What Killed the American Indian? Not the the pipeline.

What with all this squawking going on about the Dakota Pipeline and so many people trying to say that the Europeans deliberate massacred hundreds of of millions of Indians to take their land I decided to set the record straight. In truth the genocidal maniacs who killed most of the Native Americans were these dirty bastard, diseases. We didn’t put the full power of the state and science behind the mechanical slaughter of human beings. We didn’t conduct medical experiments on Native Americans the way Germany did Jews and Roma. We moved into a continent that was largely depopulated by disease.

The US is guilty of a LOT of horrors. So before you may feel tempted to strawman me, read a lot of what I write. Americans are horribly ignorant of the crimes committed to bring them to this place and time with all the wealth they have. Treaties were continuously broken with Native Americans. Africans were enslaved. Vietnamese were killed with impunity.

I admit it and know the history.

But Americans didn’t commit industrial genocide. Americans didn’t put the full resources of state and science behind the mechanical slaughter of human beings. Americans didn’t conduct medical experiments on Native Americans the way Germany did Jews and Roma. Americans inherited a continent that was largely depopulated by disease.

And that’s the main point. Disease wiped out most Native Americans. Thereafter, the few surviving tribes that were encountered, were displaced and frequently attacked, making their lives miserable. What happened to the Native Americans is a debt the US will never fully repay, but the US did not commit willful genocide.

If anybody in the Americas did, that would be Spain. Spain conducted some of the worst and intentional programs of destruction against the Aztecs and Incas imaginable. Now, do I think that Spaniards should have to wander the halls wailing in agony? No. That was a long time ago and when it happpened, it was sadly standard operating procedure for nation-states, including (GET THIS!) Incas and Aztecs!

But when Germany and Japan committed their horrors, they were members of nations that were supposed to not behave that way any longer. And of course, there is some finely spun racism too — Germany committed her crimes against white people. That kind of horror hadn’t happened ever on the continent of Europe at that scale, with that level of industrialization.

Nevertheless, what the US did —while wrong on a hundred levels— cannot compare to what the Germans did.

Dan Holliday

Published in: on January 26, 2017 at 09:14  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

National Sovereignty in America and Trump

The drive for national sovereignty in America, that is a disentanglement from the Progressive’s World Government drive, has nothing to do with nationalism in the U.S… Consider what U.S. stands for in The United States of America. America consists of 50 nations, and that which binds us is not nationalism but the love of Liberty, the ability that America gives its people to live their lives as they see fit,and not as the government sees fit. We have been watching that liberty being stripped from us day by day, law by law, regulation by regulation imposed upon us by the Progressives, in both parties, we have been duped into putting into power.

Then along came Trump singing a song that we have been longing to hear. Pointing out what we all, all of us deplorable in any case, knew. The system is rigged against us; the Globalist are not only destroying our jobs, but under the guise of combating global warming actually sending billions of taxpayers dollars to enrich other countries at our expense. The left attacked him with everything they had, he’s a racist, a womanizer, stingy, not as rich as he claims, lies about everything, he’s a con, a clown, and on and on, but we heard him. Soros paid demonstrates, and bused them in to riot and raise hell, all to no avail.

And we elected him, and then the recounts, which ended up giving Trump, not Hillary, move votes; and uncovering massive voter fraud in and around Detroit. When that failed the next assault was on the Electoral Collage electors. Barraging them with pleas and threats, begging over and over that they vote their conscience instead of for who the people of their stated voted for. Well they did vote their conscience, and Hillary had more faithless electors than Trump did.

Their claim to legitimacy was that Hillary wound the popular vote by 2 million or more votes, but if you take California’s votes away from the total Trump won the popular vote by 3 million votes, proving the wisdom in the Founders’ Electoral Collage method of our selecting the President by not allowing the larger states to lord it over the smaller states.  In this election, however, it was not so much the states against the states, rather the county folks against the city folks as this map shows.

Results by counties.

Results by counties.

Trump won, three times he won, but I fear his fight has just begun.

Merry Christmas.

The Emoluments Clause And Trump

Now that the electors will soon vote as their states voted, the next wave of attacks will come using Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: the Emoluments Clause which states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Definition of emolument: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.

Definition of employment
: use, purpose
a : activity in which one engages or is employed <seeking gainful employment>
b : an instance of such activity

Now the issue is if someone rents a room in a hotel an employment of the owner of the hotel? Or, when one repays an existing loan does that make you either holding an office or employment of the lender of the loan? Or, does playing at a golf course make you either holding an office or employment of the person who own the course?

Then Congress could just give him permission to run his businesses as he has in the past. Everyone who voted for Trump knew about his worldwide enterprises when they voted for him

Published in: on December 19, 2016 at 12:10  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

The Pledge: You know, the one that they made Donald Trump take

Now I would like to call you attention to some hypocrites, remember in the first debate, and it was asked if they lost would they support the winner?

“The first Republican debate opened with a question, specifically for Trump. Per Bret Baier:

Who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican Party and pledge not to run an independent campaign against that person? Raise your hand now if you won’t make that pledge tonight.” Trump was the only candidate who said that he might run as an independent if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination. Not only is that a difficult path to take, but also an expensive one. Trump is probably the only candidate running who could afford to launch an independent campaign.

Now Jeb! Bush and Lindsey Graham are reigning upon that pledge. A pledge is a contract, if you make a public pledge for a certain amount of money to a charity, if you do not give the money that you pledged you could be taken to court and forced to pay the money. Consider the hell that would have been raised had Jeb or Lindsey won and Trump would not support their run, saying, “he thinks the Republican Party has been ‘conned,'” like Lindsey just said. The MSM would climb him like a tree debarking him on the way down.

Has anyone mentioned the pledge they made to do what they so absolutist refuse to do now?

Published in: on May 6, 2016 at 20:02  Comments (9)  
Tags: ,

I Did Too Build This: Government does not equals socialism

Facebook Meme

Facebook Meme

When Progressive like Obama, Clinton, Warren, and their ilk say this they are implied that self-interested acts are, by definition, selfish acts. It is based upon the idea that when someone creates wealth for his own benefit, that it benefits only himself.

Adam Smith pointed out the fallacy in this notion in 1776 in his treatise A Wealth of Nations. Smith pointed out when enterprising businesses work for their own benefit, unknowingly, they also benefit society. To earn income in a competitive market, the business must produce something others value. In Adam Smith’s eternal words, “By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

This is Smith’ Invisible Hand, and it is the greatest engine of economic growth, wealth creation, easy, comfort, health and welfare the world has ever known. Private property and the right to pursue self interest is the fuel that drives this engine.

This brings to mind the story about the “Big Three” auto makers telling Robert William Kearns that he deserved no credit for inventing the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 and on into infinity because all he did was put together some existing technology that other’s had invented.

The legal argument that the auto industry posed in defense was that an invention is supposed to meet certain standards of originality and novelty. One of these are that it be “non-obvious.” Ford claimed that the patent was invalid because Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components. Kearns noted that his invention was a novel and non-obvious combination of parts.[12][13] Kearns’ position found unequivocal support in a precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) (“It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a ‘combination’: that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.”) (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). From Wikipedia

This, in effect, is the same argument that Warren is making in the meme above. When she says that nobody got rich on their own for they moved their goods on the infrastructure that others have built is the same as saying Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components thus he deserves no patent. The Supreme Court found otherwise, and applied “flash of genius” patent law terminology, which was in effect from 1941 to 1952, which held that the inventive act must come into the mind of an inventor as a kind of epiphany and not as a result of tinkering, and made all use use his invention to pay him for it.

There are Progressive that made the argument that all governments services, such as roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., as socialistic Moore wrote in indignation, “my taxes are redistributed to plow someone else’s street! Socialism!” they say”

Government equals socialism.

Socialist programs in the U.S.: The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, Amtrak, Public Beaches, Public Busing Services, Business Subsidies, The Census Bureau, The CIA, Federal Student Loans, The Court System, Dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, The Department of Energy, The EPA, Farm Subsidies, The FBI, The FCC, The FDA, FEMA, Fire Departments, Food Stamps, Garbage Collection, Health Care, Public Housing, The IRS, Public Landfills, Public Libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, The Military, State and National Monuments, Public Museums, NASA, The National Weather Service, NPR, Public Parks, PBS, The Peace Corps, Police Departments, Prisons and Jails, Public Schools, Secret Service, Sewer Systems, Snow Removal Services, Social Security, Public Street Lighting, The Department of Transportation, USPS, Vaccines, Veteran Health Care, Welfare, The White House, The WIC Program, State Zoos.

Take that, capitalists! You’re all socialists, and you don’t even know it!

These claim serves primarily to demonstrate that there are far too many people in this country who do not know what the word “socialism” actually means:

Per Merriam-Webster, “socialism” is one, or all, of the following: 1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

To claim that all government services are a manifestation of socialism is to say that all kings and dictators of the past were in truth all socialists as they all provided services for their people. That aside, how many on the above list have anything whatsoever to do with the abolition of private property, the nationalization of industry, and putting the collective over the individual? Most of these are public goods, I wrote an essay on this some years back:

Public Good

Public good. We all hear the phrase, but I fear that we do not all understand the concept and readily confuse public benefits with public goods. To start with just. What is a public good? Paul A. Samuelson, the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, said, “goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” The opposite of a public good is a private good.

Public goods like air, water, fish, game animals are normally referred to as common goods reserving the term ‘public goods’ to services provided by the government such as national defense, the police and judicial system, prisons systems, and as most people like to include the highway systems and education systems. I will get back to these last two in a short while.

For the government to provide a “Public Good” for its citizens does not make a socialist government. To say that a plumber did not build his business is as delirious as saying that I did not writer this because someone else created all the words that I used!

Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’; But then they could not

Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’

Straight men and women carry genes associated with homosexuality and pass them to their children, finds study:

The sisters of gay men tend to have more children, helping explain the persistence of homosexuality in larger populations, while straight men may also carry genes predisposing them to being gay, the study found.


Based on Chaladze’s calculations, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, male homosexuality is maintained in a population at “low and stable frequencies” if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

(No link with given to the study.)

The problem that I see is that no “gay gene” has ever been found:

The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled.  The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten.  The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for.  On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule.  The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added).  Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used.  The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”

It is a hope based upon a “the Devil made me do it” defense, only substitute gene for devil. Or from their point of view, God made me this way.

What has been discovered?

It is easier to say what has not been discovered: the researchers in the United States whose findings were announced last week have not found a gene that causes homosexuality and they have not proved that homosexuality is hereditary.

They believe they have evidence linking a region of the X chromosome – which men inherit from their mothers – with the sexual orientation of some gay men. If they are right, they have uncovered hard evidence of a genetic basis of homosexuality.

The gene has still to be found. The specified region of the X chromosome may carry several hundred genes in all, and the researchers are still some way from identifying which one it is.

But the Human Genome Project, mapping all human genes, was completed in 2003, see above.

From The Problematic Hunt for a ‘Gay Gene’

As the discipline of genetics changed, so too did the scientific approach to homosexuality. In 2012, scientists examined the possibility that variations in hormone levels in the womb could influence the expression of genes that affect sexual orientation, a line of inquiry that falls under the emerging sub-discipline of epigenetics. The popular media, once so easily convinced by LeVay that homosexuality resulted from brain size and by Hamer that homosexuality was genetic, promptly changed its tune to declare that homosexuality was now epigenetic. Hooray? If it’s hard to get excited about these studies, it’s because, at this point, biological explanations for homosexuality are like iPhones—a new one comes out every year.

The statement ” Based on Chaladze’s calculations,…” from the “Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes” story make me think that the study is nought but a statistical analyse, and offers no direct proof that a gay gene exists.  Rather give a statistical modal to support the supposition that a gay gene does exist, but that it is so evenly distributed in the population that the Human Genome Project could not find it.  I wish that I could have found the study to see the sample size, and the type of analyze none on the group.  Here I underline the weasel words:

Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes

while straight men may also carry genes predisposing them to being gay

if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

Weasel words are “what iffing”,and offers no proof of anything.


Bed bugs developing ‘thicker skin’ to beat insecticides; Not an example of Evolution

Headline from USA Today

Bed bugs developing ‘thicker skin’ to beat insecticides

This headline demonstrates a basic misunderstand of how the theory of evolution is said to work.  It implies that the developing of the ‘thick skin’ was a purposeful action to overcome an adversary.  When in fact is is another good example of selective breading not of evolution.   The insecticides kill off all the bugs with the thin skins leaving only the ones with the thicker skins to breed more bugs.  Only their thick skin offspring will survive the insecticides to make more bugs.

Here is the headline of the paper that the USA Today’s headline is referring to:

Cuticle Thickening in a Pyrethroid-Resistant Strain of the Common Bed Bug, Cimex lectularius L. (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)


Thickening of the integument as a mechanism of resistance to insecticides is a well recognised phenomenon in the insect world and, in recent times, has been found in insects exhibiting pyrethroid-resistance. Resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius L., is widespread and has been frequently inferred as a reason for the pest’s resurgence. Overexpression of cuticle depositing proteins has been demonstrated in pyrethroid-resistant bed bugs although, to date, no morphological analysis of the cuticle has been undertaken in order to confirm a phenotypic link. This paper describes examination of the cuticle thickness of a highly pyrethroid-resistant field strain collected in Sydney, Australia, in response to time-to-knockdown upon forced exposure to a pyrethroid insecticide. Mean cuticle thickness was positively correlated to time-to-knockdown, with significant differences observed between bugs knocked-down at 2 hours, 4 hours, and those still unaffected at 24 hours. Further analysis also demonstrated that the 24 hours survivors possessed a statistically significantly thicker cuticle when compared to a pyrethroid-susceptible strain of C. lectularius. This study demonstrates that cuticle thickening is present within a pyrethroid-resistant strain of C.lectularius and that, even within a stable resistant strain, cuticle thickness will vary according to time-to-knockdown upon exposure to an insecticide. This response should thus be considered in future studies on the cuticle of insecticide-resistant bed bugs and, potentially, other insects.

The results of the developing a ‘thicker skin’ bug is no different than when a breeder want to develop a new breed of dog.  He, the breeder, selects the dogs with the characteristic he wishes to develop in his new breed, be it largeness, smallness, strength, aggression,  or docility.  He then culls the dogs with the unwanted characteristic and breed only the ones he believes will go on to produce the type of dog he wants for his new breed.  Selective breeding will never produce anything but a dog.

Instead of a breeder selecting which bug will live to breed a new bug, the insecticide does the selecting, and this selection will never anything but another bug.

Genesis 1:25-26

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”…

When they show an example of a dog becoming something other than a dog, or a bed bug becoming something other that a bed bug I will concede that evolution is the driving force of creation, but un thin then I will take that old time religion for my explanation.



How do you tell an Mechanical from an Electronic Engineer in the Bathroom?

Picture from Facebook, author unknown.

Picture from Facebook, author unknown.

This reminds me of a question a Mechanical Engineer asked me way back when I worked for Elscent, an Israeli company, on theIR Translate/Rotate CAT Scanner Its design was such that to collect the data for an image it would first slide the X-Ray Tube on one side of the patent with the detector assembly on the other side. When it finished the transition it would rotate the whole gantry 72 degrees, and then slide the other way. It would do this 5 times to complete the data collection, and then re cock itself to it start position. The motion was hydraulic driving and the data collection as well as the motion control was all electronics.

Elcent used to assign both an Electronic (me) and Mechanical Engineer to service each of their CAT Scanners in operation. I worked a few years with a young Jew Mechanical Engineer from Haifa. Alas his name has escaped me some time back, but not the question he asked, “How do you tell an Mechanical from an Electronic Engineer in the bathroom?” “I am not sure” I answered. “Well”, he said, “The Electronic Engineer goes ahead and does his business, and then washes his hands, while the Mechanical Engineer washes his hand and then does his business.”

Published in: on April 12, 2016 at 11:56  Comments (3)  

Sinning, Can You Stop?

A meme from Facebook

A meme from Facebook


What about the one that your are born in? Being good does not remove you from sin. As Isaiah said, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” Or as Paul said in Romans, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”
Obeying the Law to get salvation is trying to work you way to heaven. So, what does that mean, not being under the Law? Well, as Paul goes on, “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
So how do you separate Original Sin, that which you are born in, and sin incurred by breaking the Law?
Again Paul, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” What sin is he talking about her, Original, or by the Law, or both? Circumcision was by Law, and the Law was created to make sin manifest: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This strongly say that Paul is talking about both Original sin, and the sin of breaking the Law.
When Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…” He demonstrated the impossibility of obeying the Law.
If you ‘think’ I’d like to kill that bastard, you committed murder in your heart. If you ‘think’ I wish that was my ca, house, boat, etc., you have sinned, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
If merely thinking unrighteous though is sinning how can any of us hope to stop sinning?  Grace is the only hope for redemption.
Published in: on April 6, 2016 at 08:54  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

Donald Trump And Waterboarding: Does The Geneva Conventions Apply?

If you have not been living under a rock of indifference you will know the heat that the Progressives and MSM have been giving Trump over his advocating a return to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique for captured terrorists.   They loudly scream that it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions if we were to do so.

Does it?  No! The Geneva Conventions applies only to signatories countries of the Conventions For a complete list of them click here, you will note that ISIS is not on the list.

When one speaks of the Geneva Conventions, they are usually referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was ratified in the aftermath of World War II.

There were actually four Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention was agreed to in 1864. The agreement provided for the protection of all medical facilities, their personnel and any civilians aiding the wounded. It also gives the Red Cross international recognition as a neutral medical group.

The First convention was originally signed by 12 nations (The United States was not one of these). The United States signed the Second Convention, which occurred in 1882. The second convention extended the protection of the first convention to wounded combatants at sea and shipwrecked sailors.

The Third Geneva Convention was convened in 1929 and resulted in specific protections for prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. This convention reaffirmed the requirements of the first three conventions and provided protections for civilians during wartime.


In 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984.  It was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994.  To this treaty the U.S. put the following exceptions:

Upon signature :

       “The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary.”

Upon ratification :

       “I. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
       (1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
       (2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions’ includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence’ requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,’ as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.’
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

I draw you attention to the fist exception, “(a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;”  The US Armed Forces subject their own troops to waterboarding in training so they cannot believe that it would do any of the above. Thus an appeal to this treaty to stop Trump from reintroducing waterboarding as an interrogation technique falls short,

The United States Central Intelligence Agency defines waterboarding as a procedure where the individual is bound to an inclined bench. Then a cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes and water is applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. During this process the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth and the air flow is slightly restricted and water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C – TORTURE

As used in this chapter—


“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—


the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;


the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;


the threat of imminent death; or


the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and


“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.


Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—


the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or


the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.


A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Torture is defined by US Law, and any law the government can make it can unmake and can be rewritten to exclude waterboarding.