Too Many Unasked Questions Surround Edward Snowden

       The Guardian published a letter by Dr Agnes Callamard (Executive director, Article 19) on August 6th arguing on behalf of more than 150 civil society organizations that the US should leave Edward Snowden, the NSA Whistleblower, alone. While I'm not thrilled by the NSA's intrusion into the private communications of American citizens, I think it is extraordinarily dangerous to just accept at face value that Snowden is some noble whistleblower as Callamard and many others appear to have.
       There are so many unanswered questions surrounding Snowden. More importantly, there are a lot of unasked questions. Specifically, I think the following questions that I don't think I have heard asked need to be asked and answers need to be obtained. How did this guy get jobs (either as a government employee or contractor) with the CIA, NSA and defense contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton? Positions with these organizations are extremely competitive. Snowden is a high school dropout! There were rumors he got his GED at Anne Arundel Community College but a college spokesman was quoted in The Capital as saying that the school has no record of him receiving a GED from them. Likewise for the cyber-security coursework he supposedly completed. How did he get a security clearance - especially in positions that usually require passing a polygraph examination? Did no one verify claims on his resume regarding his education? Did those performing his background checks not do their job? Or did they falsify information? These questions allude to a far more sinister situation. Was Snowden's access to all this highly classified information and sensitive programs the result of those charged with checking his background failing to do their job or was it a case of some person or persons who have infiltrated our security community, paving the way for a spy?
       We need to know these answers. That is why Snowden doesn't deserve to be "left alone".

Everything Wrong with the Zimmerman Case ...but the Verdict!

       I probably followed the George Zimmerman case closer than most people. Not because I was particularly interested in it but because the CNN coverage of the case blared on the TV in the break room across from my office all day. As a result, I think I have a very good understanding of the case.
       From the beginning, everything about the George Zimmerman case was wrong but in the end, the jury got the verdict right. I realize that many of you might disagree with me but please hear me out.  First of course, Trayvon Martin shouldn't be dead. That goes without saying. However, this case should have never been a national news story. Not because Trayvon isn't important (he is every bit as important as any other young American whose life ended too soon) but because it gained national attention for all the wrong reasons. Before they had their story straight, our corrupt and yes I'll say it, evil media began a campaign to stir up trouble. If there was any racism at all involved in this incident, it was completely the doing of the media. Without checking their facts, they latched on to this story as "White Man Kills Unarmed Black Teen." They saw the name Zimmerman and assumed, "Has to be a white guy with that German name! Maybe even...wait for it...a Jew!" Yes good ole fashioned anti-Semitism is alive and well in the hearts of our mainstream media. When it turned out to be completely wrong, instead of correcting the story, they worked hard to 'adjust the facts' to make the story work. George Zimmerman became a white Hispanic! What? Never heard that term before? Neither had anyone else. To sell advertising and support an unsustainable 24/7 news cycle, the media was willing to create a story, even at the expense of the Martin family, the African American community, public safety, George Zimmerman, race relations in the U.S. and the American justice system. NBC news skillfully edited the 911 tape to remove the operator's question asking Zimmerman is the person is white, black or Hispanic which made it appear as if Zimmerman just volunteered the information that Trayvon was black and that Zimmerman was profiling him because of his race. Then to continue to keep tensions high, the media showed old pictures of Trayvon; ones that made him look like a particularly young, vulnerable and innocent little boy. It wasn't until much later that they showed current pictures of Trayvon as he really was - a much taller, mature young man. None of this was in the best interest of justice for Trayvon or George Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the media weren't they only ones 'poisoning the well.'
       Buying into the false picture painted by the media, the usual suspects - the race hustlers, left-wing pundits, the "America is an awful place" crowd, to name a few - jumped on the bandwagon and began demanding Zimmerman be charged with murder even though the initial investigation determined it to be an apparent case of self-defense. The President of the United States weighed in and declared that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon and the civil rights division of the Justice Department dispatched investigators to Sanford, Florida to look for evidence that Zimmerman or the Sanford Police Department were racists - they found no evidence. Political pressure led to the firing of the Sanford Police Chief for refusing to charge Zimmerman with murder because he believed there was a lack of evidence. A special prosecutor, Angela Corey, was then appointed and made the decision to skip the usual grand jury hearing, immediately arrest Zimmerman and charge him with second degree murder. This would turn out to be an overreach on Corey's part and was the first of a series of mistakes by the prosecution that ultimately led to Zimmerman's acquittal. Had the charges initially included some potential lesser charges, there is a good chance Zimmerman may have been convicted of one of them but that was not to be.
       For reasons known only to her, Corey went for the big charge, swung for the fence and struck out. All the witnesses for the prosecution, proved to support the defense's case rather than build the case for second degree murder against Zimmerman. The star witness,  Rachel Jeantel, actually struck me as mentally challenged. Her monotone responses to the defense lawyer's cross-examination questions made her sound more like a 1950's era lobotomy patient than a credible witness and her inability to read her "own" written statement because it was written in cursive led to the revelation that she dictated it to a friend. Lastly, her refusal to acknowledge Trayvon's characterization of Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" as racist threw any credibility she had out the window. How the prosecution didn't see how bad a witness she would make is truly unbelievable. The prosecutions other witnesses proved no better. 
       Under questioning by the defense attorney, the policeman, Officer Serino, who did the initial questioning of Zimmerman admitted that he believed he was telling the truth after initially saying he thought he was lying. The only eyewitness,  Jonathan Good, claimed he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman giving him an "MMA-style ground and pound". Lastly, Zimmerman's testimony... "Wait you say, Zimmerman never took the stand in his own defense!" Technically, you are correct but for all intents and purposes he did when the prosecution played the police video of Zimmerman's statements and re-enactment of the event. By doing so, the prosecution allowed Zimmerman to "testified" without being able to cross-examine him and pick this "testimony" apart. The jury got to hear Zimmerman's side of the story in his own words and essentially was able to take it at face value - a devastatingly bad decision by the prosecution! As bad as these mistakes were, they weren't the only prosecutorial missteps.
       In addition to the prosecution's witnesses ending up being better defense witnesses, there were also instances of misconduct on their part - the most egregious of which was the withholding of evidence from the defense. This was only disclosed when a whistle-blower reported it and I'm sure this left the jury thinking it was being withheld by the prosecution because it proved the defense's case. Even if Zimmerman had been convicted, this would have been immediate grounds for appeal. Shortly after filing the charges, Corey called a press conference and began smiling, preening and "showboating" for the cameras which, along with the many other instances of improper handling of the case, may have resulted in tainting the jury pool. Regardless, six jurors acceptable to both the defense and prosecution were found but even with these 'impartial' jurors, it was apparent that the case for second degree murder was very weak.
       Lastly, in the "eleventh hour" the prosecution sensing it had lost the case for second degree murder ask the judge to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. In my opinion, this was a bad move because the prosecution hadn't made a case for the lower charges, the defense hadn't defended against the lesser charges, and I'm sure the jury saw this for the "straw grab" that it was. When the jury returned with their verdict, they found Zimmerman not guilty of all the charges as they should have because the prosecution failed to prove its case.
       Everything about the Zimmerman case was wrong except for the verdict. The prosecution made mistake after mistake and the media pushed a weak case against Zimmerman by distorting the facts. Certainly not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome but our justice system did its job. Since the verdict, there have been those that have tried to stir up trouble but fortunately most Americans, even those who were deeply disappointed in the final results of the trial, resisted the temptation to resort to violence. There are also calls to charge Zimmerman with federal charges. Heeding any calls for trying George Zimmerman for federal civil rights or hate crimes now would be a grave mistake and wouldn't be right. It would be giving into lynch mob justice that isn't in the best interest of anyone. History gives us ample evidence of this.

Sebelius Delivers First Obamacare Death Panel Ruling

Sarah Murnaghan is the 10 year old Pennsylvania girl who is dying of cystic fibrosis because there are no child organs available for transplant. She needs a lung or she will die in 3-5 weeks but government regulations say she must be 12 years old in order to be placed on the adult transplant list. At a Congressional hearing yesterday, legislators from Pennsylvania pleaded, no literally begged, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to use her authority to grant an exception. She refused. It may have only been a panel of one but in the case of Sarah, Kathleen Sebelius gave the first "death panel" ruling.

Liberals wince and claim to hate to have to make life and death decisions such as this but in reality, they relish the power and control. And they love to be able to do this under the cover of government bureaucracy. "Sorry, rules are rules, you know. Nothing I can do about it."

Is this a vision of things to come under the Affordable Care Act? Did it make any difference that the Senators and Congressmen speaking on behalf of Sarah, were Republicans? Cynical of me to ask I know, but in this current scandal-rich environment, one has to wonder. I heard a radio talk show caller ask a very interesting question - something to the effect of "Why does the president with his 'If we can save just one child, we need to act.' when it comes to gun control, not apply the same reasoning when it comes to saving this one child?"

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Democrats and the media derided Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin for calling the rationing boards that would be instituted under Obamacare "death panels." You may not like the language but the results are the same regardless of what they are called.

I think Shakespeare expressed it best when he wrote:

                        "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                          By any other name would smell as sweet."

The IRS Debacle Widens and My Paranoia Grows

I'm sure many readers of my last posting where I closed by raising a concern that the IRS will be the agency enforcing parts of the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare were thinking, "Mac has gone paranoid on us. There's no reason to think anyone will be treated differently." However, today we learned that Sarah Hall Ingram, the same IRS official who was in charge of the IRS division responsible for vetting tax exempt status applications during the period when it improperly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups for unfair, unusual, and illegal additional scrutiny has since moved on to be the head of the IRS division responsible for enforcing the individual mandate of Obamacare. Those under her will determine, among other things, who gets fined for not buying health insurance. I kid you not! Now who's paranoid?

IRS Scandal Just Another Example of Lack of Leadership

The IRS scandal which we are learning more and more about despite the best efforts of the Obama Administration to downplay it and blame 'low-level' employees is yet another window into Barrack Obama's lack of leadership ability. IRS employees in the Cleveland, Ohio office reportedly were delaying the approval of tax exempt status for groups they believed to be Conservative. It is also alleged that they passed confidential tax return information on to liberal groups to use as political ammunition. The story itself is significant and I will opine on that as well as the other major scandals that have all come to light in the last week soon but for now, the leadership implications are what I would like to address.

What was our first clue that our president and his fellow travelers don't understand what leadership is all about? For me, it was their claim that the president was 'leading from behind'. Unless one is a dogsled musher in the Iditarod, there is no such thing as leading from behind. Another indicator that Obama and those around him know little about leadership is their 'go to' response whenever they are faced with a problem: "We just learned about (insert the name of the latest scandal here) from news reports and it appears to be the actions of a few low-level employees." They say this as if it somehow absolves them from responsibility or accountability. I can only assume their logic is 'We can't be held accountable for every single person in our charge and you can't expect us to know everything that goes on in such a large organization.' Unfortunately that isn't how leadership works. As many a commanding officer in the Navy have found out much to their chagrin, the leader is responsible for the actions of subordinates, not only as a result of the direct orders they are given by their commander, but also for the implied direction that results from the 'command climate' established by the person in charge. If the leader has made their opinion on a matter clear to their subordinates or presented a position of indifference on a subject and a problem occurs as a result of an underling acting on the superior's perceived desires, then it is indeed the leader's fault - period!

From the minute he emerged onto the national political stage, Barrack Obama has demonized those who disagree with him politically. He has referred to political opponents as enemies and has falsely accused Republicans, Tea Party members, Conservatives and those for smaller government of wanting to starve children, throw granny over the cliff, let kids with autism fend for themselves - not to mention wanting dirty air and dirty water. When coupled with liberals' propensity for an 'Ends Justifies the Means' approach to governance based on their sense of moral superiority, it is easy to imagine an entrenched 'true believer' bureaucrat confusing the command attitude for policy and singling out 'enemies' for special attention. That may very well be what happened in this case but as one can see, the leader is responsible just as sure as if a direct order was given. This may also explain but not forgive the second part of their standard excuse. Since subordinates believe they are doing the bidding of their leader, when there is a problem, it never gets reported up the chain of command. Why would it? It is policy from the top, right? Or perhaps is doesn't get reported out of fear of being thrown 'under the bus' by those in charge. There are certainly enough examples of this to make it a legitimate concern.

If the scope of the problem remained confined to just those few employees in Cleveland and the president accepted responsibility and took action right away instead of trying the pass the blame, this incident wouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately, as we learn more, we are finding out this isn't the case. Hundreds of people and organizations are now reporting that they received similar unfair treatment, making the Administration's low-level employee claim appear to be not only the result of poor leadership but also the intentional actions of scores of leftist at multiple levels in the IRS 'doing the right thing.'

Is it any wonder why Conservatives are concerned that the IRS is the government's enforcement agency for Obamacare? Could information from your tax return (e.g. what charities you donate to - an indicator of your politics) determine whether you get treatment or that pain pill candidate Obama talked about?

Benghazi: Oh What a Tangled Web Liberals Weave...

The scandal developing over the Benghazi cover-up has the potential to be one of the most damaging events in modern American history because it involves the deaths of 4 Americans including the US Ambassador, the Executive Branch, cabinet-level officials, major government departments and agencies, the outcome of a presidential election, international relations, and the wrongful detention of a man for exercising his right to free speech.

If the full story about what really happened at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, 2012 is ever known, the political and historical fallout will be unprecedented. The Obama Administration has made this a political issue from the beginning, aided and abetted of course by its allies in the main stream media, so it is a bit ironic that Democrats are accusing Republicans of making this political. Of course this is political but it is certainly not one-sided. There are also those who are predicting that even if this does lead to political ramifications, this will only amount to a Democrat Watergate. This is a gross underestimation of the significance of what has transpired and those involved will be lucky if this is only a "Watergate."

There can be no doubt that this is bigger than a Democrat Watergate. There are similarities to be sure: the Executive Branch involvement, the cover-up and a presidential election but that is where the similarities end and even these are only superficial. In the case of presidential involvement, Obama is a more active participant than was Nixon. President Obama personally perpetuated the lie as to the cause for the Benghazi attack. As to the election, nothing gained from the Watergate break in would have changed the outcome of the election - Nixon still would have won by a landslide. The same can't be said about Benghazi. Had the depth of the Obama Administration's negligence and incompetence been allowed to become an issue during the election, it could have enabled Romney to maintain the momentum he had following the first presidential debate which may have led to a different result. The real differences lie in the remaining issues.

First, 4 Americans, including the American Ambassador, died as a result of the attack in Benghazi and if the actions or inactions of those in charge enabled it to happen, they need to be held accountable. Further, the intentional perpetuation of the lie that the attack was the result of a reaction to an obscure YouTube video disrespectful to Islam actually brought the video to the world's attention and sparked subsequent violent protests that led to dozens of additional deaths and injuries. There were no deaths as a result of Watergate.

Second, this scandal, unlike Watergate, involves more than just the president and his inner circle. Benghazi appears to involve other high-level government officials, departments and agencies. There now appears to be little doubt that Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Panetta both played important roles in the failures that resulted in the attack, the deaths of the Americans or both. The lapses in security, judgement, and procedures, the refusal to provide additional security despite repeated requests, and the failure to provide assistance during the attack all demand answers. Additionally, the shenanigans that have taken place to advance the YouTube video lie has damaged the integrity of the US Intelligence community specifically the CIA which was apparently directed to rewrite their input to the now infamous "Susan Rice Sunday morning talk show talking points." It has now been revealed that at least 12 rewrites were ordered to remove wording that called the attack an act of terrorism or remove references to Islamic extremists. The 'then' CIA director, Gen. Petraeus, resigned out of the blue in November supposedly over an extra-marital affair. At the time I thought to myself, how could this not have been discovered during his confirmation? It has since been reported that Gen Petraeus was opposed to changing the wording in the talking points. Coincidence or retribution for not playing along? As the old National Enquirer advertisement used to say, "Enquiring minds want to know."

Third, had this been allowed to fully come to light during the presidential campaign, the revelations of poor judgement, inaction, and complete indifference on the part of the president and his administration would most likely changed the outcome of the election. What took place would undoubtedly have called into question President Obama's fitness for office. A complete timeline which the American people have yet to see would most likely reveal a very damning sequence of events on the part of Mr. Obama and his administration including an indifferent attitude toward the fate of Americans in harms way that allowed the president to simply "Call it a night" and get no additional updates on the developing situation. Americans were fighting for their lives and a US Consulate - sovereign US territory - was under attack, and the president was literally asleep!  Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty would have to admit this is more important than Mitt Romney's tax returns, Sandra Fluke and the phony 'War on Women' and gay marriage.

Fourth, the lies surrounding Benghazi have caused enormous damage to US international relations. The public contradiction by the Obama Administration of the Libyan President Mohammed Magarief's statements that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack unrelated to any video embarrassed an important ally in the region - a truly moderate, pro-American, Muslim leader who is for free elections, women's rights, and freedom. This humiliation and loss of face has damaged our relationship with the kind of leader we were hoping would emerge in Libya as a result of the removal of Gadaffi and in the broader middle east as a result of the Arab Spring. Now Libya's beleaguered president's situation is far less secure, his feelings toward the US are reportedly (and understandably) sour, and the notion in the rest of the Arab world that the US is not to be trusted has most certainly been reinforced. As a side note, President Magarief was so angry that he refused to let FBI investigators into his country for 3 weeks which hindered the investigation. To date, no one responsible for the attack has been brought to justice as President Obama promised and they are presumably at-large planning new attacks. Maybe OJ can take time off from finding Nicole and Ron Goldman's real killers to help Mr Obama find those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Lastly, the Benghazi lies and cover-up have led to the detention of the man who made the YouTube video. But what was his crime? Doesn't the 1st Amendment protect his right to make a video - even one that some might find offense? Apparently not one that offends Muslims. At the funeral of one of the victims, Secretary of State Clinton promised the father that, "We will get the man who made that video." I guess Hillary Clinton is more interested in enforcing Sharia law than protecting someone's rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

The Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats, their apologists in the main stream media, and liberals everywhere would have you believe that Benghazi has been fully investigated. In the words of Presidential Press Secretary, Jay Carney, "... Benghazi happened a long time ago." and he implied we need to move on. This morning on Face the Nation Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the hearings and renewed efforts to get to the truth a "Witch Hunt".  These people continue to attempt to obscure what happened  and demand that we put this behind us but there is no time limit on determining the truth. The failures, the lies, the cover-up and the violation of the publics trust have had such serious consequences that those responsible for this scandal have to be held accountable.  Sir Walter Scott expressed it best when he wrote in his epic poem, Marmion, The Battle of Flodden -  "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." It's time this web is fully untangled.

Liberal Thinking 101 (Part 2 of n): Liberals - The Picassos of Analysis

I would say that one way to define analysis is:  Analysis is the art of gathering facts, piecing them together in a logical manner and drawing conclusions from the picture they paint. If that painting resembles the work of Pablo Picasso, you can bet the analysis was done by a liberal. Take for example the issue of children's nutrition and obesity.

Fact 1: Unlike when I was in school and only about 15% of kids took part in the free or reduced lunch program, today nearly 60% of children in our public schools receive meals under this program. (Sources: National Center for Education Statistics; 2008 Digest of Education Statistics; US Agriculture Dept.)

Additionally, some school districts provide breakfast and dinner as well. Amazingly, some even open their doors during vacation periods to provide free meals.

Fact 2: Today, over one third of all American school children are obese. (Source: Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999-2010. Journal of the American Medical Association2012;307(5):483-490.)

Fact 3: "...Only six percent of schools in the United States offer daily physical education classes, reports The Early Show's Debbye Turner....the number of quality physical education programs nationwide has been on a decline for 20 years....the number of overweight kids in the United States has tripled in the last two decades." (Source: www.cbsnews.com, Dakss B, Obesity Up, Phys Ed Down, February 11, 2009)

The obvious conclusion at least to liberals like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: sugary sodas are the culprit - especially those sold in 16 oz or larger cups. 

Now multi-billionaire lefties like Michael Bloomberg aren't stupid. I guess they just exercise artistic license with the facts.