'Truth': A Movie Based on Six Pages of Lies

In Hollywood, "dramatic or artistic license" is something audiences have learned to live with whenever there's a movie based on a questionable "real life" story.  For example, take the movie 'Captain Phillips'.  In that film, Phillips is portrayed as a complete hero.  The problem here, is that Phillips ignored past hijack warnings for the waters that he deliberately sailed into;  thus jeopardizing the boat and his crew.  Is that really heroic?

Now, we have a movie from Robert Redford called 'Truth' which takes 'dramatic license' to new heights of lying.  The entire film sets out to rewrite history and discredit George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard by painting him as a less-than-good soldier.  The only problem is that all of the assertions of Bush's poor behavior while in the National Guard were based on 6 documents that were dated between 1972 and 1973.  All 6 documents had been created using Microsoft Word and a specific font that didn't exist until two decades after 1973.  Thus a consensus of typewriting experts declared them  to be fraudulent; and instead of Bush being discredited, CBS anchor Dan Rather -- who is portrayed by Robert Redford in the movie -- was discredited for airing a false story; along with '60 Minutes' and producer Mary Mapes.  CBS was forced to publicly apologize and Rather was summarily fired and publicly disgraced.

But now we have the very liberal Redford producing and portraying Rather as some kind of American hero in another attempt to rewrite history, by once again, painting George Bush as a less than stellar serviceman.  Too bad a noted A-List actor such as Redford saw fit to tarnish his image by putting personal politics ahead of the truth in 'Truth'. The reality is that most of Hollywood is liberal, and so anti-Bush that they see no problem with the lies Redford is trying to sell.  Unfortunately, many uninformed will see the movie and assume it to really be "Truth".

References:

Should Hollywood get its 'true stories' straight?: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/10/10/true-stories-hollywood/2955851/

CBS network refuses to advertise Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford's Truth: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/19/cate-blanchett-robert-redford-truth-cbs-wont-advertise

How the Dan Rather Movie 'Truth' Lies About Good Journalism: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/14/how-the-dan-rather-movie-truth-lies-about-good-journalism.html

George W. Bush military service controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

Drone Strikes Are More Detrimental To America's Reputation Than Torture

Amid all the flap over Democrat Senator Feinstein's release of the so-called "Torture Report", many have questioned why she, President Obama, and other Democrats seem to think that there is no "moral equivalency" between Obama's use of drones and George Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. 

But, understand this.  Unlike Bush's so-called torture techniques -- which only affected a few dozen highly-valued captive terrorists -- two separate studies have shown that Obama's use of drones has resulted in thousands of civilian causalities.  Casualties not limited to men but, also, women and children.  While the lucky ones (I guess) are the civilians that were killed, many others have been  maimed or disfigured for life.  Other survivors are known to have suffered severe psychological trauma equivalent to PTSD. If that, in itself, isn't torture, I don't know what is.

Yet, even so, the White House claims that the drone strikes are precision/surgical strikes and that all care is given to protect civilians.  But, the world thinks differently as this chart from a 2014 Pew Research report shows:

So, if Senator Feinstein and President Obama think that releasing the torture report shows that we are taking the high ground by "admitting our mistakes" then, why aren't we also taking the high ground by admitting that drone strikes kill innocent civilians?   After all, the "torture" (enhanced interrogation) was known to the world almost a decade ago, and right now, drone strikes continue and are even being ramped up because of our fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  As such, the number of civilian deaths and injuries just keep piling up.  Perhaps, it will take another president, following Obama's exit from office, to admit that drone strikes were moral mistakes in a similar attempt at regaining s lost trust in this country around the world.

References:

Video: Henry to Earnest: How Can You [Obama] Claim 'Moral Authority' On Drone Strikes:  http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/10/henry-earnest-how-can-you-claim-moral-authority-while-killing-innocents-drones

2012 Study: Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

2013 Study: US drone strikes more likely to kill civilians than US jet fire: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/study-us-drone-strikes-more-likely-kill-civilians-us-jet-v19254842

Death toll of Obama’s Drone Campaign 5 Years Later: 2,400: http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/obamas-campaign-later.html

Pew Poll: Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones: http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/

Obama on CIA torture report: "When we make mistakes, we admit them":  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-on-cia-torture-report-when-we-make-mistakes-we-admit-them/

US airstrikes in Syria, Iraq could lead to high civilian casualties: http://rt.com/news/192220-isis-airstrikes-civilians-us/

Torture Under Clinton Was Far Worse Than Under Bush

Senator Dianne Feinstein has released her Democrat-staff-written report on CIA torture during the George W. Bush years following 9/11.  In that report, we will find that the CIA used various forms of "psychological" interrogation techniques -- which Feinstein calls torture -- such as water boarding; which makes the person feel that they are drowning, when in fact, they are not, or, we see that we used various forms of sleep deprivation.

But, nowhere in that report will you find extreme forms of physical torture used like those seen in other countries where people are left bloodied by constant blows, have their bones broken, have certain parts of their bodies electrocuted, or have fingers and toes cut off.

As a country, we don't torture people in those ways. We've signed both the Geneva and UN Conventions that ban tortured interrogations on any prisoners or prisoners of war.

However, other countries are well versed in those physical torture techniques and, there is nothing in either the Geneva or UN Conventions that prevent us from using those countries to obtain information by those means that we, ourselves, are prevented from using.

That is why President Bill Clinton authorized the CIA to use something called "extraordinary rendition" to transfer abducted enemies-of-the-U.S. to countries who practiced true physical torture.  In this way, America could (theoretically) keep its hands clean in the process.  When Bush took office, that practice was stopped and the CIA used "enhanced interrogation" techniques at American facilities.  Techniques that were well restrained in comparison to what Bill Clinton authorized and which the Bush Administration felt were acceptable under previously signed Conventions.

Another thing that Feinstein doesn't seem remember is the fact Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, used sleep deprivation against the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas.  Yes, that's right Texas.  For days, loud music and high intensity spotlights were used to deprive the Dividians of sleep.

It is interesting that Dianne Feinstein solely focused on the Bush years, and never once, thought of  including the Clinton years in her report, when the torture process was totally unrestrained. 

Lastly, Senator Feinstein claims the interrogation techniques used were ineffective because they yielded false information that was purely being given to the CIA interrogators in order to stop what she calls torture.  Really?  Does anyone really think our CIA was so stupid to think that people wouldn't attempt to lie to them during an interrogation?  Everything that was learned had to be verifiable.  This was especially true when enhanced interrogation techniques lead to the disclosure of Bin Laden's personal courier's name.  It was the courier's house that Bin Laden was staying in when he was killed by our Special Forces team.  Also, if enhanced interrogation was so ineffective, why did the CIA continue to use it for six years after 9/11?

References:

CIA torture report brands post-9/11 program as brutal and ineffective: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

Extraordinary rendition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

January 2009: Panetta faces rendition queries: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/?page=all

The deaths of Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams and Steve Willis resulted in a prolonged stand-off involving psychological operations tactics from the mission to capture Manuel Noriega in 1989. These included the playing of loud music, recordings of planes and chanting in addition to the use of spotlights to deprive the Branch Davidians of sleep: https://www.hsdl.org/blog/view/s_4524


United Nations Convention against Torture - Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

Did Harsh Interrogation Tactics Lead To Bin Laden?: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136005405/did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-lead-to-bin-laden

Why Obama's Executive Orders Are Lawless

When Barack Obama took the oath of office, he agreed, before God and our country, that he would "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  In doing so, he also agreed to Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution which states that the President must "faithfully execute the laws of the land".  The word "faithfully" in that statement is clearly defined by Webster's Dictionary as "strict or thorough performance of one's duty." Faithfully does not mean that the President can arbitrarily execute the laws of the land.  Nor, does it say he can ignore those parts of the Constitution he doesn't like.

In our power-balanced system of government, only Congress has the right to create or amend laws; and, once signed into law they become the responsibility of that President and all future President's to "faithfully" execute and uphold them.  If, however, the law is somehow unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down; but, not the President. Therein lies the problem with a number of executive orders issued by Obama.  Especially those associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that he, himself, signed into law.  If he didn't like the mandates of the ACA, including the dates of implementation, he should have vetoed it.  That was his right under our Constitution.  But, instead, by signing it into law, he agreed to "faithfully" execute it.

Some on the left, like Juan Williams, a writer for the Hill.com and a Fox News contributor, seem to think that the issue of lawlessness is, somehow, just a numbers game; arguing that George Bush and Bill Clinton issued twice as many executive orders than has Obama.  I suppose, then, from this, we are to believe that both Clinton and Bush were twice as lawless as Obama. That argument is just a another canard; being served up for the benefit of the dumbest in our society who don't know any better.  Both Clinton and Bush were cautious to issue executive orders that could not be construed as being unconstitutional.  Clinton even waived off an opportunity to kill Bin Laden because he thought that it could be interpreted as an illegal or unconstitutional act.

In Obama's case, he revels in blatant, in-your-face violations of the Constitution.  Neither Clinton nor Bush would have issued an executive order forcing "all" religious organizations to  provide free contraception methods and abortive drugs to their employees; thus, violating the protection of religious rights and freedoms. Yet, in the case of President Obama, he is taking this lawlessness all the way to the Supreme Court, with many experts believing that the "contraception" order will be found unconstitutional.

We should have known from his earliest days in office that Obama would use his "pen" to violate the laws of the land for purely political reasons.  In February of 2009, just days before he signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law, he issued an executive order entitled: "USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS".  In effect, this was payback to the unions for their help in his election.  Under that executive order, union work rules and union pay scales were mandated for all Federal construction projects; especially all those projects that were being outlined in the Stimulus Package.  So, when it was eventually signed into law,  the vast majority of all of those so-called shovel-ready jobs were invalidated by the President's previous executive order on union work rules and pay.  Then, all those projects had to be rebid at higher costs with either union or union-like labor.  That's the primary reason that the $787 billion Stimulus Package wound up costing the taxpayer $831 billion and why so many shovel-ready projects were cancelled or delayed. Then, in 2011, Obama looked back and quipped that "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected!" as if he had nothing to do with it.

In my opinion, Obama's continued use of executive orders just proves his ineptness in the "horse trading" skills that we have seen, and have come to expect, from our past presidents.  This president simply cannot negotiate or compromise.  There are no carrots in his quiver; only sticks.

References:

Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements (PLA): http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects

Obama Jokes About Shovel-ready Jobs: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/13/obama-jokes-jobs-council-shovel-ready-was-not-shovel-ready-we-expected

Hank Crumpton, Former CIA Officer: Clinton Wouldn't Authorize Osama Bin Laden Kill In 1999: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html

February 14th, Juan Williams to Martha MacCallum on Fox: "I can't even understand why Mr. Limbaugh's so upset, because when I look at the actual numbers, you see that President Obama has used an executive order to go around the Congress, I think it's less than half of the time of Bill Clinton, and just over half of the time of President George W. Bush. So it just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, unless you're trying to demonize President Obama and say he's lawless and he's a bad guy": http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/14/it_s_obama_s_lawlessness_that_matters_not_his_motivation

Dispelling the Myth That George W. Bush Only Benefited The Rich

We've heard it all before.  According to Obama and the Democrats, the George W. Bush tax cuts only benefited  the rich.  Thus, apparently, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Bush years.

However, thanks to a post by Jim Lindgren, in a Washington Post blog, we get this very enlightening chart:

As the chart shows, of the last four out-of-office Presidents, the incomes of the lowest 20% of our population under George W. Bush increased the highest at 18.4%.  At the same time, the top 20%, saw declines of  6% in their incomes.  Under Clinton, the poor only saw income increases of 13.3%; but, the richest 1% saw their income rise by a whopping 84.1%.  Reagan was the biggest benefactor of the rich with a 90.9% increase in their incomes in his 8 years.

That, then, brings us to Obama.  Under his stewardship we have a record number of people in poverty: 46.5 million and a 49-year high; as a percent of population. Further, Obama has had to admit that, since being in office, 95% of all the income gains have gone to the top 1%.

If this was a fairy tale, and Obama had a magic mirror, his "fairest of all" question would definitely result in George W's face reflecting back at him.   


References:

Jim Lindgren:  If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/if-we-want-more-income-equality-should-we-return-to-the-economy-of-george-w-bush/

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all


Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/

Hospital Drug Shortages: First Blame Republicans. Then, Democrats.

In 2003, George W. Bush signed into law, the Republican lead initiative called the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act".  Under the law, seniors enrolled in the new Medicare, Part D, could obtain their prescription drugs at substantially lower prices.  At least if they didn't reach the now-infamous "Doughnut Hole".   But, also, as part of that law, drugs sold directly to health care providers were restricted from price hikes.  And, that fact, today, has caused a major drug shortage problem in the United States.

Right now, many seriously ill patients are being told that they cannot start or continue life-saving drug therapies because the medication they need is either in short supply or completely unavailable.  Many of those drugs are actually cheap generics that have been around for many years.  The problem generally starts with a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspection and the eventual shut down of a drug manufacturing facility because of some violation.  This, in turn, forces a drug to become in short supply.  Normally, this shortage  would cause the price to rise significantly.   As a result, the higher price would typically motivate the original manufacturer to get on the stick and meet FDA compliance and restart manufacturing and distribution at that new higher price.  At the same time, other competing companies would want to take advantage of the higher prices by upping their production.  But, when the prices are "fixed" by federal law, there is no incentive for a manufacturer to spend millions to bring their plant into compliance with the FDA or for any other manufacturer to spend money to up their rate of production.

This is a perfect example of why price fixing doesn't work.  Shame on the Republicans and George Bush for causing this problem.  Some people may actually die because of it.  And, shame on the Democrats who had complete control of Congress and the Presidency for ignoring the problem and not correcting it.  Instead, all those Democrats were too focused on taking over health care in America.  Even today, it is well known why there are drug shortages and, yet, Congress still refuses to fix the law that's caused the problem.  It's things like this that give Congress its well-deserved 10% approval rating.

The Incredible Disappearance Of Anti-War Groups

When George Bush was in office, the media was constantly focused on the antics of anti-war campaigners like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink.  But, since Obama took office, more than three years ago, those people have all but completely disappeared off the political landscape.  They were nowhere to be seen when President Obama authorized a troop surge in Afghanistan.  Nor, were they around when he authorized increased drone attacks in both Pakistan and Yemen.  This despite the fact that the drones were producing a lot of collateral, civilian deaths. Then there was the  U.S. military involvement in the support of the overthrowing of Libyan strongman, Gaddafi. Where were they then?

It just seems to me that the anti-war movement was more about politics and less about war.  Actually, more about being anti-Republican and anti-George W. Bush.  For that reason, the anti-war movement has diminished itself and is no longer worth listening to; either now or in the future.

Paul Krugman's Shameful Political Attack And Rewrite of History

By now, most of the readers of yesterday's Drudge Report are aware that a columnist for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, wrote the following blog entry and published it just prior to the time of day when the first World Trade Center tower was attacked on 9/11/2011:

The Years of Shame

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Aside from the fact that this criticism of Bush, Giuliani, and Kerik are so politically motivated and so shamefully out of place on a day of solemn remembrance, it is also factually wrong. Krugman would have you believe that the events of 9/11 were something that Bush and other neocons had just been eagerly awaiting: An excuse to go to war. But, this is a pure rewrite of history. Simply, the Afghanistan War would have never happened if the Taliban had complied with George W. Bush's demand that they turn over Osama Bin Laden and stop harboring Al Qaeda. That's the reality that Krugman's blog entry seems to have conveniently and so "liberal-mindedly" forgotten.

As far as being fake heroes, I think Bush, Giuliani, or Kerik would "all" admit that the heroes of that day were those who lost their lives and those who saved the lives of others; and, not themselves. What these men did, following 9/11, was to simply do their jobs to protect the citizens of this country. Each was an extremely strong and competent leader at a time of intensely wrenching turmoil in our history. A fact that we can all be thankful for and a fact that, apparently, Krugman doesn't seem to comprehend.

Jimmy Buffett Should Shut Up Or Get Some Learnin'

Recently, at a concert for those affected by the Gulf oil spill, Jimmy Buffett decided to take a left-wing shot at George W. Bush by specifically blaming him for the BP oil spill (Click here to See Story: Jimmy Buffet Organizes Gulf Benefit, Blames Bush for Spill). However, if Mr. Buffett hadn't burned up a few million brain cells by hammering down margaritas in Margaritaville, he might have done a little research and found out that the deepwater drilling in the Gulf got its genesis, primarily, during the Clinton Administration. By the time George W. Bush took office, there were more than 32 active deepwater oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico with hundreds of rigs and wells on each of those fields. The Bush Administration just continued the policy of Clinton. And, yes, Obama followed the policies of Bush.

Today, there are more than 112 active deepwater oil fields with thousands of active rigs, or capped and idle wells and well holes in the Gulf at depths of 3,000 feet or deeper. All told, the Gulf of Mexico has more than 50,000 oil rigs providing almost 1/3 of all domestic oil. Drilling and oil production goes back decades and not just since Bush took office!

It has been the actions of Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that have forced us to be more dependent on offshore drilling for our domestic oil. Those two Presidents have federalized millions of acres of land, therefore placing known oil reserves like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and the Bakken oil fields of the upper Midwest off limits to oil exploration. Just last March, Obama signed into law another 2 million acres of land that are now deemed to be wilderness conservation areas; and, again, restricted from oil exploration. Additionally signed into law by Obama, were 26 million acres of land to be defined as the National Landscape Conservation System and everything from oil drilling to hunting and fishing was banned. Currently, 30% of American territory is federally owned and controlled; mostly in the oil-rich western states. For example, nearly 70% of Alaska is federally controlled. Natural gas rich Utah is 58% federalized. Colorado is 37% off limits to gas and oil drilling. (Click here to See Story: Federal Lands in the U.S.)

Sadly, people like Buffett are able to use their celebrity to promote lies in the pursuit of their own political ideology. Even sadder, a lot of dumb people believe them. Instead of blaming Bush, Mr. Buffet would be better to question why "his" President, through "his" constant "inaction" and by blocking tactics of those agencies under "his" direction, is actually allowing the complete destruction of this country's beautiful and fragile Gulf shores.

Two Presidents. Two Disasters. Two Failures.

Bush and the Republicans paid a heavy price for the failures following Katrina. Now, with the BP oil spill, Obama is trying to deflect similar responsibility by blaming anything and anyone, totally outside of his Administration, having anything at all to do with the disaster.

However, in both cases, the problem is one of government response. Bush and his "Brownie" were late to the game in protecting New Orleans and, subsequently, the political punishment was severe. Now, Obama finds himself in a similar pickle because of his Administration's lack of response to the oil spill disaster. In yesterday's press conference, Obama, again, tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, he made the claim that his people were in charge from day one but, at the same time, he clearly implied that BP was on their own when he said it was BP's responsibility to stop the spill and clean up the environment. Either the government is in charge or BP is? Which is it?

Obama is the most powerful man in the world in terms of what is at his disposal to fix any problem. He has 3 million active and reserve military that he could have tapped into for any abatement and cleanup. But, Obama didn't use the military service except to rely on a few Coast Guard personnel to work on the spill. He could have commandeered any number of oil booms from around the country and used the Air Force to airlift them to the gulf for deployment.

He could also have enlisted the talents of other oil companies in finding a solution.
From day one, Obama should have been on the horn talking to the CEO's of all the top American oil companies to ask them to join in on a task force to fix this blowout problem. He should have made it clear that all oil companies have a vested stake in this because it could affect the future of all drilling in this country. That would have been true leadership. But, Obama and all the Democrats are always at odds with the oil companies because of their "environmentalist" campaign contributions. However, oil is one of the most strategic commodities in all the world and absolutely essential to our national security; and, having an adversarial relationship with the industry is beyond belief.

Obama deserves the blame he's now getting and, by rights, a lot more. His ineptness is not only being criticized by the right, but by members of his own party. To say that this isn't his Katrina is just putting the hiding of Obama's ineptness above the destruction of the ecology and livelihoods of the Gulf region.

Obama Is Making G.W. Bush Look Good

When George W. Bush left office, his approval rating was between 30 to 34 percent. In a newly taken poll, 44 percent of the respondents said that they would rather have Bush back than have Obama (Click to See Full Story: "Ben Smith: Bush closes the gap").

That says a lot about the job that Mr. "O" is doing. At this rate, Obama only has to be in office for another year before Bush starts looking like the greatest President this country ever had.

ClimateGate and Its Parallels To RatherGate

Dan Rather was hell bent on destroying the character and, possibly, any historical legacy of the George W. Bush presidency. So much so, that he was willing to use falsified documents as the basis of his attack. In the RatherGate scandal, Dan Rather aired documents on the 60 Minutes II news program that showed that George W. Bush was being reprimanded by his then-Air National Guard Commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, for his poor performance as a National Guard pilot. Other documents implied that Bush failed to get his annual physical and that Killian had been pressured by Bush Senior to sugarcoat Bush the younger's poor performance. However, good internet-driven detective work ultimately proved that all the documents were concocted years later on a PC and that they were never hand typed on a typewriter; the only text producing mechanism of that era. Yet, to this day, Rather still says he was right about Bush's substandard National Guard service; although he has no valid facts to support his belief. Killian, himself, died long before the airing of the "60 Minutes" piece and conveniently couldn't verify the supposed truth of those documents.

In a similar vein, we now have ClimateGate where thousands of previously secreted emails are showing that a core group of scientists have been manipulating data and suppressing peer review for almost two decades in order to substantiate the alarm over global warming. But, it appears, the science behind global warming is just as flawed as those documents in RatherGate. And, just as in the case of Dan Rather having never denied his actions, the political left is still in denial by saying that anthropogenic global warming is real; regardless of what those emails seem to clearly imply.

Just last Friday, Carol Browner, Obama's Climate Czar, in a Dan Rather-esk moment, said that all those damning e-mails "change little" (Click to See Full Story: "Climate czar says e-mails change little"). She, instead, said she is sticking with the 2500 scientists who believe global warming is caused by mankind. However, Ms. Browner appears to be ignoring the near 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition that rejects the current science over global warming (Click to See "Petition Project" website). It also ignores the 650+ scientists who abandoned the global warming consortium of scientists because it was a "lie" (Click to See this December 2008 Story: "650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference to abandon global warming “lie”). Many of whom were once part of Browner's 2500. One of the most prophetic dissenting statements of a year ago came from the award winning U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh -- a very prominent one of Browner's supposed "2500" -- who said: "Warming fears are the...worst scientific scandal in history... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” Now, we actually have the emails that support his claim.

Science, like journalism, is supposed to be a search for truth and understanding. But, today, it appears that both science and journalism have been hijacked by left-wing ideology. This attitude is firmly reinforced by the fact that the left-wing, main stream media of this country have completely ignored this ClimateGate scandal. The only true news agencies that are even reporting on this are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

For Obama, KSM Is Simply Collateral To Going After Bush And His Administration

This decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other 9/11 suspects in a Federal criminal court in New York is just ridiculous.

These people aren't like bank robbers or typical criminals that would be convicted by a jury trial in America. The manner of evidence collection against these people is completely different than that in a typical CSI-type investigation. Much of what was done was through highly sensitive and secret means and should not be exposed to the light of day in a Federal court. Also, because of the manner of arrest, the chain of custody of evidence, and interrogation techniques, its highly possible that much of the evidence against them could be thrown out of court. KSM's Miranda rights and the violation of them is one glaring example. The issue of when he was allowed to have access to an attorney could play a big part in whether or not any confessions on his part are even admissible. For that reason, there is an extreme risk that a mistrial could be declared, and that all or some of these 9/11 perpetrators could be set free. And, with enough evidence found not to inadmissible, these people could easily be found to be not guilty.

Even our own domestic court system understands that certain cases require specialized treatment. That's why we have criminal cases tried in a criminal court system. The disposition of children is handled in a Family Court environment. We also have Civil, Traffice and Divorce court settings for those specialized types of trials. This is why a specialized environment like a Military Tribunal is more appropriate for the kind of trial involving the 9/11 suspects. These courts have the means to handle the sensitive top secret evidence collection and are not all bound up with issues of civil and criminal issues like Miranda rights.

Like everything else, Obama is playing to his lefty base. He knows that by trying these cases in an open Federal court, the Bush Administration will be under trial. That, to him, is more important than if KSM and his collaborators go free. Obama is the consummate politician who is hell bent on using the power of his office to discredit the opposing political party. He doesn't care if the United States gets marginalized in that process. That is what complete ideologues do!

A Year After the Lehman Collapse

It has been a year since the Wall Streeter, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy. It has been a year since the magnitude of the "toxic asset" situation was really exposed to sunlight. And, it has been year since we finally realized that the world's banking system was on the verge of becoming the economic equivalent of the Titanic.

While Obama seems to tout that it was his actions, since taking office, that kept our economy stabilized, the true savior of our economy was those actions that were taken by then-Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and the current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, in October of 2008. Their simple, but very expensive solution, was to use bailout money for our banks in what we now refer to as TARP. If those remedies had not been implemented as quickly as they were, we truly could have had a complete pancaking collapse of the world's banking systems; not just ours. That's because, at the time, there was a massive amount of world banking interdependency that was built heavily on a massive amount of extremely toxic home loans. The money that was infused by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in October of last year provided just enough cover for any massive bank losses that could have resulted; and, that simply helped to prevent the potential domino effect of one bank collapsing after another as millions of mortgage loans began defaulting.

So, that disaster was averted. However, we are not out of the woods yet. Banks continue to go belly up and foreclosures are an ever-present problem; especially when commercial loans start defaulting. The FDIC, who is responsible for insuring our banks against any depleted funds, is becoming depleted, itself.

On Monday, Obama proposed new, more stringent regulation of our banks. However, to me, the need for new regulation isn't really warranted. We just need to restore those laws that were replaced during the Clinton Administration and to eliminate one very glaring law that was passed under Jimmy Carter. Then, too, we need to make sure that oversight is re-established to prevent any of this from ever happening again. Laws are fine as long as they are enforced; otherwise they are just another hidden piece of paper in a file cabinet.

Just remember, it wasn't the lack of laws that allowed Bernie Madoff to defraud all those people with his Ponzi scheme. Instead, it was the lack of oversight and investigation that allowed him to steal millions upon millions of people's hard-earned money. The same is true for the housing collapse and all those subprime loans that were allowed to go forward with many of our government agencies and lawmakers ignoring the impending doom.

As I alluded to before, the problem of the subprime loans goes back to the Community Reinvestment Act that was passed by Jimmy Carter and the dominant Democratic Congress at that time. That was really the genesis of all these toxic loans that have permeated our banking system and that nearly brought it to its knees. It is the law that allowed groups like ACORN and other activist groups to push banks into giving an increasing numbers of low income and high risk loans. Loans that would have otherwise been denied.

Then, too, you have to go back to the Clinton Administration and one Republican Senator by the name of Phil Gramm to see how some new laws were passed that allowed the banks to get involved in even riskier loan behavior. Because of Clinton and Gramm, some of the regulations and protections that had kept our banks from getting into risky behavior were totally abandoned. One such law, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that Clinton signed in 1999, completely repealed the protections of the Glass-Steagal Act of 1993 and is said to have been directly responsible for much of the subprime mortgage problems as it relates to Credit Default Swaps.

Further, after Clinton left office, some progressives from his Administration populated both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and they pushed these agencies into offering high risk loan sub-prime, Adjustable Rate Mortgages. George W. Bush, too, was part of the problem. He kept pushing a low-income home ownership agenda and Democrats, like Barney Frank, as a senior member of the Senate Banking committee, gladly obliged.

But, let's not forget, the Bush Administration knew that pushing too hard was going to be a problem and that's why they, on more than a few occasions, issued warnings that many in Congress seem to have ignored. Again, this was a failure of oversight. Efforts to reign in Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were tactically blocked in Congress and it's banking committee because of the ideological whims of people like Barney Frank.

Finally, the real crack in the banking system started to show up as the Federal Reserve Bank, under Alan Greenspan, started to rapidly raise rates in 2004 through 2006 (Click to see a very telling graph). Prior to this, rates were kept unattainably low in order to fight the recessionary effects of the Clinton-recession and the attacks of 9/11. During that time, interest rates were kept so low that millions of Adjustable Rate Mortgages at subprime rates were established with near zero down payments for people who otherwise couldn't have afforded them. Further, as rates started to rise, people naturally rushed in to take advantage of low interest loans before they went higher; thus aggravating the subprime loan situation. Things really started to unravel when an increasing number of those sub-prime loans began to take on their annual resets and those holding those mortgages found themselves falling behind on their mortgage payments. Eventually, the holders of the loans began a process of foreclosure and the housing market started to collapse completely. Ultimately, the housing bubble had completely burst by the end of 2007 and there were signs that we could have a massive recession on our hands.

While there are those who are quick to blame Wall Street, it was a lot of government deregulation and the "gaming" of existing laws that caused the mess we are now in. All those banks, that are now in trouble, were being pushed by a government who saw low-income home ownership as a political tool and neither the Democrats or the Republicans are blameless for that shameless behavior. Congress, more than anything, should be blamed for ignoring the warning signs and for allowing the risk.

A lot can be done, and done quickly, to reestablish order in the mortgage loan and banking system in America. Much of this should have been done by Obama when he took office. Instead, he went on to the less important things like the reform of health care. He was more concerned with closing Guantanamo and paying back his campaign donors than modifying the laws that would protect Americans from another banking collapse.

First and foremost, we need to do something with the Community Reinvestment Act. Either rescind it or modify it in such a way as to insure that it doesn't become an overriding factor for traditional, disciplined loan activity. Whatever is done, this law should no longer be used as a "hammer" by outside groups, like ACORN, to force banks to abandon ethical loan behavior. Secondly, all those Gramm/Clinton laws should be looked at and modified to insure that loan loss reserves are being maintained and aren't being undermined by derivative investment instruments like the Credit Default Swaps. Glass-Steagal should be pulled out of the trash, dusted off, and at least partially reenacted. Lastly, it is paramount that oversight be restored. No one person, like a Barney Frank, should be able to push banks into giving loans that are outside the norms.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should probably be divorced completely from the influences of our Senate Banking Committee. I think these two semi-government agencies should report to a Board of Directors who is partially nominated by the stockholders and partially nominated by the Executive Branch of Government and approved by Congress. The General Accounting Office (GAO) should conduct annual audits and those results should be made public without any prior Congressional review or tampering. Further, an independent non-government auditing firm should continue the normal quarterly audits.

We don't need new laws. We just need the laws put back in place that adequately protected us from the 1930's forward; like Glass-Steagal. We also need to shore up the ones that were passed in the late 1990's because the laws must be current for a modern banking system. Somewhere we need to make sure that there is clear oversight and protections of an annual audit of our banking system.

The Blame Game

On almost every Sunday morning television talk show this last weekend, Democratic members of Congress and personnel from Obama's Administration made sure they laid blame on the Bush Administration and on Wall Street's greed for the economic mess that they have "inherited". Obama, himself, had made sure that he used the "I-word" ("Inherited") every time he got his face in front of the cameras last week.

But, if Bush is so at fault, why aren't there any hearings or investigations being conducted to determine "what" he and his Administration did to create such a mess. Shouldn't we know the how's and the why's that caused us to get to this point? Certainly, by bringing those facts to light, old laws could be changed and new ones written to avoid this from ever happening again.

But, nothing has happened or is happening; and that's amazing to me. This is the same Democratic Congress that has investigated almost everything that the Bush Administration has done over the last 8 years. They are currently dragging Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in front of a Congressional hearing to publicly flog them over the firing of a few attorneys in the Justice Department (See Full Story). But, when it comes to a whole nation that is losing their jobs and their homes, there are no hearings or special investigations. What gives?

I think that there are no hearings being conducted because those hearings would show that the Democrats, at the very least, are complicit in creating this economic disaster. Maybe, even, exclusively at fault. I think, too, that hearings are being avoided because some past Democratic Presidents, like Carter or Clinton, could be implicated.

Because the housing collapse and subsequent recession occurred under Bush's watch, it is politically more expedient to use the "blame game" to attach the blame to Bush without possibly getting yourself dirty through actual hearings. As long as there isn't any public outcry to have investigations, the Democrats can only assume that the "blame game" will continue to work for their benefit.

My guess is that there will never be any hearings. The Democrats will, out of self preservation, avoid them at all cost and they are the ones in control. The only way we will actually find out what happened will be through years of independent analysis and through various forms of investigative journalism.

Nancy Reagan's Incongruous Statement on Stem Cell Research

Today, Obama signed an executive order that would lift the previous Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Clearly, those on the left supported this move. After all, it is just another extension of their pro-choice attitude towards the destruction of embryos.

Sadly, the left has been able to find a rather famous person who is associated with the right and who has come to the support of their cause. That would be the wife of the right's most famous president in modern times: Ronald Reagan. In a statement, Nancy Reagan said the following:

"I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers.

Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases – and soon. As I’ve said before, time is short, and life is precious."

Now, I recognize that she, along with the whole world, would love to cure all the ills that afflict mankind. That would be tremendous. However, at what cost? Should we destroy life to save life?

In the last sentence of her statement, she says: "...and life is precious." Those words, alone, show how inconsistent her beliefs are on stem cell research. You can't allow the destruction of newly formed human life and, at the same time, believe that life is precious. Unfortunately, the left is using Nancy Reagan's emotion on this topic as a justification of what many consider to be an immoral act. And, that's just my opinion.

The Bush Years In Retrospect

After eight years of President Bush, he leaves office with little recognition for the good things that he has done and with a "high disapproval rating" based on every thing that went wrong during his time in office. In his case, the bad, at this juncture in time, is definitely outweighing the good. Some of that has a lot to do with the bias of the news media in this country. They have punished him dearly for having beaten their favored son, Al Gore, in the 2000 election. Today, many on the left, including the left-biased news media, believes Bush to have stolen that election.

History will ultimately judge George Bush. And, only history, in hindsight and without the politics of the moment, can appropriately pass judgment on Bush. Some of that judgment will be based in comparison with other Presidents that came before him and will come after him. Some of those things that may be considered poor decisions, today, might be reversed by the effects of time and the consequences of future events. Similarly, things that may have been seen, by some, as being good practices and policies by the Bush Administration may fail the test of time.

I know one thing that has hurt Bush more than anything. That was his feeble attempts at public relations over the last 8 years. He just didn't keep people informed and he didn't get out and ahead of problems. In the business world, you can avoid a lot of after-the-fact problems by being 'proactive' from the very start of any project or program. Being proactive is a well-worn business philosophy of the 1970's and 1980's that is still the foundation of good management techniques, today. Bush just wasn't proactive. In the case of the Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac problems and the ultimate meltdown of our economy, he clearly knew that these pseudo-governmental agencies were going to eventually fail; going back to his and his cabinet member's speeches, starting in 2001. But, he didn't hit hard enough on that issue and bring the problem to the people before it blew up in his face.

The same was true with Katrina. He would have best served himself and the occupants of the Gulf Coast cities if he had been up front with the people that this was a seriously large and powerful hurricane. Afterall, it was a Cat 5 just days before it hit. He could have avoided a lot of problems and the blame after the fact if he had hit the airways with a press conferences to warn people and to advise them of what steps the government was taking in the event of a major disaster. Certainly, as the President of the United States, he had access to the best weather information in the world. FEMA was actually mobilized to handle Katrina but, based on Bush's lack of taking it to the people, no one ever really knew that to be the case. There was a lot failure on the local levels, that got transferred to Bush, because he wasn't seen as working with those local governments.

Similarly, the biggest P.R. failure, either before and after the fact, was the Iraq War. There was no clarity of facts being given to the people on why we should invade Iraq. Bush would have been best served by having a series of speeches in order to keep people informed as to what was going on in the Security Council prior to the run up to the war. People, today, seem to blame Bush for "going it alone". But, does anyone realize that we were put in that position by the French, Germans, and the Russians and their veto powers in the U. N. Security Council? Those three countries used the threat of vetoes because they had such cozy trading commitments with Saddam. They put business concerns well ahead of anything else. Certainly, human rights.

That's my biggest problem with Bush. For that, I would think he will be judged more harshly than the reality justifies. Just my opinion.

Bush's Dilemma: The Auto Bailout

Last night, the auto company bailout died in the Senate. This was all due to a strong block of Republicans opposing it. This morning, the White House announced that they will use the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) or, in other words, the previously approved Congressional bailout money (the famous $700 billion)to provide a temporary bridge until Congress reconvenes.

Bush is doing this because he doesn't want to be seen as the "President who killed the auto industry in America." He also doesn't want to be associated with providing government funding and the subsequent debt to an auto industry that he and most people feel will continue to fail. That's because anyone with an ounce of brain power knows that funding without deep restructuring will just wind up being political suicide down the road. Instead, he would like to leak just enough money to get the autos limping into the next Administration's hands. This way, the full $35 billion needed by the auto companies will be tagged to Barack Obama and the Democrats. Then, if that money fails to resuscitate the autos, the whole mess will be sitting squarely in the laps of the Democratic party: from Barack to Reid to Nancy Pelosi.

For sure, the auto companies will get their help through to the next Congress; but, without any Republican senatorial help. The Democratic leadership will not be happy because they wanted the Republicans to be in bed with them on this. That way, the Democrats would have had political cover in the event that this funding doesn't work (Which it won't!). But, on the other hand, the Democrats will be somewhat happy because they will have been seen as working with Bush to save the auto companies and the United Auto Workers union. Bush will be happy because he will be able to "Pontius Pilot" himself from this problem and not have it be another stain on his legacy. The auto companies won't be too sad because they know that they will ultimately get their full amount of funding when Congress reconvenes under a new President. Now, is everybody happy?

How Easily Democrats Are Forgetting 9/11

Recently, Bill Clinton was campaigning for Barack Obama. In his speech he touted the fact that he created 22 million jobs during his administration and how, when he left office, he left with a budget surplus. Barack Obama has similarly commented on Bill Clinton's accomplishments. At the same time, they trashed the Bush administration on job creation and for creating budget deficits.

Certainly, they are right on the numbers. The Bush administration hasn't done well on job creation and maintaining a budget surplus. Democrats would certainly point to the wastefulness of the Iraq war as an underlining cause.

But, never once do the Democrats, especially Barack Obama, ever mention the recession handed to George Bush by Bill Clinton or the compounding impact of 9/11 on our economy. They never mention how it literally took until the end of 2005, just 3 years ago, for things to start turning around. All those Bush tax cuts were aimed at restoring this country after trillions were lost in this economy. They were done to create jobs that were lost to the economic downturn. They fail to mention how unemployment numbers around and below 6 percent are still historically low. They fail to mention all the spending and tax cuts that were done to stimulate the economy; just as we are spending billions, today, to fix the subprime credit crisis. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton seem to forget how businesses and air travel were seriously affected by 9/11. They forget how much money had to be dumped into Homeland Security and the TSA to protect and strengthen this country against another attack. They always talk about the Iraq war but, conveniently forget about all the costs associated with Afghanistan. Billions were spent to beef up airport and seaport security. Hundreds of government buildings and facilities around the world were modified to avoid drive-up bombers; and, thousands of security personnel were hired to secure our airports and government buildings. Lastly, they fail to recognize that 10 million low-income people don't have to pay any income taxes today, thanks to the Bush tax cuts that supposedly only benefited the rich.

For the last 6 years, the Democrats have complained that containers aren't being individually examined at seaports. One can only imagine what the deficits would be like today if they, rather than Republicans, were in charge of Congress from 9/11 to 2003. Do you really think we would be limited to the amount of union TSA workers that we have today? Not hardly. The Democrats would have easily seized on 9/11 as a means of payback to the unions by having security personnel "manually" unload and examine every single container that came into our ports. That fact, alone, would add thousands of more union employees on the government tab and would have brought our sea trade to a standstill.

It just seems like the Democrats conveniently forget 9/11 when it comes to the deficit spending and jobs. 9/11 seriously hurt our economy. It cost this country a fortune in spending for new and preventative measures. What had to be done with taxes and spending had to be done. The Bush administration did what was expected of it. They had to get this country back on an economic footing and provide protection for us all. Despite the current housing/credit crisis, this country did get back to economic growth. We haven't had another attack for 7 years. And, the deficit had been going down as the tax revenues reached record levels.

It is too bad that the politics of winning the White House has to minimize the impact of 9/11 and all that we suffered as a country as a result of it. 9/11 was a horrible loss of lives and an event that changed America's sense of security forever. What ever happened to the slogan of "We will always remember"?

Obama's Past Tells All About Education

On Tuesday, Barack Obama took aim at George W. Bush and John McCain on education while on the campaign trail (See Full Story).

I almost have to laugh about Obama on education. This is a guy who comes from a city, Chicago, Illinois, where slightly half the students graduate from high school (See Full Story).

Half of those that do go on to college fail to complete their first two years. Obama's one big chance to improve education in that city came when he headed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (See Full Story). After $100 million in public and private financing, it was a total failure and had to be canceled in its sixth year. If it had been a success, it would still be in operation today.

That's Obama's historical or, should I say, hysterical, attempt to change poor education standards in the City of Chicago. Now, instead of millions of dollars, he wants to be the President and wants to be entrusted with billions dollars to, probably, get the same results on a national level that was seen in his total failure in Chicago.