxpayers shouldn’t we expect the same due diligence when she is putting her stamp of approval on the bills she is passing?  There seems to be so much slight of hand regarding the passing of the current Health Care bill coming out of the Senate that not just Americans should be shouting “STOP!” but our Representatives should be doing the same.  Has Health Care reform become more about saving a presidency or actually giving the people the true reform needed?

Senator Cantwell, I look forward to “reviewing” the materials and holding you accountable.  The most important thing is to determine whether you followed your duties as a Representative.  I look to securing as many votes against you in the following elections if you have failed to do your duty.

I don’t care who you are, whether a staunch pro-life activist or a firm believer that it is acceptable to kill the unborn, you are not viable if you are taken out of the protection of your environment. What is a mothers womb?  The vessel that protects a child while it is developing.

We have homes to protect ourselves from the weather or bad external elements.  It’s been 20 degrees the last couple of nights where I live.  I assure you, if I were to throw you out of my house into the cold of the night you would die.  It probably wouldn’t take all that long either.  Based on the liberal thinking of viability, you shouldn’t be considered viable either.  If you scuba dive and you lose your oxygen, you’re not viable.

Just because a child hasn’t developed enough to exist outside the mother does not exclude it from being consider a life.  Especially a life that pro-abortionist believe it should be destroyed because “it’s not quit viable”.  What if someone considered YOU not viable?

We have often heard in the pro-abortion movement that it is the woman’s right to choose. But should it be?  Should it just be the woman’s choice or should the man be involved in the decision too?

Before my daughter got married, her grandfather gave her a car. The title was in my name and hers. In other words, we both owned the car and had title deed to the vehicle.  Let’s say my daughter was the sole owner of the car, it would be within her right to do what ever wanted with her property, correct? If she had parked the car in my garage and suddenly decided to destroy it without harming  my personal property, she would be within her rights to do so.  Had I been the sole owner of the title, from a legal stand point, even though my daughter was driving and using the car, I could have destroyed the car without any legal repercussions.

Both my daughter and I were named on the title, therefore, neither of us could harm the car without permission from the other.  It’s not because it was being parked in my garage that gave the car protection, it was due to the fact that both of us could prove ownership.  Location, storage and usage had no bearing on the legality of what could be done with the vehicle.  It was a simple piece of paper that assured both of us had mutual rights and had to honor one another wishes regarding the automobile.  As well, if my daughter had gotten into a wreck with the vehicle, I could have been liable for the damages.  Why? because the inescapable truth is we were co-owners.  Certainly, my insurance company and any lawyer wanting to sue would see it that way.

Since my ex son-in-law could be sued for paternity, wasn’t the legal system looking for the “title deed” to prove who the father was?  A persons genetic code is that persons title deed.  If someone dies and can’t be identified, they look at a persons DNA.

The woman might be the sole owner of her own body but was she actually sole owner of the of the fetus?  It was a combination of an egg, her distinct genetic code and the sperm, his genetic code, combined to make the fetus.  If a man can be held accountable for the end result of a sexual act resulting in a child, shouldn’t he have some say in what happens to his own property, his genetic code? He is the title owner.  He’s held accountable due to genetic code after a child has been born, so should a woman have the right to destroy a man’s property without his permission? It’s his sperm, his genetic code, essentially giving him equal “title deed” to the child.  Why does that only start after the birth of the child?

It shouldn’t matter if it’s the woman’s body, therefore, making it her right to choose.  The man and woman, in essence are co-owners of the title deed of the same car.  Regardless of where it is parked, it still should require permission from both to do anything to harm.

Here’s the kicker, if a man has the right to say what he wants to do with his genetic code and the woman has the same right, shouldn’t the distinctly unique genetic code of the fetus have the right over it’s own fate? It it would appear the owner of that entirely separate genetic code should be the one to determine what happens with the “title” to their own code.  Ooops, there goes abortion right out the window.  I think this would be an interesting legal challenge.

It’s not that Zazi’s was captured that has me worried. What bothers me is that others were involved and they are still free.  So in a sense, while Zazi’s personal involvement ended, the plan can continue. That should be a pretty sobering thought to anyone.

Sometimes Zazi was joined on his shopping trips to the beauty supply stores in suburban Denver by other bearded men who looked like they’d never been to a beauty parlor, the feds said.

We have a source of information in Zazi himself that could end this plot.  Even while facing imminent danger the left has denied a valuable tool for quickly extracting the information… water boarding.  Yes, I said it, water board the guy now.  I admit water boarding flies in the face of what most Americans understand as civilized behavior, namely liberals. Typically, these are the same people who think dodge ball is too competitive and little Johnny should get a trophy even though he plays for a last place team. Life should be easy and fair, shouldn’t it Johhny? I think there is a fair amount of over-sensitivity adopted by liberals.  Because of this, it’s not difficult to understand why libs think water boarding rises to the level of torture as defined in the dictionary.  Heck, these guys think stacking naked guys on top of each other is torture.  It may be perverted or a sad joke but torture? Come on libs.  Look at the definition of torture below and apply it to water boarding.  Is intense pain involved?  It is a yes or no question.

Torture:  the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.

Both Erich “Mancow” Muller and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens under went water boarding to prove/disprove it was torture.  What it did prove to both was it was intense. Mancow concluded after 7 seconds that it was “torture”, apparently it was more intense than he expected.  It still begs the question, is intensity necessarily the equivalency of torture? Mr. Hitchens contrast Mancow’s opinion with his experience:

As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been water boarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, water boarding is more like foreplay.

Water boarding is extremely uncomfortable, if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be affective.  But with possible attacks looming and obvious time restraints doesn’t it make sense to resort to something that will allow law enforcement to gain the upper hand, namely time?  The current administration now relies on the accepted practice of long hours of interrogation, sensory deprivation and possibility sustained loud music.  In essence, the interrogators are using the same methods to gather information than those who implement water boarding.  They both create a situation that eventually breaks a person’s will to resist. The only difference is one method is employed over a long period of time.

It’s difficult to argue those former tools aren’t accepted tactics by the US government.  The ATF cut off water, electricity, used flood lights and blared loud music on innocent women and children in the Branch Davidian Compound in the 1993.  I don’t recall the left complaining then. No one in the main stream media railed against it being torture, did they?  Could it be that water boarding is more a soap box for the left to spew their hatred toward Bush than the belief that the method is actually torture?  It seems that Clinton should have been meted with the same degree of disdain considering his administration ordered the Davidian debacle.  Either both situations were torture or they weren’t.

A liberal tweeted this quote to me, regarding water boarding:

Franklin, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

When people get on an airplane, enter a stadium or even go to Disney Land personal articles are inspected, that’s a lose of  liberties.  Phone conversations can be listened to and lines tapped immediately if words like bomb, president 0r kill are used (yes, I am well aware that this blog has now been flagged by the FBI)  Most people seem to be comfortable giving up being listened to for some safety.  So what’s different about water boarding? Is it that it sounds meaner, more nasty than any of the other liberties we gave up for a bit more security?

It’s time to use water boarding on a pathetic coward like Zazi.  It will add another layer of security yet doesn’t harm the person, if done correctly.  The ability to extract information in a timely manner and potentially save lives outweighs the negatives.

One last note, if Zazi’s group manages an attack and it could have been prevented.  How can it be explained to the dead, “At least your rights were protected”?

coming soon: Part II Constitution and water boarding