Posts Tagged ‘CHINA’
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.
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.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, BARCK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CBS NEWS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, CHINA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IRAN, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISRAEL, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WORLD WAR 1
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on September 3, 2013 at 1:00 am
Here are ten excellent reasons for not sending American soldiers to bomb and/or invade Syria.
1. The United States just disengaged from Iraq. On Dec. 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission there. The war–begun in 2003–had killed 4,487 service members and wounded another 32,226.
2. 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 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.
So the American military didn’t wrap up its campaign as quickly as possible and then leave the country to its own devices. Instead, 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.
A series of murderous attacks on American soldiers by their supposed Afghan comrades-in-arms led to the inevitable result: American forces no longer trust their Afghan “allies” to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them against the Taliban.
3. 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 this demanded that the United States quickly pacify Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency totally undermined that goal, forcing U.S. troops to focus all their efforts inward.
Another unintended result of the war: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been a counter-weight to the regional ambitions of Iran, but the destruction of the Iraqi military created a power-vacumn. Into this–eagerly–stepped the Iranian mullahs.
4. Intervening in Syria could produce similar unintended consequences for American forces–and make the United States a target for more Islamic terrorism.
American bombs or missiles could land on one or more sites containing stockpiles of chemical weapons. Imagine the international outrage that will result if the release of those weapons kills hundreds or thousands of Syrians.
U.S. warship firing Tomahawk Cruise missile
Within the Islamic world, the United States will be seen as waging a war against Islam, and not simply another Islamic dictator.
Almost certainly, an American military strike on Syria would lead its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to attack Israel–perhaps even with chemical weapons.
Assad could do this simply because he hates Jews–or to lure Israel into attacking Syria.
If that happened, the Islamic world–which lusts to destroy Israel more than anything else–would rally to Syria against the United States, Israel’s chief ally.
5. Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
Among the terrorist groups it supports are Hizbollah and Hamas. For years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus to Ilich Ramírez Sánchez–the notorious terrorist better known as Carlos the Jackal.
There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support–only murderers who have long served a tyrant and now wish to become the next tyrant.
6. The United States doesn’t know what it wants to do in Syria, other than “send a message.”
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, wrote: “War is the continuation of state policy by other means.” But President Barack Obama hasn’t stated what he intends gain by attacking Syria.
Obama has said he’s “not after regime-change.” If true, that would leave Assad in power–and free to go on killing those who resist his rule.
So it appears that Obama’s “message” is: “You can continue killing your own people–so long as you don’t use weapons that upset American TV viewers.”
7. The Assad regime is backed by–among others–the Iranian-supported terrorist group, Hizbollah (Party of God). Its enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
When your enemies are intent on killing each other, it’s best to stand aside and let them do it.
8. 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.
9. The United States could find itself in a shooting war with Russia and/or China.
The Russians have sent two warships to Syria, in direct response to President Obama’s threat to “punish” Assad for using chemical weapons against unsurgents.
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.
10. While Islamic nations like Syria and Egypt wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources to launch attacks against the United States.
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 themselves off. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBANA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, CONGRESS, EGYPT, FACEBOOK, HARRY S. TRUMAN, IRAN, IRAQ, ISRAEL, KORAN, 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
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on March 27, 2013 at 12:01 am
At a joint press conference for President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 20, a reporter asked Obama:
“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?”
President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at press conference
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.
But Israelis aren’t the only ones demanding that America “do something” to end the carnage in Syria. So are members of Congress and the national news media.
TV reporters from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and other networks are eagerly training their cameras on the carnage. As they say in television journalism: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
And this, in turn, causes members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
True, most of these officials never spent a day in military service. But it’s always easier to send someone else into combat than to take that risk yourself.
And this is a risk that–emphatically–the United States has absolutely no business taking.
First, the United States just 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 this demanded that the United States quickly pacify Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency totally undermined that goal, forcing U.S. troops to focus all their efforts inward.
Another unintended result of the war: Whereas 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.
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, 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.
Seventh, the United States had no part in instigating revolt against 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, 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.
When Senator Harry S. Truman learned that Nazi Germany had turned on its ally, the Soviet Union, in June, 1941, he said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.” We should welcome these self-slaughters, not become involved in them.
* * * * *
All of this adds up to one, overwhelming conclusion: America should mind its own business–and let the Syrians attend to their own.
2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ARMY-MCCARTHY HEARINGS, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHAING KAI-SHEK, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DAVID HALBERSTAM, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GENERAL MOTORS, HARDBALL, INHERIT THE WIND, JEEP, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MAO TSE-TUNG, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NORMAN ORNSTEIN, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PRESS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD M. NIXON, RIGHT-WING, Sarah Palin, SENATOR JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, SUN MYUNG MOON, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, THOMAS MANN, TWITTER, UNIFICATION CHURCH, VIETNAM WAR
In History, Politics, Social commentary on February 22, 2013 at 12:33 am
The mainstream media–fearing it will be labeled “partisan” and “leftist”–generally refuses to call the Right on its lies and slanders.
Meanwhile, Rightist organs–such as The Washington Times–continue spewing a McCarthyist brew of fear and smears.
Consider the July 22, 2012 editorial that appeared in The Washington Times: “President’s Socialist Takeover Must Be Stopped.”
Written by its columnist, Jeffrey T. Kuhner, it called for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.
Among his allged “high crimes and misdemeanors”:
The state is intervening in every aspect of American life–beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.
Kuhner didn’t object when the administration of George W. Bush:
- Gave us an unprovoked war against Iraq founded on lies;
- Authorized the use of torture;
- Drafted laws that allegedly protected consumers and the environment–laws written by lobbyists for drug and oil companies; and
- Gave us a “co-Presidency where Vice President Dick Cheney ruled as “power-behind-the-throne.”
[Obama conspired] to cause chaos for the Mexican citizens by letting…guns go into the drug cartels’ hands and terrorize the Mexican citizens. Forcing them to flee north across the border. Which would create a need for a refugee program for the fleeing Mexicans.
President Obama doesn’t need to create chaos in Mexico, which has always been a failed nation-state. Nor does he have to encourage Mexicans to illegally enter the United States.
The Mexican Government has long used its American border to free itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should–and likely will–launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration….
Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Of course he’s a usurper: He defeated a Republican candidate for President in 2008! Everyone on the Right believes the United States should be a one-party country–with Republicans’ being the only ones allowed to hold office.
Of course Republicans should dominate the House of Representatives; the Senate; the White House; the Justice Department; the courts; the Pentagon.
After all, if holding total power was good enough for the fascists running Adolf Hitler’s Germany, it’s certainly good enough for the fascists who burn to command America today.
Finally: It’s helpful to remember that the Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church of the late Sun Myung Moon (1920 – 2012). Moon, in his role of self-styled “messiah,” lived well off the labors of his underpaid and brainwashed followers.
Sun Myung Moon
In 1982, Moon was convicted of filing false federal income tax returns and conspiracy to subvert American tax laws. It’s only natural that those who share Moon’s Rightist beliefs should consider themselves above the laws they intend to vigorously apply against everyone else.
* * * * *
The First Amendment of the United State Constitution specifically establishes a protection of “freedom of the press.”
Political reporters are empowered by their employers to learn–and report–all they can about the actual workings of the American political system.
And they are often given privileged access to those workings by influential men and women running for office or holding it.
This is no mere textbook exercise in high-school civics but a matter of deadly importance.
Democracy is founded on the belief that voters can effectively govern themselves.
But that belief works only when voters can learn the truth about the institutions that govern their lives–and about those who run those institutions.
Allowing members of one political party–in this case, the Republicans–to blatantly lie about their opponents and stir unwarranted fears in voters stands as a betrayal of the trust given those reporters.
Portraying the ruthless pursuit of absolute power by one political party–the Republicans–as merely “politics as usual” amounts to a similar betrayal of the public trust.
“Fascism,” warned Ernest Hemingway shortly before the outbreak of World War II, “is a lie told by bullies.”
Seventy-one years ago, the United States declared war on the lies and aggression of global Fascism. Twelve million Americans served in uniform until Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were dead, and their legions utterly defeated.
Too many Americans believe that Fascism died in 1945 with Hitler and Mussolini. It didn’t.
The struggle against those who make a profession of lying and aggression continues. It is the duty of the press to see that struggle for what it is–and to report it accurately and courageously.
To describe the efforts of a ruthless political party to gain absolute power as merely “politics s usual” is to mock the truth and abdicate the most important duty of a journalist.
“The duty of journalists is to tell the truth,” wrote historian and political criitic Noam Chomsky, “Journalism means you go back to the actual facts, you look at the documents, you discover what the record is, and you report it that way.”
That is a philosophy of journalistic integrity that too many reporters have forgotten.
2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ARMY-MCCARTHY HEARINGS, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHAING KAI-SHEK, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DAVID HALBERSTAM, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GENERAL MOTORS, HARDBALL, INHERIT THE WIND, JEEP, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MAO TSE-TUNG, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NORMAN ORNSTEIN, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PRESS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD M. NIXON, RIGHT-WING, Sarah Palin, SENATOR JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, SUN MYUNG MOON, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, THOMAS MANN, TWITTER, UNIFICATION CHURCH, VIETNAM WAR
In History, Politics, Social commentary on February 21, 2013 at 12:05 am
On the December 12, 2012 edition of “Hardball,” MSNBC’s veteran political analyst Chris Matthews tackled a subject that few reporters have dared to confront:
How much of the mainstream press has allowed itself to be co-opted by the Right.
His guests that night were David Corn, of Mother Jones, and Joan Walsh, political analyst for Salon.
JOAN WALSH, POLITICAL ANALYST FOR SALON.COM: Right. The false equivalence.
Well, yes. I mean, there’s this constant false equivalence that we’re always trying to fight here, Chris. And I think you do a good job of it, but it’s really ingrained in the Beltway culture…
…To say that they’re [Republicans and Democrats] both as radical, they’re both–you know, even in the debt ceiling debate or in the fiscal cliff negotiations, that neither side will give and they’re both being unreasonable, and really not drilling down.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes. I agree.
….Who can forget back in August, not a million years ago, when the Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse, said the following. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”
DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Yes. I thought this…just showed their whole attitude towards reality, towards being vetted. It was sort of an arrogance that, We can say whatever we want to say.
And I think in years past–this is what’s changed–campaigns would not be so brazen. If they’re caught in a lie, they try to wiggle around it. They maybe feel some shame. But here was Neil Newhouse telling reporters–he said this at a breakfast meeting at the convention to a group of reporters…
CORN: … that, We don’t care what you say about our facts. We’re going to use them anywhere. Good example was what they said about Barack Obama changing welfare rules…so that people don’t have to work. And that’s what he was referring to…
MATTHEWS: You’ve got people like Michele Bachmann, who would say just casually that we should begin an investigation of members of Congress for their anti-American attitudes. That was followed up by Adam–Allen West, who’s just been defeated, Allen West saying there are 79 to 81 communists…
But nobody–you know, you would think that “The Nightly News” would come on….[or] The New York Times [would]–say,”Wait a minute. This is so frickin’ far out. This kind of claim goes back at least to Joe McCarthy.”
* * * * *
A major house organ of the Rightist press–The Washington Times–clearly has no intention of backing away from “frickin’ far out” charges against Democrats generally–and President Obama in particular.
On July 22, 2012, one of its columnists, Jeffrey T. Kuhner, authored a piece entitled: “President’s Socialist Takeover Must Be Stopped.”
From that editorial:
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress in in peril as Americans reject his agenda. yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
COMMENTARY: Of course! Sending U.S. Navy SEALS to take out Osama bin Laden was certainly worthy of impeachment. And so was taking out a traitorous American Al Qaeda recruiter–Anwar al-Awlaki–with a Predator drone.
Then there’s “Obamacare”: Ensuring that people other than millionaires get medical care is undoubtedly the most impeachable offense of all.
He is….assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.
COMMENTARY: And what are these pillars?
- Greed and selfishness: “I’ve got mine and the hell with you, Jack.”
- Corporations shipping millions of jobs overseas, paying their foreign workers “coolie wages” and pocketing the profits themselves.
- CEOs cheat their country out of the taxes they owe and–through their lobbyists in Congress–force the poor and middle class to take up the slack in taxes.
- Meanwhile, millions of their formerly employed Americans struggle to survive.
So it’s understandable why those CEOs should object to Obama’s demanding they live up to their legal and moral obligations to their country.
Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens.
COMMENTARY: During the Vietnam war, millions of war-hating protesters objected to paying taxes which would finance the bombing and ravishing of a country that hadn’t attacked us. But the IRS made no exceptions for them.
As for violating “the conscience rights of religious citizens”: When George W. Bush ordered the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, millions of Americans felt their consciences to be violated. But the war continued.
And for all of Kuhner’s rantings on the “murder of unborn children”: Right-wingers are notorious for caring about fetuses–until they come out of the womb. But if the mother of that newborn baby can’t afford healthcare, food or shelter for her new arrival, that’s her tough luck.
Apparently, only Rightist Presidents are allowed to offend the consciences of others with impunity.
2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ARMY-MCCARTHY HEARINGS, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHAING KAI-SHEK, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DAVID HALBERSTAM, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GENERAL MOTORS, HARDBALL, INHERIT THE WIND, JEEP, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MAO TSE-TUNG, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, NORMAN ORNSTEIN, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PRESS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD M. NIXON, RIGHT-WING, Sarah Palin, SENATOR JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, SUN MYUNG MOON, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, THOMAS MANN, TWITTER, UNIFICATION CHURCH, VIETNAM WAR
In History, Politics, Social commentary on February 20, 2013 at 12:00 am
The “liberal” press continues to allow itself to be co-opted by the Right.
Consider the following from the December 12, 2012 episode of “Hardball With Chris Matthews”:
Chris Matthews
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Let Me Start” with this tonight. Did you get the impression during the presidential campaign that the press was trying too hard to be even- handed?
Did you think the people delivering the news were pushing what we call balance at the expense of the obvious facts?
…. That the Democrats in this election were like Democrats going back to Jack Kennedy, but the Republicans were far to the right of anything we’ve seen from that party ever?
….So tonight we’re going to nail it. We go to the truth, and why was it the truth that dared not be reported in the mainstream media. Joining me now for a brutal autopsy is Joan Walsh of Salon and David Corn of Mother Jones, neither of whom can be charged with hiding what’s wrong with the right.
Here’s what Norm Ornstein, I guy I really respect, of AEI, the American Enterprise Institute, told the HuffingtonPost about the broadcast networks.
Quote, “I can’t recall a campaign where I’ve seen more lying going on, and it wasn’t symmetric, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top. It’s the great unreported big story of American politics. If voters are going to be able to hold accountable political figures, they’ve got to know what’s going on.
“And if the story that you’re telling repeatedly is that they’re all to blame–they’re all equally to blame, then you’re really doing a disservice to voters and not doing what journalism is supposed to do.”
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Right.
MATTHEWS: And never caught that in the main news stories. Your thoughts about coverage. I hate to be a media critic, but we’re into it right now.
WALSH: Well, it’s–you know, it’s very important, Chris, because–it’s actually–I did read the whole piece. It’sy Dan Froomkin. It’s a really interesting piece, and you would enjoy it.
They are talking about newspapers. They are talking about magazines. They are talking about cable. It’s not just the broadcast networks….
And this is the amazing thing. When you read this Dan Froomkin piece, you get the sense that these men are so wounded by–now they are being treated as pariahs….
DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: I wrote a piece beforehand which I think–which is very much in keeping with their thesis and what Dan wrote, saying that I thought the Romney campaign was much more foundational in its lies about Obama.
And by that, I mean that the core of [Romney’s] campaign [charges]…
Obama promised to lower unemployment below 8 percent. Not true. Obama appeases. Not true. Obama went on an apology tour. Not true. Obama wants to cut $500 million — billion, excuse me, out of Medicare. Not true.
MATTHEWS: [Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney is claiming that President Barack Obama is] apologizing, but I’ll be a robust patriot. I’ll defend America against fact or–you know, against anything, foe or friend, because I’m a real American.
CORN: … [Romney’s] campaign was based on a lot of major, big, sweeping lies. Now, you can look at Obama and point out that he made a mistake or he misrepresented Obama’s policy in this way or that way, but his–you know, his overall case was not based on a series of falsehoods against Mitt Romney, while, indeed, that was true on the Republican side. And that’s the asymmetry.
And they point out that the media has a really hard time saying that. It’s much easier to say everybody lies on both sides.
* * * * *
Millions of Americans see the struggles between Republicans and Democrats as “politics as usual,” as though both parties are equally guilty.
In fact, these struggles owe their origin to Right-wing efforts to gain total power over the government–and over the lives of all Americans. And if they can’t attain this, they are determined to deny Democrats the ability to govern effectively or even protect the nation Republicans claim to love.
For example: In his February 12 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that one of his top priorities was protecting America’s critical infrastructure from the growing threat of cyber-attacks.
There is good reason to be alarmed: Since August, 2012, the websites of American banks have repeatedly been attacked, reportedly by Iran.
Major U.S. media companies–The New York Times, Bloomberg News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post–have all said the Chinese are behind sustained hacking attempts on them.
Yet in August, Senate Republicans helped kill the most comprehensive cyber-security bill to date, arguing it would’ve imposed too great a regulatory burden on business.
If a Republican President introduced such a bill, Rightists would vigorously support it and slander anyone who didn’t as an “America-hating traitor.”
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
THE POLITICS OF SCAPEGOATING: PART THREE (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 28, 2013 at 12:00 amWith 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:
And on July 13, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of
“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:
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.
Share this: