.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, August 29, 2014

Boehner's wrong-target lawsuit would turn Obamacare into Bonercare

Liz Peek describes six things people really hate about Obamacare that just might doom the Democrats in November. I couldn't help mentioning the one really stupid way that all of these things people hate about Obamacare could sink Republicans every November for years to come. Speaker of the House John Boehner could win his boner of a lawsuit against Obama's non-enforcement of Obamacare, forcing full enforcement of what would henceforth come to be known as "Bonercare."

The correct issue over which to sue Obama over his failure to faithfully execute the laws is his blatant subversion of border enforcement and immigration law. That would have been a win-win for the GOP. Win the lawsuit and the result is something everyone in the country wants: some forced enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. Instead Bonehead chooses the win-lose lawsuit. If he wins the GOP will be blamed henceforth for forcing the full enforcement of Obama's disastrous socialization of one sixth of our economy.

Why did Bonehead choose the win-lose case? Because he is on Obama's side on border lawlessness. Stupid RINO. I wish we could launch this idiot into space. Completely immoral and just idiotic beyond belief, and he is supposed to be our party "leader"?

Republicanism is the system of liberty under law. At the most basic level that is just two simple components: liberty and the rule of law. That means no socialized medicine and it means enforcement of our immigration laws. How can Bonehead get both of those completely wrong in one fell law-suit?

The proper long-term goal is health insurance for NOBODY

Boehner's strategic imbecility on Obamacare leaves the question of what is the way forward on health care, but I have already answered that question. The only reason the health care market ever became dysfunctional in the first place is because government provided powerful incentives for people to buy health insurance and health insurance creates massive market distortions.

When health care is covered by third party insurance people no longer have incentive to shop for price so there is no longer a normal competitive market. To keep prices under control it becomes necessary to impose cost controls, either through government regulation or by monopsonistic domination of the market by insurance conglomerates, and this destroys the other side of the market, which is what had already happened pre-Obamacare. Government had already succeeded in channeling the great majority of medical care through insured financing where government had also created an elaborate system of public-private price regulation.

Instead of going deeper into government takeover we needed to follow the guidance that government is always supposed to follow when it interferes with markets at all: target the result that efficient markets would arrive at. There can be sources of market failure that are not created by government and government has warrant in these cases (in theory if not under the Constitution) to "fix" the market failure by trying to achieve the market result that would occur if markets were not imperfect. In the health care market that perfect-markets result is an insurance-free outcome, at least in the long run. This comes from the simple fact that insurance is expensive, not only because of the loss of price competition and the unavoidable distortions that price controls create, but because insurance also creates a huge parasitic bureaucracy that has to be supported. This expensiveness means that whenever they can, people will prefer to self-insure (to take the money they would otherwise spend on insurance premiums and use it to build up savings/wealth from which they can cover what unexpected expenses may arise). Self-insurance is the better deal (not larded with parasitic losses).

Now put this in the larger market context. When markets are efficient everyone's wealth tends to increase, which automatically increases their effective level of self-insurance, giving them less and less need for or interest in third-party insurance. Thus the natural tendency of a market system is towards progressively less third-party insurance and progressively more self-insurance. (This is not an obvious result when consumers are looking at imperfect market prices but if the external costs of the inefficiencies caused by insurance are internalized--and this is what we are shooting for, the perfect market result--then it is obvious.)

This movement away from third-party insurance yields further increases in price competition which continues to drive medical costs ever downwards even as care makes huge leaps forward, the same as happens with computers and every other competitive industry. These decreasing costs bring the cost of self-insurance further down, driving third party insurance ever further out, and this direction marks the long term objective that government policy should be aiming for: not third-party health insurance for everybody (as the GOP's proposed alternatives to Obamacare all target) but health insurance for NOBODY.

What about people who can't afford health care? Bill all aid to account of the recipient!

The common stumbling block to rational market reform is always, "but what about the people who can't pay?", as if making provision for the needy requires a socialist system of production and distribution. No it doesn't. The answer is very simple. Afford all crucial health care services to whoever needs it, no questions asked, and if they can't pay the bill have government pay the bill with pay it tax money and charge every penny of this aid to the account of the recipient, to be repaid with full market interest over the life of the aid recipient according to an ability to pay formula.

Of course not all such aid will be repaid in full. It will not just give loans but in the end will also forgive a portion of those loans, which makes the system costly.  The important thing is that, by keeping incentives as intact as possible, the system of billing aid to the account of the recipient yields more bang-per-buck than any other way of giving aid. In particular, it is vastly more efficient than giving aid away, which also has the perverse effect of making recipients think that they must be owed, or why would society be giving them stuff? No, you are not owed, you owe, and we are keeping track to the penny exactly how much you owe your fellow citizens for the aid they have already loaned to you.

All aid should be billed to the account of the recipient, not just health care. Look at the insanity now of paying people not to work (unemployment insurance). If this aid had to be repaid over the life of the recipient according to an ability to pay formula nobody would take such assistance unless they actually needed it, but if they do need it then it is there, and because people have incentive not to abuse it the conditions for qualifying for such aid could be made more generous and more flexible at far less expense than our present system of perverse incentives incurs.

The costs of the perverse incentives themselves are huge. People don't work who otherwise would, making themselves a drain on their fellow citizens instead of a support. Not only to they take rather than contribute tax dollars, but they withhold their productivity from the market place, making the supply of goods lower and prices higher. At this point we are actually paying people to act this way.

Philosophers can argue about what level of assistance to the needy should be but how the aid should be given precedes philosophy. It's elemental economics. Whatever aid is given it should be billed to the account of the recipient. Any other system gives less aid for any given level of cost. No matter what the level of spending on aid is, society should get the most aid as possible for that expenditure, and that means keeping incentives as intact as possible by requiring repayment according to an ability-to-pay formula.

I've been trying to tell the world this for 20 years (and a lot of other stuff too). Nobody pays any attention. Stupid world.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Carlo Bonini in COLLUSION with Joe Wilson’s treason

Alec Rawls' review of the book Collusion, by Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe D’Avanzo (Melville, 2007)

This is a detailed expose that I wrote in 2007. In the confusion about how it might fit in with the publication of my Crescent of Betrayal book it never got published. Better late than never. It's almost 8,000 words but the subject warrants the attention.

A month ago I saw Bill Moyers open an interview with Italian conspiracy theorist Carlo Bonini by repeating one of Joe Wilson’s “Bush lied” lies. Moyers asserted that the president’s 2003 State of the Union claim (that we had learned from the British that Saddam had been seeking uranium in Africa) “wasn’t true.”

Anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention knows that is was true. Saddam had been seeking uranium in Africa, and Joe Wilson knew it better than anyone.

A very brief background, for those who don’t know the details

Wilson went to Niger on behalf of the CIA in early 2002 to check out whether a superficially untrustworthy “memorandum of sale” of uranium from Niger to Iraq could possibly be real. Wilson was not told any specifics about the purported deal, but was able to confirm the unlikelihood that any such deal had been concluded. At the same time, Wilson learned from Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki that the Iraqis had tried to buy uranium from Niger (President Bush’s SOTU claim).

The 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on pre-war intelligence summarizes Wilson’s Niger trip report to the CIA as follows (Chapter 2, part B, PP 17):
The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
March 2003 (two months after President Bush’s SOTU speech) the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that documents forwarded to it from the CIA (the “memorandum of sale” that Joe Wilson had helped to confirm the untrustworthiness of) had proved to be forgeries. Not a big surprise. If they weren’t real, they had to be forgeries. But this revelation presented Wilson with an opportunity. In a July 2003 op-ed in The New York Times (“What I didn’t find in Africa”), Wilson lied about what he found in Africa, claiming that his Niger trip debunked the president’s SOTU claims, when it actually provided evidence for them.

To make his accusations stick, and to make them more damaging, Wilson claimed in a series of interviews with high profile reporters that he had personally identified the forged documents on his trip to Niger and reported back to the CIA that “the names were wrong and the dates were wrong.”

Wilson would later admit to the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports.” His report did not mention any documents at all, and “[t]he only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki.” (Chapter 2, part B, PP 20.)


Authoritative exposures of Wilson’s deceits (by George Tenet in July 2003, a week after Wilson told his lies in The New York Times, and by the SSCI report in 2004), have not stopped people like Bill Moyers from abetting Wilson’s lies for the past four years. Bonini’s interview with Moyers is part of this ongoing collusion with Joe Wilson.

As reported in his just published book Collusion, Bonini did substantial original investigation into the origin and trajectory of the forged documents. In a carefully scripted/edited back and forth with Moyers, Bonini describes the forged documents entering and bouncing around the intel stream, the whole time simply assuming that this phony intel is what the president’s SOTU speech was referring to. This was Wilson’s fraudulent accusation exactly, but Bonini was not claiming any new basis for it. He just went along with Moyers in pretending that there was no distinction to be made between the Bush/British claim that Saddam had tried to buy uranium (an established fact), and Saddam’s securing a deal to buy uranium (as the forged documents purport to show).

Someone would have to fact-check this new Joe Wilson so I held my nose and ordered Collusion, which Bonini co-authored with Giuseppe D’Avanzo. In addition to telling the story of the forged documents, Bonini (short, henceforth, for Bonini and D’Avanzo) also writes about the controversy over Iraq’s stockpile of aluminum tubes: whether they were missile bodies of centrifuge parts. This review only addresses Bonini’s central topic: the forged documents.

The forged documents

Bonini’s story begins in 1999 when Italian Intelligence (SISMI) intercepts a telex in which the Nigerien Ambassador to Italy tells his home office that an Iraqi ambassador will be coming to visit Niger. Because Niger’s only significant industry is uranium production, this trip is interpreted by SISMI as a probable attempt to buy uranium, and this intel is passed along to other intelligence agencies.

Bonini lands an interview with SISMI chief Nicolo Pollari who tells Bonini a story (accurate or not) of how the intercepted cable also got passed on to an Italian con-artist named Rocco Martino, who used it as an opportunity to concoct forged documentation of an Iraq-Niger uranium sale that he figured he could sell for big bucks to various intelligence agencies. Martino had had dealings with SISMI in the past and, according to Pollari, a SISMI agent named Antonio Nucera “wanted to help his friend.” Nucera went so far as to hook Martino up with some other small time SISMI hangers-on who broke into the Nigerien embassy in Rome at the beginning of 2001 and stole letterhead and other documentary materials for making the forged documents. (Bonini, p. 20-22.)

This seems a very long way to go to “help a friend,” but it is hard to come up with any other reason why SISMI would be involved in such a ruse pre 9-11. Post 9-11, Bonini suggests that higher ups at SISMI saw the Martino documents (whether they knew they were fraudulent or not) as a way to curry favor with the United States by providing a rationale for the United States to attack Iraq.

Incomplete as the story remains, the upshot is a mixed bag of intelligence reporting coming out of Italy, including real evidence of an Iraqi attempt to buy Nigerien uranium (the 1999 telex, which the CIA would reinforce with Joe Wilson’s real evidence of an Iraqi attempt to buy Nigerien uranium in 1999), clouded by phony documents about a deal that never occurred. As a review of the SSCI and Butler reports will show, U.S. and British intelligence did an admirable job of separating the real evidence from the phony evidence, and of carefully crafting their statements to refer to the real evidence (that Iraq had tried to buy uranium), without making claims that a deal had been transacted.

Bonini, however, is determined to tell a different story. He notes that the different intelligence agencies all regarded the Martino documents as untrustworthy, but wants to engineer the charge that the Bush CIA relied on these documents anyway, to give President Bush a pretext for war with Iraq. To do this, he has to first find a ways to dismiss the real evidence of an Iraq-Niger uranium link. If there was no real evidence, then concern about such a link must have stemmed from the phony evidence, and since everyone knew the phony evidence was probably phony, the implication is that the Bush administration knowingly took the country to war on false pretenses, as Joe Wilson charged.

Dismissing the real evidence

Bonini belittles the real evidence of an Iraq-Niger link by casting it merely as lending credibility to the Martino deception. “After all,” says Bonini at the outset (p.20), “every ‘fairy tale’ must begin with a documented fact.” But to make this spin stick, he has to find some way to interpret the real intelligence about the Iraqi ambassador’s trip to Niger as not really being about an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium.

This interpretation comes from the mouth of a high ranking retired French intelligence agent named Alain Chouet, who gains credence in Bonini’s story for helping to expose the role of SISME in perpetrating Martino’s fraud. Chouet offers two reasons to think that the ambassador’s trip has nothing to do with uranium. He argues that Saddam would never send an ordinary functionary on such a mission but “would have sent one of his sons for a deal like that,” and he claims that: “We already knew the reason for Wissam al-Zahawie’s trip to Niger.” The Iraqis, says Chouet, needed a place to dump “the Iraqi regime’s stockpile of toxic waste in exchange for cash.” (P.33.)

That seems implausible, given Saddam’s penchant for poisoning his own people by the region, but in any case, these arguments certainly do not apply to what Joe Wilson found in Niger: that Prime Minister Mayaki was approached by the Iraqis about uranium sales.

This 1999 contact was separate from the 1999 trip made by the Iraqi ambassador. It was not a formally pre-arranged meeting, but took place, according to Wilson, “on the margins of a ministerial meeting of the Organization of African Unity.” (Wilson, p.28, quoted by Bonini p. 67.)

In Wilson’s ironically titled book, The Politics of Truth, he tries to make this meeting sound insignificant, in part by not revealing that the person who talked to the Iraqis was Prime Minister Mayaki. Wilson only says that “one of his sources,” “a Nigerien friend,” had talked to “an Iraqi official,” not noting that this “friend” was even a government official, never mind the Prime Minister. (Wilson, p. 28.)

Bonini plays the same trick, simply quoting Wilson about the Iraq-Niger contact discovered by Wilson, but by the time Bonini writes about the incident, the 2004 SSCI report has already identified Wilson’s “friend” as Prime Minister Mayaki. Bonini has no excuse for withholding this information. He is just a Wilson abettor, which can be seen also in the fact that Bonini never mentions Wilson’s high profile lies about having identified the forgeries on his trip to Niger. That would seem to be a relevant tidbit for a book that claims to be tracing the various ways that the forgeries were misused.

Baghdad Bob

One detail that Wilson did include in The Politics of Truth is that his “friend” would later learn the identity of the Iraqi official that he met at the Organization of African Unity. Mayaki later saw the same Iraqi official on television, where he was identified as “Baghdad Bob,” the Iraqi Minister of Information who was the televised face of Saddam’s regime during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Bonini (p. 68) spins this as reason to dismiss the Iraqi attempt to buy uranium:
This is the stuff of comedy. Al-Sahaf was the so-called minister who stood on the terrace of the Palestine Hotel while the Bradley Fighting Vehicles were speeding into the streets of Baghdad, assuring the TV networks in all seriousness that "the Iraqis are winning the war."
Thus does Bonini elide the real import of the Baghdad Bob revelation: that the Mayaki meeting was a top level meeting, not just on the Nigerien side, but also on the Iraqi side. Bonini glosses over both sides, but he is fully aware of the import, having earlier cited Alain Chouet’s dismissal of the Iraqi ambassador’s Niger contact on the grounds that Saddam “would have sent one of his sons for a deal like that.” Now Bonini refuses to notice when it turns out that Saddam did in fact send one of his closest henchmen.

CIA analysts did not put much stock in Mayaki’s claim to have avoided discussing uranium with the Iraqis, since he would obviously say that to any American official, whether or not it was true, but either way Mayaki’s denial cuts against Chouet’s second reason for dismissing the Iraq-Niger link. If the actual purpose of Baghdad Bob’s overture was to pursue waste disposal services that were not forbidden under the sanctions regime he would have just said so to Mayaki, who in turn would have gladly reported to Wilson that the Iraqi interest was not in uranium (given his evident eagerness to allay any concern that he had talked about uranium). Yet Mayaki did not suggest that the Iraqis were interested in something other than uranium. He specifically stated that he did take them to be after uranium.

The Butler Report

Bonini certainly knows how to connect these dots. They go to the very heart of his central ploy: depicting all concern about an Iraq-Niger link as stemming from the Martino fraud. But not only does he decline to connect the dots, he shields the reader from them. Most glaring is his complete omission of any mention of the conclusions of the 2004 British Butler Report, which noted that British pre-war intelligence assessments (published in its September 2002 White Paper and shared with the Bush Administration) were careful to only state that Saddam had sought uranium in Africa and consciously declined to give credence to the suspicious Martino documents and the supposed deal that they represented:
We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government’s dossier or the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped.” (Butler Report, section 500.)
The report specifically asserts that the intelligence assessments included in the White Paper and passed on to the United States were based on evidence that the Iraqi overtures to Niger in 1999 were for the purpose of buying uranium, that this evidence consisted of “intelligence from several sources,” and that these assessments were formulated before the British ever came into contact with the Martino documents. (Section 503.)

This is a flat contradiction to Bonini's flat assertion that the British Intel came from the Martino forgeries. When I saw Bonini on Moyers I thought that his book must contain some counter to the Butler report, but instead he just pretends it doesn’t exist! There is no mention of the Butler Report anywhere in the body of Collusion. Bonini only mentions it in his “chapter notes,” where he simply describes the report as “discredited” and “thrown together to blur Tony Blair’s culpability,” without informing his readers that it directly contradicts Bonini’s foundational assertions.
The British claim to have pre-forgeries intelligence from several sources about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Niger is perfectly credible. We ourselves had at least two such pieces of intelligence: the intercepted telex about Iraqi ambassador’s trip to Niger, and the overture to Prime Minister Mayaki that was reported by Joe Wilson. As the SSCI report concluded:
Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
Given that our human intelligence in the field was/is almost non-existent, the chance that we happened onto ALL of Saddam’s Niger contacts is nil. If the Brits are not as blind as us, they might easily have discovered more about the Iraq-Niger contacts.

The CIA got it right, and so did President Bush

The CIA’s position in the period leading up to the 2003 State of the Union was the same as the British one: we had good reason to believe, as President Bush asserted, that Saddam had tried to buy uranium, but were skeptical that any deal had been concluded (that is, we did not give credence to the phony Martino documents). This is corroborated by both the Butler Report and the SSCI report.

“In preparing the [September 24, 2001] dossier,” says the Butler Report, “the UK consulted the US. The CIA advised caution about any suggestion that Iraq had succeeded in buying uranium in Africa, but agreed that there was evidence that it had been sought.” (Section 497.) The SSCI report also shows the CIA taking just these positions. Before President Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 the CIA removed a claim that: “the [Iraqi] regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa," saying that the evidence for such a deal (the Martino forgeries) “was weak.”

On the other hand, the CIA was certain enough that Saddam had tried to buy uranium that they allowed President Bush to say so in his State of the Union speech. The above blockquoted “conclusion 12” affirms that before the CIA encountered the forged documents, agents had reason to believe Saddam was trying to buy uranium, and they had even more reason to believe it post-forgeries, thanks to the evidence Wilson brought back from Niger about the Iraqi attempt to talk to Prime Minister Mayaki about uranium:
(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq. [SSCI report, Niger conclusions.]
Wilson’s report was seen as supporting the likelihood of a deal, but did not change people’s minds on that front, and here we see the continuing problem: that even the SSCI report fails to maintain the distinction between Iraq seeking a deal (what Joe Wilson found evidence for, and what President Bush asserted) and concluding a deal (what the Martino forgeries depict). Knowing that the Iraqis had indeed sought uranium, as Wilson affirmed, does make it more likely that Iraq concluded a deal (the question that the SSCI targets in “Conclusion 13”). But this is not the question that the Select Committee should have been looking at. They should have asked whether Wilson's report strengthened the conclusion that Saddam had tried to buy uranium in Niger, to which the only possible answer would be "of course." Their actual inquiry muddies the distinction between the real evidence and the phony evidence, and it is just this inevitable muddying of the water that Wilson and now Bonini use to level their unsupported charges.

U.S. intelligence made plenty of mistakes. The SSCI report details all kinds of confusion, like the INR analyst who quickly spotted things wrong with the Martino documents that pretty much showed they had to be forgeries, but somehow this assessment was never attached to the documents. Overall, however, it is clear from the Butler Report and the SSCI report that British Intelligence and the CIA both managed get their basic assessments right. Both affirmed that Saddam had tried to buy uranium while remaining skeptical of the supposed deal indicated by Martino’s forgeries.

This is most clearly revealed in the one place that matters most: in the properly limited statements made by President Bush and by Tony Blair. Thanks to the caution of our intelligence services, neither made any claim about Saddam making a deal, while both asserted correctly that he had tried to make a deal. This is what Wilson and Moyers and Bonini and a whole army of abettors are trying to make a scandal out of: that our intelligence agencies and our elected leaders got it right!

Legitimate criticism

There are some things to be skeptical about in the Butler Report. In particular, it is hard to believe the report's claim that the British assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium link, published in the September 2002 White Paper, predated British exposure to the Martino forgeries.

The Butler report itself only says that the British received the intel about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal sometime in 2002 (section 495). It doesn't say whether this was before or after the White Paper was written. [You can tell that section 495 is about the Martino documents because it references the 1999 Iraqi ambassador's trip to Niger (the actual intercepted 1999 telex was included in the Martino forgeries to make them look real), and it references doubts that a deal had actually been made (which would seem to be a reference to the CIA's warning about claims of a deal).]

Rocco Martino says that his fake documents were handed to the British at the end of 2001 (Bonini, p. 48). SISMI itself only admitted that intel about the documents was handed over "to the intelligence agency of another allied nation" in April 2002 (Bonini, p. 52).

Whatever the exact date, it seems that the British must have had the forgeries before they issued their September 2002 White Paper. This is clear from the fact that the White Paper declined to suggest that Iraq had made a deal to buy uranium, after having been warned off of this claim by the CIA (section 497). They couldn't have been warned off of evidence that a deal had been made until they had evidence that a deal had been made.

But while this sequence belies the claim that the British Iraq-Niger assessements were untainted by virtue of preceding exposure to the forgeries, it supports the contention that the British assessments were ultimately untainted, thanks to being warned off of the forgeries by the CIA.

Bonini is uninterested in any such substantive engagement with the Butler report. One wonders if he even looked at it. It may well be that People like Wilson, Moyers and Bonini really do only see those parts of the story that can be made to fit their story line, like a panner looking for flecks of gold amongst the dirt. Everything that doesn't have that useful glitter is just dross to be discarded. Still, this kind of thinking cannot really be called self-deception, because its deceptions are so calculated. Consider an example.

The Battelli cable

Bonini is at his most deceptive in his account of a September 21, 2001 cable from SISME chief Gianfranco Battelli to the CIA. Bonini quotes the cable as conveying news of a trip “undertaken by Iraqi personnel to Niger in ’99, during which they had made inquiries about the production of crude uranium in that nation’s two mines, and asked how that material might be exported.” (p.31)

This cable would seem to be a reference to further reporting about the Iraqi ambassador’s trip to Niger in 1999. Alternatively, it could be about Baghdad Bob’s trip to Niger in 1999, or about some other Iraqi inquiry after Nigerien uranium in 1999. What it does not seem to be about is the Martino forgeries, since it says nothing about a deal being made, as the Martino documents purport to show, and the Martino documents say nothing about any “inquiries about the production of crude uranium in the nation’s two mines,” or about anyone “ask[ing] how that material might be exported.” (If you want to look for yourself, Cryptome.org has both photocopies and translations of the Martino forgeries.)

Even though it seems quite obvious that the Battelli cable does not stem from the Martino forgeries, Bonini simply assumes that it does, and never even considers the possibility that it could be about some other reporting. Bonini is also deceptive in how he goes about impugning the Battelli cable. First (pp. 31-32) he only insinuates that it is based on the forgeries by interweaving the story of the Battelli cable in with Chouet’s story about the emergence of the phony documents. Later (p. 44) Bonini relies on this earlier insinuation to explicitly describe the Batelli cable as stemming from the forgeries.

For this second step, Bonini lists the Niger intel that was transferred from Battelli to Nicolo Pollari (Battelli’s successor as head of SISME). Pollari was given the “Niger dossier,” says Bonini, and “the related note that Gianfranco Battelli had sent to Langley on September 21, 2001.” Then he comments: “As far as we can tell, nobody pointed out that the information was fraudulent.”

Some of the information was fraudulent, but not the Battelli cable, which could well be one of the real pieces of further reporting referred to in the Butler Report, where the British learned from "several sources" that the Iraqi ambassador had indeed tried to buy uranium in 1999. Bonini just asserts, with no supporting argument whatsoever, that the cable was based on the forgeries, and he is very tricky about it, first misrepresenting the cable by insinuation, then directly misrepresenting it by commission.

Bonini’s citation for the contents of the Battelli cable is imprecise. His chapter notes only say: “We know that Gianfranco Battelli sent a cable to Langley because Nicolo Pollari confirmed this fact to both Il Messaggero in November 2005 and to the Parliamentary Commission on Intelligence Oversight.” He presumably is quoting from one of these sources, since he does not describe talking to Battelli or Pollari anyone else about the cable, as he usually does for his first hand reporting, but if he is quoting one of these sources, the reference to “a cable,” instead of "the cable" is odd.

Searching for Bonini’s quote of the Battelli cable only turns up references to Bonini. That would make sense if Bonini had translated the quote, but wouldn’t a cable to Langley already be in English? If anyone knows of a publicly available source for the full contents of the Battelli cable, or knows where there is any further information about the Battelli cable, please contact me (alec@rawls.org). Bonini did talk with Pollari about Antonio Nucera, so it is conceivable that Pollari told him about the contents of the Battelli cable as well. If Bonini turns out to be a source of original reporting on this cable, then his quote of the contents of the cable is the most important revelation in the book by far, and to Bonini’s credit too, if he was in a position to lie about what the cable said but quoted it straight, even though it does not fit his story line (much as he tries to pretend that it does).

Chouet’s mis-statement

Bonini constantly uses the phony Martino intel to impugn the real intel, in effect trying to make the Martino fraud stick. Spinning the Battelli cable as stemming from the phony docs is only one example. He also finds quotable sources who are willing to abet Martino in the same way. One is the French agent Chouet. Another is Greg Thielmann, a senior analyst with the State Department’s intelligence group (the INR).

Chouet simply makes a mis-statement, lumping the real intelligence and the fake intelligence together as all the same thing, when he presumably knows better. Bonini certainly knows better, but he let’s Chouet’s misstatement pass without comment.

In recounting the repeated inquiries from the United States about a possible Iraq-Niger link, Chouet starts with the summer of 2001:
When the Americans came calling in the summer of 2001, I immediately rolled up my sleeves. I told my men in Africa to get down to work. … The results were totally negative. At the end of August 2001, we cancelled the alert. [P. 31.]
Chouet then tells a long tale about bogus documents pertaining to an Iraq-Niger uranium deal starting to turn up in the hands of different intelligence agencies. He describes the prima facie skepticism most showed towards the documents, and he describes how continued investigation only confirmed the documents to be fraudulent. Woven through this tale is the United States, coming back again and again in 2002 with further inquiries, first bringing details about what is in the suspicious documents, then with copies of some of the documents themselves. (Chouet dates U.S. possession of at least some of the actual Martino documents to the spring of 2002 (p. 36). This is a bit earlier than the SSCI report says, but certainly possible).

By the time the U.S. comes around with the actual documents, Chouet is exasperated, which comes out in the form of a clearly incorrect statement:

The [American] documents were identical [to Rocco Martino documents already in French possession]. We decided that Rocco was the source of the ‘bullshit’ palmed off on the Americans. The same nonsense that made the rounds in the summer of 2001.” [P. 34.]
Bonini knows full well that American inquiries from the summer of 2001 had nothing to do with the Martino’s forgeries, but Chouet’s mis-statement fits Bonini’s thesis that all of the concern about an Iraq-Niger link came from the forged documents, so he does not correct it. Later in the book (pp. 52 and 59) he informs readers that as of the summer of 2001, no whiff of the Martino documents had yet reached U.S. intelligence. It was not until October 2001 that CIA agents in Rome first got a hurried look at the Martino documents and were able to jot down some of their contents. But when Bonini quotes Chouet’s mis-statement, readers do not have the information to know it is a mis-statement, and Bonini uses this to advance his central pretense: that all concern about an Iraq-Niger link stemmed from the forgeries.

There is a very interesting contradiction between Chouet’s story and the SSCI report that is worth noting. Chouet claims that French investigations into possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger all came up negative, but the SSCI report says otherwise:

U) On November 22, 2002, during a meeting with State Department officials, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director for Nonproliferation said that France had information on an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger. He said that France had determined that no uranium had been shipped, but France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger. [Chapter 2, section g.]
This French report should have nothing to do with the forgeries, because according to Chouet (p. 34) the French had determined by June of 2003 that the Martino documents were fakes, weeks before they ever saw them (having already been asked by the CIA to investigate the details of the documents). Thus if the French were claiming in November 2002 to have real intel of Iraq trying to buy uranium, they presumably did have real intel. Maybe the French were one of the Butler Report’s “several different sources” on the Iraqis’ 1999 attempt to buy uranium in Niger.

Why did Chouet leave this intel out of his story? Or did he leave it out? Maybe it is Bonini who left it out. Bonini has already shown that he is big on lies of omission. But then there is also that mis-speak by Chouet. It could be that his mis-speak was not so innocent. Maybe, like Bonini, Chouet is downplaying the real evidence of an Iraq-Niger link in order to support bogus accusations against the Bush administration. The French did everything in their power to obstruct our war against Iraq and might reasonably be regarded with suspicion.

In any event, more information is needed. Maybe Alain Chouet would be willing to shed some light on the French intel from November 2002, and tell us whether Bonini’s account of his remarks is accurate.

The strange case of Greg Thielmann

Thielmann at the U.S. State Department attached a footnote to the October 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate saying: “The suggestion that Iraq sought to acquire uranium in Africa is, in the judgment of the INR, highly dubious.” (Bonini, P. 71.)

This was seven months after Joe Wilson reported Prime Minister Mayaki’s view that the Iraqis he met with were trying to buy uranium. We also had the earlier reporting of the Iraqi ambassador visiting Niger, and it is possible that Thielman knew about the French intel and the Batelli cable as well. In sum, there was nothing dubious about Iraq trying to buy uranium. It was pretty much an established fact, and Thielmann’s statement to the contrary is just flat wrong, making Thielmann a very odd mixed bag.

He seems to have been the most correct of the U.S. analysts in terms of being the most skeptical about the Martino docs, but the wrongest in his failure to account the real evidence of an Iraq-Niger link. Was he just biased against all evidence of an Iraq-Niger link? From his reaction to the CIA’s first report on the content of the Martino documents, this seems likely. Thielmann gave two reasons for dismissing the purported Iraqi deal to buy Nigerien uranium, neither of which has anything to do with the bogus specifics of the Martino documents, and neither of which holds the least bit of water.

“The first reason,” says Thielmann in an interview with Bonini and D’Avanzo, is that: “We knew that Iraq possessed five hundred metric tons of enriched uranium in its warehouses at Tuwaitha, routinely authorized by the IAEA. A quantity sufficient to produce at least two nuclear devices. So it made no sense to for Saddam to buy a rather hefty amount of pure uranium in a country like Niger, where the mines are controlled by the French … the Spanish, the Germans and the Japanese.” (Bonini’s p. 57.)

But as Thielmann notes, the uranium already in Saddam’s possession was under watch by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even after Saddam kicked out the United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) in late 1998, he would know that movements of tons of uranium could be tracked by satellite. Clinton already bombed some of his facilities in 1998 in retaliation for kicking out the inspectors, so Saddam would have known that he couldn’t go using his existing uranium stockpile without consequence. To pursue his nuclear ambitions Saddam would indeed have had reason in 1999 to find a source of uranium other than his existing stockpile. How could Thielmann not know that? If he is not driven by bias then he is plain incompetent.

Thielmann’s second reason for dismissing the intel in the Martino documents also has nothing to do with the bogus nature of the documents themselves. It isn’t really a reason at all: “You go with your gut instincts,” says Thielmann (p. 58). His actual problem with the Iraq-Niger intel seems to be that the CIA “kept repeating that Italian intelligence was certain that Iraq had at least attempted to buy uranium from Niger—as if that were an independent confirmation of the report.”

Of course Iraqi attempts to buy uranium are not independent confirmation that Iraq had completed a deal to buy uranium, but attempts to buy uranium are important in themselves, and it is the attempt to buy uranium (not the completion of a deal to buy uranium) that Thielmann dismisses in his footnote to the 2002 NIE. Thus he accuses the CIA of failing to distinguish between attempts to buy uranium and succeeding in making a deal to buy uranium, then makes this exact mistake himself. No one is that stupid. That is bias.

At the very least, Thielmann swallowed the “poison well” interpretation of the phony documents hook line and sinker. Of course you have to throw out the bathwater, but to throw out the baby at the same time is pretty weak for a senior analyst.

Lurid unsupported claims of pressure to phony up intelligence, with no mention of the authoritative debunking of these charges

Many of Bonini’s deceptions are well hidden, but his bias is completely overt, even ludicrous, when he starts ranting about “neocons” and leveling generic charges about intelligence analysts being pressured to produce the “right” conclusions, as if everyone already knows that “neocons” are some outrageously dishonest cabal. Here Bonini relies on pure antipathy to carry readers past his own blatant dishonesty.

“It was necessary to buttress the instincts of President Bush,” writes Bonini, “who had prowled the White House on the evening of September 12, ordering deputies to ‘see if Saddam was involved.’” (P. 41.) Horrors. The president wanted to know if Saddam was involved. The neoconservatives, suggests Bonini, were eager to cater to this demand, and hence “it was the neoconservative camp within the Bush administration that took over.”

But the Bush administration never claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The U.S. put forward 27 reasons for war against Iraq, and Bonini goes conspiracy mongering after a rationale for war that was never asserted.

(There actually was at least one solid piece of evidence that Saddam WAS involved in 9/11. The Czech’s are still adamant that they surveilled Mohammad Atta meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001. The CIA’s reason for dismissing this intel—that someone used Atta’s cell phone and credit card here in the U.S. when the Czech’s say he was in Prague—is absurd. All a terrorist has to do to create sufficient alibi to throw off the CIA is let someone use his cell phone and credit card? Grounded airliners at Salman Pak, outside of Baghdad, used for training airline hijackers, was another strong indication of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. But we're supposed to believe that after declining to invoke these actual grounds for tying Saddam to 9/11, Bush was insisting that people fake-up some phony grounds to tie Saddam to 9/11, though he never did tie Saddam to 9/11.)

Another absurd Bonini charge of pressure to phony up intelligence comes in response to a typically careful Rumsfeld statement. “The absence of evidence,” Rumsfeld said about the failure to yet uncover Iraqi WMDs, “is not necessarily the evidence of absence.” “For spies,” Bonini writes, “this argument sounded like an order, a threat, and a piece of career advice.” Oh shut up you moron. You may be a Bush hating bigot, and other Bush hating bigots may jump the same Bush hating conclusions you do, but Rumsfeld’s statement is not evidence of anything but his typical clear thinking. Bonini’s accusations that intelligence agents were pressured to come to certain conclusions never rise above this level of absurd insinuation. Some “collusion.”

Hiding the SSCI and Silberman-Robb reports

Just as Bonini hides the Butler Report from his readers, so too does he hide the fact that the 2004 SSCI report and the 2005 Silberman-Robb report both investigated exactly the charges he is making about pressure to come up with the “right” intelligence conclusions, and found them completely unsupported. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was highly concerned about such charges and investigated them thoroughly, doing extensive interviews and issuing multiple separate calls for anyone who had been pressured to come forward. Their findings were stark:
The Committee was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies, not a single analyst answered yes. Most analysts simply answered, “no” or “never,” but some provided more extensive responses.
The report then goes on to list several analysts describing the actual pressure they felt: to get their analyses right, and not be responsible for another devastating intelligence failure like 9/11. The March 2005 Silberman-Robb Commission Report came to the same conclusion:
The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. [Overview section.]
The Italian stinker simply refuses to acknowledge the existence of these authoritative refutations of his central claims. He is another Martino, completely comfortable with the most outrageous deceptions. He pretends to be the anti-Martino, while in fact doing his utmost to maximize the effectiveness of Martino’s dirty tricks, employing means every bit as dishonest as Martino’s. The difference is that Martino did it for money while Bonini’s deceptions are ideological. Martino is amoral (which is immoral), while Bonini is evil (or morally perverse).

Competitive intelligence

One of Bonini’s central metaphors is the echo chamber: when the different intelligence agencies asked each other about the information in Martino’s forgeries, they all would say “we heard that too,” but without sharing specifics, allowing them all to take reinforcement from each other without knowing that they were all looking at the same bogus source. Bonini cites a disgruntled ex-CIA officer named Robert Baer who charges that the CIA, in a method the Baer calls “competitive intelligence,” intentionally uses this echo chamber effect to seed phony intel, then get it “confirmed” by other intelligence agencies before passing it on to our elected leaders to justify a particular action. (P. 42-43.)

As a general matter, “competitive intelligence” sounds like an obvious enough counter-intelligence scheme for fooling other intelligence agencies. To say that our intelligence agencies have used it to fool our own elected leaders, or that our elected leaders have used it to fool voters, is a different thing entirely. This is a very serious accusation, made by an ex-agent who named his dog “Risen,” after James Risen, the treasonous New York Times reporter who has published leak after leak about our most sensitive terrorist surveillance methods. (See Bonini’s footnote on Baer, p. 43.)

Baer’s generic accusations aside, what we can say for certain is that no such “competitive intelligence” was involved in the Iraq-Niger reporting. The actual “echo chamber” effect in this case went in the opposite direction from what the “competitive intelligence” charge implies. The different intelligence agencies all warned each other off of the bogus documents, with the CIA in particular warning the British. There was no dysfunctional echo chamber upholding the phony documents, but only rational cooperation in identifying the forged documents as untrustworthy, getting them out of the way so that the real evidence of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium could play its proper leading role.

Bonini is completely oblivious to such logical inconsistencies. He knows full well that the different intelligence agencies were all telling each other not to trust the Martino documents. This is the foundation of his charge that, in nevertheless relying on the documents [Bonini’s false accusation], the CIA was knowingly phonying up a pretext for war. Then in the next breath Bonini pretends that the intelligence agencies were all affirming the Martino documents to each other. The inside of Bonini’s head is a logic-free zone. He embraces every interpretation that can be made to support his fraudulent accusations, no matter how mutually inconsistent.

In this typical can’t-be-bothered-to-think-straight style, Bonini points to Douglas Feith at the Department of Defense as a practitioner of “competitive intelligence” (p. 42-43). But the truth about Feith’s Office of Special Plans—what the Democrats tried to turn into a scandal this spring—is that, while the OSP doesn’t generate intelligence assessments (making Bonini’s imputations about trumped up intelligence assessments nonsensical), they did have the audacity to consider the implications of existing intelligence assessments without simply assuming, as the CIA was doing, that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime would not work with Muslim religious fanatics like al Qaeda. In other words, Feith’s claim to infamy is that he broke out of the idiotic echo chamber created by President Clinton’s CIA to avoid seeing terrorist connections so that President Clinton would not have to deal with them. He was the echo chamber buster.

A real echo chamber

In one of Bonini’s typical summary paragraphs, he weaves several of his central deceits together:
American intelligence, under pressure to give the hawks what they wanted, suddenly found itself in possession of one report (Saddam is buying uranium in Africa) and two “allied” confirmations (the Italian and the British). In reality, of course the original report and its subsequent confirmations came from a single hand. And that hand belonged to the swindler Rocco Martino, manipulated and controlled by SISMI. It’s Robert Baer’s “competitive intelligence” at its very best. [p. 53]
Exactly backwards. The CIA actually did plant a bit of intelligence with the British that President Bush then cited in his State of the Union address. That bit of intel was the warning that evidence of an Iraqi deal to buy uranium looked to be bogus. In response, the British limited their Iraq-Niger claims to those that could be supported by the real evidence, and the President then cited this properly regulated assessment. Some scandal.

The details of this Bonini paragraph are just as errant as the thrust. No, American intelligence was not “under pressure to give the hawks what they wanted,” and no, the different reports about an Iraq Niger uranium link did not all come from the Martino forgeries. The Italians were distributing at least two pieces of real reporting (the 1999 telex and the Battelli cable). The British say that they had pre-Martino reporting from "several sources." The CIA had in addition both Joe Wilson’s report about the Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Mayaki, and the French report from November 2002. Add the cautionary messages that the different agencies were sending each other about any deal having been made, and Bonini's entire paragraph is is seen to be carefully crafted disinformation: a neat little story concocted by expunging every hint of the real Iraq-Niger reporting.

Of course the fake documents prompted much investigation but they never were given credence. It is only by burying all the real Iraq-Niger reporting that Bonini is able to make that correct intelligence assessment look damning. "They knew the Italian documents were untrustworthy, and they still claimed an Iraq-Niger link!" But Joe Wilson has already been authoritatively exposed for making this same fraudulent accusation. Can the same lies really be retailed again and again, and be embraced just as enthusiastically each time, regardless of exposure?

Fool us once, shame on Joe Wilson. Fool us twice, shame on Bill Moyers and everyone else who is eager to uphold known lies.

What makes Bonini’s accusations about “competitive intelligence” especially rich is that Wilson, Bonini, Moyers et. al. really do engage in something like the “competitive intelligence” that Baer describes. They all employ the same central omissions in order to promote the same false accusations, and they all rely on each other for confirmation of these deceptions. The last piece of the echo chamber is Democrat-left readers who only want to hear the most unadulterated anti-conservative story that an author can tell, no matter how dishonest or even flatly illogical. It is a whole culture of despicable collusion, with bigots like Wilson, Moyers, Bonini and D’Avanzo as the ringleaders.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Arab Christians would be put to death if they did not use the Islamic term for god

Members of a Colorado high school "CulturalArms Club" recently demonstrated how well they have learned the lessons of political correctness by leading their school in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic. The problem, as Fox news notes, is that:
... an Arabic translation of the Pledge of Allegiance would have replaced “one nation under God” with “one nation under Allah.”
 CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper (CAIR is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of al Qaeda), tried to pretend that "Allah" is a generic term for "god" in Arabic, not a specific reference to the supposed god of Islam:
“Obviously in Arabic, you would use the word Allah, but Christian Arabs would use the word Allah,” said Ibrahim Hooper, of the Council on American Islamic Relations. “It’s not necessarily specific to Islam and Muslims.”
A very clever deception. What Hooper is not telling you is if Arab Christians tried to distinguish their god from the Muslim god they would be put to death. That is because a fundamental tenet of Islam is that the Muslim god is the Christian/Jewish god. Muhammad's whole gambit was to usurp the established spiritual authority of the Christian and Jewish religions by offering Islam as God-of-Abraham 3.0.

Arab Christians live as "dhimmis" in the Muslim world, a form of third class citizenship where they can be put to death for the smallest transgression, while blasphemy is considered the highest transgression. They are being forced, against their will, on pain of death, to acknowledge what they don't believe: that Muhammad is a prophet of the same God as Abraham and Moses and Jesus. If they believed it they would be Muslims, but they don't believe it, only they can't say so.

Hooper wants us to accept the forced Christian failure to distinguish their god from the Islamic god as proof that "Allah" is a general term in the Arab world for whatever god one believes in. Absolutely false. It is a specific and exclusive reference to the Muslim god and anyone who even suggests that there even could be a different god is liable to be put to death, not just in every Arab country, but in every Muslim country. Thus to insert "under Allah" into the Pledge is to assert the Muslim doctrine that their god is indeed the same god embraced by Christians and Jews. It is an assertion that Islamic belief is correct.

Willful blindness hand in hand with religiously commanded deception

This bait-and-switch on the Arabic meaning of "Allah" is an interesting and important example of how easily the politically correct left is duped by Islamic deception. Political correctness is a doctrine of willful blindness, looking away from any telling critique of non-Christian, non-white, non-male society. Such "others" are presumed to have been discriminated against by the white male Christian power-brokers that created the modern world and in compensation we are now supposed to discriminate in their favor by presuming the best about them at every turn. Their supposed victimization makes them unalterably innocent, otherwise we are "blaming the victim," and the Colorado "Cultural Arms Club" captures this spirit perfectly. Their goal is to "destroy the barriers, embrace the cultures," without regard to what those cultures are.

Embrace Islam? Really? What an educational club should actually be doing is not embracing Islam but learning about it. Lesson 1: a fundamental tenet of Islam is the saying of Muhammad that "war is deception." (Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 23.) This in a religion that calls the non-Muslim world "dar al harb," or "the world of war." They are supposed to lie to us. That is why Hooper pretends that Allah is a general term for anyone's god in Arabic when it is in fact an exclusive reference to the Muslim god, on pain of death for anyone who would proclaim any other god. 

If this school really wanted to promote "cultural understanding," that is what they would be teaching their students: that if they use "Allah" as a term for god they are submitting to Islam, accepting that the Christian god and the god of Islam are one and the samed. They are becoming dhimmis to the religion of submission (the Arabic meaning of "Islam"). So where are the teacher advisors to this club when the students get something so basic wrong as the meaning of Allah in Arabic? Egging them on of course. Our politically correct government run schools are schools of misinformation wherever ideology is even tangentially related.

We can't blame the kids. They are being indoctrinated. But soon enough they will be adults and then they will be culpable, having had enough years under the maturity of their faculties with which to discern the fraudulence of their government educations, and if they don't wake up, they will spend their lives on the side of evil.

Orthodox Islam is fundamentally opposed to American liberty

The Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to support "liberty and justice for all." The Colorado Kidz think that:
“No matter what language it’s said in, pledging your allegiance to the United States is the same in every language.”
No it isn't. Not when the Arabic word for god specifically asserts, according to Sharia law, that the god of Islam is also the god of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. But the error is even deeper than that because the Islamic religion that is implied by the use of "Allah" is fundamentally incompatible with the "negative liberty" that is the great American achievement: liberty from interference.

In any "one nation under Allah" the only "liberty" that would be possible is the communist brand of "positive liberty," where people are only seen as free when they are liberated from the immorality of acting contrary to communist ideology/ Islamic law.

The contrast between Christianity and Islam on the basic value of liberty could not be more extreme. "Christian liberty" is where American liberty came from. It expresses the teaching of Paul in 2Corinthians 3:6 where he says that Christians are now to live by the spirit of the law (the law to love your neighbor as yourself), instead of by the letter of the law (the Old Testament), whose laws are henceforth to be regarded as rule-of-thumb guidelines for an earlier condition of man that was not yet ready to be guided directly by the spirit of the law.

Even the Ten Commandments are to be regarded as rules-of-thumb that imperfectly capture the spirit of the law and can give way in those instances where they do not manage to capture what the law of love requires, as when Jesus justifies his "working" on the Sabbath (performing healing miracles). You don't fail to save a life on account of what day of the week it is: "If your son or your cow falls into a pit, don’t you rush to get him out?” The unspoken general principle is that you work on the Sabbath when love requires it, and the same for every other lettered law. We still need the written law as a guide to help us find the spirit of the law. It tells us where the spirit of the law mainly treads, but the Christian ideal is to find and follow the spirit, not the letter.

This fits with the common Judeo-Christian view, going back to Genesis, that man must be free to make his own choices because he is made in God's image, and God has freedom of choice. This is the ideological foundation of American liberty. It came from Judaism and Christianity, which then went on to end slavery, not just in America, but with the prompting and help of Christian England ended slavery across the entire world except for parts of the Muslim world and the Far East. European America was born a part of the old world with all of its gross violations of liberty, including slavery, but thanks to Christianity it became the instrument for largely ridding the entire world of these ancient wrongs.

Islam, in contrast, is a totalitarian religion, striving to specify halal and haram (the required way and the disallowed way) for every detail of human existence. The Islamic view of liberty is accurately stated by those signs that are commonly carried by angry jihadists and their niqabed women in Londonistan: "Freedom go to Hell!"

Distinguishing moral from immoral Muslims requires knowledge of orthodox Islam's evil doctrines, not politically correct blindness

Not all Muslims are immoral. It is orthodox Islam that is at war with Western liberty and until recently much of what had become traditional in Islam since the fall of the Ottoman Empire was decidedly NOT orthodox. Don't confuse traditional Islam, or cultural Islam, with orthodox Islam. The orthodoxy was in broad remission until it flooded back across the Islamic world on a sea of Saudi oil money, approximately $100 billion since 1970, funding the rise of Saudi Wahabbism to its current dominance. (Osama bin Laden was a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist.)

Many Muslims, maybe most, are not happy with the ascendance of Wahabbism in the Sunni world and the similar ascent of Khomeini-ism in the Shiite world, but roughly equal numbers are vocal or silent backers of the Wahabbist/Khomeini-ist murder cult. Post 9/11 polling consistently showed bin Laden to be the most admired figure in the Islamic world.

Add the Islamic command to lie about Islamic intentions and it becomes extraordinarily difficult to distinguish moral from immoral Muslims. Instead of politically correct willful blindness what is needed is doctrinal knowledge. One basic law in Islam, accepted by all branches except for the persecuted Ahamadiyya, is that apostates must be put to death, which is flat out murder. You can't get more antithetical to liberty than this: killing people for adopting a different religious view than you have. Talk about state establishment of religion.

This makes a handy litmus test. If a Muslim tells you that there is freedom of religion in Islam and that Muslims can freely convert to other religions then you know that he is an orthodox murder-cultist, engaged in religiously commanded deception. If a Muslim acknowledges the Islamic death penalty for apostasy and says that it is wrong and needs to be changed then he is a moral muslim who needs your friendship and protection because he is putting his life at risk every bit as much as Hirsi Ali. She's an apostate while a person who rejects settled sharia law is a blasphemer. Both are subject to the death penalty across the entire Islamic world.

The Kulture Klub Kidz are taking comfort from Ibrahim Hooper, who is full-on Muslim Brotherhood, which is ideologically identical to al Qaeda. The Brotherhood has a propaganda wing and an armed wing. Distinguishing Hooper from bin Laden is like trying to distinguish Goering from Himmler. When these kids let themselves be duped by the Brotherhood they are abandoning the moral Muslims who the Brotherhood is out to destroy. The Klub is not a force for conciliation but is letting itself become a tool of the Brotherhood's program of enforced submission.

What Colorado high school students need is real education, not politically correct demagoguery. For their own sakes they should begin with an honest investigation into the actual meaning of "Allah" in modern Arabic. Anyone in the Arab world who says it refers to any god other than the god of Muhammad is putting his head on the chopping block. Do these students doubt it? All they need to do is ask around.  Then they will find out who is who.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

New Republican alternative to Obamacare is another wrong-direction big-government boondoggle: the proper long term goal is health insurance for NOBODY

UPDATE: A week later I posted a more refined version of this at Flopping Aces.

National Review's Yuval Levin is all happy about a Republican Senate proposal to replace Obamacare with a new pile of junk. Some elements are benign, like removing barriers to interstate insurance competition. (These barriers were a problem long before Obama cranked them to the max with government-run state-specific insurance exchanges.) Other elements are massive new government interventions that are supposed to be improvements on Obamacare's massive government interventions, like the new Republican proposal to provide fully or heavily subsidized catastrophic health insurance to every American who is not way above the poverty line. (The subsidies are 100% for the poor and don't phase out until three times the poverty line.)

Levin claims that this government provision of catastrophic health care to half the nation will not be expensive:
The cost to the federal taxpayer would only be the cost of the tax credit.
Right, all we have to pay is the price, equal to one 12th of the economy (1/2 of 1/6th). Believing that wouldn't be expensive is like believing Obamacare won't be expensive but guess what? Nobody believes that anymore, not even the most low-information of low-information voters.

Obamacare needs to be thrown in the trash, lock stock and barrel, and a rapidly growing majority supports that course, but Republican lawmakers are out to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by splitting the anti-Obamacare consensus into two camps: those who want to replace Obamacare with another big government boondoggle and those who just want to get rid of it. (Ace of Spades had a post on this opposition-splitting effect the other day.)

For now the country should just go back to the way things were. The uninsured were not without health care. They were getting "free" health care by not paying their bills at county hospitals and in many emergency rooms. That was the proclaimed big problem, which Obamacare was going to fix by forcing everyone to buy insurance. Now the Republicans want to solve the problem of the uninsured getting free health care by giving the uninsured... free health care.

There is obviously no urgency to make this nominal change from de facto free health care for the poor to officially free health care for the poor. This is not something to split the anti-Obamacare consensus over. Whether free health care is the right solution is a big subject that would need to be debated. It is crazy to impose such an unnecessary and premature policy as a condition for doing what is right now both urgent and agreed upon.

Making health care free is NOT the solution: all government aid should be billed to the account of the recipient

As I have been advocating for many years, all government aid should be billed to the account of the recipient, to be paid back with full market interest according to an ability to pay formula over the life of the recipient, whether the aid be for health care, unemployment benefits, welfare, farm price supports, or Social Security, or anything else.

Many aid recipients will never have the ability to fully repay so such a system will still be costly, but billing the aid to the account of the recipient keeps incentives to responsible behavior intact, as far as it is possible to do so. That maximizes the bang-per-buck from giving aid, which means that whatever aid is given it should be given this way.

Philosophers can argue over how much aid should be given but how to give it is determined purely by economics. Every penny of aid should be billed to the account of the recipient. Keep the books straight, which also has the salutary side benefit of keeping clear who owes who. Our present system of giving aid away instead of loaning it sends the perverse signal to recipients that they must be owed, or why would society be giving them stuff?

The result of this wrong signal is a nasty, ungrateful, bitter underclass that blames its poor condition on the rest of society and responds by grabbing as much as it can, not just from social services, but through crime against people and property. The current national epidemic of blacks attacking random whites on the street is one of these byproducts. People who feel that they are owed a bitter debt often have an urge to take a pound of flesh, so make it clear: no, society does not owe you, you owe society, and here is an accounting of exactly how much and for what. You owe more than you will ever be able to repay, so don't ever pretend that it is you who are owed.

The ultimate goal is not health insurance for everybody but health insurance for NOBODY

The deeper problem with the proposed Republican alternative to Obamacare is that these stupid establishment Republicans buy into the Democratic premise that the health care market is inherently dysfunctional and in need of massive government regulation. They don't begin to understand what actually needs to be done to let this market function efficiently. Like Democrats, they just pull a bunch of  unnecessary government interventions out of their ass.

The ideal system—what any policy today should be aiming for as its long-term objective—is not a system where everybody has health insurance but a system where nobody has health insurance. Self-insurance (paying for health costs out of one's own savings) is inherently more efficient than 3rd party insurance and everyone is automatically self-insured up to their level of savings/wealth. Over time, unimpeded economic development raises the prosperity of every segment of society, moving more and more people, and eventually all people, to the point where self-insurance is the most rational choice for them. At that point everyone is paying with real money (their own money rather than insurance company money), causing them to shop for price. The result is a normal market where prices get driven down by competition and all need for regulatory cost-control disappears. That is the goal to aim for.

Ironically, Obamacare's rapid destruction of the existing health insurance industry could prompt a big step in this direction. Obamacare has already put a significant portion of the population into the ranks of the uninsured/self-insured and once the exemption on the employer mandate expires the number of the uninsured will rise dramatically. In this situation if government just vacates the field of health care regulation then a lot of the newly self-insured will likely remain self-insured.

This would inject price competition which would bring self-insurance within the reach of more and more people, creating a "virtuous cycle." We have a chance here to bring the era of artificially over-insured health-care to an end.

Unfortunately, we instead now have to fight a second big push for a different big government solution. Go to Hell you stupid establishment Republicans. It's another self-inflicted wound, like pushing for immigration reform that Republican voters overwhelmingly despise.

Hey, if you want to commit suicide go ahead and commit suicide, but don't "suicide" other people: don't suicide your political party.

What kind of health insurance aid should be billed to the account of the recipient, insurance premiums or the actual cost of the care delivered?

This is a technical point for the wonks out there (if Krugman and Klein haven't completely flipped the meaning of wonkery from unbiased policy analysis to purely biased political spin).

Suppose that under a system where all aid is billed to the account of the recipient, need-qualified individuals were allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to have a monthly insurance premium added to their debt to society or whether they want to let the cost of actual health care services rendered be added to their debt as these costs are incurred. Which should they want to choose?

With the government acting as a source of liquidity (making loans to cover claims of need), letting actual health care costs be billed to one's account would amount to a kind of quasi-self-insurance. It would be financed via debt rather than savings, but the benefits would remain.

When people buy insurance it reduces their incentive to avoid the insured risks. If you know that obesity incurs lots of expensive health risks, you have far stronger incentive to avoid those by avoiding obesity if you have to pay the health costs out of your own pocket.

Ditto for  other health-risky activities like drug use, extreme sports, unprotected sex, careless use of power tools, etcetera. People who don't have 3rd party insurance are a lot more careful about a lot of things.

This is one of the reasons why self-insurance is more efficient. The total costs that end up being covered are substantially higher when 3rd party insurance is involved so the price has to be higher by at least the same amount. Then there are administrative costs of insurance (which in the health field are gigantic), and worst of all is the resulting lack of price competition. Nobody is shopping for price so prices go through the roof.

Self-insurance makes sense for anyone who can self-insure, so if the system of billing aid to account allows this option it would be the sensible way for most aid recipients to go. Of course this is also what society would like. Quasi-self-insurance by the needy would leave them a financial incentive to avoid risky behavior, reducing overall costs, and it would give them incentive for shop for price when they do need medical services, allowing the needy to become a major driver of the price competition that would turn our current out-of-control cost-regulated health market into a normal cost-minimized competitive market.

The incentive effects that come from billing aid to the account of the recipient are not as strong as for non-needy people who pay for things with their own money rather than with government subsidized liquidity, but for anyone who expects to get on their feet and eventually pay down their social debt it isn't that much different, especially for young people, many of whom are needy just as a function of being young and not yet having developed their earnings potential. In other words, the benefits to society are still plenty strong so this is the solution that society would choose: to have actual health costs get billed to the account of needy recipients, not monthly insurance premiums.

On the other hand, if aid recipients are forward-looking enough to think that paying insurance premiums makes more sense for them personally than the risk of owing a big medical bill, that is something to encourage, so let aid recipients choose: they can have premiums billed to their account, or they can have actual costs billed.

Just note very clearly that what we do not want is the universal health insurance that Obamacare and the Obama-lite Republicans have both fixed as their objective. We want the opposite. The ideal is a society where nobody has 3rd party health insurance but everyone instead is self-insured, even if some are only quasi-self-insured via government loan.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Evil is Coming: ticking-clock Newtown video makes more sense with a pro-gun narration

A group called Moms Demand Action ("for gun sense in America") just put out a video marking the one year anniversary of the Newtown massacre. From a pro-gun perspective their video invokes some very effective imagery, using the impending sound of a ticking clock to highlight the vulnerability of a classroom full of undefended children.

That's the story of Newtown, where a psychopathic loser took advantage of the "gun free zone" at Sandy Hook Elementary School to murder two classrooms full of first graders and their teachers without being opposed by anyone equipped to defend against him. When seconds mattered the Newtown police were only 15 minutes away, but the Demanding Moms don't get it.

Their response to Newtown? They are on a nationwide crusade to create more gun-free zones. Holy cow. (Bob Owens has more on the bullying Moms here.) Still, for those who actually understand that seconds matter, that ticking clock is very evocative. It just needs the right voice over, which I have tried to provide (100% fair use):

If anyone thinks this is not the time to invoke Newtown in the gun-rights debate, tell it to the Demanding Moms. This video is a rebuttal to their ill-conceived manipulation, which should not go unanswered.

Video script

Pro-gun voice-over (by Alec Rawls):
Evil is coming, just as it came to Newtown one year ago.
Part of the original voice-over (from the Moms Demand Action "No More Silence" video):
With 26 more school shootings since that day...
Pro-gun voice-over:
Evil is coming and everyone knows it, but nobody is preparing to confront it. They want to, but they are not allowed. Denied their constitutional right to bear arms, would-be defenders can only sit and wait. 
What society in human history ever gathered its children together, then issued a public guarantee that they would be left completely undefended? How much longer will we sit by as this invitation to slaughter the most vulnerable members of our society is repeatedly accepted?
Original voice-over:
Ask yourself, is silence what America needs right now?

No, silence is not what America needs

But it is what our Democrat-controlled media systematically delivers when it comes to gun-rights understanding. A full half of the country had in unison one single immediate response to the news of the Newtown massacre: "Why the Hell wasn't there anyone on-site who was equipped to defend this entire school full of children?"

We all know the reason: because the Democrats have managed to strip whole swaths of their fellow citizens of the Constitutional right to bear arms, but we still can't help erupting in questioning anger at the sheer unmitigated perversity of it. It screams out of us every time one of these psychopaths is able to go about his evil business unopposed, yet nowhere does our Democrat-controlled media breathe a hint of what a full half of the country is thinking and saying. Our voices are silenced by a relentlessly biased media, yet it is our voices that need to be heard, because it is we who are correct.

Our dissembler in chief

At last year's Newtown prayer-vigil President Obama artfully misrepresented the pro-gun position:
Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?
But every gun rights advocate in the country knows that this violence, visited on our children "year after year after year," is not the price of freedom but is the price of our violation of freedom (the Constitutional right to bear arms). It is a price that the Democrats are willing to pay, choosing to leave everyone's children undefended in the face of repeated mass murder rather than relinquish their opposition to one of our country's founding liberties.

Conservatives are indeed willing to pay a high price for freedom in those instances where the price of freedom is high but this is not one of those instances. The freedom to bear arms makes us safer, just as all of our liberties contribute to our security and our prosperity. The price we have to pay for liberty is the price of defending it, not some supposed price that liberty itself inflicts!

This is what a moral pervert we have for a president. He sees liberty itself as a negative and strikes at the tree of liberty wherever he has a chance, socializing one sixth of our economy with Obamacare; using the power of the state (in the form of the IRS) to systematically attack his political opposition; even running "assault weapons" to Mexican drug cartels with no plan to track the guns, only a plan to use them, when they are discovered at crime scenes throughout Mexico, to ensnare America's law abiding gun industry, blaming our right to keep and bear arms for Obama's own intentional abuse of those rights.

Is there anyone in the whole country who still believes a single word that comes out of this man's mouth? He spent four years clearing the path for the Muslim Brotherhood to ascend to power in Egypt, advocating for them at every turn, often by name, only to see the Egyptian people, who had always sided with the Islamofascists against Israel and the United States and Europe, turn against the Brothers when, thanks to Obama, it was now they who were facing the Islamofascist hell. That turn against the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda) is a bigger turn of events than Bush's victory in Iraq. It is a huge victory for liberty, and all because Obama's unbounded hatred for liberty is so extreme that it stimulates even the Islamic world's liberty-challenged immune system to vomit him out.

We have to do the same here in America. Vomit out his poisonous Obamacare and vomit out his rottingly sweet attempt to depict gun rights, not as a valuable liberty, providing crucial defense against both common and uncommon crime, but as a negative: not something to fight for but something to fight against. Vomit out this liberty-hating monster. Overthrow his every machination and hope that the low-information Democrat half of our electorate, the willful idiots who seek to curtail their own thoughts as our Democrat-controlled media wants their thoughts to be curtailed, do not stay asleep long enough to carry him over any more finish lines.

In that vein, here's hoping that the words I so jarringly put in the mouths of the Demanding Moms might be clear enough to pull even their grief-stricken heads out of the sand. After all, it is their ticking clock. Shouldn't they know better than anyone that seconds count? Come on woman in the video, show us that you have a brain in your head. Show us that a person who comprehends the horror of murderous seconds cannot really be in favor of defender-free zones!

Don't you DARE try to defend those children!

Yeah, they actually said it. In response to the Newtown massacre Professor Erik Loomis from the University of Rhode Island passed along the following message (originally penned by another angry leftist named Lee Papa, aka Rude Pundit):
"First f**ker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death."
They know that these murders were enabled by the state's unconstitutional disarming of all would-be defenders but they care more about their disarmament goals than about the murders and are desperate to switch the blame to those who seek to uphold a citizen's duty to be prepared to defend oneself and others.

Professor David Guth also wants death for those who believe in being prepared to defend themselves and others. More specifically, he wants death for their children:
#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.
And here is funny-man Jim Carrey's contempt for the lives of those who would seek to defend children:
"Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting."
I sent him a few responses of my own:

That butt-hole routine was sick but hilarious. Carrey's latest routine is just sick.

The purpose of liberty is to empower moral agency

The anti-gunners need to learn some moral theory. Illiberal "liberals" always think that they are the sophisticated ones but anyone who doesn't understand why gun rights make us safer doesn't understand the first thing about why liberty works.

If human beings did not have moral comprehension it wouldn't much matter if we were free. Not being cognizant of value we would not be capable of pursuing value and so nothing of value would be lost by our not having the freedom to pursue value (or "happiness" as it is listed in the Declaration of Independence). But moral agency changes everything.

Our open ended faculties of intelligence are able to follow evidence, not just about what is possible in the world, but also about what there is to value in the world. Whether this is a product of godless nature or is because god made us in his image (Genesis 1:27), what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity to make progress in the discovery and pursuit of value.

What do we see to find value in? In the words of Linnaeus, "know thyself," ("homo sapiens"). There are vast catalogs of music, humor, drama, dance and sport, all with their unique attractions, discovered and explored and developed by humans questing after value. There is literature and learning. There is love of the natural world and the lesser-minded animals that need our guardianship and our husbandry.

Most basically there is our love for each other: man and woman, parents and children, friends and colleagues. We discern the lovable qualities in each unique individual just by witnessing their spirit in action, and we see their hateful qualities, where instead of acting to preserve and advance what the human mind can see to value some have a perverse desire to trample value, as if it raises them higher to bring other people and things down.

This is the difference between moral rationality and moral irrationality. Moral rationality husbands and follows all evidence of value, then acts for every discovery of value wherever it is enough at stake to be worth accounting. But moral rationality is not the only human mode. We evolved through the process of natural selection where different available human modes compete on the basis of which produces and nurtures the most offspring.

Here two main modes are possible. People can make their way in the world either by producing things that other people find valuable, then  trading or selling what they produce, or they can make their way by trying to steal what others have produced. These competing strategies are both broadly present in the human population today, but the stealers are a clear minority, essentially our criminal class, salted away in every race, making up something less than 20% of the total population.

Most people are moral. Their nature is to produce value, and this strategy (for those who follow it) is facilitated by moral rationality. If you have an eye for value, if your tendency is to follow evidence of value and to act for value then you will be better at producing value. You will be more successful in the be-productive reproductive strategy, and this seems to be the course that the bulk of mankind has followed. This is our evolutionary path. This is you, right? Know thyself.

This human nature creates a fundamental fellowship. Why are people all over the world so able to embrace each other as genuine friends, eager for each other's well being? Because when we look for what there is to value in each other we all see this same thing: that we all share this basic moral rationality that seeks to make progress in the discovery and pursuit of value. This makes us allies in our fundamental nature. We revel in each other's discovery of value, each other's talents, each other's inventiveness. We love each other's moral agency.

This is why people are willing to undertake even grave risks in defense even of unknown others. Because being morally competent, we know the worth of other people's lives, that we have this shared ability to recognize and act for value. We risk even for unknown others because we have a rational expectation that others are worth risking for.

The fact of moral agency, that our open ended faculties of intelligence are capable of apprehending value, is the key moral fact of our existence. Lower animals (with some limited exceptions) don't have moral agency, and they certainly have no capacity for moral rationality. Only the human being can recognize whether he is making a contribution to the world around or is reducing the sum of human attainment by predating upon it. We easily, even automatically, use constructs like Kant's "categorical imperative" (what if everyone were to behave the way I am behaving?) to magnify our understanding of the implications of our existence for the world around. All of which lead the moral majority to first want to be fair: to not be a cheater, but instead be one of those who makes his way by making a contribution and getting rewarded for it, not by stealing from others.

All progress in the discovery and pursuit of value comes through moral agency. That moral fact demands the empowerment of moral agency, which in turn requires maximum equal liberty rights. The pursuit of value requires freedom of action. If progress in the discovery and pursuit of value is to be maximized then moral agency must be maximally unleashed, limited only where one person's liberty interferes with similar such freedom for others.

One of the most important things people must be free to do is defend themselves and each other, because the cheaters and the stealers and the predators are still out there. When we identify them we can take away their gun rights, but it is counterproductive in the extreme to disempower the moral agency of the morally competent in this most crucial area, and this is what the anti-gunners want. They don't want to disarm just the people who have revealed a criminal nature. They explicitly want to disarm everybody except the government, proving that they have zero comprehension of the primacy of moral agency.

Listen up you liberty hating fruitcakes: all value comes through the empowerment of moral agency, which first requires liberty. To be against the empowerment of moral agency in some crucial area like saving lives is to be a wanton destroyer of value of the highest magnitude. You are Godzilla smashing Tokyo. You are a F4 tornado vacuuming up towns in the Midwest. And then to project the most tender concern for innocent life, as you work perfectly overtly to insure that there will be no defenders of the innocent, how is that even possible?

Much can be excused on account of grief but most of those who are trying to use the Newtown massacre to attack gun rights have suffered no personal loss that clouds their understanding. Like President Obama, they are intentionally misusing tragedy to misdirect blame, determined to create more of the defender-free zones that will give them more mass murders that they can use as more fodder to advance their ultimate goal of a government monopoly on power.

Evil is coming, not just in the form of broken losers, but also in the form of usurping tyrants, as regular as any "26 more school shootings," but looming a million times larger in human history. Evil is coming and half the country is actively trying to pave the way for it, using the demagoguery of misdirected blame to disempower the moral agency of a nation.

UPDATE:  Without the defender-free-zone part, Arapahoe shooter wants none of it, kills himself

From  the Christian Science Monitor:
As they investigate the latest school shooting in the United States – Friday at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colo. – one thing is clear to law enforcement officials there: The presence of an armed deputy sheriff on regular duty at the school was the key factor in preventing more deaths and injuries. 
As soon as he heard the first of five gunshots, that officer and the two school administrators he was talking to raced toward the commotion shouting their presence and ordering students and staff to follow the school’s lock-down protocol. 
As a result, Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said at a briefing Saturday afternoon, the heavily-armed shooter realized he was about to be confronted by an armed officer, and he took his own life.
Makes it pretty obvious that that young Mr. Pierson would not have gone human-hunting in the first place if he didn't think he would have a chance to engage in unopposed slaughter, especially if, as one of his classmates suggests, the reason why he went off is because he "didn't like losing." Pierson, who was an incessant and very proud debater, had lost by getting himself kicked off the debate team. He wanted first of all to kill the debate team coach but he was armed with molotov cocktails and other implements for killing many others as well:
Senior Chris Davis, 18, was among many students Saturday trying to make sense of Pierson's shooting rampage. 
"He was a weird kid," Davis said. "He's a self-proclaimed communist, just wears Soviet shirts all the time." 
Pierson became easily aggravated, "always liked to be right" and didn't like losing, Davis said. 
"It seems realistic, now, that he did it," Davis added.
As is typical for our Democrat-controlled press, The Denver Post deliberately tried to make those who only read above the break think that this leftist was a pro gun conservative, leading off a story on Pierson's "strong political beliefs" with this quote from one of his classmates:
"He had very strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff," said junior Abbey Skoda, who was in a class with Pierson during her freshman year. "I also heard he was bullied a lot."
Since Pierson used a gun the implication would seem to be that he must have been pro-gun, not anti-gun. Only those who read to the end of the article find out what Pierson posted on facebook:
The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?
The Post went on to scrub from its own article a statement from a classmate that Pierson was "a very opinionated socialist," reporting instead that the classmate had only described Pierson as "very opinionated." Liars.

Senior editor Lee Ann Colacioppo explained the change:
“We decided not to have another student apply a label to the shooter — a label the student likely didn’t even understand,”
The whole article was about the other student's views of the shooter. Only when he turns out to be a leftist like Colacioppo does this "labeling" become something pernicious that should not be credited in a news report.

So in the Post's view it is a-okay to write the article so that skimmers will wrongly think Pierson was some kind of pro-gun Tea Party conservative but evidence that he was actually a leftist has to be excised as a matter of "principle." Dirtbags.

RELATED:   Survey shows that if allowed, 13.4% of teachers would carry guns in school!
72.4% of educators say they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school if they were allowed to do so. 36.3% of educators surveyed report owning a firearm, 37.1% of whom say they would be likely or very likely to bring it to school if allowed.
.363 x .371 = 13.4. That is far above the average rate of carry in any "shall issue" carry permit state. Florida with the highest number of CCW permits (over a million) has a permit rate of 6.2% of its adult population. Georgia has the highest CCW rate at 11% (ibid.). 13.4% is huge!

It is not surprising to me that adults who are responsible for classrooms full of children want to be able to protect them, but I expect that many anti-gunners would be surprised, if they were to learn about it. Well they had better not learn about it then. CNN reports the teachers' strong pro-gun response under the following headline:
Survey: Teachers don't want to carry guns, do support armed guards
Because you see, a majority of teachers would not carry guns. Ergo, that's the news: "teachers don't want to carry guns." Propagandist hacks.

CNN also claims that: "the survey was not a scientific measure of opinion," but nothing on the survey site suggests that this was not a controlled study:
School Improvement Network surveyed 10,661 educators from all 50 states to find out how safe our schools really are, and the best ways to keep them secure.
The survey group's summary report actually understates the pro-gun response. Check out question 6 in the detailed survey results:
How likely would you be to bring a firearm to school if you were allowed to? 
Very Likely 10.7%
Likely 6.9%
Somewhat Likely 10%
Somewhat Unlikely 7.2%
Unlikely 15.7%
Very Unlikely 49.5%
Likely and very likely sum to 17.6%!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?