CBS NEWS BLOGS

Posted by Declan McCullagh

January 5, 2010

It seems stunningly obvious that the U.S. Congress can’t order you to buy a toaster, a Buick, or a MacBook laptop. Then why is it constitutional for politicians to say you must buy health insurance?

That answer isn’t quite as obvious. In fact, there are reasonable arguments, such as one that Republican senator Orrin Hatch made in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, that such a law would violate the U.S. Constitution. …

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/taking_liberties/entry6056342.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColLowerPromoArea;morenews

The neocons are OPPORTUNITY driven. And being opportunity driven, they  could show AMBIGIUOUS views toward America’s Constitution. It just depends on how the U.S. Constitution impacts their goals. The neocons have shown diametrically opposing views about America’s Constitution.

When the neocons were in power, and the U.S. Constitution forbade neocon behavior – the United States Constitution was called a goddamned piece of paper.

And Senator Orrin Hatch! He wanted to blow up the computers of Americans who the neocons saw as illegal music down-loaders. If the business-centric attitude of the neocons “convicted” an American of illegal downloading of music – @%^&^^## BOOM $^%## goes their computer. That kind of “brain fruit” would be the same quality brain fruit that the neocons used in locking up terrorists in Guantanamo Bay Cuba – “do the lock up deed” and then worry about the legality of the lock up deed. Did Senator Orrin Hatch consider himself a Constitutional Scholar at that time?

It is truly appalling how “flexible” the values of the neocons seems to be.

Long ago I read that newspapers targeted the reading skills of a fourteen-year old. Today, I believe some newspapers have done themselves even better. Today, I believe that some news sources have targeted the “common sense” skills of an eight year old.

The neocon’s TELL AMERICA press has discovered that a NEW terror threat is menacing America. The new threat comes from Al-Qaeda. The neocons “resolved” the Al-Qaeda problem in 2003, before they branched off into a new war in the oil rich country of Iraq.

Now, how did the Obama administration allow the neocons’ Al-Qaeda “solution” to come undone?

The neocons did solve the Al-Qaeda problem in 2003 didn’t they?

No!

In 2003, there were bigger stakes at risk. Consider this:

What if Al-Qaeda did topple Saddam Hussein? What if that possibility came up in a round table discussion of neocon “thinkers” who had knowledge of oil’s value(the Bush team) and a strong propensity for lopsided wars(the neocons).

By veering away from Al-Qaeda and toward Iraq’s oil, the neocons could get what they wanted. And at the same time Al-Qaeda could get what it wanted – another five years to build, recruit and expand with little interference from the neocons who spent those five years struggling to “win the peace” in Iraq.

And with the neocons carrying on the way they did in Iraq, Al-Qaeda’s recruitment of terrorists was enhanced.

While there should be no surprise that the neocons are now “astounded” at the turn of events, we now see visible evidence that the TELL AMERICA news sources are behaving in a similar fashion.

Al-Qaeda fared well under the neocons. The neocons gave Al-Qaeda five years in which to rebuild and expand their terror operation. The neocons mechanized the war against Al-Qaeda while humanizing the war in Iraq. And Al-Qaeda’s best recruiter had to be Mr. George W.  Bush.

It is likely that Al-Qaeda would want to see a return to their golden years under the neocons. The neocons are more about RHETORIC than professional  PERFORMANCE.

The news industry is having financial problems like the rest of America’s businesses “controlled” by the neocon’s voodoo economics. And the results of voodoo economics have revealed that the news industry has its own unspoken CZAR.

Using the word “behemoth” as a springboard we see that behemoth describes  [someone or something that is abnormally large and powerful]. News Corporation certainly fits that description.

America has a news CZAR. But the news/opinion delivery trilogy has missed this news CZAR.

The news czar is  bent on changing the business model of the whole Internet in its attempt to revitalize its many news sources. The news czar wants America to pay for its news on the Internet. The owners of the Internet are being squeezed more and more to enhance the business-centric political ideas of the neocons.

CBS, ABC and CNN may, for their own reasons, be quite happy with the neocons explanation(none) for the start of the Iraq war. The output of investigative news reporters seems to be diminishing while the opinionated  news columnists seems to be flourishing.

However – today  in Great Britain, there is  a move afoot to give to the world information that news sources have failed to deliver to the world’s population. Great Britain is attempting to obtain information from its citizens that might reveal conditions pertaining to the Iraq war and its start. Britain played a prominent role in the Iraq war.

Great Britain does not, apparently, have an equivalent to America’s Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, so there is less “noise” generated during its search for information.  Britain’s Ex-Prime Minister – Tony Blair is now working to help rather than hurt humanity.

The British Iraq war inquiry, now in progress, aims to look at conditions prior to and after the start of the Iraq war. And while those who testify won’t be under oath, British ethics differs from the ethics of America’s neocon.

After six years, no Iraq war start reason, other than weapons of mass destruction(WMDs), has come from Ex-President George W. Bush. The “truth value” of the WMD assertion turned out to be non-existent. And that is where the neocons have left the matter of why the Iraq war started. And the question of why the Iraq war was started has lingered for six years.

The Iraq war, with its unknown cause, cost America and the world dearly but Tell America news sources seem content with the neocon’s non-responsiveness. The neocons have conditioned much of America to accept the Iraq war as a gift from a KING?

America is a democracy not a kingdom. The architects of the bungling Iraq war have not bothered to tell those who “footed the bill(lives & dollars)” why the Iraq war was started.  Normally this kind of behavior means someone is hiding something. And the behavior of Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney to the word “investigate” seems to add credence to the idea that someone is hiding something.

But the honorable efforts of the British government toward revealing what might now be called secrets of the Iraq war should help the world reacquire its respect for governments and politics. And perhaps the European Union can be a stabilizing force as the war-mongering neocons try again to gain control over America’s nuclear arsenal and America’s treasury.

The New York Times

Economy

By CATHERINE RAMPELL

January 3, 2010

ATLANTA — Regulatory failure, not low interest rates, was responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis of the last decade, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said in a speech on Sunday.

Mr. Bernanke’s remarks, perhaps his strongest language yet assessing the roots of the financial crisis, came as he awaited confirmation for a second term as Fed chairman and as he sought greater regulatory authority from Congress.

“Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates,” Mr. Bernanke said in remarks to the American Economic Association.

Mr. Bernanke, addressing accusations that the Fed contributed to the financial crisis, argued in his speech that the interest rates set by the central bank from 2002 to 2006 were appropriately low. He was a member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve system for most of that period. …

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/economy/04fed.html?hp

CNN Politics

January 3, 2010

Washington (CNN) — Human error and system lapses, rather than deliberate concealing of information, allowed a terror suspect with explosives to board a U.S.-bound airplane on Christmas Day, President Obama’s terrorism czar said Sunday.

John Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the security breakdown in the failed bombing of the Northwest Airlines flight was different from the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. …

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/03/brennan.plane.terror/index.html

The czar detecting trilogy of the TELL AMERICA press news sources has keen eyes looking for czars.  And to hear the  czar detecting trilogy tell it, CZARS are only detectable in Democratic political circles. How can that be?

Has CNN and the other duo of czar detectors ever heard of NEWS CORPORATION? If the czar detecting trilogy of “news hounds” can’t detect a NEWS CZAR right under their noses – is there something wrong with their czar detecting apparatus? And it certainly can’t be said that NEWS CORPORATION is not making news.

What criteria do the czar detectors use in determining who is and who is not a czar. No one would likely argue that the head of News Corporation wields a lot of power in the news world. Yet, nary a single NEWS CZAR. How come?

Could it be that the czar word is reserved for those who may not have agreed with Ronald Reagan the required eight out of ten times to make them friends rather than opponents of Ronald Reagan. Could the czar word only apply to those who may not favor a trend toward fascism?

What are the conditions that triggers the czar detecting trilogy to use the czar word?

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. And news sources make frequent use of pictures in their effort to get their message across to their readers.

The below picture is how CBS’s “Political Hotsheet” saw Cheney “bad mouthing” the Obama administration because another terrorist tried to blow up an American passenger jet.

I wondered if, somewhere in CBS’s picture archives, there was a picture of Mr. Bush with some of the terrorists who visited his administration. Mr. Richard Reid(shoe-bomber) could be pictured on Mr. Bush’s left while on Mr. Bush’s right – CBS could place a picture of Mr.  Zacarias Moussaoui.

High-tech computer graphics could take those three pictures and make it look like all three belonged together – when nothing of the sort was true.

In the case of the Obama picture it was the mouth of Dick Cheney that related the two. And CBS picked up on and relayed that relationship to its readers. The text that CBS referenced would not, in good faith, justify such a composite picture. But add the “mouth” of Dick Cheney and “bingo” CBS had a composite that was acceptable to it.

I seriously doubt that a similar picture of Ex-President Bush and terrorists could be found in the picture archives of CBS news.

USA TODAY

7/2/2003

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday that American troops under fire in Iraq aren’t about to pull out, and he challenged those tempted to attack U.S. forces, “Bring them on.”

“We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation,” President Bush said of U.S. troops in Iraq.

By Luke Frazza, AFP

“We’ll stay the course in Iraq,” Bush said. “We’re not leaving until we accomplish the task, and the task is going to be a free country run by the Iraqi people.” He and his aides offered no timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. (Related: Text of Bush’s Wednesday comments)

More than 65 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since Bush declared on May 1 that major combat had ended. Twenty-six were killed in combat, the rest in accidents.

Bush pledged to find and punish “anybody who wants to harm American troops,” and said the attacks would not weaken his resolve to restore peace and order in Iraq. …

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm

Be careful what you wish for?

The above 2003 challenge by Mr. Bush may still be bearing fruit. This kind of challenge is a direct attack on the testosterone of terrorists. This kind of attack likely brought out the “wet behind the ears” new terrorist “wannabees” and the retired terrorists who willingly accepted Mr. Bush’s challenge.

America has fought many wars and had many Presidents but one would be hard-pressed to find another American President who “dared” anyone to attack his troops. It doesn’t seem to make sense. It wouldn’t make sense even at “street level”.

[Who, above the age of five, would walk America’s streets “daring” anyone to attack them? And “we talkin” at home – among our fellow citizens. But it’s the same home where the neocons presided over the sale of crack cocaine to Los Angeles, California’s citizens. And crack cocaine has been known to negatively influence human behavior]

So, in 2003, President George W. Bush challenged terrorists to “bring ‘em on” and terrorists still seem to be answering his challenge.

The Bush team redirected America’s fighting forces away from Al-Qaeda and to the oil rich country of Iraq. The diminished attention to Al-Qaeda gave it five years in which to rebuild or expand while the Bush team’s Iraqi plans were put into play.

America, in 2003,  asked the Bush administration if it didn’t need more troops for its Iraq war. The answer was no. The world now knows that someone with the verve of a Congressman Joe Wilson should have responded to that Bush team answer.

But, of course, the neocons would have put their party at risk if they had restarted America’s draft. And there are many things to put at risk before putting the extreme right wing of the Republican party at risk.

The neocons pinned their “ATTA BOY” hopes on terrorists. They had nothing else – at least they had nothing else they wanted to reveal.

The very last thing the neocons wants to see is their terrorist ranting leave the public’s consciousness. They will not cite any EXAMPLES of how their considerable expenditures in lives and money has improved the safety of the world. Al-Qaeda is as strong or possibly stronger today than it was in 2003 when the Bush team “digressed” from Al-Qaeda in favor of Oil Rich Iraq.

So, the neocons rant about the Obama administration and terrorists. And their TELL AMERICA press side-kicks dutifully report the ranting as if there was credibility there.

Perhaps the neocons and their TELL AMERICA press ought to stop telling and start showing. CBS news could perhaps, find – somewhere in its archives, a picture of Mr. Bush and a Terrorist that would SHOW THE WORLD how the neocons handled terrorists.

But “for heaven’s sake” don’t remind America of how the Bush team handled the court case of  ADMITTED TERRORIST – Zacarias Moussaoui. This man admitted to being a terrorist. This should have been an open and shut case – RIGHT? The neocons had an opportunity to SHOW America their PERFORMANCE. The “professionalism” displayed by that performance can be found at the above link.

The extreme right wing of the Republican party(neocons) “lowered the bar” in every major attempt to solve a problem. Even “dim witted” people, would likely agree that the first step in problem resolution is problem recognition.

A poorly defined problem is likely to produce results of the same caliber. The terrorist problem was poorly defined by the EXTREME RIGHT WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY – the neocons. And to this day – six years after the fact – America still has not been told(the truth) about why America’s neocon “movers and shakers” started the Iraq war.

The neocons have redefined more than one American word. The word aggression – was redefined as pre-emptive self defense. That was outrageous.

The neocons have needed to  redefine  a number of American words as they attempted to perform in a well established and highly achieving American society. Prior to January 20th, 1981 Republicans and Democrats had helped America to reach lofty heights in both domestic and international arenas. The pre-January 20, 1981 American framework had worked just fine. But, after January 20, 1981 the newly elected neocons sensed something was broken.

One of the common sense rules of civilized behavior is “DON’T FIX WHAT AIN’T BROKE!!

But after January 20th, 1981 the neocons set out to fix America’s economy. In the minds of the neocons,  America’s economy needed fixing.

And so, the neocons set out to fix America’s economy. Reaganomics, was the tool of choice to fix America’s economy. Reaganomics includes four major steps in its definition.

[Below are two descriptions of the four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy. The first description came from a copy of an earlier post of mine, while the second description came from a live webpage. The description on the live webpage had been noticeably changed. In the second description, there seems to have been an intelligent but non-sensible change made to item # 1]

Earlier Good Copy(notice the word “reduce” in line # 1)

The neocons were not spending less of what America made but more of what America made. And the engine that drove that spending is:

The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy were to:^[2]

1. reduce government spending,
2. reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

In his stated intention to cut back on domestic spending while lowering taxes, Reagan’s approach was a departure from his immediate predecessors. Although his record is still debated, Reagan succeeded with lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with simplified income tax codes, and continued deregulation. However government spending and deficits rose during his administration. …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Current Bad Copy(notice the word “reduce” is now “Deduct”)

The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy were to:^[2]

1. Deduct government spending,
2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. Reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

In his stated intention to increase on domestic spending while lowering taxes, Reagan’s approach was a departure from his immediate predecessors. Reagan succeeded with lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with simplified income tax codes, and continued deregulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

[It does look like there was intelligence behind the change in pillar # 1. The word “REDUCE” was changed to the word “DEDUCT” along with capitalizing the first words of each line.]

Reaganomics was “affectionately” called “VOODOO ECONOMICS” and not without reason. One would likely need the powers of a “witch doctor” to make those four pillars work together as a unit.

And all the neocon administrations failed pillar number one. Could that be a reason why pillar number one was a possible choice for being defaced? Keeping pillar number one in mind – look at the below graph:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The original pillar number one said REDUCE government spending. And if the word “Republican” meant the same thing to both Barry Goldwater and the neocons it would have been a “cakewalk” for the neocons to show “Republican”. And if the word “Republican” meant the same thing to both Senator Everett Dirksen and the neocons  – “A million here, a million there and pretty soon we talkin real money” would strike a responsive chord for the neocons.

Prior to the neocons the word “Republican” was synonymous with the word conservative. And the word conservative was synonymous with the word “FISCAL”. It ain’t that way no mo.

Looking at the above graph, we see two colors – black and red. Who is in the red? Bush, Reagan, and W. Bush. Why aren’t those three who are in the red over where the other Republicans – Ike, Nixon and Ford are? They are all Republicans – so the neocons say.

So, how come they are not all together? The graph shows Democrats and Republicans TOGETHER but some Republicans are separated from other Republicans. Why is that?

With respect to America’s national debt – did the red-liners handle the national debt the same way the black-liners did?

NO!

The red-liners could not control their spending. And that is the first pillar of VOODOO ECONOMICS. The neocons failed the very first step of their own voodoo economics plan.

EVERYBODY ELSE PASSED THAT STEP – EVERYBODY BUT THE NEOCONS.

And Democratic President Bill Clinton – in the pre-2006 congressional period stepped in. He turned the red-line to black. But the neocons had a surprise for him. They impeached him for failing to tell the truth about improper touching. Then the neocons got a hold of President Clinton’s black line and turned it into a red line. President Clinton’s treasury surplus was soon depleted by the neocons. And the neocons call themselves Republicans.

The WALL STREET JOURNAL

By PETER WALLSTEN

JANUARY 2, 2010

WASHINGTON — Political furor over the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 has thrust national security back to the center of American politics, with Republicans and the White House scrambling to blame each other for intelligence lapses and present themselves to voters as tougher on terrorism.

Strategists in both parties believe that terrorism and, more broadly, foreign policy could emerge in the November midterm elections and in President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign as key issues for voters who have been focused primarily on the economy. …

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239113219413017.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

What part of the above “spectrum” would the neocons point to as an EXAMPLE of their terror fighting performance? What part of that spectrum would the neocons point to and tell the Obama administration that it should be like the neocons? The neocons are forever subjecting Americans to a crude Intelligence Quotient(IQ) test.

Why did President Bush have to remind America, “Don’t you feel safer“?

The world should -  by now -  have more than enough of the neocons’  terror fighting RHETORIC.

The neocons have been “fighting” terror for 24 years. They adopted, in the 80’s, a South American jungle war to start their war on terror.

When the American people had trouble trying to see a relationship between a jungle war in South America and America – America stopped financing the neocons South American jungle war on terror.

But the very flexible “value system” of the neocons allowed for selling CRACK COCAINE to America’s “less qualified minorities” in the American city of Los Angeles, California.

The neocons have had twenty-four(24) YEARS of terror fighting and terror is still as evident as ever. This is why the neocons need to activate their “IN-DENIAL” latch. Once they turn that latch on they don’t seem to reason “too good” and they see OPPORTUNITIES where none should really exists.

But with the help of the  TELL AMERICA press, they seem to be trying to do to another Democratic President what they did to President Bill Clinton. Getting their hands on America’s treasury again ought to enrich more of the fascist  leaning folks who support them.