Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBANA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CNN, CONGRESS, EGYPT, FACEBOOK, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HARRY TRUMAN, IRAN, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISRAEL, KORAN, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNITED NATIONS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, WORLD WAR 1
In History, Military, Politics on January 7, 2014 at 12:15 am
Here’s another reason to welcome the coming of the New Year:
Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have gone to war–with each other.

Al-Qaeda terrorists–now taking aim at Hezbollah terrorists
This is an event the United States could not have predicted or instigated. But it is definitely one in which Americans can take hope.
In Part One, two of those reasons were outlined. Here are the remaining eight:
Third, the United States is still fighting a brutal war in Afghanistan. By early 2012, the United States had about 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, with 22,000 of them due home by the fall.
There has been no schedule set for the pace of the withdrawal of the 68,000 American troops who will remain, only that all are to be out by the end of 2014.
The initial goal of this war was to quickly destroy Al Qaeda–especially its leader, Osama Bin Laden–and its Taliban protectors.
But, over time, Washington policy-makers embarked on a “nation-building” effort. And U.S. forces wound up occupying the country for the next ten years.
This increasingly brought them into conflict with primitive, xenophobic Afghans, whose mindset remains that of the sixth century.
On February 21, 2013, protests erupted throughout Afghanistan as reports emerged that NATO personnel at Bagram Air Base had burned copies of the Koran.
The books had been confiscated from suspected insurgents and inadvertently marked for incineration.
The incident sparked rabid anti-American demonstrations. At least 30 people, including four American troops, were killed, and many were wounded.
Two American military officers were murdered by a trusted member of the Afghan military.
As a result, American forces no longer trust their “brothers” in the Afghan army to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them against the Taliban.
One American officer stated that he would no longer meet with his Afghan counterparts unless there were five armed U.S. troops in the same room.
Fourth, intervening in Syria could produce similar unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
Fifth, since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism. Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hezbollah and Hamas.
For many years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.
Sixth, according to U.S. defense reports, Syria has weapons of mass destruction–and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. Syria has an active chemical weapons program, including significant reserves of the deadly nerve agent sarin.
The recent destruction of much of Syria’s WMD stockpile–at the demand of President Barack Obama–doesn’t erase its ability to create more. And this is likely to re-occur as soon as the United States becomes preoccupied with other concerns.
Seventh, the United States had no part in creating the Assad regime. Thus, Americans have no moral obligation to support those Syrians trying to overthrow it.
Eighth, China and Russia are fully supporting the Assad dictatorship–and the brutalities it commits against its own citizens. This reflects badly on them–not the United States. America should focus world outrage against these longtime Communist dictatorships for propping up another one.
Ninth, the United States could find itself in a shooting war with Russia and/or China.
The Russians sent two warships to Syria in 2013 in response to President Obama’s threat to “punish” Assad for using chemical weapons against insurgents.
What happens if American and Russian warships start trading salvos? Or if Russian President Vladimir Putin orders an attack on Israel, in return for America’s attack on Russia’s ally, Syria?
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–that triggered World War l.
Tenth, while Islamic nations like Syria and Egypt wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources–and incentive–to launch attacks against the United States.
Every dead Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda member makes the United States that much safer. Every dead supporter of Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda makes the United States that much safer.
The peoples of the Middle East have long memories for those who commit brutalities against them. In their veins, the cult of the blood feud runs deep.

When Al-Qaeda blows up civilians in Beirut, it’s certain that their relatives will urge Hezbollah to take brutal revenge. And it’s equally certain that Hezbollah will do so.
Similarly, when Hezbollah does, those who support Al-Qaeda will demand even more brutal reprisals against Hezbollah.
No American could instill such hatred in Al-Qaeda for Hezbollah–or vice versa. This is entirely a war of religious and sectarian hatred.
This conflict could easily become the Islamic equivalent of “the Hundred Years’ War” that raged from 1337 to 1453 between England and France.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing off each other. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARACK OBANA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, CONGRESS, EGYPT, FACEBOOK, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEZBOLLAH, IRAN, IRAQ, IRAQ WAR, ISLAM, ISRAEL, KORAN, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, RUSSIA, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SHIA MUSLIMS, SOVIET UNION, SUNNI MUSLIMS, SYRIA, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNITED NATIONS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
In History, Military, Politics on January 6, 2014 at 12:37 am
Sometimes your worst enemies aid you in ways you could never help yourself.
From July 10 to October 31, 1940, hundreds of badly-outnumbered pilots of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) fought off relentless attacks by Germany’s feared Luftwaffe.
For Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, it was a major setback.
He was forced to concede that he lacked the strength to destroy the British air force–thus making it possible for his navy to land German troop on English soil.
But Hitler wasn’t prepared to give up. He believed he could so terrorize Britons that they would demand that their government submit to German surrender demands.
From September 7, 1940 to May 21, 1941, the Luftwaffe subjected England–and especially London–to a ruthless bombing campaign that became known as The Blitz.

The undamaged St. Paul’s Cathredal, December, 1940
More than 100 tons of high explosives were dropped on 16 British cities. During 267 days (almost 37 weeks):
- London was attacked 71 times;
- Birmingham, Plymouth and Liverpool were attacked eight times;
- Bristol was attacked six times; Glasgow, five; Southampton four; and
- There was also at least one large raid on another eight cities.
Between 40,000 and 43,000 British civilians were killed. About 139,000 others were wounded.
“London can take it” went the British slogan. But, in the United States, Americans–including President Franklin D. Roosevelt–wondered: For how much longer?
Clearly, what Great Britain desperately needed most was a miracle.
Exactly that happened on June 22, 1941.
With 134 Divisions at full fighting strength and 73 more divisions for deployment behind the front, the German Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union.

German tank commander
Joseph Stalin, the longtime Soviet dictator, was stunned. The invasion had come less than two years after Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Hitler had turned on his partner-in-crime. The two dictators had greedily split Poland between them when Hitler launched his invasion on September 1, 1939.
Now they were locked in a fight to the death.
People in England were also surprised–but also suddenly hopeful. Britain now had an ally whose resources might tip the balance against Hitler.
In the United States, then-Senator Harry S. Truman spoke for many Americans when he said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
Today the United States faces just such an opportunity.
In Syria, two of America’s most deadly enemies are now waging war–with each other.
Yes, it’s Hezbollah (Party of God) vs. Al-Qaeda (The Base).
United Nations officials estimate that more than 70,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war since conflict began on March 15, 2011. The trigger: Protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims, who form a minority of Islamics. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans.

Flag of Hezbollah
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims, who form the majority of that religion. It is intolerent of non-Sunni Muslims and has instigated violence against them. It denounces them as “takfirs”–heretics–and thus worthy of extermination.
Al-Qaeda has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other non-Sunnis. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.

Flag of Al-Qaeda
On one side is the Ba’ath regime of Bashir al-Assad, whose allies include Russia, Iran, Hezbullah, and elements in the Iraqi government.
On the other side are a host of Syrians and thousands of foreign Sunni fighters some of whom have affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
And now that civil war has spread into neighborhing Lebanon.
On January 2, at least four people were killed and 77 injured when a car bomb exploded in a residential neighborhood in southern Beirut.
The Shiite-dominated district, Haret Hreik, is known as a Hezbollah stronghold.
Two days later, an Al-Qaeda linked group claimed responsibility for the attack.
At a press conference for President Barack Obama on March 20, 2013, a reporter asked:
“Morally, how is it possible that for the last two years, tens of thousands of innocent civilians [in Syria] are being massacred and no one–the world, the United States and you–are doing anything to stop it immediately?”
That is entirely the wrong way to view this conflict.
There are solidly practical reasons why the United States should avoid this bloodfest–while cheering on each of its mortal enemies to do its worst.
First, the United States recently disengaged from Iraq. On Dec. 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–had cost the lives of 4,487 service members, with another 32,226 wounded.
Second, the war in Iraq fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. The Bush administration invaded Iraq to turn it into a base–from which to intimidate its neighboring states: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria and Iran.
But while Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been a counter-weight to the regional ambitions of Iran, the destruction of the Iraqi military created a power-vacumn. Into this–eagerly–stepped the Iranian mullahs.
ABC NEWS, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, CBS NEWS, CNN, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PANCHO VILLA, RACIAL PROFILING, SERGIO GARCIA, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on January 2, 2014 at 4:32 pm
The California Supreme Court has granted a law license to a man illegally living in the United States.
The January 2 decision allows Sergio Garcia to begin practicing law even though his mere presence is a blatant violation of American immigration laws.
Garcia arrived in the U.S. illegally in 1994 to pick almonds with his father and worked at a grocery store and in the fields while attending school.
He graduated from Cal Northern School of Law in 2009 and passed the bar exam.
Garcia is not a citizen, nor even a legal resident.
But that didn’t stop him from challenging a 1996 Federal law that forbids state agencies to extend public benefits–including professional licenses–to those who are illegally in the country.
The headline for this story in the liberal Huffington Post read: “California Supreme Court Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant Sergio Garcia.”
The headline could just have accurately read: “California Supreme Court Allows Illegal Alien to Legally Practice Law.”
But “illegal alien” is–for all its accuracy–Politically Incorrect. Instead, those who defend the wanton violating of American immigration laws prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.”
As though at one time these lawbreakers had valid citizenship documents but somehow lost them during their swim across the Rio Grande.
Of course, Mexican politicians are quick to accuse Americans of racism if they dare to enforce their own immigration laws.
Consider the lecture that Mexican President Felipe Calderon gave a joint session of Congress on May 20, 2010.
Calderon attacked the Arizona law that allows law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its borders.
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words is staggering.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this. From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacks of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Calderon also ignored a second well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
The Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.

A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution–Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon–died in a hail of bullets.

Francisco “Pancho” Villa

Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power find it easier–and safer–to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BARACK OBAMA, BENITO MUSSOLINI, BLACKBEARD, CAPTAIN RICHARD PHILLIPS, CBS NEWS, CHARLES MANSON, CNN, FACEBOOK, FASCISM, FRANCISCO FRANCO, HENRY MORGAN, JULIUS CAESAR, MARCUS BRUTUS, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MOVIES, NBC NEWS, PIRATES, RUSH LIMBAUGH, SEAL TEAM 6, SOMALIA, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM HANKS, TWITTER, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
In Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm
On April 8, 2009, four Somali pirates boarded the Maersk Alabama when it was located 240 miles southeast of the Somalian port city of Eyl.
The ship, en route to Mombasa, Kenya, was carrying 17,000 tons of cargo, including 5,000 tons of relief supplies for Kenya, Somalia, and Uganda.
As the pirates boarded the ship, the crew members locked themselves in the engine room. To buy time for his crewmen, the captain, Richard Phillips, surrendered to the pirates.

Captain Richard Phillips
The crew later overpowered one of the pirates, and sought to exchange their captive for Phillips. The crew released the pirate, but the other three pirates refused to release Phillips.
The pirates left with Philips in a lifeboat which carried ten days of food rations, water and basic survival supplies.
On April 8, the destroyer USSS Bainbridge and the frigate USSS Halyburton were dispatched to the Gulf of Aden to deal with the hostage situation, and reached Maersk Alabama early on April 9.
On April 9, a standoff began between the Bainbridge and the pirates in the Maersk Alabama’s lifeboat, where they continued to hold Phillips hostage
On April 12, marksmen from SEAL Team 6 simultaneously opened fire with telescopic-sighted assault rifles and killed the three pirates on the lifeboat.

The SEALS believed Phillips faced an immediate threat of execution, having received a report that one of the pirates was pointing an AK-47 at his back.
The SEALS, known for their legendary marksmanship, took out all three pirates with shots to the head.
Phillips was rescued in good condition.
The vast majority of Americans rejoiced. The Maersk Alabama had been the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in 200 years. And the encounter had ended with the ship and crew safe and its captain rescued without injury.
But not everyone was happy about the outcome. Naturally, the pirates infesting the Somali coastline were infuriated at this setback.
But, surprisingly, there were some Americans who felt more sympathetically toward the Somali pirates than the man who had ordered Phillips’ rescue: President Barack Obama.
One of these was Rush Limbaugh, the American Right’s chief spokesman.

Rush Limbaugh
The Rush Limbaugh Show airs throughout the U.S. on over 400 stations and is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. When Limbaugh speaks, his “dittohead” audience listens—and acts as he decrees.
On April 14, 2009, Limbaugh gave his take on the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips:
“The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old.
“Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas….
“They were kids. The story is out, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset.
“They wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food. They were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That’s the story.
“But then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.”
And there you have it–an American Fascist making common cause with the heirs of Blackbeard and Henry Morgan.
Click here: President Obama Ordered the Killing of Three Black Muslim Kids – The Rush Limbaugh Show
In Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare lets Marcus Brutus give his reason for murdering Caesar, his onetime friend: “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.”
Limbaugh and his Rightist stooges could have said they opposed the rescue mission for a similar reasono: “Not that we loved the Somali pirates, but that we hate Obama more.”
Consider the comment Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) made on an Iowa radio program on October 3, 2011.
One caller, “Donna,” told Bachmann that the president was a “walking nightmare” who was “blowing up our country.”
“I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy,” she said. “But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way, go Michele!”
“Thank you for saying that,” Bachmann replied.
Thus, Bachmann–who supposedly represented the democratic system–chose as her hero a convicted psychopathic murderer over a legally-elected President.
The rescue of Richard Phillips has been dramatized in the 2013 movie, “Captain Phillips,” starring Tom Hanks in the title role.
Audiences cheered at the climatic moment when the three pirates met their deserved fate.
But what they didn’t see depicted was Limbaugh’s Greek chorus for the Right–and the sheer hatred he and they have for anyone who doesn’t share their Fascistic views.
The ordeal of Captain Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama is over. But the heirs of Blackbeard still roam the seas near Somalia.
And the heirs of Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini still conspire to remake America in their own Rightist image.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, ANDERSON COOPER, ANTI-COMMUNISM, ARTHUR MILLER, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DICK CHENEY, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEINRICH HIMMLER, HERMAN CAIN, HERMAN GORING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN, JEWS, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN STEINBECK, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, LIZ CHENEY, LUCILLE BALL, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PETE SEEGER, RED SCARE, REINHARD HEYDRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, Ronald Reagan, SENATOR MIKE ENZI, SOVIET UNION, SS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WYOMING
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 28, 2013 at 12:00 am
With the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Republican Party went into a tailspin of dismay.
For almost 50 years, Republicans had conjured up The Red Bogeyman to scare voters into sending them to Congress and the White House.

But now that the “workers’ paradise” had disappeared, Americans seemed to lose interest in the Communist Menace.
True, the People’s Republic of China remained, and its increasing economic clout would challenge the United States well into the 21st century. But Americans didn’t seem to fear the Red Chinese as they had the Red Russians.
What was the Republican Party to do to lure voters?
On September 11, 2001, the answer arrived–in two highjacked jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York and one that struck the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

Exit The Red Bogeyman. Enter The Maniacal Muslim.
Consider:
- Mike Huckabee – “If the purpose of a church is to push forward the gospel of Jesus Christ, and then you have a Muslim group that says that Jesus Christ and all the people that follow him are a bunch of infidels who should be essentially obliterated, I have a hard time understanding that.”
- Herman Cain – ”I would not” appoint a Muslim in his administration.
- Newt Gingrich – “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they [his grandchildren] are my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists. …”
- Rick Santorum – On supporting the racial profiling of Muslims: “Obviously, Muslims would be someone you look at, absolutely.”
- Mitt Romney – “Based on the numbers of American Muslims in our population, I cannot see that a Cabinet position [for a Muslim] would be justified.”
And on July 13, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of
- Defense;
- State;
- Justice; and
- Homeland Security.
“The purpose of these letters,” wrote Bachmann, was to “request a multi-department investigation into potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government.”

Michelle Bachmann
Bachmann further asserted in her letter to the State Department that Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
And the evidence for this?
The Center for Security Policy’s claim that Abedin’s father (who died when she was a teenager), mother and brother are “connected” to the organization.
And what is the Center of Security Policy? A private organization subsidized by donors to neo-conservative causes.
In a separate letter, Bachmann demanded to know how Abedin received her security clearance.
Among the co-signers of Bachmann’s letter to the Inspectors General were:
- Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who has said abortion has done more harm to blacks than slavery;
- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who called presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, ”uppity”; and
- Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who claims that terrorist organizations send pregnant women into the U.S. so that their children will be American citizens–who can enter and leave the country at will as they are trained to be terrorists abroad.
When pressed for their evidence of “a vast Muslim conspiracy,” right-wing accusers usually refuse to provide any.
An example of this occurred during an August 13, 2010 interview between Gohmert and CNN’s Anderson Cooper:
COOPER: What research? Can you tell us about the research?
GOHMERT: You are attacking the messenger, Anderson, you are better than this. You used to be good. You used to find that there was a problem and you would go after it.
COOPER: Sir, I am asking you for evidence of something that you said on the floor of the House.
GOHMERT: I did, and you listen, this is a problem. If you would spend as much time looking into the problem as you would have been trying to come after me and belittle me this week –
COOPER: Sir, do you want to offer any evidence? I’m giving you an opportunity to say what research and evidence you have. You’ve offered none, other than yelling.
Nor did Gohmert offer any evidence that evening.
Of course, the ultimate Republican Muslim slander is that President Barack Obama–a longtime Christian–is himself a Muslim.
No doubt Republicans feel totally safe in making these attacks, since Muslims comprise only 1% of the American population.
This has long been a hallmark of right-wing attacks–to go after a minority that cannot effectively defend itself.
Thus, Adolf Hitler attacked the Jews of Germany.
And Republicans have successively attacked blacks, Hispanics and gays–until each group became politically influential enough to defeat Republican candidates.
Today, most right-wing politicians at least grudgingly court all of these groups.
When Muslims become a significant political force in their own right, the Right will court them, too. And then move on to yet another helpless scapegoat to blame for America’s troubles.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, ANDERSON COOPER, ANTI-COMMUNISM, ARTHUR MILLER, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DICK CHENEY, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEINRICH HIMMLER, HERMAN CAIN, HERMAN GORING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN, JEWS, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN STEINBECK, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, LIZ CHENEY, LUCILLE BALL, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PETE SEEGER, RED SCARE, REINHARD HEYDRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, Ronald Reagan, SENATOR MIKE ENZI, SOVIET UNION, SS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WYOMING
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 27, 2013 at 12:05 am
“Judge not, that you not be judged. For with what judgment you judged, you shall be judged, and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
So warns the Gospel of St. Matthew, 7:1-2. It’s advice that Right-wingers Joseph McCarthy, Robert Welch and George H.W. Bush would have done well to heed.
Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin’s gift to the United States Senate, became infamous as the demagogue whose Red-baiting accusations terrified America from 1950 to 1954.

Joseph McCarthy
Elected to the Senate in 1946, he rose to national prominence on February 9, 1950, after giving a fiery speech in Wheeling, West Virginia:
“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”
Americans were already growing increasingly fearful of Communism:
- Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had not withdrawn the Red Army from the countries it had occupied in Eastern Europe during World War II.
- In 1948, the Soviet Union developed–and demonstrated–its own atomic bomb, an achievement U.S. scientists had claimed would not happen for at least a decade.
- In 1949, China fell to the triumphant armies of Mao Tse Tung.
But anti-communism as a lever to political advancement sharply accelerated following McCarthy’s speech. Republicans–resentful at being denied the White House since 1932–seized upon anti-communism as their passport to power.
No American–no matter how prominent–was safe from the accusation of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer–”a Comsymp” or “fellow traveler” in the style of the era.
Among those accused:
- Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who had overseen America’s strategy for defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan
- President Harry S. Truman
- Playwright Lillian Hellman and Arthur Miller
- Actors Charlie Chaplin, Zero Mostel, Lloyd Bridges, Howard Da Silva, Edward G. Robinson and John Garfield
- Composers Arron Copland and Elmer Bernstein
- Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who presided over the creation of America’s atomic bomb
- Actressses Lee Grant, Delores del Rio, Ruth Gordon and Lucille Ball
- Journalists Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer, who had chronicled the rise of Nazi Germany
- Folksinger Pete Seeger
- Writers Irwin Shaw, Howard Fast, John Steinbeck and Dashiell Hammett
Even “untouchable” Republicans became targets for such slander.
The most prominent of these was President Dwight D. Eisenhower–labeled ”a conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy” by Robert Welch, who founded the John Birth Society in 1958.

Robert Welch
Welch, an independently wealthy businessman, used his money to publicize the Society and its views. Welch saw even hardline anti-Communists like Vice President Richard Nixon and actor Ronald Reagan as dangerously liberal.
Meanwhile, McCarthy finally overstepped himself. In 1953, he attacked the leadership of the United States Army as “a hotbed of traitors” and convened an inquiry through the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
But the hearings backfired, exposing McCarthy as the bullying demagogue he was. A Senate committee voted to condemn his behavior, charging that he had “acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.”
Although McCarthy remained in the Senate another two and a half years, his political influence had ended.
Journalists who had raced to cover his latest slander now avoided him. So did his Republican colleagues–many of whom had once sought his help at election time.
Yet even without McCarthy, Republicans rode the issue of anti-Communism to victory from 1948 to 1960.
After holding the White House for eight years under Eisenhower, they lost it in 1960 to John F. Kennedy and again in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson.
By 1968, with the nation mired in Vietnam and convulsed by antiwar demonstrations, Americans turned once more to those who preyed upon their fears and hates. They elected Richard Nison–and re-elected him in 1972.
After Jimmy Carter won the Presidency in 1976 and lost it in 1980, Republicans held the White House until 1992. Throughout that time, they continued to accuse their opponents of being devious agents–or at least unwitting pawns–of “the Communist conspiracy.”
Even as late as 1992, President George H.W. Bush and the Republican establishment charged that Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton might be a KGB plant.
Their evidence: During his tenure at Oxford University in 1969-70, Clinton had briefly visited Moscow.
Thus, the Republican charged that he might have been “programmed” as a real-life “Manchrian candidate” to become, first, Governor of Arkansas–one of America’s poorest states–and then President.
What made this charge all the more absurd: The Soviet Union had officially dissolved in December, 1991.
Although Republicans continued to hurl “Communist!” and “treason!” at their opponents, these charges no longer carried the weight they had while the Soviet Union existed.
Right-wingers had to settle for attacking their opponents as “liberals” and “soft on crime.”
Then, on September 11, 2001, Republicans–and their right-wing supporters–at last found a suitable replacement for the Red Menace.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, ANDERSON COOPER, ANTI-COMMUNISM, ARTHUR MILLER, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DICK CHENEY, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEINRICH HIMMLER, HERMAN CAIN, HERMAN GORING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN, JEWS, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN STEINBECK, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, LIZ CHENEY, LUCILLE BALL, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARY CHENEY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PETE SEEGER, RED SCARE, REINHARD HEYDRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, Ronald Reagan, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SENATOR MIKE ENZI, SOVIET UNION, SS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WYOMING
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 26, 2013 at 12:09 am
“All revolutions,” said Ernst Rohem, leader of Adolf Hitler’s brown-shirted thugs, the S.A., “devour their own children.”

Ernst Rohem
Fittingly, he said this as he sat inside a prison cell awaiting his own execution.
On June 30, 1934, Hitler had ordered a massive purge of his private army, the S.A., or Stormtroopers. The purge was carried out by Hitler’s elite army-within-an-army, the Schutzstaffel, or Protective Squads, better known as the SS.
The S.A. Brownshirts had been instrumental in securing Hitler’s rise to Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. They had intimidated political opponents and organized mass rallies for the Nazi Party.
But after Hitler reached the pinnacle of power, they became a liability.
Ernst Rohem, their commander, urged Hitler to disband the regular German army, the Reichswehr, and replace it with his own legions as the nation’s defense force.
Frightened by Rohem’s ambitions, the generals of the Reichswehr gave Hitler an ultimatum: Get rid of Rohem–or they would get rid of him.
So Rohem died in a hail of SS bullets–as did several hundred of his longtime S.A. cronies.

SS firing squad
Among the SS commanders supervising those executions was Reinhard Heydrich–a tall, blond-haired formal naval officer who was both a champion fencer and talented violinist.
Ultimately, he would become the personification of the Nazi ideal–”the man with the iron heart,” as Hitler eulogized at Heydrich’s funeral just eight years later.

Reinhard Heydrich
Even so, Heydrich had a problem: He could never escape vicious rumors that his family tree contained a Jewish ancestor.
His paternal grandmother had married Reinhold Heydrich, and then Gustav Robert Suss. For unknown reasons, she decided to call herself Suss-Heydrich.
Since “Suss” was widely believed in Germany to indicate Jewish origin, the “stigma” of Jewish heritage attached itself to the Heydrich family.
Heydrich joined the SS in 1931 and quickly became head of its counterintelligence service. But his arrogance and overweening ambition created a great many enemies.
Only a year later, he became the target of an urgent investigation by the SS itself.
The charge: That he was part-Jewish, the ultimate sin in Hitler’s “racially pure” Nazi Germany.
The investigation cleared Heydrich, but the rumor of his “tainted” origins persisted, clearly tormenting the second most powerful man in the SS.
Even his superior, Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer-SS, believed it.
When Heydrich was assassinated in 1942 by Czech assassins in Prague, Himmler attended his funeral.
He paid tribute to his former subordinate at the service–”You, Reinhard Heydrich, were a truly good SS-man.” But he could not resist saying in private:
“He was an unhappy man, completely divided against himself, as often happened with those of mixed race.”
Those who dare to harshly judge others usually find themselves assailed just as harshly.
A modern-day example is Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and now a candidate for U.S. Senator from Wyoming.
Liz is positioning herself as far more right-wing than her opponent, Republican U.S. Senator Michael Bradley “Mike” Enzi.
She has her work cut out for her: In March, 2007, Enzi was ranked by National Journal as the sixth-most conservative U.S. Senator.
Among his legislative priorities:
- Supporting partial privatization of Social Security
- Consistently voting against expanding Medicare.
- Voting against enrolling more children or the poor in public healthcare.

Mike Enzi
And Liz has a problem Enzi does not: Her sister, Mary, is not only a lesbian but legally married to another woman: Heather Poe.
This has led many Wyoming voters to wonder if Liz Cheney is far-Right enough to merit their support.
So Liz is going all-out to assure them that even though her sister leads a degenerate lifestyle, she, Liz, stands foursquare against legalizing gay marriage:
“I do believe it’s an issue that’s got to be left up to states. I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.”

Liz Cheney
And, in another statement: “I am strongly pro-life and I am not pro-gay marriage.
“I believe the issue of marriage must be decided by the states, and by the people in the states, not by judges and not even by legislators, but by the people themselves.”
This stance has led to a heated rift between her and Mary.
“For the record, I love my sister, but she is dead wrong on the issue of marriage,” Mary Cheney wrote in a Facebook post in September.
“Freedom means freedom for everyone,” she continued. “That means that all families–regardless of how they look or how they are made–all families are entitled to the same rights, privileges and protections as every other.”
Adding to the complications: Their father, Dick Cheney—often ridiculed as “Darth Vader” for his own extreme Right-wing views—endorsed same-sex marriage in 2009.
But, as was true for officials in Nazi Germany, so is it true for Right-wing Republicans: It’s impossible to be too radical a Right-winger.
In the 1930s and 40s, it was politically—and personally—dangerous to be labeled “pro-Jewish” or “pro-Communist” in Hitler’s Germany.
And today it is equally dangerous—at least politically—to be labeled “pro-liberal” or “pro-gay” in the Republican Party.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, JOBS, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, public relations, REFORM, THE DAILY SHOW, THE PRINCE, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics on November 25, 2013 at 12:30 am
All the warning signs were there in The Prince for anyone to read.
Especially President Barack Obama.
And either he skipped those chapters or he ignored their timeless advice for political leaders.
The chapter he should have started with was 6: “Of New Dominions Which Have Been Acquired By One’s Own Arms and Ability.”

Niccolo Machiavelli
Early in his first term as President, Obama decided to reform the American healthcare system. Before taking any such action, he should have carefully considered the following:
…There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.
For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.
Another chapter he should have consulted was 19: “That We Must Avoid Being Despised and Hated.”
For openers, Niccolo Machiavelli writes:
…The prince must…avoid those things which will make him hated or despised. And whenever he succeeds in this, he will have done his part, and will find no danger in other vices….
He is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute—which a prince must guard against as a rock of danger….
[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude. As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.
The prince who creates such an opinion of himself gets a great reputation, and it is very difficult to conspire against one who has a great reputation. [He] will not be easily attacked, so long as it is known that he is capable and reverenced by his subjects.
Obama started off well. Americans had high expectations of him.
This was partly due to his being the first black elected President. And it was partly due to the legacies of needless war and financial catastrophe left by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Obama entered office intending to reform the American healthcare system, to make medical care available to all citizens, and not just the richest.
But that was not what the vast majority of Americans wanted him to concentrate his energies on. With the loss of 2.6 million jobs in 2008, Americans wanted Obama to find new ways to create jobs.
This was especially true for the 11.1 million unemployed, or those employed only part-time.
Jonathan Alter, who writes sympathetically about the President in The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies, candidly states this.
But Obama chose to spend most of his first two years as President pushing the Affordable Care Act (ACA)–which soon became known as Obamacare–through Congress.
The results were:
- Those desperately seeking employment felt the President didn’t care about them.
- The reform effort became a lightning rod for conservate groups like the Tea Party.
- In 2010, a massive right-wing turnout cost the Democrats the House of Representatives, and threatened Democratic control of the Senate.
Yet even worse was to come for the President.
Throughout his campaign to win support for the ACA, Obama had repeatedly promised that, under it: “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
But, hidden in the 906 pages of the law, was a fatal catch for the President’s own credibility.
The law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans–so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law.
If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain coverage that did.
It soon turned out that a great many Americans wanted to keep their current plan–even if it did not provide the fullest possible coverage.
Suddenly, the President found himself facing a PR nightmare: Charged and ridiculed as a liar.
Even Jon Stewart, who on “The Daily Show” had supported the implementation of “Obamacare,” ran footage of Obama’s “you can keep your doctor” promise.

Jon Stewart
The implication: You said we could keep our plan/doctor; since we can’t, you must be a liar.
As a result, the President now finds his reputation for integrity–long his greatest asset–shattered.
According to a CBS poll released on November 20, only 37% of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, down from 46% in late October. CBS called that rating “the lowest of his presidency.”
All of which takes us to the final warning offered by Machiavelli:
Whence it may be seen that hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil….
2012 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, BAY OF PIGS, BERLIN WALL, BILL CLINTON, BRUCE GREENWOOD, CARLOS MARCELLO, CIA, CIVIL RIGHTS, CLIFF ROBERTSON, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DAVID HALBERSTAM, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIDEL CASTRO, FRANK SINATRA, ICH BEN EIN BERLINNER SPEECH, INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE, J. EDGAR HOOVER, JAMES MARSDEN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MAFIA, MALCOM X, MARTIN LUTHER KING, MARTIN SHEEN, MOVIES, NEWT GINGRICH, NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY, PT-109, RICK PERRY, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, SAM GIANCANA, SANTOS TRAFFICANTE, Sarah Palin, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SOVIET UNION, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, THE BUTLER, THE MISSILES OF OCTOBER, THE RAT PACK, THIRTEEN DAYS, TWILIGHT ZONE, TWITTER, VIETNAM WAR, WILLIAM DEVANE, WILLIAM PETERSEN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 22, 2013 at 12:30 am
Fifty years ago this November 22, two bullets slammed into the neck and head of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It has been said that he left his country with three great legacies:
- The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
- The Apollo moon landing; and
- The Vietnam war.
Of these, the following can be said with certainty:
- The Test Ban Treaty has prevented atmosphereic testing–and poisoning–by almost all the world’s nuclear powers.
- After reaching the moon–in 1969–Americans quickly lost interest in space and have today largely abandoned plans for manned exploration.
- Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam; 153,303 were wounded; and billions of dollars were squandered in a hopeless effort to intervene in what was essentially a Vietnamese civil war. From 1965 to 1972, the war angrily divided Americas as had no event since the Civil War.
But there was a fourth legacy–and perhaps the most important of all: The belief that mankind could overcome its greatest challenges through rationality and perseverance.

White House painting of JFK
At American University on June 10, 1963, Kennedy called upon his fellow Americans to re-examine the events and attitudes that had led to the Cold War. And he declared that the search for peace was by no means absurd:
“Our problems are man-made; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
“Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again.”
Today, politicians from both parties cannot agree on solutions to even the most vital national problems.
On November 21, 2011, the 12 members of the “Super-Committee” of Congress, tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in cuts in government spending, threw up their hands in defeat.
President Kennedy speed-read several newspapers every morning. He nourished personal relationships with the press-–and not for entirely altruistic reasons. These journalistic relationships gave Kennedy additional sources of information and perspectives on national and international issues.
In 2012, Republican Presidential candidates celebrated their ignorance of both.
Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain famously said, “We need a leader, not a reader.” Thus he excused his ignorance of the reasons for President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya.
Texas Governor Rick Perry showed similar pride in not knowing there are nine judges on the United States Supreme Court:
“Well, obviously, I know there are nine Supreme Court judges. I don’t know how eight came out my mouth. But the, uh, the fact is, I can tell you–I don’t have memorized all of those Supreme Ccourt judges. And, uh, ah–
“Here’s what I do know. That when I put an individual on the Supreme Court, just like I done in Texas, ah, we got nine Supreme Court justices in Texas, ah, they will be strict constructionists….”
In short, it’s the media’s fault if they ask you a question and your answer reveals your own ignorance, stupidity or criminality.
During the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy spoke with aides about a book he had just finished: Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, on the events leading to World War 1.
He said that the book’s most important revelation was how European leaders had blindly rushed into war, without thought to the possible consequences. Kennedy told his aides he did not intend to make the same mistake-–that, having read his history, he was determined to learn from it.
Contrast that with today’s woeful historical ignorance among Republican Presidential candidates-–and those who aspire to be.
Consider Sarah Palin’s rewriting of history via “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”: “He warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
In fact, Revere wasn’t warning the British about anything. Instead, he was warning his fellow Americans about an impending British attack–as his celebrated catchphrase “The British are coming!” made clear.
Republicans have attacked President Obama for his Harvard education and articulate use of language. Among their taunts: “Hitler also gave good speeches.”
And they resent his having earned most of his income as a writer of two books: Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope. As if being a writer is somehow subversive.
When knowledge and literacy are attacked as “highfalutin’” arrogance, and ignorance and incoherence are embraced as sincerity, national decline lies just around the corner.
In retrospect, the funeral for President Kennedy marked the death of more than a rational and optimistic human being.
It marked the death of Americans’ pride in choosing reasoning and educated citizens for their leaders.

The Eternal Flame at the grave of President John F. Kennedy
BAY OF PIGS, BERLIN WALL, BILL CLINTON, BRUCE GREENWOOD, CARLOS MARCELLO, CIA, CIVIL RIGHTS, CLIFF ROBERTSON, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DAVID HALBERSTAM, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIDEL CASTRO, FRANK SINATRA, HOUSE ASSASSINATIONS COMMITTEE, ICH BEN EIN BERLINNER SPEECH, INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE, J. EDGAR HOOVER, JACK RUBY, JAMES MARSDEN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, KGB, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MAFIA, MALCOM X, MARTIN LUTHER KING, MARTIN SHEEN, MOVIES, NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY, PT-109, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, SAM GIANCANA, SANTOS TRAFFICANTE, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, SOVIET UNION, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, THE BUTLER, THE MISSILES OF OCTOBER, THE RAT PACK, THIRTEEN DAYS, TWILIGHT ZONE, TWITTER, VIETNAM WAR, WARREN COMMISSION, WILLIAM DEVANE, WILLIAM PETERSEN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 21, 2013 at 12:16 am
Elected to the House of Representatives in 1946, John F. Kennedy served six undistinguished years before being elected U.S. Senator from Massachussetts in 1952.
In 1956, his eloquence and political skill almost won him the Vice Presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention. But the nominee, Adlai Stevenson, chose Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver as his running mate.
Fortunately for Kennedy.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, running for re-election, easily beat Stevenson.
Had Kennedy been on the ticket, his Catholic religion would have been blamed for the loss–and almost certainly prevented him from getting the Presidential nomination in 1960.
In 1957, his book, Profiles in Courage won the Pulitzer Prize for history.
From 1957 to 1960, Kennedy laid plans for a successful Presidential race. Many voters thought him too young and inexperienced for such high office.
But he used his TV debates with then-Vice President Richard Nixon to calm such fears, transforming himself overnight into a serious contender.
Many Americans identified with Kennedy as they had with film stars. In contrast with normally drab politicians, he seemed exciting and glamorous.
Since 1960, for millions of Americans, mere competence in a President isn’t enough; he should be charming and movie-star handsome as well.

John F. Kennedy after taking a swim at Santa Monica Beach, 1960
But charismatic politicians face the danger of waning enthusiasm.
Many people were growing disillusioned with Kennedy before he died. He had raised hopes that couldn’t be met–especially among blacks.
And many whites bitterly opposed his support of integration, believing that Kennedy was “moving too fast” in changing race relations.
Still, for millions of Americans, Kennedy represented a time of change.
“Let’s get this country moving again” had been his campaign slogan in 1960. He had demanded an end to the non-existent “missile gap” between the United States and Soviet Union.
And he had said that America should create full employment and re-evaluate its policies toward Africa, Latin America and Asia.
His youth, the grace and beauty of his wife and the oft-reported antics of his two young children–Caroline and John–added to the atmosphere that change was on the way.
But Kennedy was not so committed to change as many believed.
- As a Senator he had strongly opposed abolishing the Electoral College.
- He had made no outcry against the Red-baiting tactics of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a frequent dinner guest at the home of his father.
- As President, Kennedy never forgot that he had been elected by a margin of 112,881 votes. He often rationalized his refusal to tackle controversial issues by saying: “We’ll do it after I’m re-elected. So we’d better make damn sure I am re-elected.”
- He thought it absurd for the United States to refuse to recognize “Red”China, but didn’t try to change American foreign policy in that area.
Nevertheless, many historians believe that. by vocally supporting civil rights and healthcare for the elderly, Kennedy laid the groundwork for Lyndon Johnson’s legislative victories.
Perhaps no aspect of Kennedy’s Presidency has received closer study than his assassination.
Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have hotly debated whether he was murdered by a lone “nut” or a deadly conspiracy of powerful men.

JFK’s assassination: The moment of impact
The murder has been the subject of two government investigations. The first, by the Warren Commission in 1964, concluded that an embittered ex-Marine and Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald, acted alone in killing Kennedy.
Similarly, the Commission determined that nightclub owner Jack Ruby had killed Oswald on impulse, and not as the result of a conspiracy.
Millions of disbelieving Americans rejected the Warren Report–and named their own villains:
- The KGB;
- The Mob;
- Anti-Castro Cubans;
- Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson;
- Right-wing businessmen and/or military leaders;
- Fidel Castro.
Each of these groups or persons had reason to hate Kennedy:
- The KGB–for Kennedy’s humiliation of the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- The Mob–in retaliation for the administration’s crackdown on organized crime.
- Anti-Castro Cubans–for JFK’s refusal to commit American military forces to overthrowing Castro at the Bay of Pigs invasion.
- Lyndon Johnson–lusting for power, he stood to gain the most from Kennedy’s elimination.
- Right-wing businessmen and/or military leaders–for believing that Kennedy had “sold out” the country to the Soviet Union.
- Fidel Castro–knowing the CIA was trying to assassinate or overthrow him, he had reason to respond in kind.
The second investigation, conducted in 1977-79 by the House Assassinstions Committee, determined that Oswald and a second, unknown sniper had fired at Kennedy. (Oswald was deemed the assassin; the other man’s shot had missed.)
The Chief Counsel for the Committee, G. Robert Blakey, believed New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello organized the assassination, owing to his hatred of Robert Kennedy for his war on the crime syndicates.
Still, 50 years after JFK’s assassination, no court-admissible evidence has come forward to convict anyone other than Oswald for the murder.
The impact of Kennedy’s death on popular culture remains great. Millions saw him as an American sccess story–a brilliant and courageous hero who had worked his way to the top.
But his sudden and violent end proved a shock for those who believed there was always a happy ending.
If so gifted–and protected–a man as John F. Kennedy could be so suddenly and brutally destroyed, no one else could depend on a secure future.
ABC NEWS, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, CBS NEWS, CNN, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PANCHO VILLA, RACIAL PROFILING, SERGIO GARCIA, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
ILLEGALS CAN NOW BE LAWYERS IN CALIFORNIA
In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on January 2, 2014 at 4:32 pmThe California Supreme Court has granted a law license to a man illegally living in the United States.
The January 2 decision allows Sergio Garcia to begin practicing law even though his mere presence is a blatant violation of American immigration laws.
Garcia arrived in the U.S. illegally in 1994 to pick almonds with his father and worked at a grocery store and in the fields while attending school.
He graduated from Cal Northern School of Law in 2009 and passed the bar exam.
Garcia is not a citizen, nor even a legal resident.
But that didn’t stop him from challenging a 1996 Federal law that forbids state agencies to extend public benefits–including professional licenses–to those who are illegally in the country.
The headline for this story in the liberal Huffington Post read: “California Supreme Court Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant Sergio Garcia.”
The headline could just have accurately read: “California Supreme Court Allows Illegal Alien to Legally Practice Law.”
But “illegal alien” is–for all its accuracy–Politically Incorrect. Instead, those who defend the wanton violating of American immigration laws prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.”
As though at one time these lawbreakers had valid citizenship documents but somehow lost them during their swim across the Rio Grande.
Of course, Mexican politicians are quick to accuse Americans of racism if they dare to enforce their own immigration laws.
Consider the lecture that Mexican President Felipe Calderon gave a joint session of Congress on May 20, 2010.
Calderon attacked the Arizona law that allows law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its borders.
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words is staggering.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this. From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacks of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
The law also ensures that:
Calderon also ignored a second well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
The Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution–Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon–died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power find it easier–and safer–to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
Share this: