There is NO "Senate Report" on Torture; Staff Propaganda!

There is NO "Senate Report" on Torture

Two big lies have been perpetrated on the American people.

The first lie is the partisan, dishonest, irresponsible, and destructive left-wing attack disguised as an Intelligence Committee report.

The second lie is the elite media deliberately overlooking the partisan, divisive and deeply disputed report and pretending it represents the verdict of the U.S. Senate.

First, lets look at just how dishonest and deceitful this report is.

There is a 528 page "Executive Summary" of a 6,500 page classified report based on more than a million documents turned over by the Central Intelligence Agency.

These numbers tell you several things.

First, you can make money betting that no Senator has read all 6,500 pages. This is a staff-written and staff-driven document in which left-wing employees got to smear the American intelligence community without serious supervision.

Second, it is astonishing that with all those pages, the Democratic staff asked no one at the CIA about the topic.

As President Obama's Director of Central Intelligence said in yesterday's press conference, "Unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a bipartisan way forward and no CIA personnel were interviewed by the committee during the course of the investigation."

Let me repeat this to drive it home. According to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, "NO CIA PERSONNEL WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE."

If the elite media had reported on a narrowly partisan report written with no meetings with intelligence personnel people would have had a very different reaction.

The failure to proceed professionally and responsibly is highlighted in a devastating response in the Wall Street Journal from former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes:

How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way. 

The excuse given by majority senators is that CIA officers were under investigation by the Justice Department and therefore could not be made available. This is nonsense. The investigations referred to were completed in 2011 and 2012 and applied only to certain officers. They never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study. Yet a press account indicates that the committee staff did see fit to interview at least one attorney for a terrorist at Guantanamo Bay.

We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct. Which is another reason why the study is so flawed. What went on in preparing the report is clear: The staff picked up the signal at the outset that this study was to have a certain outcome, especially with respect to the question of whether the interrogation program produced intelligence that helped stop terrorists. The staff members then “cherry picked” their way through six million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to construct their argument against the program’s effectiveness. In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.

If the elite media had accurately reported that the liberal staff refused to learn from any of the people involved the public's impression would have been very different.

The Republicans on the Intelligence Committee gave the elite media an opportunity to provide accurate and thorough reporting on this partisan travesty. Led by Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (an old and dear friend) the Republicans issued a dissenting report. This is 106 pages of devastating and factual rebuttal of both the process and the conclusions of the liberal Democratic report.

Trying to understand why the liberal Democrats would be so destructive and so willing to weaken America, risk American lives, help America's enemies and frighten America's allies, I was reminded of the brilliant speech given by Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the 1984 Republican Convention.

Ambassador Kirkpatrick was a lifelong Democrat. She had been driven to support President Reagan by the increasingly radical, destructive and dangerous foreign and national security policies. Her speech is worth reading in full but for now a few excerpts drive home the point.

Kirkpatrick describes the "San Francisco Democrats" because that is where their convention was. Ironically the chair of the committee that issued this destructive report is Senator Feinstein from San Francisco. So the term fits.

Kirkpatrick asserted left wing Democrats were neither hawks nor doves; they were "like an ostrich--convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand."

Kirkpatrick warned, in a phrase which applies today as much as it ever has, that "foreign policy is central to the security, to the freedom, to the prosperity, even to the survival of the United States." She outlined a series of threats and warned, "these are questions the San Francisco Democrats have not answered. These are questions they haven't even asked."

In a phrase which could apply directly to the anti-American tone of both the news media and the Democrats' report, Kirkpatrick insisted that "they always blame America first....the 'blame America first crowd' didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States." This partisan attack document is simply another product of the blame-America-first ostriches who dominate the Democratic Party.

Inexcusably, the elite news media piled on with false repeating and gleefully blamed the Americans who risk their lives protecting the first amendment the media is supposed to cherish. 

When your friends ask you about this report, remind them there is no Senate report. There is a dishonest Democrat staff report given too much credence by the media.

It is a sad week for America and for those who risk their lives defending our nation.

Unemployment: Keynesians and Warmists Are Identical

Unemployment: Keynesians and Warmists Are Identical

By Louis Woodhill

Science consists of theories that can be falsified (proved wrong) by evidence. In fact, a single inconsistent data point will (and should) invalidate even the most cherished and long-standing scientific theory. By this standard, both the current computer-model-based theory of global warming and Keynesian economics fall into the domain of religion, not science. The adherents of these theories cling to them, even though they have both been disproved by evidence.

Friday's "Employment Situation" report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the most recent GDP report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) drove more nails into the coffin of Keynesian economics.

Keynesians believe that GDP growth and jobs growth are driven by "demand," and that demand is driven by fiscal and monetary "stimulus." So, to Keynesians, the answer to almost any economic problem is for the federal government to run bigger deficits, and for the Federal Reserve to print more money. For the Keynesians, as for the global warming crowd, the data has not been cooperating lately.

Fiscal stimulus is created by growing government deficits, while increasing the size of the monetary base generates monetary stimulus. Let's look at the data.

 During the 12 months ending with November 2014, the economy created 2.8 million FTE* (full-time-equivalent) jobs, with the "help" of $571 billion in total stimulus ($425 billion fiscal and $146 billion monetary). During the prior 12 months, $1,875 billion in total stimulus ($837 billion fiscal and $1,038 billion monetary) yielded only 1.2 million new FTE jobs. In other words, the evidence says, "less stimulus = more jobs."

The same appears to hold true for GDP (specifically, nominal GDP, or NGDP). Fiscal and monetary stimulus is supposed to boost NGDP, but the data from the most recent two fiscal years (FYs, which run 4Q to 3Q) suggests an inverse correlation between stimulus and economic growth.

During FY2013, $1,573 billion in total stimulus ($486 billion fiscal and $563 billion monetary) produced a $603.4 billion increase in annualized NGDP. For FY2014, $1,049 billion in total stimulus ($680 billion fiscal and $893 billion monetary) produced a $682.9 billion increase in annualized NGDP.

The data over the past 6 years has left Keynesians with no way to defend their theories other than to create imaginary "counterfactuals," compared against which the observed results are consistent with their models. In other words, they run their models in reverse, back-calculate "what would have happened in the absence of our stimulus policies," and then declare that this circular exercise supports Keynesianism. This gambit would be laughed off the stage in any true science.

The sad fact is that the economics profession has failed the nation on an epic scale. Nobel prizes are awarded in economics every year, but mainstream economic theory has been of no help toward getting America back on the road to prosperity.

The reported 321,000 rise in payroll employment for November seemed to get a lot of commentators excited, but the BLS Household Survey numbers were lackluster at best. Calculated to two decimal places, the unemployment rate actually increased, and the total number of FTE jobs fell by 25,000.

November's numbers left us 14.4 million FTE jobs short of full employment, which is actually 71,000 greater than when the current economic recovery started. In the meantime, our working age population has increased by 13.2 million.

A strong jobs market would reverse the alarming decline in labor force participation (LFP) that has occurred under President Obama. At 62.85%, November's LFP continued to bounce along at 36-year lows.

The financial markets were heartened by the sweeping Republican victory in the recent elections. From the end of June to the end of November, the Dow increased by 6.04%. However, because the real value of the dollar rose strongly during this period, this number greatly understates the market's assessment of the prospects for the economy.

Commodity prices are the only valid measure of the real value of the dollar. In a world populated by fiat currencies floating against each other, exchange rates tell us nothing about the real value of our currency. Neither do interest rates, which actually represent the rental price of capital, not the value of money. Price indexes like the CPI and the GDP deflator are useful, but they are based upon market baskets that are constantly changing qualitatively, and so do not provide a good indication of the real value of the dollar over time.

Over the most recent 5 months, the Gold Dow (the Dow divided by the COMEX price of gold) rose by 20.44%. At 15.26, the Gold Dow ended November at the highest level that it has seen since December 2007, although it was still a shocking 63.13% below its all-time high, which was reached in October 2000.

Interestingly enough, unlike the Gold Dow, the CRB Dow (the Dow divided by the CRB Index**) did end November at an all-time high. At 70.09, the CRB Dow was 40.08% above the level of October 2000.

Of course, the "real Dow" (whether measured against gold or the CRB Index) should increase with time, as the economy grows and businesses become more capital intensive. Recent government policies (especially our unstable dollar) have suppressed investment, and therefore the growth of GDP, jobs, and equity values.

The large recent increases in the Gold Dow and the CRB Dow reflect market hopes for improved government policies from the Republican-controlled 114th Congress. To deliver those improved policies, the Republicans will have to ignore the pleadings of Keynesians for more government spending, and thwart the efforts of global warming alarmists to cripple the economy with new regulations on energy production and use.

Meanwhile, it would help if the Federal Reserve would stop obsessing over interest rates, and simply stabilize the value of the dollar in terms of the CRB Index.

66% say it’s unlikely the protests will bring about desired change.

Ask yourself why the people responded the way they did.  Ya think it had anything to do with the violence and looting?

Most Americans aren't convinced that recent protests around the country in response to grand jury decisions involving police officers will bring about desired changes and think such protests are controlled by outsiders. But adults who have participated in protests themselves are slightly less skeptical.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 66% say it’s unlikely the protests will bring about desired change. Just 29% of American Adults believe the recent protests following the grand jury decisions in Ferguson, Missouri and on Staten Island, New York, are likely to bring about the changes the protesters are seeking. This includes two percent (2%) who say it’s Very Likely such protests will bring about change and 28% who say that’s Not At All Likely.

Socialism in four sentences

10,535 Pages of ObamaCare condensed!

 Nice summary by a Purdue engineer.   Here are the 10,535 pages of ObamaCare condensed to 4 sentences... As humorous as this sounds.....every last word of it is absolutely TRUE!

 1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.

 2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured.

 3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

 4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them.

 This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "redistribution of wealth" ...or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM. 

Study: Minimum-wage hikes made the Great Recession worse for low-skill workers

Pethokoukis

More evidence the economic impact from raising the minimum wage is hardly as benign as supporters contend. Far from it, in fact.
A new NBER working paper from Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither of the University of California, San Diego, suggests that the 30% increase in the average effective minimum wage over the late 2000s “reduced the national employment-to-population ratio — the share of adults with any kind of job — by 0.7 percentage point” between December 2006 and December 2012.
That works out to 14% of the total working-age decline during that period. Clemens and Wither basically looked at what happened to workers in states that were affected by federal minimum wage hikes versus what happened in states that weren’t. They also adjusted for the differing state-level impact of the Great Recession.
Now what’s particularly interesting in what Clemens and Wither found is that the minimum wage hikes made it harder for low-income workers to climb the ladder. From “The Minimum Wage and the Great Recession: Evidence of Effects on the Employment and Income Trajectories of Low-Skilled Workers“:

 … we find that binding minimum wage increases had significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers. Lost income reflects contributions from employment declines, increased probabilities of working without pay (i.e., an “internship” effect), and lost wage growth associated with reductions in experience accumulation….

We also present evidence of the minimum wage’s effects on low-skilled workers’ economic mobility. We find that binding minimum wage increases significantly reduced the likelihood that low-skilled workers rose to what we characterize as lower middle class earnings. This curtailment of transitions into lower middle class earnings began to emerge roughly one year following initial declines in low wage employment. Reductions in upward mobility thus appear to follow reductions in access to opportunities for accumulating work experience.

Of course it’s strangely settled science on the left that raising the minimum wage is an unquestioned win-win all around. As Hillary Clinton said at a rally back in October, “And don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I’ve been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure.”
But this paper is one of several recently that have outlined the negative employment effect of minimum wage hikes. In “More on Recent Evidence on the Effects of Minimum Wages in the United States,” researchers David Neumark, J.M. Ian Salas, William Wascher conclude “the best evidence still points to job loss from minimum wages for very low-skilled workers – in particular, for teens.”
And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office find that a $10.10 federal minimum wage option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent” in 2016. And although  increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting  from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, according to CBO,  just 19% of the $31 billion would go to families  with earnings below the poverty threshold.
But, good news, there just might be a better way.  Clemens and Wither on the Earned Income Tax Credit:

By contrast, analyses of the EITC have found it to increase both the employment of low-skilled adults and the incomes available to their families (Eissa and Liebman, 1996; Meyer and Rosenbaum, 2001; Eissa and Hoynes, 2006). The EITC has also been found to significantly reduce both inequality (Liebman, 1998) and tax-inclusive poverty metrics, in particular for children (Hoynes, Page, and Stevens, 2006). Evidence on outcomes with long-run implications further suggest that the EITC has tended to have its intended effects. Dahl and Lochner (2012), for example, find that influxes of EITC dollars improve the academic performance of recipient households’ children. This too contrasts with our evidence on the minimum wage’s effects on medium-run economic mobility.

Or as AEI’s Michael Strain has put it, “The EITC channels social resources to meet a social goal. And it does so a helluva lot better than the minimum wage.”

Left Wing Amnesia: Warren Forgets Who Created Subprime Mortgages

Warren Forgets Who Created Subprime Mortgages

Barbie of the Left, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), told a group of Democrat donors in the Boston area that the subprime mortgage crisis unfairly "targeted" minority families looking to buy a home. She also lambasted what she saw as an unholy alliance between Wall Street and government, with people moving from -- in leftist eyes -- the evil corporate banks into government work, tainting the vaulted work of orchestrating plebeians' lives. Politico reports, "She ascribed some of the problem to a worsening climate of economic opportunity for African-Americans than existed even a decade ago, according to attendees. And she said that the mortgage crisis affected black and Hispanic families more heavily, describing those groups as being 'targeted.'" Warren neglected to mention those subprime mortgages were created by the government -- Democrats, in particular -- and then the government forced banks to adopt risky lending practices as a way to encourage minority homeownership. So were minorities "targeted"? Absolutely. By Democrats. 

Only hope we find GOD again before it is too late!!

Only hope we find GOD again before it is too late!!

The following was written by Steven Levy and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. 

My confession:
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat... 

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. 

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. 

Then Dr. Steven Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay.. 

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. 

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' 

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. 

Are you laughing yet? 

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. 

Pass it on if you think it has merit. 

If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.