The Mobfather T-Shirt for Rush!

By Richard Okelberry

 

You all are going to love this! 

 

My younger brother Dan works designing T-Shirts for a company back in Lincoln, Nebraska.  Well, after a reference was made calling Rush Limbaugh the Mobfather for motivating people to attend town halls and protest the proposed Obama care, Rush stated on his show that he would like to have a t-shirt made using the reference.  Well, my brother has come to the rescue.

 

The following is the design that was forwarded to me.  He is currently seeking permission to print the shirts so that they can be distributed in time for the upcoming Sept 12th protests in D.C.

 

If you like it, drop Rush a line and let him know at ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

 

All the Glisters is not Gold at USU Short Film Festival

 

By Richard Okelberry

 

Introducing the release of the short film, “all that Glisters is not Gold,” as an official entry in the first annual Utah State University (USU-Tube) Short Film Festival.  While hastily constructed, this film starring the formidable talents of Chris Dunker and KVNU’s For the People’s Marc Nielsen is meant to serve as a proof of concept for the idea of using dismembered quotes from various Shakespearian works to tell a completely new story. While a sizeable section of the film had to be removed to meet the 4 minute time restriction of the film festival, the basic concept seemed to work well and will likely pave the way for a future, more detailed and less hurried production.

 

Please take the time to visit the USU Caine School of the Arts site to view the selected entries and vote for your favorites.  (You may vote using the Youtube star rating system.) 

YouTube Preview Image

Obama Throws Bone to Abortionists

March 2nd, 2009 – by Richard Okelberry – After stating during his campaign that he wouldn’t support late term abortions for women with mere “mental distress,” Obama has appointed someone who is arguable the highest profile, late term abortion advocate in the entire U.S., Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to Health and Human Services Secretary of all positions.

“I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.” – Barack Obama

You see Gov. Sebelius, even threw a party for the infamous Tiller the Baby Killer (George Tiller) as a show of support for abortionists and to thank Tiller for his sizable blood money donations to her campaign.  You see, Tiller the Baby Killer isn’t just your run of the mill abortionist.  He is responsible for perhaps thousands of Late and Near Term abortions.  His efforts are so well known that women will travel world  to come see the ‘physician’ that will pluck the dead remains of a fully developed baby at 9 months, simply because the mother complains that she is a little depressed.  Yep, when you read Obama’s quote above about Near Term abortions for ”mental distress,” he is speaking almost directly about Tiller the Baby Killer.

While many can argue over when life begins only the most radical members of the pro-abortion community will step forward and say that what Tiller does isn’t murder.  Yet even Obama, who by his own words has condemned this very practice, has promoted one of its biggest advocates to the highest post in Health and Human Serves.  How appropriate! 

For those of you who are about to defend Obama for this selection, let me put things into perspective for you.  Imagine for a moment how it would be seen by those on the left, if Bush had appointed a person to this position who had just pardoned an admitted abortion clinic bomber and you will have an idea how much of a slap in the face this appointment is. 

It’s so good when we can see how a candidate really stands on an issue.  To bad we had to elect the guy first.  If nothing else the votes to confirm this nomination will certainly give nation a clear picture of which Senators support late term abortion.   I can’t wait to see some of those members have to defend this vote that in support of not just Sebelius by Tiller the baby Killer by proxy, 2 years from now as Democrats are desperate to keep hold of a slim majority in the Senate. 

 

 

Governor Sebelius (middle) with Tiller the Baby Killer and his wife at the Knsas Governors mansion party.

Governor Sebelius (middle) with Tiller the Baby Killer and his wife at the Knsas Governors mansion party.

Facts:

Governor Sebelius took $38,000 in direct donations from Tiller, his wife and clinic.  In essence she ran her campaign on money from late term abortions. 

Tiller also gave an additional $23,000 to Sebelius’s ‘PAC or political slush fund.

Bush Lied and People Died, Right?

Come on now, we all know that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, right?  I mean Bush told us over and over again that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction leading up to the war, but did they ever find any?  No!!!  Even Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (see video below) have confirmed that Bush lied, so it must be true, right?  Well, what would you think if I told you there is no direct evidence supporting the charge that Bush purposely told a single lie leading up to the War in Iraq?

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

While it is certainly true that most of the information given by the Bush Administration leading to the war may have ended up not being true, that is not evidence of a conspiracy to lie and deceive.  Most that support the lie conspiracy rely heavily on a database of “false statements” put together by The Center for Public Integrity that claims the Bush Administration deceived the American people and Congress a whopping 935 times. 

 

You see, when people hear that something is a “false statement” they instantly assume that the statement is a lie.  In reality, a false statement can be false while still not being a lie so it would be more appropriate to call these “inaccurate statements.”  Let me explain:  When Bill Clinton told the country that he didn’t have any sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, we all know now that he was lying, but when his staff went before the major news outlet and repeated this lie, they were not lying because they believed that what President Clinton had told them was the truth.  For the Center for Public Integrity, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann or anyone else to claim that Bush lied directly about WMDs prior to the war they must first have evidence that he knew what he was saying was false.   No such evidence has yet been found to date.

 

Even when Olbermann and Maddow discuss this very point on MSNBC Maddow claims that the proof lies in the fact that there were critical spikes in the release of information at crucial times leading to the war saying, “at certain times they were lying a lot faster.”  So are we to believe that the increase effort to convince Congress that Iraq posed a threat based on long standing evidence not just from our intelligence communities but from our allies is somehow evidence of purposeful deceit?  This kind of thinking defies all logic.  Simply because the Bush administration was able to coordinate a campaign to inform both Congress and the American People about something they believed to be true at crucial moments in the political process is not and never will be evidence of lying.  It is only evidence of a skillful politician who knows how to make his points for the greatest effect.  If this way of thinking were true, anytime any president of either political party used the Bully Pulpit when pushing an agenda it would be considered a lie.

 
 

The Challenge:

 After searching long and hard through news articles and various web sites for direct evidence that the Bush administration knowingly lied or manufactured evidence, I have yet to find a single thread of concrete evidence to support this claim.  In frustration I began turning to true believers of the Bush lied conspiracy theory on left wing blogs asking for that single definable piece of evidence against Bush.  I felt that surely if anyone would have a solid example to support the lie theory a true believer would know where to look. 

To this end I challenged Becky Stauffer, one of the contributors at the left wing website OneUtah.org.  Becky recently wrote in one of her essays, “Bush proves Lincoln’s words that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Sooner or later the lies catch up with you. Future presidents be warned.”  I challenged her to give me the one single “lie” from The Center for Public Integrity’s 935 false statements that she felt was an irrefutable example of Bush telling a lie.  She selected the following:

 

“In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: “We found the weapons of mass destruction.” Bush was referencing two trailers or “mobile labs” discovered in Iraq.
Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers “could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured.” It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.” – The Center for Public Integrity
   

  

I expected Becky Stauffer to give me a quote from prior to the war to support the idea that Bush lied to get us into Iraq in the first place.  Therefore, I will also address the claims by the Bush administration that Iraq had Mobile Biological Weapons labs prior to the war as well since it is also widely considered a lie by the Bush administration.  Please consider that Becky Stauffer a True Believer of the Bush Lied Conspiracy and as someone who claims to have, “read considerably on the subject,” believes that this is the best example of a bold faced lie on the part of Bush.

 

Facts, Logic & Reality

First, we must go back to where the U.S. intelligence community first learned of the mobile biological weapons labs.  It was not some made up piece of intelligence on the part of Bush or his staff.  In fact the information about these weapons labs came from several sources.  The primary source was known to the CIA as Curveball or Rafid Ahmed Alwan.  He was an Iraq defector who claimed that he worked as a chemical engineer at a plant where these supposed weapons labs were manufactured.  While the German FIS warned about Curveball’s reliability, the CIA felt that because they had several other sources collaborating the information that it was likely accurate.

In fact, after Colin Powell demanded multiple sources on this subject he was told by CIA director George Tenant and deputy director John McLaughlin that they had multiple eye witnesses and stated, “This is it, Mr. Secretary.  You can’t doubt this one.”  While we know now that the weapons labs never materialized, it is completely understandable how the Bush administration would trust such information coming from their top intelligence chiefs.  Incidentally, Curveball was never actually interviewed by U.S. Intelligence agents a failure of the CIA not Bush himself. 

If there was any deception here it certainly began with Curveball and was passed onto the President as reliable information.  We have no direct evidence that Bush knew that the case for the biolabs was shaky since the CIA ultimately provided 4 separate sources.  There is no expectation that Bush knew this information was false and therefore it would have been impossible for him or is administration to have lied about these alleged mobile weapons labs prior to the war. 

Now on to what appears to be a more damning example of Bush lying about WMDs in Iraq.  The stated example above by Becky Stauffer is listed as a key Overview Point by the Center for Public Integrity in their report, “The War Card, Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.”  Please notice again that because the following statement by Bush was made well after the war had begun that it could not be considered an Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War as the title of the article suggests.  It seems that maybe the Center for Public Integrity should be first concerned with their own integrity and what appear to be its own deceptive practices. 

First, President Bush did say on May 29th, 2003

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” – George W. Bush

After the discovery of the suspected mobile weapons labs, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) dispatched a team of scientists to determine whether these trailers were truly the alleged biolabs as initially reported by the Iraqi Survey Group who was in charge of searching for WMDs in Iraq.  Two days before Bush made his public statement about the biolabs these scientists release an “initial action report” stating that it was believed that the trailers were not the suspected labs.  It should be noted that an Initial Action Report is not a conclusive finding but an initial first hand impression.  

While this may sound damning at first we must also understand that the undisclosed high ranking DIA official that broke this story in the Washington Post denied knowing if the information ever reach the President when he said, “Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say,”  The final, more conclusive report titled Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers, wasn’t finished until September of 2004, well after Bush had made his initial declaration. 

The fact is that there is no evidence that the President ever saw the initial action report prior to making his statement concerning these labs because the report was said to have been “shelved” or “incorporated” into the overall work of the Iraqi Survey Group.  Now for those of you that are convinced without evidence that Bush did see the action report, let’s apply a little logic for a moment.   

If Bush had seen the report and truly believed that these trailers were not the suspected biolabs, why would he ever even consider telling the world that they were?  Are critics and supporters of the orchestrated deception conspiracy trying to say that a man who is brilliant enough to orchestrate a huge deception campaign filled with unfounded and contrived evidence is  simultaneously not smart enough to recognize the terrible political damage that would be done by stating publically a lie that he knew would be discovered in short order?  This way of thinking just makes no sense. 

It is far more likely that President Bush believed completely the initial reports that they had found the suspected bio-weapons labs and merely jumped the gun on the announcement in his eagerness to be vindicated.  Once the statement was made Bush was put into a position of continually supporting the initial findings until the final report had been concluded.  You see politicians and especially presidents don’t like to admit they were possibly wrong until they absolutely have to. Also, can anyone imagine how difficult it would have been for the Bush to have had to come out with another reversal if the suspected trailers had later been found to be authentic?  The opposition party would have had a field day with such a fiasco.  Even then many in out Intelligence services believed that the trailers may have been scrubbed or re-converted during the build-up to the war in an attempt to hide their true intent.  Regardless, as I have stated before if Bush believed that these were the alleged biolabs it certainly can not be said by any measure of the word that he lied.   

Again, I would like to re-assert that there is no evidence that Bush ever did see the initial briefing making all of this pure conjecture, not fact.  This makes any discussion about Bush possibly lying about the biolabs pure conjecture.

 

Conclusions: What we know vs. What we believe.

 

 

While it certainly could be said that the Bush administration hand picked pieces of evidence against Iraq and even put a greater emphasis on certain pieces, such action is completely understandable considering that Bush and his administration rightfully held the belief that Iraq did have WMDs.  This understanding was not something that was pulled from thin air as critics would suggest but was handed to the Bush Administration by the CIA and the former Clinton Administration who in 1998 used the same sorts of evidence to launch his own attack on Iraq.   

 

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons…

-

…The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.” – Bill Clinton, National Address December 16th, 1998

 

 

As you can see if Bush lied to get us into a war we must also accept that first Clinton lied for the exact same reasons and passed that lie onto the Bush administration.  Not so strangely, the assessment of false statements about WMDs in Iraq from The Center for Public Integrity doesn’t include the bucketfuls of similar statements made by members of the Clinton Administration.

While many critics like to point out that certain extra emphasis was added to some intelligence, expecting the President to make a case contrary to what he believes would be like asking a criminal prosecutor to make a case for the defense.  If the run up to the war were a courtroom drama, the burden of defense would not fall on the President, but to Congress whose leaders had equal access to every piece of intelligence held by our intelligence community.  If there was a failure to scrutinize for contrary information the responsibility for that failure falls square in the laps of Democrats that refuse to do their job by establishing a legitimate opposition.   

Finally, consider that it has become known that not only did Saddam’s own generals believe that Iraq possessed WMDs but one, General Georges Sada claims that the weapons were loaded into civilian aircraft and flown to Syria.  While I am not going to get caught up in debating whether WMDs actually did exist, it is impossible to fathom how we should expect that Bush actually knew there were no WMDs when Saddam’s own generals believed that they existed.

You see, the evidence and basic logic supports the idea that Bush truly did believe as everyone else did that Iraq had WMDs.  In fact it has been widely reported that the entire administration was completely surprised when the weapons were not immediately found.  Why would they have searched so feverishly if they knew they did not exist?  As such, any statement Bush made to that effect could not have been a lie because to be a lie he would have had to know there where no WMDs. 

To this critics respond with accusations that Bush lied about or manufactured specific information, gathered from intelligence agencies.  Still, there is no evidence to suggest that Bush actually did manufacture information, only that he chose to believe as did most on both sides of the isles information from our long trusted intelligence agencies.  Combine this information with the undeniable fact that Saddam for over a decade had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to do their job and you have a recipe for war.  While this may not have been the case if Bush had simply been willing to defy all logic and brush aside the mounds of evidence placed before him against Iraq in a post 9/11 era; truly if Saddam Hussein had simply allowed weapons inspections to go forward there would have been no war.

During police standoffs, negotiators are quick to explain that in a standoff situation the only person who is ever truly in charge of the outcome is the perpetrator.  This is the case with Iraq.  In a post 9/11 era the prospect that WMDs might eventually make their way into the hands or terrorists from Iraq who was already funding terrorism against Israel and training terrorists in bomb making was simply to great for our president to ignore.

While many things may ultimately be said of President Bush, he did keep his country safe in a post 9/11 world.  Let’s hope his successor has the same fortitude and willingness to do the same. 

I would like to close with a few final quotes:

 

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it…

 …By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” – Adolf Hitler

 

Unfortunately, the lies now are not about Weapons of Mass Destruction but about lying itself!  It is important that each of use are able separate between what we believe may be true and what we know can be proved.  If we fail to do so, civilized society breaks down and the mob takes over.

 

Please Note: For those that would like to see the clearest picture of the events leading to the Iraq War, I invite you to watch the PBS, Frontline Special: Bush’s War.  Whether you are Republican or Democrat you may not like what you see in this documentary but it is likely the closest thing to the Truth that we have to date.

Is Obama’s Presidency Already Failing?

November 30th, 2008 by Richard Okelberry - I know that it is taboo right now to criticize the Obama Presidency.  After all, he hasn’t even taken office.  However, as some of you may know, I am compiling a database at UtahFreePress.com of every campaign promise that Obama made during his bid for election along with a basic algorithm that will track whether or not President Obama is successful in fulfilling those obligations to the voters.  While inputting his many promises into the database, I was struck by the fact that at least one promise seems to already be collapsing.

On his Web site, Barack Obama promised to enact a Windfall Profits Tax to provide a $1000 Emergency Energy Rebate to every American family.   While this promise may have seemed secure back in April of this year when Oil and Gas prices were at record levels, the price for these commodities have since plummeted and there will likely be no Windfall Profits available to raise the $50 billion necessary to fulfill this promise.

Additionally, Obama declared that, “We’ll also take steps to reduce the price of oil and increase transparency in how prices are set so we can ensure that energy companies aren’t bending the rules.”  This statement seems to indicate that Barrack Obama is going to limit the ability of Oil/Gas companies to reap Windfalls in the future by closely monitoring gas pricing.  It would seem that this plan is working against his first plan to use excess oil revenue to raise money for his $50 billion Emergency Energy Rebate because by lowering the price of gas, the oil companies have less profit for Obama to tap.

These two promises create several dilemmas for my upcoming database.   The database will assign a numerical value to each promise made by President Elect Obama.  These values will be weighted to express how the promise was made and whether or not the promise was a major part of the campaign and regularly appeared in stump speeches and debates.  For example if Obama said that he would TRY to make all dogs purple, the promise would get 1 point.  If he used a stronger declaration and said instead, “I WILL make all dogs purple,” the statement would get 2 points.  Finally, an additional point would be given if the promise was ever made during a speech or Interview where a larger portion of the population would hear it and would receive one final point if the promise was made during a debate or a major speech like the Democratic Convention Speech in Denver.

In total each individual promise could receive up to 4 possible points.  I say possible because Barrack Obama would only receive the points if he actually carried through on the promise.  If the promise failed to be fulfilled he would receive (Negative) -4 points instead.  Because not all promises can be fulfilled right away or don’t have a time component to them, Obama would receive zero points for any promises that are yet to be fulfilled prior to the beginning of the next campaign cycle.

You can see how this point value system will lend it’s self easily to creating a simple timeline graph of his presidency.  The dilemma I have has to do with how to treat those promises that either fail or are fulfilled prior to his inauguration.  If for example congress passes and President Bush signs into law a new stimulus package prior to Obama being president, does he get credit for fulfilling that promise?  After all, Obama is no longer even a Senator.

With his promise about using Windfall Oil profits, I have decided that it will be considered a failure at the moment he takes office.  I have decided to treat this promise that way because I realize that if oil prices do spike again in the future and Obama does fulfill this promise I can always make the change.  That said, currently it looks like Obama may have to look elsewhere to fund his promised $1000 Emergency Energy Rebate to every American family.  This brings up one final question; if he succeeds in funding his promise but fails to do it through a Windfall tax on oil, should I give him partial credit?

I truly want to make this system as fair as possible and would like to receive as much input from readers as possible about how the system can be improved prior to it’s implication on inauguration day.  Eventually, I want to build a self contained application that can be plugged into any website to allow communities around the country the ability to track local politicians as well.  Perhaps, a wide spread system like this will help politicians everywhere think twice before making promises that they cannot keep.