Posts Tagged ‘ADOLF HITLER’
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEATH TAX, DEMOCRATS, DREAMERS, ESTATE TAX, FACEBOOK, illegal immigration, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LANGUATE, MEXICO, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, NAZIS, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PATRIOT ACT, PEOPLE OF COLOR, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, REPUBLICANS, TED CRUZ, TWITTER, WINSTON CHURCHILL
In Business, History, Politics, Self-Help, Social commentary on January 23, 2014 at 10:02 pm
“Hitler gave good speeches, too.”
That’s what many Right-wingers say in disparaging the oratorical effectiveness of President Barack Obama.
It’s a slogan that’s misleading on two counts.
First, the people saying it are exactly the type who would have voted for Adolf Hitler. And who vote for his wannabe dictatorial successors such as Joseph McCarthy, Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz.
Second, the slogan dismisses the power of language–as though words are entirely divorced from action. On the contrary: Words–effectively used–can and usually do lead to action.
A classic example: During the desperate months of the Battle of Britain and the London Blitz, Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s soaring rhetoric armed his fellow Englishmen with the will to resist Nazi aggression.
The truth is, words matter. For good and ill.
Republicans, for example, have long used the power of language to gain and hold power.
Take their use of the phrase, “the death tax.”
The correct term used to be “the estate tax.” And it applied to a relatively small number of citizens who die leaving large estates.
But Republicans, struggling to make the world a better place for the ultra-rich, convinced millions of ignorant voters who don’t have estates that the tax applies to them.
The result: A Republican-introduced bill to the House of Representatives–“The Death Tax Repeal Act of 2013.”
Its goal: “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and for other purposes.”
In short: Relieve the ultra-rich from the unfair burden of paying taxes.
So far, the bill has not been passed.
Or take the 2001 “USA Patriot Act,” which did pass by overwhelming margins after 9/11.
Republicans crammed this full of Orwellian changes they knew Democrats wouldn’t like–such as vastly expanding the powers of the National Security Agency to collect files on American citizens.
So how did they get Democrats to support it?
By calling it the “Patriot Act.” By choosing this title, Republicans easily put Democrats on the defensive.

Anyone who dared oppose the bill would be attacked: “Why don’t you support the Patriot Act? Are you unpatriotic?”
The Left has also made use of language to obtain its political objectives.
Consider the highly popular and Politically Correct term, “People of color.”
This is used by blacks, Hispanics, Asians and American Indians when referring to members of their own particular ethnic group.
On the other hand, members of these groups become enraged if they’re referred to as “colored people.”
But what’s the difference? It’s like saying “jeans of blue” instead of “blue jeans.”
And, in either case, it totally hides what they really mean: “Nonwhites.”
Because to the Politically Correct crowd, “white” is not a color. Which is another way of saying, “Whites aren’t really part of the population.”
And here’s another Leftist-language achievement: “The Dream Act.”
This is a phrase conjured up by those who essentially want to remove all barriers to illegal immigration–at least as it applies to those mostly in Mexico and other Latin and Central American countries.
Its effectiveness lies in the magical word “dream.” As in the Walt Disney Cinderella song: “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes.”
Thus, the United States now has millions of illegal aliens (the Left prefers to call them “immigrants,” which sounds nicer) who claim to cherish their Mexican heritage and love their native land.
But if they cherish Mexico so much, why have so many of these “Dreamers” fled this “paradise”?
And why is their “dream” to never live in Mexico again?
A final word: At election time, the TV airways are clogged with ads supposedly sponsored by “Citnzens for….”
As in: “Citizens for a Responsible Energy Policy.”
Whenever you see the word “citizens for” or “people for” in a televised ad, don’t believe it.
The only “citizens” who can afford to blitz the airways with millions oof dollars’ worth of propaganda are “citizens” who own wealthy corporations.
And when you read/hear words like “responsible,” watch out: Who is defining what as responsible?
When greed-based companies are the ones defining responsible, it means: Whatever creates greater profits for them.
You know, like gutting environmental protection laws and allowing behemoth corporations to pay no taxes.
So keep that in mind the next time you see a slick ad that claims your fellow “citizens” seek your support on an important issue.
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, 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, ADOLF HITLER, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, CBS NEWS, CNN, ENGLAND, FACEBOOK, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, JOHN BOEHNER, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OBAMACARE, REPUBLICANS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WINSTON CHURCHILL, WORLD WAR ii
In History, Military, Politics on October 21, 2013 at 10:21 pm
On October 1, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said President Barack Obama told Congressional leaders at a White House meeting that “he will not negotiate.”
Boehner accused Democrats of being unwilling to negotiate key elements of the Affordable Care Act–in return for Republican agreement on a spending bill.
The Republicans were seeking–for now–a one-year delay in the rolling out of “Obamacare.”
Obama, in turn, said that he would not submit to Republican “extortion” and “blackmail.”
He said that the House should pass a “clean” spending bill–one without conditions–that met America’s obligations to its citizens and creditors. Only then would be be willing to discuss possible changes in “Obamacare.”
Republicans countered with slogans such as: “If Obama will negotiate with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, why won’t he negotiate with Congress?”
Seventy-three years ago, another democratic leader found himself accused of being unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate.
That leader was British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. And those accusing him were among the most powerful men in the Third Reich.

Winston Churchill
This was not a favorable time for Britain.
On September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler had ordered his Whermacht (army) to invade Poland. In six weeks, Polish resistance vanished and Poland became the first of a series of Nazi vassal-states.
Then, on May 10, 1940, after waiting out the winter, Hitler’s army quickly overran Norway and Denmark.
And then it was the turn of France.
In six weeks, the German army accomplished what it couldn’t during the four years of World War 1. It bypassed the heavily defended Maginot Line and destroyed one French army after another.
The defeated French were forced to sign the armistice in the same railway car they had used in 1918 when they forced Germany to surrender after World War 1.
Although the British had committed their air force and army to defending France, both had been easily swept aside by the Wehrmact and Luftwaffe (air force).
Driven almost literally into the sea, the British evacuated about 338,226 men from the port of Dunkirk. It was a miracle made possible by Hitler’s unexplained halt of the German advance and the arrival of a fleet of civilian and naval vessels from England.
“The battle of France is over,” Churchill warned his countrymen. “The battle of Britain is about to begin.”
But not before Hitler offered his own version of “peace with honor.”
On July 19, the Fuehrer addressed the Reichstag, Germany’s rubber-stamp parliament:
“From Britain I now hear only a single cry–not of the people but of the politicians–that the war must go on….

Hitler addressing the Reichstag
“Mr. Churchill ought, for once, to believe me when I prophesy that a great Empire will be destroyed–an Empire which it was never my intention to destroy or even to harm.
“In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Great Britain as well as elsewhere.
“I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favors but the victor speaking in the name of reason.
“I see no reason why this war must go on.”
The assembled parliamentary deputies and bemedaled generals were convinced the British would accept Hitler’s “generous” offer of peace.
They took it for granted that the British would be grateful for the opportunity Hitler was giving them to get out of the war.
The Fuehrer, they believed, had been truly magnanimous. How could the British be insane enough to turn him down?
Soon enough, they–and the Fuehrer–got their answer.
Correspondent William L. Shirer, waiting to make a broadcast at the CBS studio in Berlin, listened as the BBC introduced one of its own correspondents.
Sefton Delmner, fluent in German, had covered Nazi Germany for years. Although not authorized to speak for the British Government, his response could have come directly from Churchill himself.

Sefton Delmer
“Herr Hitler,” said Delmer in his most deferential German, “you have on occasion in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public.
“So permit me to render Your Excellency this little service once again tonight.
“Let me tell you what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our reason and common sense. Herr Fuehrer and Reichskanzler [Reich Chancellor] we hurl it right back to you, right in your evil-smelling teeth.”
German officials listening to the broadcast in Shirer’s office were stunned.
“Can you make it out?” one demanded of Shirer. “Can you understand those British fools? To turn down peace now? They’re crazy!”
Although devastated by the forthcoming bombing raids of Hitler’s Luftwaffe, England held out.
Months later, it gained two powerful allies: The Soviet Union (invaded by Hitler on June 22, 1941) and the United States (attacked by Japan on December 7, 1941).
In the end, by standing up to Fascist aggression, England and its democracy were saved.
Americans can only hope the same proves true for their country.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, MARLIN STUTZMAN, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, OBAMACARE, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law on October 7, 2013 at 1:24 am
And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.
–Plutarch, Life of Alexander
In 1994, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, shut down the Federal Government.
Officially, the reason was a budget impasse with President Bill Clinton. Unofficially–and in reality–the reason was altogether different:
Clinton had forced him to sit in the back of Air Force One on a trip to Israel for the funeral of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabinl.
“This is petty,” Gingrich confessed to startled reporters. “I’m going to say up front it’s petty, But I think it’s human.
“When you land at Andrews [Air Force Base, in Washington, D.C.] and you’ve been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get off by the back ramp . . . You just wonder, where is their sense of manners, where is their sense of courtesy?”
Gingrich’s childish verbal tirade was a public relations disaster for the Republicans. “Cry Baby,” screamed the New York Daily News, next to a picture of Gingrich in a diaper.

When House Democrats brought a poster-sized image of the cartoon onto the floor, the Republican majority forced them to remove it.
But the damage was done, and Republicans paid a fearful price for the shutdown and Gingrich’s candor about the reason for it.
Now, here we are, 19 years later, and, once again, the public–and, most especially, federal employees–are facing the hardships of another Republican-led government shutdown.
Once again, the official reason given by Republicans is: They want to save the country from the dangers of providing healthcare insurance to all Americans, not simply the wealthiest 1%.
To hear Republicans tell it, Obamacare–actually, the Affordable Care Act–will “destroy the medical system as we know it.”
The Act aims to:
-
Increase the quality and affordability of health insurance;
-
Lower the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage;
-
Reduce the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government;
- Forbid insurance companies the right to deny coverage for “pre-existing conditions”; and
- Require employers with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance to their fulltime workers–or pay a large penalty.
Republicans also claim that it will bankrupt the country–although the Congressional Budget Office stated that the ACA will lower future deficits and Medicare spending.
After passing the House and Senate, the ACA was signed into law by President Baraco Obama on March 23, 2010.
On June 28, 202, the United States Supreme Court–whose Chief Justice, John Roberts, is a Republican–upheld the constitutionality of the ACA in the case,
Yet House Republicans continued searching for a way to stop the law from taking effect. By September, 2013, they had voted 42 times to repeal “Obamacare.”
But their efforts achieved nothing, since the Democratic-led Senate made it clear it would never go along with such legislation.
Finally, unable to legally overturn the Act or to legislatively repeal it, the House Republicans fell back on something much simpler.
Threats and fear.
Threats–of voting to shut down salaries paid to most Federal employees.
Most, because they themselves would continue to draw hefty salaries while they were denying them to FBI agents, air traffic controllers and members of the military, among others.
And fear–that would be generated throughout the Federal government, the United States and America’s international allies.
It was the my-way-or-else “negotiating” style of Adolf Hitler: Do-as-I-say-or-I-will-destroy-you.
When Obama and Senate Democrats refused to knuckle under to yet another Republican extortion effort, House Republicans made good on their threat.
They “shut down the government.”
Since then, Republicans have repeatedly claimed it is Obama and Senate Democrats who refuse to see reason and negotiate. By “negotiate,” they mean agree to Republican demands to de-fund “Obamacare.”
But now a Republican has given away the real reason for the shutdown.
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told the Washington Examiner. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Marlin Stutzman
With Newt Gingrich, the real reason for the government shutdown was his petty ego.
Of course, another major reason was his desire to bully President Clinton into gutting Republican-despised Federal programs to help the poor and middle-class.
Now, 19 years later, Republicans–as admitted by Martlin Stutzman–are out to get “respect.”
And they’re trying to get it the same way a thuggish gang leader tries to get it: By demanding: “Do what I say or I’ll kill you.”
At the end of World War II, Americans tried to cleanse West Germany of its former Nazi leaders and their supporters.
The thuggishness we are now witnessing will continue until, somehow, we cleanse our own government of those who “negotiate” Nazi-Republican style.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANDREW JACKSON, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, CNN'S "STARTING POINT", CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DEBT CEILING, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MAFIA, MSNBC'S "HARDBALL", MUNICH CONFERENCE, NBC NEWS, NEGOTIATING, NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAP SMEARS, PATRIOT ACT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, R.I.CO. ACT, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES THE WASHINGTON POST, THE PRINCE, TWITTER, WINSTON CHURCHILL, WORLD WAR 11
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 24, 2013 at 12:00 am
The 1938 Munich Conference taught an invaluable lesson in foreign affairs: Caving in to the demands of insatiable thugs leads to only more demands.
That was what British Prime Minister Nveille Chamberlain learned when he sought to appease Adolf Hitler, Germany’s war-intent Fuehrer.
Chamberlain believed that by giving in to Hitler’s demands for “the German part” of Czechoslavakia known as the Sudetenland he could avoid war.
On September 29, Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier met with Hitler and signed the Munich Agreement, resulting in the immediate German occupation of part of Czechoslavakia.
The Czechoslovakian government had not been a party to the talks. Their “allies” had sold them out.
Chamberlain returned to England a hero. Holding aloft a copy of the worthless agreement he had signed with Hitler, he told cheering crowds in London: “I believe it is peace for our time.”
Winston Churchill knew better, predicting: “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.”
And so they did.
It is not too late for President Barack Obama to apply this lesson from history.
With the United States facing a disastrous government shutdown unless the President surrenders to the latest Republican extortion threats, Obama can:
- Invoke the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and/or the Patriot Act;
- Rally the American people against this criminal threat to the security of the Nation.
Second Option: Calling upon the American people for their support
President John F. Kennedy did just that–successfully–during the most deadly crisis of his administration.
Addressing the Nation on October 22, 1962, Kennedy shocked his fellow citizens by revealing that the Soviet Union had placed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba.
After outlining a series of steps he had taken to end the crisis, Kennedy sought to reassure and inspire his audience. His words are worth remembering today:
“The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are, but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world.
“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.”
Just as President Kennedy called on his fellow Americans for support against a foreign enemy, President Obama can rally his countrymen against an equally ruthless domestic enemy.
During such a national address, President Obama can reveal such blunt truths as:

- Republicans have adopted the same my-way-or-else “negotiating” stance as Adolf Hitler.
- Like the Nazis, they are determined to gain absolute power–or destroy the Nation they claim to love.
- They raised the debt ceiling seven times during the eight-year Presidency of George W. Bush.
- But now that a Democrat holds the White House, raising the debt ceiling is unacceptable.
- Despite Republican lies, we cannot revitalize the economy by slashing taxes on the wealthy and cash-hoarding corporations while cutting benefits for millions of average Americans.
- We will need both tax increases and sensible entitlement cuts to regain our economic strength.
- The Affordable Health Care Act frees Americans from the greed-fueled tyranny of the insurance industry.
- Americans who could never hope to obtain medical coverage–for themselves and their families–can now do so.
Finally, President Obama can end his speech by directly calling for the active support of his fellow Americans. Something like this:
“My fellow Americans, I have taken an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’
“But I cannot do this on my own. As citizens of a Republic, each of us carries that burden. We must each do our part to protect the land and the liberties we love.
“Tonight, I’m asking for your help.
“We stand on the edge of economic and social disaster. Therefore, I am asking each of you to stand up for America tonight–by demanding the recall of the entire membership of the Republican Party.
“As President John F. Kennedy said:
‘In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty.’
“This is the moment when each of us must decide–whether we will survive as a Republic, or allow ruthless political fanatics to destroy what has lasted and thrived for more than 200 years.”
President Obama has taken forceful action against America’s most ruthless foreign enemies—most notably, Osama bin Laden.
If the Nation is to survive, he must now act just as forcefully against America’s most ruthless domestic enemies.
Fortunately, there is still time for him to do so. The fact that he has not done so in the past does not rule out his doing so now.
He needs to only remember–and act on–the words of another American President–Andrew Jackson–who counseled: “One man with courage makes a majority.”
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANDREW JACKSON, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, CNN'S "STARTING POINT", CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DEBT CEILING, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MAFIA, MSNBC'S "HARDBALL", MUNICH CONFERENCE, NBC NEWS, NEGOTIATING, NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAP SMEARS, PATRIOT ACT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, R.I.CO. ACT, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES THE WASHINGTON POST, THE PRINCE, TWITTER, WINSTON CHURCHILL, WORLD WAR 11
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 23, 2013 at 12:10 am
Republicans are once again playing extortion politics–threatening to shut down the government unless they get their way.
And their way means abolishing The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
But this is a nightmare that doesn’t have to be.
There are, in fact, two ways to avoid it.
Assuming that President Obama doesn’t once again surrender to Republican extortion demands, he has two formidable weapons he can deploy:
First Option: RICO to the rescue
The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. It authorizes prosecution for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
It has been applied to not only the Mafia but to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.
Such as the one President Barack Obama faced in 2011 when Republicans threatened to destroy the credit rating of the United States unless their budgetary demands were met.
And such as the present case when Republicans are again threatening the security of the Nation with extortionate demands.
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.

Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
The RICO Act defines “a pattern of racketeering activity” as “at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years…after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.”
And if President Obama believes that RICO is not sufficient to deal with extortionate behavior, he can rely on the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9/11.
In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior that is defined as criminal:
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
Demanding that the President de-fund Obamacare or face a potentially disastrous government shutdown clearly falls within the legal definition of “activities…intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior are now legally in place. President Obama need only direct the Justice Department to apply them.
President Obama can direct Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether Republican Congressman—and their Tea Party cohorts—have violated Federal anti-racketeering and/or anti-terrorism laws.
- Holder, in turn, can order the FBI to conduct such an investigation.
- If the FBI finds sufficient evidence that these laws had been violated, Holder can empanel criminal grand juries to indict those violators.
The fact that members of Congress would be criminally investigated and possibly indicted would not violate the separation-of-powers principle. Congressmen have in the past been investigated, indicted and convicted for various criminal offenses.
Such indictments and prosecutions–and especially convictions–would serve notice on current and future members of Congress that the lives and fortunes of American citizens may not be held hostage as part of a negotiated settlement.
On August 1, 2011, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” wrapped up his program with a search for “options” to avoid another round of Republican extortion tactics.

Chris Matthews
“I want to know what steps the president ‘could’ have taken to avoid this hostage-taking.
“…Is there another way than either buckling to the Republicans or letting the government and the country crash?
“How does he use the power of the presidency, the logic, emotion and basic patriotism of the people to thwart those willing to threaten, disrupt, even possibly destroy to get their way?”
The answer to his questions–then and now–is: Replace the law of fear with the rule of law.
Or, as Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern politics, instructed future leaders in The Prince:
“I conclude, therefore, with regard to being loved and feared, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others….”
Instead, in 2011, Obama surrendered to Republican extortion demands. As a result, the United States suffered a massive loss to its international credit rating.
But there was another way Obama could have stood up to Republican extortionists. And it remains available to him now–if only he has the courage to act.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEATH TAX, DEMOCRATS, DREAMERS, ESTATE TAX, FACEBOOK, illegal immigration, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, LANGUATE, MEXICO, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, NAZIS, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PATRIOT ACT, PEOPLE OF COLOR, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, REPUBLICANS, TED CRUZ, TWITTER, WINSTON CHURCHILL
WORDS MATTER
In Business, History, Politics, Self-Help, Social commentary on January 23, 2014 at 10:02 pm“Hitler gave good speeches, too.”
That’s what many Right-wingers say in disparaging the oratorical effectiveness of President Barack Obama.
It’s a slogan that’s misleading on two counts.
First, the people saying it are exactly the type who would have voted for Adolf Hitler. And who vote for his wannabe dictatorial successors such as Joseph McCarthy, Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz.
Second, the slogan dismisses the power of language–as though words are entirely divorced from action. On the contrary: Words–effectively used–can and usually do lead to action.
A classic example: During the desperate months of the Battle of Britain and the London Blitz, Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s soaring rhetoric armed his fellow Englishmen with the will to resist Nazi aggression.
The truth is, words matter. For good and ill.
Republicans, for example, have long used the power of language to gain and hold power.
Take their use of the phrase, “the death tax.”
The correct term used to be “the estate tax.” And it applied to a relatively small number of citizens who die leaving large estates.
But Republicans, struggling to make the world a better place for the ultra-rich, convinced millions of ignorant voters who don’t have estates that the tax applies to them.
The result: A Republican-introduced bill to the House of Representatives–“The Death Tax Repeal Act of 2013.”
Its goal: “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and for other purposes.”
In short: Relieve the ultra-rich from the unfair burden of paying taxes.
So far, the bill has not been passed.
Or take the 2001 “USA Patriot Act,” which did pass by overwhelming margins after 9/11.
Republicans crammed this full of Orwellian changes they knew Democrats wouldn’t like–such as vastly expanding the powers of the National Security Agency to collect files on American citizens.
So how did they get Democrats to support it?
By calling it the “Patriot Act.” By choosing this title, Republicans easily put Democrats on the defensive.
Anyone who dared oppose the bill would be attacked: “Why don’t you support the Patriot Act? Are you unpatriotic?”
The Left has also made use of language to obtain its political objectives.
Consider the highly popular and Politically Correct term, “People of color.”
This is used by blacks, Hispanics, Asians and American Indians when referring to members of their own particular ethnic group.
On the other hand, members of these groups become enraged if they’re referred to as “colored people.”
But what’s the difference? It’s like saying “jeans of blue” instead of “blue jeans.”
And, in either case, it totally hides what they really mean: “Nonwhites.”
Because to the Politically Correct crowd, “white” is not a color. Which is another way of saying, “Whites aren’t really part of the population.”
And here’s another Leftist-language achievement: “The Dream Act.”
This is a phrase conjured up by those who essentially want to remove all barriers to illegal immigration–at least as it applies to those mostly in Mexico and other Latin and Central American countries.
Its effectiveness lies in the magical word “dream.” As in the Walt Disney Cinderella song: “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes.”
Thus, the United States now has millions of illegal aliens (the Left prefers to call them “immigrants,” which sounds nicer) who claim to cherish their Mexican heritage and love their native land.
But if they cherish Mexico so much, why have so many of these “Dreamers” fled this “paradise”?
And why is their “dream” to never live in Mexico again?
A final word: At election time, the TV airways are clogged with ads supposedly sponsored by “Citnzens for….”
As in: “Citizens for a Responsible Energy Policy.”
The only “citizens” who can afford to blitz the airways with millions oof dollars’ worth of propaganda are “citizens” who own wealthy corporations.
And when you read/hear words like “responsible,” watch out: Who is defining what as responsible?
When greed-based companies are the ones defining responsible, it means: Whatever creates greater profits for them.
You know, like gutting environmental protection laws and allowing behemoth corporations to pay no taxes.
So keep that in mind the next time you see a slick ad that claims your fellow “citizens” seek your support on an important issue.
Share this: