bureaucracybusters

Archive for the ‘Social commentary’ Category

FOR REPUBLICANS, WORDS ARE WEAPONS: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 11, 2024 at 12:19 am

In 1996, Newt Gingrich, then Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote a memo that encouraged Republicans to “speak like Newt.”  

Entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” it urged Republicans to attack Democrats with such words as “corrupt,” “selfish,” “destructive,” “hypocrisy,” “liberal,” “sick,” and “traitors.”

Even worse, Gingrich encouraged the news media to disseminate such accusations. Among his suggestions:

  • “Fights make news.”
  • Create a “shield issue” to deflect criticism: “A shield issue is, just, you know, your opponent is going to attack you as lacking compassion. You better…show up in the local paper holding a baby in the neonatal center.”

Newt Gingrich

This is in line with the advice of Florentine statesman Niccolo Machiavelli: “For men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands; for everyone can see, but very few have to feel. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are….”

In the memo, Gingrich advised:

“….In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. 

“…We believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases….

“This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media.

“The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.”

Here is the list of words Gingrich urged his followers to use in attacking “the opponent, their record, proposals and their party”:

  • abuse of power
  • anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
  • betray
  • bizarre
  • bosses
  • bureaucracy
  • cheat
  • coercion
  • “compassion” is not enough
  • collapse(ing)
  • consequences
  • corrupt
  • corruption
  • criminal rights
  • crisis
  • cynicism
  • decay
  • deeper
  • destroy
  • destructive
  • devour
  • disgrace
  • endanger
  • excuses
  • failure (fail)
  • greed
  • hypocrisy
  • ideological
  • impose
  • incompetent
  • insecure
  • insensitive
  • intolerant
  • liberal
  • lie
  • limit(s)
  • machine
  • mandate(s)
  • obsolete
  • pathetic
  • patronage
  • permissive attitude
  • pessimistic
  • punish (poor …)
  • radical
  • red tape
  • self-serving
  • selfish
  • sensationalists
  • shallow
  • shame
  • sick
  • spend(ing)
  • stagnation
  • status quo
  • steal
  • taxes
  • they/them
  • threaten
  • traitors
  • unionized
  • urgent (cy)
  • waste
  • welfare

And to the dismay of both Republicans and Democrats, Donald Trump has learned his lessons well.

On May 27, 2016, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks analyzed the use of insults by Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump. He did so with his counterpart, liberal syndicated columnist, Mark Shields, on The PBS Newshour.

DAVID BROOKS: “Trump, for all his moral flaws, is a marketing genius. And you look at what he does. He just picks a word and he attaches it to a person. Little Marco [Rubio], Lyin’ Ted [Cruz], Crooked Hillary [Clinton].

“And that’s a word.  And that’s how marketing works. It’s a simple, blunt message, but it gets under.

“It sticks, and it diminishes. And so it has been super effective for him, because he knows how to do that.  And she [Hillary Clinton] just comes with, ‘Oh, he’s divisive.’

“These are words that are not exciting people. And her campaign style has gotten, if anything…a little more stagnant and more flat.”

Related image

Donald Trump

MARK SHIELDS: “Donald Trump gratuitously slandered Ted Cruz’s wife. He libeled Ted Cruz’s father for being potentially part of Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of the president of the United States, suggesting that he was somehow a fellow traveler in that.  

“This is a libel. You don’t get over it….”

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the only Presidential candidate who proved unable to cope with Trump’s gift for insult.  His targets—and insults—included:

  • Former Texas Governor Rick Perry: “Wears glasses to seem smart.”
  • Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush: “Low Energy Jeb.” 
  • Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: “Crazy Bernie.” 
  • Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Mathematically dead and totally desperate.”

His victims, in turn, struggled to respond. Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio tried to out-insult Trump at the Republican Presidential candidates’ debate on March 3, 2016.

“I call him Little Marco. Little Marco. Hello, Marco,” said Trump.

Rubio retaliated with “Big Donald.” Since Americans generally believe that “bigger is better,” this was a poor choice of insult.

A better choice, given Trump’s “bromance” with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin: “Red Donald.”

Trump has reserved his most insulting words for women.  For example:

  • Carly Fiorina, his Republican primary competitor: “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?”
  • Megyn Kelly, Fox News reporter: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”
  • California Rep. Maxine Waters: “An extremely low IQ person.”
  • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “MS-13 Lover Nancy Pelosi.”

Only one candidate has shown the ability to rattle Trump: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. 

As Mark Shields noted on The PBS Newshour.

“Elizabeth Warren gets under Donald Trump’s skin. And I think she’s been the most effective adversary.”

And David Brooks offered: “And so the tactics…is either you do what Elizabeth Warren has done, like full-bore negativity, that kind of [get] under the skin, or try to ridicule him and use humor.” 

THE CORRUPTIONS OF THE RICH ARE WITH YOU ALWAYS: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 8, 2024 at 12:12 am

The gap between rich and poor in the United States has never been greater.   

A May 1, 2018 article in Forbes—which bills itself as “The Capitalist Tool”—vividly documents this truth.

“In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, [2017] CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.”

Since 1978, the CEO pay among America’s 300 biggest companies has gone up 1,460%, while the typical worker’s pay grew by just 18% 

This would not have been news to Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science. In his masterwork, The Discourses, he observed the human condition as that of constant struggle: 

Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi di Tito.jpg

Niccolo Machiavelli

It was a saying of ancient writers, that men afflict themselves in evil, and become weary of the good, and that both these dispositions produce the same effects. 

For when men are no longer obliged to fight from necessity, they fight from ambition, which passion is so powerful in the hearts of men that it never leaves them, no matter to what height they may rise.

The reason for this is that nature has created men so that they desire everything, but are unable to attain it. Desire being thus always greater than the faculty of acquiring, discontent with what they have and dissatisfaction with themselves result from it. 

This causes the changes in their fortunes—for as some men desire to have more, while others fear to lose what they have, enmities and war are the consequences. And this brings about the ruin of one province and the elevation of another.

Author Walter Scheidel, Dickason Professor in the Humanities, Professor of Classics and History at Stanford University, has also given this subject a great deal of thought. And, like Machiavelli, he has reached some highly disturbing conclusions.

Walter Scheidel - Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2012.jpg

Walter Scheidel

World Economic Forum [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D

He gave voice to these in his 2017 book, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. His thesis: Only violence and catastrophes have consistently reduced inequality throughout history

According to the book’s jacket blurb: Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality? To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes.

“Tracing the global history of inequality from the Stone Age to today, Walter Scheidel shows that inequality never dies peacefully. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return.

Related image

 

“The Great Leveler is the first book to chart the crucial role of violent shocks in reducing inequality over the full sweep of human history around the world.

“Ever since humans began to farm, herd livestock, and pass on their assets to future generations, economic inequality has been a defining feature of civilization. Over thousands of years, only violent events have significantly lessened inequality.

“The ‘Four Horsemen’ of leveling—-mass-mobilization warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic plagues—have repeatedly destroyed the fortunes of the rich.

“Scheidel identifies and examines these processes, from the crises of the earliest civilizations to the cataclysmic world wars and communist revolutions of the twentieth century.

“Today, the violence that reduced inequality in the past seems to have diminished, and that is a good thing. But it casts serious doubt on the prospects for a more equal future.”

Revolutionaries have known the truth of Scheidel’s findings from the gladiators’ revolt of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.) to the French Revolution (1789 – 1799) to the overthrow of the Czarist Romanov dynasty (1917).

But American politicians serenely ignore that truth. They depend on the mega-rich for millions of dollars in “campaign contributions”—which pay for self-glorifying ads on TV.

Thus, in 2016, American voters had a “choice” between two “love-the-rich” Presidential candidates: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The result was that millions stayed home or voted in protest for third-party candidates who had no chance of winning.

In his 1975 book, The Corrupt Society: From Ancient Greece to Modern-day America, British historian Robert Payne warned that the predatory rich would not change their behavior: “Nor is there any likelihood that the rich will plow back their money into services to ensure the general good.

“They have rarely demonstrated social responsibility, and they are much more likely to hold on to their wealth at all costs than to renounce any part of it.

“Like the tyrant who lives in a world wholly remote from the world of the people, shielded and protected from all possible influences, the rich are usually the last to observe the social pressures rising from below, and when these social pressures reach flashpoint, it is too late to call in the police or the army.

“The tyrant dies; the police and the army go over to the revolutionaries; and the new government dispossesses the rich by decree. A single authoritative sentence suffices to expunge all private wealth and restore it to the service of the nation.”

THE CORRUPTIONS OF THE RICH ARE WITH YOU ALWAYS: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 7, 2024 at 12:11 am

Americans are used to Presidential candidates telling lies (euphemistically known as “campaign promises”) to get elected.  

But when a candidate actually (and usually accidentally) tells the truth, the results can be electrifying.

A pointed example:

On June 18, 2019, Democratic Presidential candidate and front-runner Joe Biden addressed a roomful of donors in New York. Money is, after all, the lifeblood of all political campaigns, and Biden wanted to guarantee he got more of it than any of his 23 Democratic rivals.

So the former vice president had a message he felt sure would appeal to his well-heeled audience of billionaires: Don’t worry, if I’m elected, your standard of living won’t change.

Joe Biden presidential portrait.jpg

Joe Biden

Addressing the 100 or so guests at a fundraiser at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City, Biden said that he had taken heat from “some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side” because he had said that rich people were “just as patriotic as poor people.

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change,” he said. 

And he added: “I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.

Related image

“When we have income inequality as large as we have in the United States today, it brews and ferments political discord and basic revolution. Not a joke. Not a joke. It allows demagogues to step in and say the reason where we are is because of the ‘other’….

“You’re not the other. I need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won’t let you down. I promise you. I have a bad reputation, I always say what I mean. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean.”

Biden talked about decreasing income inequality and promoting workers’ rights. But he took a moderate stance when it came to taxation.

Vermont United States Senator Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has attacked the ultra-rich as responsible for the ever-widening gap between themselves and the poor.

Bernie Sanders smiling

Bernie Sanders 

Palácio do Planalto from Brasilia, Brasil, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

“I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders. I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble,” Biden said in March.

Instead, he proposed expanding tax credits for the poor and middle class, and making the tax code less friendly to rich investors. 

Robert Payne, the distinguished British historian, had a different—and darker—view of the rich.

Payne authored more than 110 books. Among his subjects were Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, William Shakespeare and Leon Trotsky.

In 1975, he published The Corrupt Society: From Ancient Greece to Present-Day America. It proved a summary of many of his previous works.Related image

Among the epochs it covered were the civilizations of ancient Greece, Rome and China; Nazi Germany; the Soviet Union; and Watergate-era America. And the massive corruption each of those epochs had spawned.

In his chapter, “A View of the Uncorrupted Society,” Payne warned: Power and wealth are the main sources of corruption.

“The rich, simply by being rich, are infected with corruption. Their overwhelming desire is to grow richer, but they can do this only at the expense of those who are poorer than themselves.

”Their interests conflict with those of the overall society. They live sheltered from the constant anxieties of the poor, and thus cannot understand them.  Nor do they try to.

“They see the poor as alien from themselves, and thus come to fear and despise them. And their wealth and influence enables them to buy politicians—who, in turn, write legislation that protects the rich from the poor.”

But Payne foresaw an even greater danger from the rich and powerful than their mere isolation from the rest of society: “The mere presence of the rich is corrupting. Their habits, their moral codes, their delight in conspicuous consumption are permanent affronts to the rest of humanity. Vast inequalities of wealth are intolerable in any decent society.”

Writing in 1975, Payne noted that a third of the private wealth was possessed by less than five percent of the population—while about a fifth of the populace lived at the poverty level. By 2000, he predicted, about five percent of the population would possess two-thirds of America’s wealth. And more than half the population would be near or below the starvation level. 

The result could only be catastrophe. The only way to halt this this increasing concentration of wealth by fewer people would be through law or violent revolution.

Payne has proven to be an uncanny prophet.

On December 8, 2017, the Seattle Times noted that the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned 40% of the country’s wealth. They owned more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. 

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the one percent increased by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90%, meanwhile, fell over the same period.

But this situation need not remain permanent.

IF DONALD TRUMP STARRED IN “CASABLANCA”

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 6, 2024 at 12:10 am

According to Wikipedia: 

“Casablanca is a 1942 American romantic drama film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, and Paul Henreid.   

“Filmed and set during World War II, it focuses on an American expatriot (Bogart) who must choose between his love for a woman (Bergman) and helping her husband (Henreid), a Czechoslovak resistance leader, escape from the Vichy-controlled city of Casablanca to continue his fight against the Germans.”

It was immediately recognized as a classic—and its reputation has only grown over the continuing decades.

Ronald Reagan was reportedly an early front-runner for the part of Rick Blaine, but the role went—fortunately—to Bogart. For Casablanca’s millions of devoted fans, it’s unimaginable that anyone else could have played that role.

And yet, with a little imagination, it’s possible to imagine a remake of this classic—with Donald Trump starring as Rick.

For the role of his former lover, Ilsa Lund, there could be no better choice than his daughter, Ivanka, whose body he has repeatedly and publicly lusted over. Rudy Giuliani would lend new meaning to the role of Sam, the house pianist.

Black-and-white film screenshot with the title of the film in fancy font. Below it is the text "A Warner Bros. – First National Picture". In the background is a crowded nightclub filled with many people.

Thus, if Casablanca were remade today:   

* * * * *

IVANKA: Play it once, Rudy. For old times’ sake.

RUDY:  I don’t know what you mean, Miss Ivanka.

IVANKA: Play it, Rudy. Play “My Heart Belongs to Daddy.”

RUDY:  Oh, I can’t remember it, Miss Ivanka. I’m a little rusty on it.

IVANKA: I’ll hum it for you. Da-dy-da-dy-da-dum, da-dy-da-dee-da-dum…

Rudy Giuliani as Sam

[Rudy begins playing]

IVANKA: Sing it, Rudy.

RUDY: [Singing] You must remember this / A kiss is still a kiss / A bust is just goodbye. / The fingerprinting ink applies / As cops drive by. / And when the cops in blue / Come kick the door in two / You think you wanna cry / No matter how the jailhouse swings— 

TRUMP: [Rushing up] Rudy, I thought I told you never to play—

[Sees Ivanka. Rudy closes the piano and rolls it away]   

* * * * *

IVANKA: Red Donald, I have to talk to you.

TRUMP:  I saved my first drink to have with you. 

IVANKA: No, Red Donald, not tonight.

TRUMP: Especially tonight.   

IVANKA: Please…

TRUMP: Why did you have to come to Trump Tower? There are other places.

IVANKA: I wouldn’t have come if I’d known you were here. I thought you were out shooting children. Believe me Red Donald, I didn’t know….

TRUMP: It’s funny about your voice, how it hasn’t changed. I can still hear it. “Red Donald, dear, I’ll go with you anyplace. We’ll get on a train together and never stop–“

IVANKA: Don’t, Red Donald! I can understand how you feel.

TRUMP: You understand how I feel. How long was it we had, honey?

IVANKA: I didn’t count the nights.

Ivanka Trump Says 'Lock Her Up!' Doesn't Apply In Her Case, 59% OFF

Donald Trump as Rick, Ivanka as Ilsa

TRUMP: Well, I did. Every one of ’em. Mostly I remember the last one. The wow finish. A guy waiting by the bed, with plenty of orgy butter in jars on the nightstand, with a comical look in his face because his date stood him up.

IVANKA: Can I tell you a story, Red Donald?

TRUMP: Has it got a wow finish?

IVANKA: I don’t know the finish yet.

TRUMP: Well, go on. Tell it – maybe one will come to you as you go along.

IVANKA: It’s about a girl who knew a man—a very great and courageous man. He opened up for her a whole beautiful world full of knowledge and thoughts and ideals. Everything she knew or ever became was because of him. And she looked up to him and worshiped him….with a feeling she supposed was love.

TRUMP:  You mean me, right?

IVANKA: Of course. But after you I met Jared.

TRUMP: Yes, it’s very pretty. I’ve heard a lot of stories in my time. They went along with the sound of a tinny piano playing in the parlor downstairs. “Mister, I loved my Daddy once when I was a kid,” it always began.

 * * * * *

TRUMP: Last night we said a great many things. You said I was to do the thinking for both of us. Well, I’ve done a lot of it since then, and it all adds up to one thing: you’re getting in that car with Jared where you belong.

IVANKA: But, Daddy, no, I… 

TRUMP: Now, you’ve got to listen to me! You have any idea what you’d have to look forward to if you stayed here? Nine chances out of ten, we’d both wind up on the sidewalk when Biden takes over. Isn’t that true, Rudy?

GIULIANI: I’m afraid President Biden would insist.

IVANKA:  You’re saying this only to make me go.

TRUMP: I’m saying it because it’s true. Inside of us, we both know you belong with Jared—even though I can’t imagine how you could prefer him to me.

Jared Kushner as Victor Laszlo

IVANKA: But what about us?

TRUMP: We’ll always have the Lincoln Bedroom. We didn’t have, we lost it until you came to Trump Tower. We got it back last night.

IVANKA: When I said I would never leave you.

TRUMP: And you never will. But I’ve got a job to do, too. First, I’ve got to ditch Melania. Then we have to do something about Jared. Ivanka, I’m no good at being noble, so I won’t try. Someday you’ll understand that.

[Ivanka lowers her head and begins to cry]

TRUMP: Now, now…[Gently places his hand under her chin and raises it so their eyes meet] Here’s looking at you, slut.  

KING HENRY VIII MEETS WITH KING DONALD 1: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 5, 2024 at 12:11 am

Donald Trump has never shown any interest in—let alone knowledge of—history. Yet he might well feel warmly towards an English king who took power 508 years before he did.         

Henry VIII came to the throne in 1509 and ruled as a tyrant until his death in 1547. 

Trump came to the Presidency in 2017 and ruled as a tyrant until his electoral ouster in 2021. 

In his youth Henry was athletic, highly intelligent, and spoke French, Latin and Spanish. Highly religious, he immensely enjoyed hunting and tennis. His scholarly interests included writing books and music, and he was a lavish patron of the arts.

A Portrait of the King: Henry VIII Reigns in “Tudors to Windsors” | Inside the MFAH | The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

Henry VIII

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 with a B.S. in Economics. In 2015, his lawyer, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue Trump’s high school, colleges, and the College Board if they released Trump’s academic records.

At six-feet-two with a slim athletic build, fair complexion and prowess on the jousting and tennis courts, Henry was considered extremely handsome, and even referred to as an “Adonis.” But as he aged, he became obese and his health suffered. 

As a young man, standing six-feet-three and with an athletic build, Trump was considered handsome and a ladies’ man. But he thought exercise a waste of energy, saying it depletes the body’s energy. By the time he ran for President. By 2015-16, he was grotesquely overweight, with orange skin and stood with a pronounced forward tilt.

Henry married six times—resulting in two divorces (Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves), two beheadings (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard) and one death after childbirth (Jane Seymour). His last wife, Catherine Parr, outlived him.

Trump has been married three times—to Ivana Trump, Marla Maples and Melania Trump. He cheated on Ivana (before divorcing her) with Marla, then cheated on Marla (before divorcing her) with Melania.

Why Donald Trump Is Henry VIII Reincarnated - AskMen

Parody of Donald Trump as Henry VIII

Both during and in-between marriages he bedded many other women—and boasted about it. His most infamous boast almost cost him the White House.

During a 2005 exchange with Billy Bush, then the host of Access Hollywood, Trump said: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Henry VIII ruled England for 36 years, made radical changes to the English Constitution, and ushered in the theory of the divine right of kings in opposition to papal supremacy.

Donald Trump ruled the United States for four years, put radical Right-wing Justices on the Supreme Court, and boasted that it would be great if the country had—like China—a “President-for-Life.”

To make that a reality, he refused to accept electoral defeat in 2020 and incited a violent attack on Congress to stop the count of Electoral College votes proving that former Vice President Joseph Biden had won.

These are some of the high-profile figures who were seen storming the US CapitolMelania Trump 'disappointed' by Trump supporters' Capitol riot - ABC7 Chicago

Trump inciting the January 6 attack on Congress

Henry was an intellectual, the first English king with a modern humanist education. He owned a large library, annotated many books and published one of his own. 

Trump published 20 books under his name, but all were written by ghostwriters. This is confirmed by an analysis of his speech patterns—which puts him at a fourth-grade level, the lowest of the previous 15 Presidents.

Henry was ridiculed for his obesity and was subject to raging mood swings and paranoia.

Trump was ridiculed for his obesity, his slow reading of speeches and his obscene egotism: How smart he is, his wealth, his brilliance. 

He spouted conspiracy theories:

  • The “Deep State” was out to destroy him.
  • News media was “the enemy of the people.”
  • He lost the 2020 Presidential election because of a conspiracy involving Democrats and rigged voting machines.

It is estimated that Henry executed up to 57,000 people—members of the clergy, ordinary citizens and nobles who had taken part in uprisings and protests.

His victims fell into three categories: Heresy; Treason and Denial of his Royal Supremacy as Head of the English Church.

Among the most prominent: Sir Thomas More, his former chancellor, and Thomas Cromwell, his chief minister.

Trump never executed anyone, but he encouraged his legions of Right-wing supporters to attack those he considered enemies: The media, liberals, Hispanics, blacks, “uppity” women, Asians.

After he publicly invited the Proud Boys paramilitary group to “stand back and stand by,” its members conspired to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who had resisted Trump’s demand to “open” the state during the Coronavirus pandemic.

Henry VIII is largely remembered today for his six wives, massive appetite for food, his bloated appearance and his murderous tyranny.

Donald Trump will be remembered as the first President who tried to remain in office despite losing a Presidential election, his two impeachments, and, to date, his being the only former President to be indicted for 91 felonies.

Englishmen believed the country would collapse without a male heir to the throne. Americans believe the country will collapse if an ex-President stands trial for his crimes. 

England survived. So will the United States.

KING HENRY VIII MEETS KING DONALD 1: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 4, 2024 at 12:10 am

There is more in common between Donald Trump and King Henry VIII than at first might seem possible.               

And the 1969 movie, “Anne of the Thousand Days,” brings it vividly to light.    

Throughout much of the film, Henry (Richard Burton) lusts to romantically—and sexually—capture the beautiful Anne Boleyn (Geneviève Bujold). The fact that he’s married to Catherine of Aragon matters not at all.

Henry justifies his infidelity on the fact that Catherine has failed to give him a male heir.

He’s been having an affair with Anne’s younger sister, Mary, but is now bored with her. The fact that she’s now pregnant with his child matters not at all, either.

He first notices Anne, 18, at a court ball. She’s engaged to the son of the Earl of Northumberland, and they have received their parents’ permission to marry. But Henry is enraptured with Anne’s beauty and orders his Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey, to break the engagement.

ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS Movie POSTER 27x40 Richard Burton Genevieve Bujold - Picture 1 of 1

Anne is furious, and blames both Henry and Wolsey for ruining her happiness. But as the King’s infatuation continues, she becomes intoxicated with the power it brings her. 

Henry presses Anne to become his mistress. But she says she won’t bear an illegitimate child. Desperate to have a son, Henry decides to divorce Catherine and marry Anne.

For Anne, it’s the ultimate seduction, and she agrees. She’s ordained as Queen, but is popularly reviled by the supporters of Catherine.

Months later, Henry is dismayed when Anne gives birth to a daughter, Elizabeth—who will eventually become Queen after Henry’s death.

Henry turns his always-wandering eye to Jane Seymour, one of Anne’s maids. Anne banishes Jane from the court. 

Full-length portrait of King Henry VIII

Henry VIII

Anne is furious that Sir Thomas More, the King’s Chancellor, opposes Henry’s divorce from Catherine. She refuses to sleep with Henry unless he executes More.

Anne gets her wish: More is beheaded. But her next child—a boy—is stillborn.

By now, Henry is convinced Anne will never be able to give him a male heir. He schemes to divorce her and marry Jane. He contrives with his new chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, to have Anne falsely charged with infidelity.

At her trial, Anne vigorously defends herself, proving that the witnesses against her are lying.

In a private meeting with her, Henry offers to free her if she’ll agree to annul their marriage. Since this will make Elizabeth illegitimate, Anne refuses—and goes courageously to her death 

Throughout the movie, Englishmen from Henry on down are convinced that England will collapse if a woman ascends the throne.

And, of course, England not only survives but thrives under the 45-year reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.

Like Henry, Trump is a man of voracious appetites—for wealth, for fame, for sex. Like Henry, he is untroubled by scruples and will commit any crime to attain whatever he wants. Like Henry, he is a man of fierce temper—always eager to crush anyone he thinks has wronged him.

Related image

Donald Trump 

Countless Englishmen who lived under Henry thought England would collapse if a woman took the throne.

Now countless Americans believe the United States will collapse if a former President is brought to trial.

On March 30, Trump was indicted by a New York grand jury. He thus became the first current or former President to face criminal charges.

On April 1, CNN reported/editorialized:  “Former President Donald Trump’s indictment….has thrust the nation into uncharted political, legal and historical waters, and raised a slew of questions about how the criminal case will unfold. 

“The Manhattan district attorney’s office has been investigating Trump in connection with his alleged role in a hush money payment scheme and cover-up involving adult film star Stormy Daniels that dates to the 2016 Presidential election.”

Trump has attacked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as pursuing a leftist vendetta to prevent him from running for President in 2024.

“If they can do this to me,” he has thundered in countless fund-raising appeals to his Right-wing followers, “they can do this to you.” 

Which raises the question: “How many others have tried to illegally overturn a legitimate Presidential election and/or paid hush-money to a porn ‘actress’?”

Trump has repeatedly tried to appear the victim of “a Democratic-led witch hunt.” But if politics has tainted the dispensing of justice in Trump’s case, it’s been on his behalf.    

As President, he had immunity from civil and criminal lawsuits. He couldn’t be tried at local, state and federal levels. And he had good reason to avoid facing trial at any level.  Among the cases facing him while he held office:

  • The Manhattan District Attorney’s criminal case against the Trump Organization for tax evasion.
  • The New York Attorney General’s civil investigation into the Trump Organization for fraud.
  • The E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit (he called her a liar after she claimed he raped her in the 1990s). 
  • The Mary Trump lawsuit: His niece is suing him for allegedly defrauding her out of millions of dollars.
  • The Trump Tower lawsuit: Five people claim that Keith Schiller, the Trump Organization’s then chief of security, hit one of them on the head when they were protesting outside of the company’s Manhattan headquarters in 2015. 

ADAM SCHIFF: STANDING UP TO A TRAITOR AND HIS ACCOMPLICES—PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 1, 2024 at 12:11 am

On March 24, 2019, Attorney General William Barr received the long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller about Russian efforts to subvert the 2016 Presidential election.  

According to Barr, the report—which no one else in the government had seen—showed no evidence that President Donald Trump had colluded with Russian Intelligence agents.

And now House Republicans—acting entirely on that claim—suddenly went on the offensive.

On March 28, all nine Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence demanded in a letter that Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) resign as its chairman.  

On the same day, President Donald Trump tweeted: “Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!”

Other Republicans quickly joined the chorus:

  • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California): Schiff owed “an apology to the American public” and should step down from his post as head of the Intelligence committee.
  • Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel: “They [Schiff and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-New York] should be removed from their chairmanships. They owe the American people an apology. They owe this President an apology, and they have work to do to heal this democracy because this is our country we are talking about.”
  • South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “He’s getting into conspiracy land and he’s acting like an Oliver Stone type figure.” 
  • White House Adviser Kelleyanne Conway: “He’s been on every TV show 50 times a day for practically the last two years, promising Americans that this President would either be impeached or indicted. He has no right, as somebody who has been peddling a lie, day after day after day, unchallenged. Unchallenged and not under oath. Somebody should have put him under oath and said, ‘You have evidence, where is it?’”

On March 28, Schiff—speaking in a firm and controlled voice—addressed his critics in the House and beyond. 

It was a speech worthy of that given by Mark Antony at the funeral of Julius Caesar.

Adam Schiff official portrait.jpg

Adam Schiff

“My colleagues may think it’s okay that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for President as part of what was described as ‘the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign.’ You might think that’s okay.

“My colleagues might think it’s okay that when that was offered to the son of the President, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the President’s son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help. No, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help of the Russians. You might think it’s okay that he took that meeting.

“You might think it’s okay that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting.

“You might think it’s okay that the President’s son-in-law also took that meeting.

“You might think it’s okay that they concealed it from the public.

“You might think it’s okay that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better.

“You might think it’s okay that when it was discovered a year later that they’d lied about that meeting and said it was about adoptions, you might think it’s okay that the President is reported to have helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s okay. I don’t. 

Related image

“You might think it’s okay that the Presidential chairman of a campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s okay.  I don’t.  

“You might think it’s okay that campaign chairman offered polling data, campaign polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s okay.

“You might think it’s okay that the President himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, ‘if they were listening.’

“You might think it’s okay that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s okay.

Related image

“You might think that it’s okay that the President’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communications with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s okay.

“You might think it’s okay that an associate of the President made direct contact with the GRU  [the Russian military Intelligence agency] through Guccifer 2 and Wikileaks, that is considered a hostile Intelligence agency.

“You might think that it’s okay that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile Intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s okay that the National Security Adviser-Designate [Mike Flynn] secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s okay he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s just what you need to do to win, but I don’t think it’s okay. I think it’s immoral. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s unpatriotic. And yes, I think it’s corrupt and evidence of collusion.” 

Not one Republican dared challenge even one accusation Schiff had made.

ADAM SCHIFF: STANDING UP TO A TRAITOR AND HIS ACCOMPLICES—PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 29, 2024 at 12:10 am

Adam Schiff began his political career as a member of the California State Senate (1996-2000). In 2001, he was elected to the House of Representatives.

From 2015 to 2019, he chaired the House Intelligence Committee, where he made his greatest contribution to not only California but the nation.

Today he is a candidate for United States Senator from California.

A former assistant United States attorney, he is a highly literate man. Among his favorite plays is William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.” It’s a far more sophisticated piece of writing than most people realize.

Adam Schiff

Mark Antony, addressing a crowd of Romans at the funeral of his former patron, Julius Caesar, faces a serious problem.

Caesar has been murdered by a band of conspirators who feared he intended to make himself king.  The chief conspirator, Marcus Brutus, is one of the most honored men in ancient Rome.  And he has just addressed the same crowd.

As a result, they are now convinced that the assassination was fully justified. They assume that Antony intends to attack the conspirators. And they are ready to attack him—maybe physically—if he does.

But Antony is too smart to do that—at least initially.  

Instead, he assures the crowd: “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” 

And he praises the chief conspirator: “The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If so, it was a grievous fault—and grievously hath Caesar answered it.”

Then he introduces a line he will repeat with great effectiveness throughout the rest of his speech: “For Brutus is an honorable man—so are they all, all honorable men.”

The “Death of Julius Caesar,” as depicted by Vincenzo Camuccini.

For Antony, the line is ironic. But it serves his purpose to appease the crowd. Later, he will wield it like a sword against the same conspirators.

“He was my friend, faithful and just to me.” And then: “But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man.”

Antony then goes on to extol Caesar as the foremost Roman of his time:

  • As a military victor: “You all do know this mantle. I remember the first time ever Caesar put it on. ‘Twas on…that day he overcame the Nervii.”
  • As a humanitarian: “When that the poor hath cried, Caesar hath wept.”

And then, as if against his better judgment, he says: “But here’s a parchment with the seal of Caesar. I found it in his closet—’tis his will. Let but the commons hear this testament—which, pardon me, I do not mean to read—and they would go and kiss dead Caesar’s wounds.” 

Now the crowd is entirely at Antony’s disposal. They hurl abuse at the conspirators: “They were traitors!”  “They were villains, murderers!”

So Antony, claiming to read Caesar’s will, pronounces: “To every Roman citizen he gives…seventy-five drachmas.” 

Related image

Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in the 1953 film, “Julius Caesar”

In addition, claims Antony, Caesar has left his fellow citizens “his private arbours and new-planted orchards on this side Tiber. He hath left them you, and to your heirs forever, common pleasures, to walk abroad, and recreate yourselves.”

By now the crowd is fired up—against the conspirators.

“Here was a Caesar!” cries Antony.  “When comes such another?”

A citizen shouts: “We’ll burn [Caesar’s] body in the holy place. And with the brands fire the traitors’ houses.”

The crowd disperses—to pay fiery homage to Caesar and burn the houses of Brutus and the other conspirators.

Caesar’s assassins flee Rome for their lives. In time, they will face the legions of Antony and Octavian, the young nephew of Caesar—and choose suicide over capture and execution.

On March 28, 2019, Schiff used the same repetitive technique in addressing his “Republican colleagues” on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Days earlier, Attorney General William Barr had claimed to summarize the long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller about Russian efforts to subvert the 2016 Presidential election.

According to Barr, the report—which no one else in the government has seen—showed no evidence that President Donald Trump had colluded with Russian Intelligence agents.

And now House Republicans—acting entirely on that claim—were going on the offensive.

On March 28, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and all other eight Republicans on the Committee demanded in a letter that Schiff resign as its chairman. 

“Mr. Chairman,” the letter read, “since prior to the inauguration of President Trump in January 2017, you’ve been at the center of a well-orchestrated media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

“On March 24, 2019, the special counsel delivered his findings to the Department of Justice….The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 election….

“Despite these findings, you continue to proclaim to the media that there is ‘significant evidence of collusion.’

“The findings of the Special Counsel conclusively refute your past and present conclusions and have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information, having damaged the integrity of this Committee, and undermined faith in U.S. Government institutions.”

TYRANTS UNITED–TRUMP AND HIS COMMUNIST HEROES: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 28, 2024 at 12:10 am

In January, 2018, the White House of President Donald Trump banned the use of personal cell phones in the West Wing.   

The official reason: National security.

The real reason: To stop staffers from leaking to reporters.

According to an anonymous White House source: “The cellphone ban is for when people are inside the West Wing, so it really doesn’t do all that much to prevent leaks. If they banned all personal cellphones from the entire [White House] grounds, all that would do is make reporters stay up later because they couldn’t talk to their sources until after 6:30 pm.”

Image result for images of no cell phones

Other sources believed that leaks wouldn’t end unless Trump started firing staffers. But that risked firing the wrong people. To protect themselves, those who leaked might well accuse tight-lipped co-workers.

Within the Soviet Union (especially during the reign of Joseph Stalin) fear of secret police surveillance was widespread—and absolutely justified.

According to the 2016 book, One Day We Will Live Without Fear: Everyday Lives Under the Soviet Police State, by Mark Harrison, the methods used to keep conversations secret included:

  • Turning on the TV or radio to full volume.
  • Turning on a water faucet at full blast.
  • Turning the dial of a rotary phone to the end—and sticking a pencil in one of the small holes for numbers.
  • Standing six to nine feet away from the hung-up receiver.
  • Going for “a walk in the woods.” 
  • Saying nothing sensitive on the phone.

The secret police (known as the Cheka, the NKVD, the MGB, the KGB, and now the FSB) operated on seven working principles:

  1. Your enemy is hiding.
  2. Start from the usual suspects.
  3. Study the young.
  4. Stop the laughing.
  5. Rebellion spreads like wildfire.
  6. Stamp out every spark.
  7. Order is created by appearance.

Trump has always ruled through bribery and fear. He’s bought off (or tried to) those who might cause him trouble—like porn actress Stormy Daniels. 

He’s never been able to poke fun at himself—and he grows livid when anybody else does.

At Christmastime, 2018, “Saturday Night Live” aired a parody of the classic movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Its title: “It’s a Wonderful Trump.” 

In it, Trump (portrayed by actor Alec Baldwin) discovers what the United States would be like if he had never become President: A great deal better-off.

As usual, Trump expressed his resentment through Twitter: The Justice Department should stop investigating his administration and go after the real enemy: “SNL.”

“A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion?” 

By saying that, Trump showed his contempt for the role of the First Amendment in American history.

Cartoonists portrayed President Andrew Jackson (1829 -1837) wearing a king’s robes and crown, and holding a scepter. This thoroughly enraged Jackson—who had repulsed a British invasion in 1815 at the Battle of New Orleans. To call a man a monarchist in 1800s America was the same as calling him a Communist in the 1950s. 

Related image

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was lampooned as an ape and a blood-stained tyrant. And Theodore Roosevelt proved a cartoonist’s delight, with attention given to his bushy mustache and thick-lensed glasses. 

Thus, the odds are slight that an American court would even hear a case brought by Trump against “SNL.” 

Such a case made its way through the courts in the late 1980s when the Reverend Jerry Falwell sued pornographer Larry Flyint over a satirical interview in Hustler magazine. In this, “Falwell” admitted that his first sexual encounter had been with his own mother.

In 1988, the United States Supreme Court, voting 8-0, ruled in Flynt’s favor, saying that the media had a First Amendment right to parody a celebrity.

“Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist—an appointee of President Richard Nixon—wrote in his majority decision in the case.

Moreover, Trump would have been forced to take the stand in such a case. The attorneys for NBC and “SNL” would have insisted on it.

The results would have been:

  1. Unprecedented legal exposure for Trump—who would have been forced to answer virtually any questions asked or drop his lawsuit; and
  2. Unprecedented humiliation for a man who lives as much for his ego as his pocketbook. Tabloids and late-night comedians would have had a field-day with such a lawsuit.

And while Trump loves to sue those he hates, he does not relish taking the stand himself.  

On October 12, 2016, The Palm Beach Post, The New York Times and People all published stories of women claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Trump. 

He accused the Times of inventing accusations to hurt his Presidential candidacy. And he threatened to sue for libel if the Times reported the women’s stories. He also said he would sue the women making the accusations. 

He never sued the Times, The Post, People—or the women.

TYRANTS UNITED–TRUMP AND HIS COMMUNIST HEROES: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 27, 2024 at 12:12 am

On May 10, 2018, The Hill reported that White House Special Assistant Kelly Sadler had joked derisively about dying Arizona United States Senator John McCain.  

McCain, a Navy pilot during the Vietnam war, was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967, and captured. He spent five and a half years as a POW in North Vietnam—and was often brutally tortured. He wasn’t released until March 14, 1973.

Recently, he had opposed the nomination of Gina Haspel as director of the CIA.

The reason: In 2002, Haspel had operated a “black” CIA site in Thailand where Islamic terrorists were often waterboarded to make them talk. 

For John McCain, waterboarding was torture, even if it didn’t leave its victims permanently scarred and disabled. 

Aware that the 81-year-old McCain was dying of brain cancer, Sadler joked to intimates about the Senator’s opposition to Haspel: “It doesn’t matter. He’s dying anyway.”

John McCain's official Senate portrait, taken in 2009

John McCain

Leaked to CNN by an anonymous White House official, Sadler’s remark sparked fierce criticism—and demands for her firing.

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain, said: “Ms. Sadler, may I remind you that John McCain has a lot of friends in the United States Senate on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is laughing in the Senate.”

“People have wondered when decency would hit rock bottom with this administration. It happened yesterday,” said then-former Vice President Joe Biden. 

“John McCain makes America great. Father, grandfather, Navy pilot, POW hero bound by honor, an incomparable and irrepressible statesman. Those who mock such greatness only humiliate themselves and their silent accomplices,” tweeted former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Officially, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to confirm or deny Sadler’s joke: “I’m not going to get into a back and forth because people want to create issues of leaked staff meetings.”

Unofficially, Sanders was furious—not at the joke about a dying man, but that someone had leaked it. After assailing the White House communications team, she pouted: “I am sure this conversation is going to leak, too. And that’s just disgusting.”

SarahHuckabeeSanders.jpg

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

No apology was offered by any official at the White House—including President Donald Trump.

In fact, Senior White House communications adviser Mercedes Schlapp reportedly expressed her support for Sadler: “I stand with Kelly Sadler.”

On May 11—the day after Sadler’s comment was reported—reporters asked Sanders if the tone set by Trump had caused Sadler to feel comfortable in telling such a joke.

“Certainly not!” predictably replied Sanders, adding: “We have a respect for all Americans, and that is what we try to put forward in everything we do, but in word and in action, focusing on doing things that help every American in this country every single day.”

On May 14, 2018, Trump revealed his “respect” for “all Americans”—especially those working in the White House.

“The so-called leaks coming out of the White House are a massive over exaggeration put out by the Fake News Media in order to make us look as bad as possible,” Trump tweeted.

“With that being said, leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!” 

This from the man who, during the 2016 Presidential campaign, shouted: WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks!” 

Of course, that was when Russian Intelligence agents were exposing the secrets of Hillary Clinton, his Presidential opponent.

And, in a move that Joseph Stalin would have admired, Trump ordered an all-out investigation to find the person who leaked Sadler’s “joke.”

In January, 2018, the White House had banned the use of personal cell phones in the West Wing. 

The official reason: National security.

The real reason: To stop staffers from leaking to reporters.

Officials now had two choices:

  1. Leave their cell phones in their cars, or,
  2. When they arrive for work, deposit them in lockers installed at West Wing entrances. They can reclaim their phones when they leave.

Several staffers huddled around the lockers throughout the day, checking messages they had missed. The lockers buzzed and chirped constantly from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

More ominously, well-suited men roamed the halls of the West Wing, carrying devices that pick up signals from phones that aren’t government-issued. “Did someone forget to put their phone away?” one of the men would ask if such a device was detected.

If no one said they have a phone, the detection team started searching the room.

Image result for images of cell phone detectors on Youtube

Phone detector

The devices can tell which type of phone is in the room.

This is the sort of behavior Americans have traditionally—and correctly—associated with dictatorships

In his memo outlining the policy, former Chief of Staff John Kelly warned that anyone who violated the phone ban could be punished, including “being indefinitely prohibited from entering the White House complex.”

Yet even these draconian methods did not end White House leaks.

White House officials still spoke with reporters throughout the day and often aired their grievances, whether about annoying colleagues or competing policy priorities.

Aides with private offices sometimes called reporters on their desk phones. Others used their cell phones to call or text reporters during lunch breaks.