Libertarian Leanings

The CBS Connection

Sometime down the road when we look back at the 2016 elections, we may decide that the CNBC Republican Presidential Debate turned out to be a game changer in presidential politics.  The media came up losers in the debate, particular NBC and CNBC, while Republican candidate, Senator Marco Rubio, emerged as a force to be reckoned with.  The debate was most notable for rude behavior on the part of the moderators and the absurdly loaded questions that they posed to Republican candidates.  It was all on display for 14 million viewers — the biggest CNBC viewing audience in its history, ever.  

Rubio took up the cudgel after CNBC moderator Becky Quick tried to goad Donald Trump into attacking him for his stance on immigration.  Trump refused the bait, and instead, took the opportunity to remind audiences that he was funding his own campaign rather than relying on Super PAC money.  That's when Rubio jumped into the conversation to hammer the media for their blatant pro-Hillary bias.  

RUBIO: Since I’ve been mentioned, can I respond?

(CROSSTALK)

QUICK: Yes, you can.

RUBIO: OK. I know the Democrats have the ultimate SuperPac. It’s called the mainstream media who every single day…

(APPLAUSE)

… and I’ll tell you why. Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, “Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.” She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It was the week she got exposed as a liar. It was the week that she got exposed as a liar…

(APPLAUSE)

But she has her super PAC helping her out, the American mainstream media. 

Rubio was not the only one to jab the media.  Ted Cruz was actually first to take on the CNBC moderators, telling them "This is not a cage match."  Later on Chris Christie got into it with John Harwood for inserting himself into the debate and constantly interrupting the candidates. "Even in New Jersey what you're doing is called rude."

Two things came out of this debate.  First, the Republican National Committee has dropped NBC as a partner in future Republican debates.  When its little watched business news cable channel can draw 14 million viewers for a Republican debate, that means NBC is faced with a substantial amount of lost advertisement revenue because of the RNC's decision.  We might expect networks to treat Republicans much more fairly if they are faced with the prospect that their bread and butter is at risk when they don't.  

The second thing that came out of the debate is that Hillary's blatant and constant dishonesty, and the media coverage that ignores it, have become legitimate topics on the Republican campaign trail.  It's not going to be so easy for Hillary or the media to simply brush them aside.

There is also an interesting coincidence.  In going through the news stories that trace the evolution of the White House Benghazi talking points, the administration's changing narrative, and HIllary's ongoing evasions, it's hard not to notice a number of connections to CBS News.

When Marco Rubio said Hillary had been exposed as a liar, he was talking about totally incompatible contradictions that were revealed in emails that Hillary sent the day after terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Those were the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and CIA Security Contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. 

The emails reveal Clinton telling her family that "two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaida-like group," and stating to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest." There was also a State Department cable confirming that the attack was "an organized operation" from a "Salafi terrorism group" avenging the killing of an al-Qaida terrorist.

All of this was from the day after the attack, while Clinton was simultaneously misinforming the American people about it being "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." 

On the morning after the debate, Rubio got another opportunity to spotlight Hillary's dishonesty on Thursday's CBS This Morning.  Co-host Charlie Rose took it upon himself to jump to Hillary's defense, seemingly aghast that anyone would actually accuse Hillary of lying.  Rubio pushed back firmly and decisively.  So much so that CBS This Morning's subsequent write up of Rubio's comments never mentioned the part Charlie Rose played in it.  It was as if he was never there.  Here is a piece of the transcript capturing the exchange, from NewsBusters.

CBS This Morning 

October 29, 2015

NORAH O’DONNELL: But did you make that attack toward Jeb Bush? I mean, he was once your mentor. 

MARCO RUBIO: Yeah, again I’ve great regard for him. I said that on the debate stage. I think what we should do is every candidate should run on who they are and what they stand for and what they’ll do if they can become president and let the Republican voters across this country decide who the nominee should be. If there are policy differences between us, we should discuss those differences. But I've never personally attacked anybody in this race and I'm not going to start now. If other people decide they want to change who they are--

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, well, you called Hillary Clinton a liar, senator. You called Hillary Clinton a liar. 

RUBIO: Well, no. I said Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi. There is no doubt about that, Charlie. I mean, there are e-mails in which she was talking to her family and she was telling them that there was an attack on that consulate that was due to a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda elements and then she was going around the country talking to the families of the victims, and to the American people and saying, no, no. This is because of some video that someone produced. 

ROSE: Senator, you know -- you know that -- 

RUBIO: She absolutely lied about it. 

ROSE: The CIA was changing its own assessment of what happened there during that time zone. 

RUBIO: That's not -- that's not accurate. It was clear from the very early moments after that attack that it was not a spontaneous uprising. It was a planned attack. Well orchestrated by people that brought armaments to that attack that you would never see as part of a spontaneous up rising. What was very clear is that from the very early moments of that attack, she knew that it was a terrorist attack as she shared by e-mail with various people. And yet she continued to perpetuate the lie. 

ROSE: If you're calling her a liar by saying she perpetuated a lie, then why do you think she did that? What was her motive? 

RUBIO: Well, that’s very clear why. Because they were in the middle of a 2012 re-election in which President Obama had made the claim that Al Qaeda was being defeated and -- 

ROSE: So, you’re saying that Hillary Clinton lied -- you were saying, senator, that Hillary Clinton lied because she wanted to help Barack Obama in his re-election campaign? That's a serious charge. 

RUBIO: Yes. Is that -- well, it's the truth. I mean, that is not only why she did it, that’s why everyone in the administration did it. The narrative of their campaign at the time, Charlie, was that Al Qaeda was on the run and had been defeated. That was their narrative and this countered that narrative. They didn't want that out there and that’s why they didn't tell the truth of what truly happened and the families of those victims deserve better. 

ROSE: But are you denying that the CIA was sending different information as they assessed it and providing different information to the leaders of our government? And that was part of the reason that they made different assessments. 

RUBIO: Let me tell you Charlie, without violating any -- 

ROSE: Because David Petraeus and others have said that. 

RUBIO: I don't want to violate anything that’s confidential and that’s classified but I'll tell you this. It was clear from the earliest moments after that attack that everyone on the ground and everyone closest to that attack knew, almost instantly, that this was an organized effort, not part of a spontaneous uprising and there was never, ever any evidence that it had anything to do with a video that was produced by some guy out in California. And for them to further that narrative and continue to do so well after it had become clear that that wasn't the case, it was unacceptable. The American people deserve better. And the families of those victims in Benghazi deserve better. 

So, did Charlie Rose have a valid point when he said that "the CIA was sending different information as they assessed it,and providing different information to the leaders of our government?"  The short answer is, no.  He deserves credit for sticking to the Obama administration's heavily edited talking points, but to give him credit for that would be an ideological decision.  The administration talking points made a central claim that was not supported by the CIA analysis on which they were based, that claim being that the attacks were caused by a YouTube video.

CIA Deputy Director Michael J. Morrell testified before a Congressional hearing on Benghazi after it came to light that he was among those involved in editing CIA talking points for the White House.  Keep in mind that there are distinctions between the CIA classified analysis, the CIA unclassified talking points, and subsequent White House talking points.  

According to Morrell, the word "Islamic" was removed from a sentence in the CIA talking points that described the extremists who were suspected of being involved in the attacks.  References to al Qaeda were purged.  Most significantly, CIA warnings of increasing violence in Benghazi that CIA Director David Petraeus wanted to include in the talking points were removed.  Sharyl Attkisson reported on this in April of 2014.

Morell also explained why he removed language that his own agency had included in the talking points disclosing that the C.I.A. had provided “warnings” in advance of the attacks. Morell differed with his boss, then C.I.A. Director David Petraeus, who wanted the warning language included.

“I reacted very strongly to inclusion of the warning language,” Morell testified. “I thought it was an effort on the C.I.A.’s part to make it look like we had warned and shift any blame to the State Department…I made a decision at that moment I got the talking points I was going to take the… language out.”

Indeed, one State Department source says they felt the C.I.A. warning language was “throwing them under the bus.” The references were removed.

In his prepared statement Morrell described how Washington based analysts continued to embrace the theory of a spontaneous demonstration that turned violent, even in the face of contradictory input from CIA personnel on the ground in Libya.  The analysts stuck to their spontaneous protest theory right up until September 18th when evidence from the Libyan government made it impossible for them to continue.  But, again, here's the key difference between the CIA analysis and the White House talking points. At no point did the CIA analysis make reference to a YouTube video as motivation for the attacks.  From Morrell's prepared statement:

CIA published another analysis on Benghazi on the morning of 15 September. This was written jointly with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and again coordinated within the Intelligence Community. It reinforced two judgments from the piece on 13 September – that extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack and that the attacks were inspired by that day’s breach of our Embassy in Cairo. The piece also added a new possible motivation – al-Qa’ida leader Ayman Zawahiri’s public statement late on 10 September calling on the Libyan people to avenge the death in Pakistan of senior al-Qa’ida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan national. Again, the piece made no reference to the video defaming the Prophet Muhammad as a motivation for the attack in Benghazi.

It was not until 18 September, when CIA received the Libyan Government’s assessment of video footage from the State Department facility’s security cameras that showed the front of the facility just before the attack – with no sign of protesters – that it became clear that we needed to revisit our analysis. It is important to note that on 18 September, the Libyans did not provide the video; they only provided their assessment of the video.

On September 15, 2012, the day before UN Ambassador Susan Rice made the Sunday talk show rounds promoting the spontaneous demonstration theory, the CIA Station Chief in Tripoli sent an email report that said there were no demonstrations going on in Benghazi before the attacks.  That was according to observations made by CIA security officers on the ground in Benghazi who responded to the call for help.  Morrell said he ignored that email because the officers had arrived on the scene an hour after the attacks began, and the demonstration phase might have been over by then.  Naturally, the email never mentioned a YouTube video.

The story of a video inspired protest didn't come from the CIA analysts in Washington.  It was promoted by the White House.  According to Breitbart, the Obama administration was eager to blame a YouTube video, but they originally had a different video in mind.  (Boldface below is mine.)

A redacted email sent to the Diplomatic Security Command Center, obtained Tuesday by the group Judicial Watch, reveals that the White House’s priority at 9:11 PM on the night of the attack was to contact Youtube about a “Pastor Jon” video.

“DOD is looking at various resources,” the email reads, followed by redacted information.

“S [then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] expected to make statements one of which may confirm KIA, notification of next of kin is pending confirmation.  DCM The Hague was to call OPS when completed. White House is reaching out to U-Tube to advise ramifications of posting of the Pastor Jon video,” the email continued.

On the evening of September 11, 2012 Hillary Clinton did, in fact, release a statement on the Benghazi attacks that made reference to inflammatory material on the internet.  She wasn't specific as to what inflammatory material was to blame.  The statement said in part:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

The Obama administration eventually settled on the now infamous YouTube clip from an obscure movie called "Innocence of Muslims."  On or about September 9, 2012 Egyptian TV host Sheikh Khalad Abdalla aired the clip, sparking riots in Egypt.  But there were no demonstrations in Benghazi on September 11th when Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed.  In spite of that, the White House talking points editing team, apparently led by Ben Rhodes, latched onto this YouTube video as the cause of the violence in Benghazi.   (Boldface below is mine.)

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

"[N]ot a broader failure of policy."  The evasions that were worked into the administration talking points buttress the argument that it was, in fact, a failure of policy.  Removal of the CIA's advance warnings of rising levels of violence from those talking points screams, "failure of policy."  Leading up to his death Ambassador Stevens was constantly requesting better security for the consulate in Benghazi.  All of his requests were denied, and Hillary claims never to have seen any of them.  You have to wonder why not, particularly since the CIA had issued their own set of warnings.  Had they been made public, the CIA warnings and the ambassador's many requests for more security, Hillary and Obama would have had an impossible time explaining State Department and administration inaction leading up to and during the attacks that killed four Americans.  The video story was supposed to relieve them of that burden.  Rioting in response to a YouTube video could be sold as a totally unpredictable event.  Under those circumstances who would blame them for being caught by surprise?  Certainly not the media.

And certainly not CBS.  Let's take a look at how many of the players in this drama have a connection to CBS News. 

First we have Ben Rhodes, who is a Deputy National Security Advisor at the Obama administration White House, and who was insistent that the talking points "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."  Among his qualifications for his White House post is that he is an author with a Master of Fine Arts from New York University.  Oh, and his brother, David Rhodes, has been President of CBS News since February, 2011.

Next we have Michael J. Morrell who was also deeply involved in editing the CIA talking points.  He resigned as Deputy Director of the CIA and took a job with Beacon Global Strategies, a communications firm operated primarily by former Obama administration and Hillary Clinton officials. He is also a consultant for CBS News.

David Petraeus, who was the CIA Director and who was overruled by Morrell, his subordinate, on the inclusion of CIA warnings in the CIA talking points.  He was indicted by the Obama Justice Department for his troubles, and eventually plead guilty to mishandling classified materials.  He did not get a gig with CBS News.

Finally, there is Charlie Rose who did his very best to put Marco Rubio on the spot with pointed questions about calling Hillary a liar.  He is a co-host on CBS This Morning which is a division of CBS News, which, again, is run by David Rhodes, brother of White House official, Ben Rhodes.

It's hard to imagine any scenario in all this where CBS News is an impartial observer.  I'm reminded of the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast on Benghazi by Lara Logan that CBS later disavowed.  Logan was forced by CBS to take a leave of absence because her broadcast relied upon the testimony of a security contractor who said he was an eyewitness to the 2012 raid.  CBS said they were unable to verify the contractor’s story.  CBS also said that Logan shouldn't have done the story in the first place because of comments she had made that were critical of the American effort against al Qaeda.

The report also took issue with a speech Logan gave in October of 2012, one month before starting work on the Benghazi story.

"Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position arguing that the US Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al Qaeda, and urging actions that the US should take in response to the Benghazi attack," the report says. "From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story."

Note that Logan gave her speech in October of 2012 and began working on her story a month later.  Her program aired a year after that on October 27, 2013.  For a year CBS had no complaints about Logan's views or her speech, but once her program aired executives wasted no time.  They disavowed it by November 8, 2013.  

My suspicion, based on speculation alone, is that CBS executives allowed Logan to go through with her story so that later on they could disavow it and apologize, their objectives being to end the discussions on Benghazi once and for all, and to clear the path for Hillary's presidential run in 2016.

If I were a decision maker at the Republican National Committee, I would be thinking hard about dumping CBS from the debate schedule, along with NBC.

Looking For Racism In All The Wrong Places

With the presidential election season fast approaching, it's time for progressives to trot out the racism strategy.  Not that they've given it much of a rest, lately.  It's alive and well, on display 24/7, at the Huffington Post.  

To that end, Robert Kuttner has published an article, Racism Hidden in Plain View, that purports to identify the structural racism that plagues us.  Turns out, it's a reiteration of arguments put forth by BlackLivesMatter, concluding with this:

We are fighting battles that we thought we won in the 1960s. Structural racism still runs far deeper than the victories of a single generation. 

He might have summed it all up in one sentence: "Republicans are racist."  It is, after all, the prevailing view among HuffPo audience members, and if HuffPo is about anything at all, it's about getting Democrats elected.

HuffPo commenter, Dranoel Kciddir represents himself with a picture of Malcolm X on his Facebook page.  It's not a bad choice.  Malcolm X was a great champion for African-Americans, urging African-Americans to do for themselves, even to the extent of taking up arms, if necessary.  Like a militia.  It's not an alien concept to a libertarian.  But in a small way it captures the contradictions that seem to exist within the African-American political view.  While Malcolm X might have envisioned the possibility of armed insurrection, Dranoel Kciddir seems to come down on the political side that favors gun control.

It's not just gun control.  Progressives come down in favor of gun confiscation, and even Mr. Kciddir hints that guns are the problem.  Could he be unaware that the first gun control legislation enacted in the U.S. was part of "The Black Codes," laws aimed at keeping African-Americans in a virtual state of slavery after the American Civil War had freed them?  

Be that as it may, here is his comment on the article by Robert Kuttner, followed by the reply that I couldn't resist.  Spoiler alert:  It's not about gun control.

Comment by Dranoel Kciddir:

"its appearent that the racist in this country are not interested in true peace, they practice this horrid racism and hid behind their guns and excuses. Jails are not built for them, the criminal justice system protects them, its institutionalized and nationalistic, naked as the emperor of Rome yet they deny it even exist, further more they accuse the victims of reverse racism. Yet they travel the world trying to act as a self made policeman.

I envision a world of peace and justice for everyone, everyone should have a right to their own lives, but those in power, to continue their political ambitions they feed the workers ism's and scism's while they rob the country while we sleep. They know that is not about black and white, its about green (money), most racist don't have much of it. We either stand together or die apart. We have a choice. I have long ago lost all hope, God help the young and innocent children who are the future citizens of this country."

Reply by Tom Bowler:

"They know that is not about black and white, its about green (money)..." 

Bingo! But I doubt that Mr. Kuttner's "battles we thought we won in the 1960s" include the rise of the welfare industry, an industry that quickly evolved into a trap for inner city African-Americans. But at least it was a trap that had an escape hatch -- education.

Then the quality of inner city schools (inexplicably?) took a nose dive. Not really. The decline of inner city educational opportunities can be traced back to the rise of teachers unions that have made teacher and administrator well-being the focus of schools rather than the education of inner city children.

But unions are huge contributors to Democrats and so Democrats, including our president, contribute to unions by fighting tooth and nail against charter schools -- charter schools that might offer educational alternatives to inner city kids, but charter schools that are non-union, charter schools that compete with unionized public schools. Since charter schools offer no dough for Democrats, charter schools must be stopped!

It's quite the nice little trap. And of course anybody who looks to break the grip of the welfare/education industries, to remove them from blocking the path to African-American prosperity, that person will be labeled racist. 

You are wise to look beyond racism and to follow the money.

I don't suppose Mr. Kciddir will follow the money down those particular paths.  But I wish he would.  As long as I've been paying attention, government has been a great money making operation for many of the people who chose it as the path to their great fortunes.  But never have I seen government so blatantly used to serve government above all else, as is happening today.  

I've put this post with my comment exchange up here on Libertarian Leanings because a couple of my earlier HuffPo comment replies have gone into the bit bucket, down the memory hole, never to be seen again.  But there seems to be an aberration here.  Though it deviates from acceptable HuffPo thought, my comment is still up.  After more than an hour.  Still, the HuffPo censors have not struck.  I must be losing my touch.

Truth

A few weeks ago The Hollywood Reporter published a review of a movie called 'Truth" starring Robert Redford as Dan Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes.  It's coming out in a few days.  "Truth," portrays Rather and Mapes as martyred and heroic journalists who sought to expose some dangerous and damaging truth in order to show America that President George W. Bush was unfit for office.  

For starters, Truth is blessed with another galvanizing performance by Blanchett, who comes on strong but in a very human way as a high-powered newswoman seemingly at the top of her game. The main breadwinner in her family (she has a husband and son at home), Mary Mapes has clearly had to work very hard to get where she is but also has a lot to show for it; she’s at the very top of her profession.

Variety gushes on, going even so far as to make an oblique reference to Redford's decades earlier role as Bob Woodward in "All The President's Men," in which Woodward and Carl Bernstein exposed President Richard Nixon's Watergate cover up.  (My emphasis below.)

This hot stuff provokes Mapes to put together a small team, including a former Marine (Dennis Quaid), a professor (Elisabeth Moss) and a researcher (Topher Grace). Almost everyone with Bush family connections in Texas refuses to talk, of course, but one key figure, the elderly and sick Retired Lt. Col.Bill Burkett (Stacy Keach), reluctantly provides Mapes with some incriminating information and a couple of documents to back it up. It’s enough to get CBS on board with her and Rather determined to report it.

Still, it’s an election year, and any evidence liberal CBS offers up against Bush is guaranteed to meet with withering opposition from all the president’s men, beginning with the Texas crowd. 

Unlike the Washington Post's Watergate coverage, the 60 Minutes broadcast, around which "Truth" is centered, was a partisan hit piece that was based on falsified evidence.  Dan Rather and Mary Mapes claimed to have been given decades old memos that said President George W. Bush was guilty of insubordination and being AWOL when he served as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s.  Testimony was solicited from partisan ax grinders who said Bush received preferential treatment to get into the TANG so that he could avoid duty in Vietnam.  Documents, supposedly written in 1972, were shown on the air and later posted on the internet.  They said that Bush performed poorly as an officer, that he refused to report for a physical examination, and that he eventually went AWOL. 

But within hours of being posted on the internet, bloggers poked holes in the evidence.  In a matter of days the memos were shown, quite conclusively, to be fakes. Here is some of the Washington Times reporting on it just days after the original broadcast aired.

A handwriting expert says the two signatures on purported Texas National Guard memos aired by CBS News this week are not those of President Bush’s squadron commander, as asserted by “60 Minutes.”

...

[T]he CBS documents contain a superscript “th” that is automatically used by Microsoft Word and that was in very limited use in the early 1970s.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, told the Associated Press the superscript — a smaller, raised “th” in “111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron” — is one piece of evidence indicating a computer forgery.

A Washington Times computer expert retyped one of the CBS memos in Microsoft Word. He then superimposed the two documents, which appeared to make a perfect match, character by character.

The Times New Roman typeface available on any word processing machine in 1972 would not have matched perfectly because of the differences in technology used to reproduce it, the expert at The Times said, adding that the line spacing in the memos wasn’t available 30 years ago.

CBS at first defended the broadcast, but then in the face of the overwhelming evidence that fake documents were used they retracted the story, fired Mary Mapes, and accepted Dan Rather's resignation.  When asked to comment on the film version of events, CBS had this to say about it. 

“It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth,’” a CBS spokesman said in response to Variety’s inquiry. “There are, in fact, too many distortions, evasions and baseless conspiracy theories to enumerate them all. The film tries to turn gross errors of journalism and judgment into acts of heroism and martyrdom. That’s a disservice not just to the public but to journalists across the world who go out every day and do everything within their power, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to get the story right.”

CBS’ ire and the response from the “Truth” filmmakers and distributor Sony Pictures Classics crystallizes the central debate about the incident that has been re-ignited by the film. Was the problem behind the “60 Minutes II” report an issue of corporate interference with the pursuit of a sensitive story? Or was it journalistic mistakes that compromised the reputation of a trusted news outlet and its primary public face, namely Rather?

Variety does not, as it claims, capture the essence of the controversy.  The central debate is not a question of corporate interference verses journalistic mistakes.  This is about a couple of partisan journalists using their positions as news reporters, dealers in truth, to propagate very damaging lies.  

I'm not what you would call a religious guy, but there's a commandment that applies.  "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  To a Catholic kid growing up in Connecticut, that meant God was commanding us not to lie, ever.  But that was a pretty simplistic view, because there is lying and there is bearing false witness, and they're not the same.  Have you ever had your sweetheart ask you, "Do you think I look fat?"  You know the correct answer, and isn't necessarily the truth.  Are you going to burn in hell for that one?

Bearing false witness is quite another thing.  With bearing false witness, it's not just that you deliberately say something that's not true, but that you also intend to cause injury to someone else by doing it.  That's exactly what Rather and Mapes were up to on 60 Minutes.  They intended to cause injury to George Bush.  But there were unintended consequences, as well.

Bush was their intended target, the one who was supposed to be destroyed, but Rather and Mapes found out that their careers were destroyed instead.  Rather and Mapes intended to undermine America's trust in President Bush, and in that they were partially successful.  There are some who still believe them, and America's trust was certainly diminished.  But it took more than just the work of a partisan news anchor and his hyper-partisan producer to do it.  

They were just a couple of the players in a leftist mainstream media that had embarked upon an unprecedented campaign to discredit the man who led us in the fight against terrorism.  In this the media were quite successful.  They convinced a large number of Americans that our fight against terrorism was unjust because of supposed flaws in the man who led us.  They discredited the war on terror to the point that it has now been all but abandoned.  The damage from that campaign is hard to quantify, but suffice it to say that it helped to drive America to its weakest position since probably the Bay of Pigs.

And now we get a movie glorifying that smear, ironically named "Truth."  I couldn't resist leaving a snarky comment on the Hollywood Reporter movie review.

Tom Bowler • Sunday, September 13, 2015 10:42 AM
    A movie called "Truth" about Dan Rather? Isn't that what we call an oxymoron?

Weeks later my comment drew a reply.

StupidShouldCausePain • Friday, October 9, 2015 1:49 AM
    No.
    Not if you're well versed in facts, Ubermoron.

An apt name for my liberal commenter, "StupdShouldCausePain."  He seems so unaware that stupid actually does cause pain.  In their incredible stupidity Rather and Mapes caused themselves quite a lot of pain.  By deciding to go ahead with so thoroughly dishonest a broadcast, they took aim at their political enemy and then shot themselves.  I have to say I find that quite satisfying.  I think about it when I need something to cheer me up.  

StupidShouldCausePain is emblematic of progressivism today.  You might think it's mindless, this complete unwillingness to admit to the real facts.  After all, when CBS won't stand by their own story, it's really hard to pretend there's any truth to it.  

But there are two reasons why progressive denial isn't mindless.  First, there is profit.  There's profit from winning, and to progressives, that's all that matters. For just one example there's Harry Reid getting up on the Senate floor to lie about Mitt Romney, claiming that for ten years he never paid any taxes.  That was during the 2012 presidential elections.  When asked later about his obvious lie, Reid responded, "He didn't win, did he?"  

Second, there is that intent to cause harm to someone.  There's nothing mindless about that.  It's purposeful, and sad to say it's the norm for progressives.  They invariably resort to character assassination when their arguments won't hold water.  And it's stupid.

The idea that "Truth" is a story about journalistic errors in judgment is hogwash.  The errors were moral in nature.  There is no way that Mapes and Rather could not known their evidence was false, but they were confident they could pull it off, that the public would be taken in.  They still believe it, as do Redford and Blanchett, apparently.  Stupid.

When Redford and Blanchett agreed to do this movie, they hired on to bear false witness, to repeat the false testimony that Rather and Mapes peddled some eleven years earlier.  How sad that we can be influenced so heavily by people who get paid to recite words that somebody else writes for them.  And paid quite a lot.  The more convincingly they recite, the more money and accolades come their way.  

Redford and Blanchett trade on suspension of disbelief.  Usually the stories that movies tell are about events that never actually happened, and often could not happen.  Star Trek.  But the good stories illustrate some basic truth, and that's what makes us believe for the moment.  In "Truth" we're supposed to believe the events portrayed really did happen.  Unfortunately, there's no truth to it.

Gun Control -- Isn't It Always About The Money

Kevin Williamson thinks straw purchasers should be prosecuted, not necessarily the gun shops where they make their illegal purchases.

This week in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by two police officers, both of them shot in the head by a young man named Julius Burton back in 2009. The officers are suing the former owners of the defunct gun shop that sold the pistol Burton used to a straw purchaser, Jacob Collins. Burton was at the time too young to legally purchase a handgun.

Like many other jurisdictions, Wisconsin doesn’t really take straw purchases of firearms very seriously. At the time of Collins’s crime, the offense was only a misdemeanor.

Reality is that the gun dealers in the this case could easily have been charged with conspiracy. The real gun buyer walked into the shop with his straw buyer, pointed to the gun he wanted, and said, “That’s the one.” Surveillance video shows someone at the store helping the straw buyer falsify a form so that the sale could go through.  Neither the shop nor the straw buyer were charged.  Why is that?

The big reason?  That's not where the money is.

Trials lawyers have lots of energy, though, especially when there’s somebody with lots of money: Never mind Bob’s Shotgun Emporium and Bait Shop in East Donkey, Ark. — this is about Remington/Freedom, Sturm Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and other big companies with big bank accounts. Democrats and their trial-lawyer supporters are looking for a way to claim a victory on gun control and get paid at the same time.

Thus, there is a movement under way to shift the responsibility for criminal violence away from criminals and onto third parties that are easier to police and blessed with much deeper pockets. Gun dealers are only the beginning of that: The real prize is firearms manufacturers.

Rule of thumb:  If you are ever in doubt about the logic behind Democrats' legislative initiatives, follow the money.  There is always somebody who stands to make a fortune out of it.  Very often, as in this case, it's the trial lawyers.

Santorum's 20/20 Tax Plan -- Sounds Familiar

In his column in today's Wall Street Journal Rick Santorum writes to plug his 20/20 tax plan.  He is campaigning for president.

[I]n my first 100 days as president, I will submit to Congress a comprehensive Economic Freedom Agenda that will abolish the existing tax code. Under “The 20/20 Flat Tax: A Clear Vision For America,” individuals will pay a simple, low 20% individual rate that will be applied to all streams of income. It eliminates the marriage penalty, death tax and alternative minimum tax. It will treat every American the same. No longer will savings and investment be penalized.

There's a lot to like about Santorum's plan.  His column is titled "A Flat Tax Is the Best Path to Prosperity," and under his "20/20 Flat Tax" individuals and corporations would both be taxed at the 20% rate, hence the "20/20" in the name.  It would undoubtedly promote economic growth and job creation, which could only help my 401K/IRA investments.  

Businesses too will benefit from a flat 20% tax rate. It will replace the current corporate income-tax rate of 39.1% that is only exceeded by Chad and the United Arab Emirates. An initial 0% tax rate on American manufacturers, phasing up to 20% over two years, will help make America the No. 1 manufacturer in the world again.

Yes, it's a nice plan, and I think I have an idea about where he got the catchy name. 

With a clear majority of adults in favor a flat tax, now is the time for tax reform.  I propose a 20-20 tax plan -- 20% with a $20,000 exemption.  The first $20,000 of taxable income would be exempted, with taxable income being total income minus any actual expenses incurred earning it.  A 20% tax rate would apply to the what's left.  So, taxable income of $20,000 or under would result in $0 income tax due.  A taxable income of $25,000 would result in a net of $5,000 subject to the 20% rate and $1,000 due in income taxes, which equates to an actual tax burden of 4.00% of total income.

Under that formula the tax bill for a someone with $100,000 of total income would come to 16.00% of income.  At $150,000 the percentage of taxes paid would be 17.33%.  As income rises the percentage of taxes paid rises, always getting closer but never reaching the maximum 20%. 

Let me point out that this is actually progressive, but in a smooth arc rather than in abrupt and sharp steps...

I used 20% and $20,000 because 20-20 is kind of a catchy name, but the numbers don't matter so much as the concept.  We could cure a lot of ills with a simplified and sensible tax code.

I wrote that back in March of 2011, and obviously my plan differs, but only somewhat, from Mr. Santorum's.  I still like the concept, but I would put in an alternative minimum tax of let's say one or two percent for anybody that wouldn't make enough to pay any taxes, basing that on my belief that everybody should pay something even if we have to give them the money to do it.

Although federal revenues might take a hit in the short term under Santorum's plan, it would help federal revenues in the long run.  More people with jobs means more people paying taxes, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.  

I have to say I like Bobby Jindal's idea of taxing businesses at 0% but for any of these plans to work we would naturally have to eliminate any and all tax loopholes and subsidies.  Just about anything is better than what we have right now.