The growing lack of credibility among international organizations.

Amnesty International continues to lose credibility by issuing such reports as the one reported here. In Amnesty's world, Israel is solely responsible for the "breakdown in the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that led to Operation Cast Lead."

No, it couldn't have been affected by several years of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. This one comment in the Jerusalem Post article gives all the needed information to weigh the credibility of the Amnesty Article report:

the report states that the Gaza smuggling tunnels are used to move food and
fuel, but does not mention arms smuggling.

Amnesty International ignores the role that the tunnels play in smuggling rockets and other arms into Gaza. In their view the tunnels merely allow the Gazans to smuggle food and fuel into Gaza. Of course, the Israelis appear bad in trying to keep the border closed if only food and fuel were being brought in.

Have people actually read the "torture" memos they are so quick to condemn?

I have had a similar reaction to that of Victoria Toensing as to whether critics of the "torture" memoranda have actually bothered to read either the memoranda or the applicable law. Most of the poseurs who preen in their self righteous fury against enhanced interrogation techniques never seem to bother refuting the memoranda's arguments or show how the EITs specifically violate US law.

Instead, as Ms. Toensing says, the "Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos." They seem to take the position that they know torture when they see it and they don't need no stinkin' law to support their position. Anyone who objects to their position is an unamerican, Nazi who condones torture that destroys the high moral standing of the USA in the world. As with most arguments of this character, they add a great deal of heat, but no light.

It seems to me that everyone should take a deep breath and actually look at the memos and the law. But, hey, what do I know; I'm only a lawyer like Ms. Toensing.

Furthermore, in looking at the law, one must remember the constitutional requirement that criminal law be strictly construed so as to give adequate notice of conduct subject to criminal sanction. Some of the applicable law may be too vague to meet this constitutional requirement.

New York Times: "Minorities hardest hit by subprime fiasco." Not suprising, Democrats targeted minorities for the program.

This story should make readers cry for the people caught up in the subprime fiasco and furious at the Democrats and their media enablers who created the subprime program. Of course, one also has to acknowledge that individuals made decisions to accept subprime loans that they could not afford. No one forced them to do so.

The New York Times reports on the effects of requiring the financial community to issue subprime loans in "Minorities Hit Hardest by Foreclosures in New York." Of course, the Times carefully averts its eyes from the Democratic politicians who demanded that such loans be made to create home ownership in minority communities.

One certainly understands and supports the concept of home ownership as an excellent way of building wealth in minority households. The goal was admirable, but the methods employed led to disaster in the financial sector and for the individuals caught up in the subprime scheme.

The story tells poignant stories of individuals trying to better their families' lives. "Now subprime loans and a crippled economy have laid many of those families low. Olive M. Thompson, a 45-year-old nursing assistant, lost her $215,000, four-bedroom Cape in January, but not before she drained her 401(k) and declared bankruptcy."

I don't know Ms. Thompson's income level or how much she put down on the home. It would appear that she could have afforded to buy a home, but not one for $215,000. A subprime loan allowed her to buy a nicer place that she apparently could not afford. Now she has lost her home, her life savings and is in bankruptcy.

So how helpful was the Democrats' subprime loan program for Ms. Thompson and the minority community that they targeted for the program? Once again unintended consequences flow from a do-good program offered by the Democratic Party. Of course, pointing that out or opposing the original program wins one charges of being heartless and racist.

The Times touches on this, but fails to draw the correct conclusions:

This holds a special poignancy. Just four or five years ago, black
home ownership was rising sharply, after decades in which discriminatory lending
and zoning practices discouraged many blacks from buying. Now, as damage ripples
outward, black families in foreclosure lose savings and credit, neighbors see
the value of their homes decline, and renters are evicted.

Unfortunately, black home ownership was rising sharply because of subprime loans. This suggests that prior lack of loans was not the result of discrimination, but largely the application of normal lending standards. Democrats' regulations set aside those standards to require subprime loans. Now the minority community is paying the price in foreclosures, lost savings and credit.

Will the Times call the Democrats out for their snake oil economics? Never. Instead, the Times will continue to support all of the Democrats' snake oil economics programs.

He/she who lives by the sword ... and all that.

Poor Democrats. They derived the benefit of CIA leaks for so many years. After attacking the CIA for torture and President Obama's calculated leak of carefully selected CIA documents to try to make the Company look bad, the CIA leaked other information that makes Democratic leadership look bad.

Now Senator Levin and others are whining. How dare the CIA leak documents that hurt Democrats. Don't they know that they are only supposed to do that to hurt Republicans?

Senator Levin, if there were nothing embarrassing to Democrats in the documents, they would get no attention and you wouldn't be whining about them. Obama leaked documents embarrassing to the CIA in a calculated attempt to hurt the Bush administration. The CIA leaked docments to give context to Obama's leaked documents.

According to Politico, "A top congressional official who has participated in the briefings added: 'I think the agency wanted to get this out, quite frankly.'" You think?

The real culture war is not about abortion but free enterprise.

Arthur C. Brooks argues in an article in the Wall Street Journal that "The Real Culture War is Over Capitalism." He correctly points to a majority who recognize free enterprise as a fundamental principle of this country's success. He says that "Social Democrats are working to create a society where the majority are net recipients of the "sharing economy."

Present tax policy and that advocated by President Obama support the movement to that "sharing economy." Brooks says that "the percentage of American adults who have no federal income-tax liability will rise to 49% from 40% under Mr. Obama's tax plan. Another 11% will pay less than 5% of their income in federal income taxes and less than $1,000 in total."

If Obama's proposals are enacted, 60% of the population will pay 0-5% of their income in federal income taxes. As a decreasing percentage of the population pay the costs of government, Democrats assume that they can easily increase the burden of tax and government with the support of the non-tax paying majority.

White House threatens Chrysler creditors: Obama is a madman willing to do anything to get his way.

It looks like Tom Lauria's statements that the Obama administration had threatened his clients with attacks by the White House press corps are being confirmed by others: "New Allegations of White House Threats Over Chrysler."

While the focus has been on threats against Perella Weinberg, other firms seem to be confirming that they also felt threatened. Of course, the article says that "None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions."

The tactic employed by the White House seems rather shocking:

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was
to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in
which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do
anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by
his firm.

Obama's troops are presenting him as being a madman willing to do anything to get his way and the threatened believe it.

The article cited comments from two participants in the negotiations:

One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies
the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama
was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both
were voters for Obama in the last election.

These are not hard core Republicans attempting to get even for election defeats. These are people who voted for Obama and are finding out how radical he really is.

The White House had denied the initial statements by Lauria. The question now seems to be whether they will hold the line in face of additional and even stronger statements. Undoubtedly, they expect the White House press corps to provide them with cover just as they expected the media to act as attack dogs against Perella Weinberg.

One central fact has to be remembered. Perella Weinberg and the other creditors are asking only what they would normally receive in any bankruptcy proceeding. The Obama administration wants them to take substantially less to protect the United Auto Workers.

In effect, Obama demands that Perella Weinberg's clients take a bigger hit so the UAW doesn't have to. This simply introduces hardball politics into what should be governed by the rule of law. The UAW gave money and support to Obama and the Democrats so they get the power of the presidency behind their position in the bankruptcy proceeding.

This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It threatens the entire system of finance by introducing an uncertainty into all financings. In finance the usual response to uncertainty is higher interest rates.

Lawyer says that White House threatened to use the White House press corps to destroy company's reputation.

Jake Tapper at ABC News reports that "White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation." Tapper says that

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told
ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's
Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that
if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the
White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

The White House denied the story. What do the surrounding circumstances suggest as to who is more likely to be telling the truth, the White House or Thomas Lauria, the attorney for some of the creditors.

First, the threat of using the White House press corps to destroy the reputation of the creditor shocks on several levels. It suggests that the White House believes that the press corps will do its bidding even in attacking a business attempting to protect its economic interest. The White House certainly has sufficient evidence that the mainstream media will do its bidding based on its conduct during the campaign and the first 100 days.

It also indicates a willingness of the White House to destroy a private company simply for opposing a program pushed by the administration. The company simply attempted to assert its rights as a secured creditor under bankruptcy law. Tapper quoted Lauria as saying that his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt" with Chrysler."

President Obama previously said that "a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none." In fact, according to Lauria, the secured creditors were willing to accept substantially less than what was owed them, but not as little as the White House wanted.

Obama said, "I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices." It seems that Obama himself has already laid the predicate for the White House press corps to attack the company. The only defense the White House spokesperson could offer was to deny that it occurred and "there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

I'm sorry, but you make the claim that the other side can't prove something when you did what was alleged and hope there are no smoking guns that prove otherwise. In fact, Mr. Lauria seems far more credible and his statements more believable than the White House.