Posts Tagged ‘DONALD TRUMP’
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ANTHEM INC., ASHLEY MADISON, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, CYBERSECURITY, DAIRY QUEEN, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HACKING, HILLARY CLINTON, HOME DEPOT, JPMORGAN/CHASE, KMART, NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SONY PICTURES, STAPLES, TARGET, THE DISCOURSES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, THE PENTAGON, THE PRINCE, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WIKILEAKS
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 26, 2016 at 12:15 am
On July 22, Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The emails were exchanged from January 2015 through May 2016.
These clearly reveal a bias for Hillary Clinton and against her lone challenger, Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
One email revealed that Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the DNC, suggested that Sanders, who is Jewish, could be portrayed as an atheist.
Sanders’ supporters have long charged that the DNC and its chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, were plotting to undercut his campaign. Now thousands of them are expected to descend on the Democratic convention as furious protesters.
The leak could not have come at a worse time for Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York and Secretary of State under President Barack Obama.
About to receive the Democratic nomination for President, she finds herself charged with undermining the electoral process.
Wasserman-Schultz has proven the first casualty of the leak, resigning from her position as chair of the DNC and saying she would not open the Democratic convention as previously scheduled.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
As for Clinton: Her campaign manager, Bobby Mook, blamed the Russians for the leak. Their alleged motive: To help Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Cyber-security experts believe the hackers originated from Russia–and that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have authorized it.
His alleged motive: Trump has repeatedly attacked United States’ membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
He believes the United States is paying an unfairly large portion of the monies needed to maintain this alliance–and he wants other members to contribute far more. Otherwise, if he is elected President, they would be on their own if attacked by Russia.
Trump took to twitter to offer his take on the release: “How much BAD JUDGEMENT was on display by the people in DNC in writing those really dumb e-mails, using even religion, against Bernie!”

Bernie Sanders
Which brings up the obvious question: Why was such sensitive information entrusted to computers that could be hacked?
This is not the first time a major corporation or government agency has fallen prey to hackers.
Name-brand companies, trusted by millions, have been hit with massive data breaches that compromised their customers’ and/or employees’ most sensitive financial and personal information.
Among those companies and agencies:
- Target
- Kmart
- Home Depot
- JPMorgan/Chase
- Staples
- Dairy Queen
- Anthem, Inc.
- Sony Pictures
- The U.S. State Department
- The Pentagon
- The Office of Personnel Management
Perhaps the most notorious target so far hacked is Ashley Madison, the website for cheating wives and husbands. Launched in 2001, its catchy slogan is: “Life is short. Have an affair.”

On July 15, 2015, its more than 37 million members learned that highly embarrassing secrets they had entrusted to Ashley Madison had been compromised.
This included their sexual fantasies, matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails.
A website offering cheating services to those wealthy enough to afford high-priced fees is an obvious target for hackers. After all, its database is a blackmailer’s dream-come-true.
And the same is true for computers of one of the two major political parties of the United States.
Among the secrets unearthed in the WikiLeaks document-dump: Plans by Democratic party officials to reward large donors and prominent fundraisers with lucrative appointments to federal boards and commissions.
Most of the donors listed gave to Clinton’s campaign. None gave to Sanders.
According to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group:
“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party. That is unethical, if not illegal.”
Centuries before the invention of computers–and the machinery needed to hack into them–Niccolo Machiavelli offered cautionary advice to those thinking of entering into a conspiracy. He did so in his masterwork on politics, The Discourses.

Niccolo Machiavelli
Unlike his better-known work, The Prince, which deals with how to secure power, The Discourses lays out rules for preserving liberty within a republic.
In Book Three, Chapter Six (“Of Conspiracies”) he writes:
“I have heard many wise men say that you may talk freely with any one man about everything, for unless you have committed yourself in writing, the ‘Yes’ of one man is worth as much as the ‘No’ of another.
“And therefore one should guard most carefully against writing, as against a dangerous rock, for nothing will convict you quicker than your own handwriting.”
In 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul of France, ordered the execution of the popular Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, claiming that he had aided Britain and plotted against France.
The aristocracy of Europe, still recalling the slaughters of the French Revolution, was shocked.
Asked for his opinion on the execution, Napoleon’s chief of police, Joseph Fouche, said: “It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.”
This may prove to be history’s verdict on the storing of so many incriminating computer files by the DNC.
"SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER", "SPRINGTIME FOR TRUMPLAND", "THE PRODUCERS", ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAVID BROOKS, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, ELIZABETH WARREN, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMOR, MARCO RUBIO, MARK SHIELDS, MEL BROOKS, NAZIS, NBC NEWS, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RAFAEL EDUARDO "TED" CRUZ, SATIRE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW Y ORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIM KANE, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Humor, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on July 25, 2016 at 12:05 am
Donald Trump has attached nicknames to his many political opponents.
“Little Marco” – Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio
“Goofy” – Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
“Lyin’ Ted” – Texas U.S. Senator Rafael Eduardo “Ted” Cruz
“Crooked Hillary” – Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York and Secretary of State, now the all-but-confirmed Democratic nominee for President.

Donald Trump
And now he’s picked out another catchy nickname–this time for Virginia U.S. Senator Tim Kane, chosen by Hillary Clinton to be her Vice Presidential running mate: “Corrupt Kane.”
Nicknames and ridicule can be powerful weapons.
David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, assessed Trump’s ability to effectively use both.

David Brooks and Mark Shields
He did so on the May 27 edition of the PBS Newshour. Said Brooks:
“Trump, for all his moral flaws, is a marketing genius. And you look at what he does. He just picks a word and he attaches it to a person. Little Marco [Rubio], Lyin’ Ted [Cruz], Crooked Hillary [Clinton].
“And that’s a word. And that’s how marketing works. It’s a simple, blunt message, but it gets under. It sticks, and it diminishes.
“And so it has been super effective for him because he knows how to do that. And she [Hillary Clinton[ just comes on with, ‘Oh, he’s divisive.’

Hillary Clinton
“These are words that are not exciting people. And her campaign style has gotten, if anything…a little more stagnant and more flat.”
But Democrats can fight back with catchy nicknames of their own: Such as: “Deadbeat Donald,” “Nazi Boy,” “Devious Donald” or “Der Fuehrer.”
So far, only one opponent has managed to verbally stand up to Trump: Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren.
A May 12 story on CNN–“Elizabeth Warren Gives Trump a Dose of His Own Medicine on Twitter”–notes:
“In the past week, the Massachusetts Democrat has refined an aggressive anti-Trump message through a series of so-called tweetstorms.”

Elizabeth Warren
On the May 27 edition of the PBS Newshour, syndicated columnist Mark Shields noted Warren’s ability to rattle Trump:
“Elizabeth Warren gets under Donald Trump’s skin. And I think she’s been the most effective adversary. I think she’s done more to unite the Democratic party than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.”
David Brooks added: “And so the tactics…is either you do what Elizabeth Warren has done, like bull-bore negativity, that kind of [get] under the skin, or try to ridicule him and use humor. Humor is not Hillary Clinton’s strongest point.”
Yet that need not remain the situation.
The Democratic convention could use ridicule to strike a deadly blow against the Presidential ambitions of Donald Trump.
Everyone expects this convention—like all political conventions—to be filled with boring, self-serving speeches. And its purpose—to nominate Hillary Clinton for President—is a foregone conclusion.
But the message of this convention–the necessity for defeating Trump–need not be forgotten. And it won’t be–if convention planners are willing to do something truly daring and memorable.
In 1988, Mel Brooks did exactly this with his now-classic comedy, “The Producers.”
Brooks used this as a vehicle for lampooning the criminality of the Third Reich–and especially that of its Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. Especially memorable: Its production number, “Springtime for Hitler.”
The press has had a field day with Melania Trump’s plagiarizing of Michelle Obama’s speech before the 2008 Democratic convention.
Facebook and Twitter have been filled with ridicule–such as a “Rocky and Bullwinkle” cartoon image of villainess Natasha Fatale saying: “I write. But Moose and Squirrel say I copy.”
So it’s easy to imagine how a staged musical number like “Springtime for Trumpland”–complete with Nazi uniforms–would rage through the Internet. Not to mention make a great TV commercial.
SPRINGTIME FOR TRUMPLAND
America was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new Leader
To restore its former glory.
Where oh where was he?
Who could that man be?
We looked around
And then we found
The man for you and me.
And now it’s….
Springtime for Trumpland and bigotry–
Trumpland is happy and gay.
Our Leader’s put on a Nazi face–
Look out, here comes the Whiter race.
Springtime for Trump goons and bigotry–
Winter for Reason and Light.
Springtime for Trump goons and infamy–
Come on, Trumpsters, let’s go pick a fight.
I love Trump
My name is Dave
I’ll hunt you down
And dig your grave.
Don’t be stupid
Be a smarty.
Come and join
The RepublicaNazi party.
Springtime for Trump goons and infamy—
Killing is thrilling again.
A-bombs are saving us from toil
Soon we’ll have all the world’s black oil.
Springtime for Trumpland and infamy—
Prisons are filling once more.
Springtime for Trumpland and infamy—
Means that soon things will be swell.
You pray they will be swell
You know we’ll be going to HELL.
The question remains: Is a political party noted for its cowardly Political Correctness willing to take the plunge?
Most likely, the answer is: No.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, 9/11, ABC NEWS, ABORTION, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BECKET, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHURCH VS. STATE, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DISCRIMINATION, DONALD TRUMP, FIRST CHURCH OF CANNABIS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GAYS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HOMOSEXUALITY, HUFFINGTON POST, INDIANA, ISLAM, ISLAMICS, LESBIANS, MARIJUANA, MEDIA MATTERS, MIKE PENCE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MOVIES, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PREJUDICE, RAW STORY, RELIGION VS. SCIENCE, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SHARIA LAW, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, WOMEN'S RIGHTS
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 18, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Michael Richard “Mike” Pence served as a Republican member of the House of Representatives from 2001 to 2013. He also served as Chairman of the House Republican Conference from 2009 to 2012.
In 2012, he ran for Governor of Indiana, won the election, and assumed this office in 2013.
On July 15, 2016, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump announced on Twitter that he had selected Pence as his Vice Presidential running mate in the 2016 Presidential election.
As a member of Congress, Pence:
- Voted, in 2007, to defund Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions.
- Opposed, in 2009, giving American citizenship to children born to illegal aliens living within the United States.
- Compared the U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
- Voted to eliminate funding for climate education programs and to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
As Governor, Pence:
- Unsuccessfully pushed for a 10% income-tax rate cut.
- Signed legislation in 2015 that repealed an 80-year-old Indiana law requiring construction companies working on publicly funded projects to pay a prevailing wage.
- Successfully lobbied in 2013 to limit reductions in sentences for marijuana offenses.
- Agreed, in 2015, to expand Medicaid in Indiana, in accordance with the Affordable Care Act.
But for all of Pence’s actions as Congressman and Governor, the one which may prove the most far-reaching may be this: His signing into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
As Governor of Indiana, he did this on March 26, 2015. The law allows any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party.

Mike Pence
Officially, its intent is to prevent the government from forcing business owners to act in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Unofficially, its purpose is to appease the hatred of gays and lesbians by the religious Right, a key constituency of the Republican party.
In short, a bakery that doesn’t want to make a cake to be used at a gay wedding or a restaurant that doesn’t want to serve lesbian patrons will have the legal right to refuse to do so.
The same applies for a hospital that doesn’t want to provide care to a gay or lesbian patient.
The bill was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature.
“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said in a statement on the day he signed the bill.
“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”
Bill-signing ceremonies are usually highly public events. Governors–and presidents–normally want their constituents to see them creating new legislation.
Yet for all his praise for the bill, Pence signed it in a ceremony closed to the public and the press. The media were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor’s office.
It’s almost as if Pence sensed that he was about to push open a door into a danger-filled room. And this may well be the case.
Through that door may soon march the First Church of Cannabis. The day after Pence signed the Act, church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that he had filed paperwork with the office of the Indiana Secretary of State.
Its registration had been approved–and Levin was ecstatic: “Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.
“Donate $100 or more and become a GREEN ANGEL. Donate $500 or more and become a GOLD ANGEL. Donate $1000 or more and become a CHURCH POOHBA.”
No doubt many Indiana legislators are furious that their effort to attack gays may have brought legal marijuana to their highly conservative state. But worse may be to come.
Since 9/11, Right-wingers such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have warned that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia (Islamic law) on America. And now Indiana’s legislators, in elevating religion above the law, may have laid the legal foundations for making that possible.

Muslims demanding the imposition of Sharia law–on themselves and non-Muslims
Ironically, this may not be so far removed from the goals of the Republican party as many think. Both the party and adherents of Sharia agree:
- Women should have fewer rights than men.
- Abortion should be illegal.
- There should be no separation between church and state.
- Religion should be taught in school.
- Religious doctrine trumps science.
- Government should be based on religious doctrine.
- Homosexuality should be outlawed.
What will happen when:
- Muslims in Indiana claim their right–guaranteed in Islamic religious law–to have as many as four wives?
- Muslims demand a taxpayer-funded “halal” non-pork food shelf at free food pantries for the poor? (Exactly this happened among Somali refugees in Minnesota in 2015.)
- Muslims demand that police departments cancel counter-terrorism courses by claiming that their materials are anti-Muslim? (Exactly this happened to several police departments in Illinois.)
And when they claim that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects those rights?
Hang onto your hijabs–it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
ABC NEWS, ASTROLOGY, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMMUNIST CHINA, DONALD REGAN, DONALD TRUMP, EMPRESS ALEXANDRA, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, GRIGORY RASPUTIN, HILLARY CLINTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAMES COMEY, JIMMY CARTER, JOAN QUIGLEY, JODIE FOSTER, JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KEVIN MCCARTHY, MERV GRIFFIN, MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, MITT ROMNEY, NANCY REAGAN, NBC NEWS, NICHOLAS II, PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICANS, Ronald Reagan, SOVIET UNION, SUPERSTITION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 7, 2016 at 12:16 am
On July 6, FBI Director James Comey recommended that the Justice Department not prosecute Hillary Clinton for using a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Almost immediately afterward, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, responded on Twitter: “FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem.”
Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, claimed to be similarly outraged: “Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent.”
“What Director Comey’s statements made clear was that Hillary Clinton’s decision to use a personal unsecured server to send work-related emails while service as Secretary of State—including classified information—was extremely irresponsible,” said House Republican Majority leader Kevin McCarthy.
But 28 years ago, Republicans maintained a tight-lipped silence on another matter involving sensitive national security secrets. That was when news broke that Nancy Reagan, as First Lady, had shared these with a court astrologer.
When President Ronald Reagan wanted advice on whether to nuke the Soviet Union or meet with its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, his most important adviser wasn’t the CIA or Pentagon.
It was Joan Quigley, a San Francisco-based astrologer.

Ronald and Nancy Reagan
Nancy had met Quigley on “The Merve Griffin Show” in 1973. Quigley gave Nancy–and through her, Reagan himself—astrological advice during the latter’s campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976.
That effort failed to unseat President Gerald Ford–who was defeated by Jimmy Carter. But four years later, in 1980, Reagan defeated Carter to become the 40th President of the United States.
On March 30, 1981, a mentally-disturbed loner named John W. Hinckley shot and critically wounded Reagan. Fixated on actress Jodie Foster, he believed that by shooting the President he could gain her affection.
Shortly after the shooting, Merv Griffin told Nancy that Quigley had told him: If Nancy had called her on that fateful day, she–Quigley–could have warned that the President’s astrological charts had foretold a bad day.
From that moment on, Nancy regularly consulted Quigley on virtually everything that she and the President intended to do.
When Reagan learned of Nancy’s consultations with Quigley, he warned her: Be careful, because it might look odd if it came out.
Nancy may have been speaking on a scrambler-equipped phone. But Quigley–at her San Francisco office–was on an unsecured line. Thus, foreign powers–most notably the Soviet Union and Communist China–could have been privy to President Reagan’s most secret intentions.

Joan Quigley
Nancy passed on Quigley’s suggestions as commands to Donald Regan, chief of the White House staff.
As a result, Regan kept a color-coded calendar on his desk to remember when the astrological signs were good for the President to speak, travel, or negotiate with foreign leaders: Green ink highlighted “good” days; red ink “bad” days; yellow ink “iffy” days.
Donald Regan, no fan of Nancy’s, chafed under such restrictions: “Obviously, this list of dangerous or forbidden dates left very little latitude for scheduling,” he later wrote.
Forced out of the White House in 1987 by Nancy, Regan struck back in a 1988 tell-all memoir: For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington.
Regan’s book revealed, for the first time, how Ronald Reagan had actually made his Presidential decisions.
All–including decisions to risk nuclear war with the Soviet Union–were based on a court astrologer’s horoscopes. Rationality and the best military intelligence available played a lesser, secondary role.
The last major world leader to turn to the supernatural for advice had been Russian Czar Nicholas II. His adviser had been Grigori Rasputin, a Siberian peasant whom Empress Alexandra believed was the only man who could save her hemophiliac son–and heir to the throne.

Grigori Rasputin
In 1990, Quigley confirmed the allegations in an autobiography, What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years As White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan.
The title came from the question that Ronald Reagan asked Nancy before making important decisions–including those that could risk the destruction of the United States.
Bragged Quigley: “Not since the days of the Roman emperors–and never in the history of the United States Presidency—has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation’s affairs of State.”
Among the successes Quigley took credit for:
- Strategies for winning the Presidential elections of 1980 and 1984;
- Helping Nancy Reagan overhaul her image as a spoiled rich girl;
- Defusing the controversy over Reagan’s visiting a graveyard for SS soldiers in Bitburg, Germany;
- Pursuing “Star Wars” as a major part of his strategy against the Soviet Union;
- The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty;
- Protecting Reagan from would-be assassins through timely warnings to Nancy; and
- Moving Reagan from seeing the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” to accepting Mikhail Gorbachev as a peace-seeking leader.
Thirty-five years after he became President, Ronald Reagan remains the most popular figure among Republicans. His deliberately-crafted myth is held up as the example of Presidential greatness by Right-wing candidates.
Curiously, however, none of them mention his approach to government-by-astrologer.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, ARTHUR M. CUMMINGS, BARACK OBAMA, BOKO HARAM, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CANADA, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, DAVID CAMERON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HATE CRIMES, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA (ISIS), ISLAMIC TERRORISM, LORETTA LYNCH, MOHAMMED, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OMAR MATEEN, ORLANDO SHOOTINGS, PAUL RYAN, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, PULSE, RELIGION, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RONALD KESSLER, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, STEVEN EMERSON, SYRIA, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT ON TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SECRETS OF THE FBI, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WORLD TRADE CENTER, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 29, 2016 at 12:01 am
Even at the height of World War II, citizens of the United States could take comfort in the following:
- Nazi Germany had a capitol–Berlin–and a single, all-powerful leader–Adolf Hitler. Once Berlin was occupied and Hitler dead or captured, the war would be over.
- And, for all their ferocity, German soldiers were easy to recognize: They wore gray uniforms, spoke German and waved flags emblazoned with swastikas or imperial eagles.

Wehrmacht soldiers marching through conquered France
Today, Western nations under attack by Islamic “holy warriors” face none of those advantages. Islam has no single capitol city–or leader.
Nor do Islam’s jihadist legions wear uniforms. Many of them don’t speak Arabic or wear clothing associated with Arabs, such as flowing robes and headdresses.
More ominously, millions of Islam’s potential “warriors” live within the very Western nations they despise. They can get all the instruction and inspiration they need to wreck havoc simply by going to the Internet.
Or, if they have the money, by traveling overseas to such terrorist-recruiting centers as Syria or Afghanistan.
And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth:
Even if the West isn’t at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the West.
Leaders like President Barack Obama, who insisted, at a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February, 2015: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

David Cameron
And leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on August 29, 2014: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a poisonous ideology observed by a minority.”
On June 20, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued a censored version of gunman Omar Mateen’s call to a 9-1-1 operator. While taking a break from slaughtering 49 defenseless men and women and wounding another 53, Mateen pledged his loyalty to ISIS.
Fortunately for the United States, the Bureau hasn’t always been so craven.
Ronald Kessler, author of the 2011 book, The Secrets of the FBI, quotes Arthur M. Cummings, the Bureau’s then-executive assistant director for national security:
“I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in [Washington] D.C. And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’”

“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants. It’s the Muslims.”
Occasionally, Muslims will condemn Al Qaeda. But “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about,’” said Cummings.
“They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community. Well, beautiful. Except do you read the newspapers? Everybody already knows it. The horse has left the barn.”
Cummings has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism. Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”
“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.
In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship. And he posed the question: “How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”

He has a point–and a highly legitimate one.
Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.
Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”
Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time:
- The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which snuffed out the lives of 3,000 Americans.
- The 2004 bombing of Madrid’s commuter train system.
- The attack on the London subway in 2005.
- The killing of 13 U.S. Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim army major in 2009.
- The bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013.
- The kidnapping of 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014.
- The slaughter of 12 people at a Paris satirical magazine that had published cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in 2015.
- The murders of more than 100 people in ISIS attacks across Paris in 2015.
- A series of deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, killing 31 and injuring 270 in 2016.
In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.
In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the noted political scientist at Harvard University, noted:
“The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
The West may not be at war with Islam–as countless Western politicians repeatedly assert. But Islamics have no qualms about declaring that they are at war with the West.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, ARTHUR M. CUMMINGS, BARACK OBAMA, BOKO HARAM, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CANADA, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, DAVID CAMERON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HATE CRIMES, IRAQ, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA (ISIS), ISLAMIC TERRORISM, LORETTA LYNCH, MOHAMMED, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OMAR MATEEN, ORLANDO SHOOTINGS, PAUL RYAN, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, PULSE, RELIGION, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RONALD KESSLER, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, STEVEN EMERSON, SYRIA, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT ON TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SECRETS OF THE FBI, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WORLD TRADE CENTER, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 28, 2016 at 12:06 am
On June 12, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old former security guard, slaughtered 49 men and women and injured 53 more inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.
Mateen was then shot to death by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff.

Omar Mateen
It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in American history–and the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.
The massacre was widely decried as an act of Islamic terrorism. But many others insisted it was simply a hate crime.
Among those opting for the latter: Officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
This despite the fact that:
- Mateen, born in New York in 1986 to Afghan parents, praised the highjackers who carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks that slaughtered 3,000 Americans. At the time, he was attending an alternative high school for problem students.
- He also said that Osama bin Laden was his uncle who had taught him how to shoot an AK-47–this while it was not known that bin Laden had masterminded the attacks.
- During the night of the Orlando massacre, Mateen stopped killing long enough to call 9-1-1, take responsibility for the attack and pledge his allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
In releasing a transcript of the 9-1-1 call, the Justice Department claimed that it would withhold some details to avoid putting the victims through any more pain–and to not further the propaganda efforts of ISIS.

The Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice
“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch told moderator Chuck Todd on the June 19 edition of Meet the Press.
“We will hear him talk about some of these things, but we are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance.”
On the morning of June 20, the FBI released the following edited version of the transcript:
MATEEN: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OPERATOR: What’s your name?
MATEEN: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].
OPERATOR: OK, what’s your name?
MATEEN: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].
A firestorm of protest erupted from Republican Congressional leaders, most notably Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Since Mateen’s pledge to ISIS had become widely known, they demanded, what was the point of censoring it in the transcript of his phone call?
“We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS,” Ryan said in a statement. “We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why.”
An additional reason for the fury aimed at the Justice Department: On June 12, ISIS had claimed responsibility for the massacre:
“The armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida which left over 100 people dead or injured was carried out by an Islamic State fighter.”

Flag of ISIS
Finally, buckling to pressure, on the afternoon of June 20, the FBI released the full, uncensored transcript of Mateen’s call to 9-1-1:
OPERATOR: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
MATEEN: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]
OPERATOR: What?
MATEEN: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OPERATOR: What’s your name?
MATEEN: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
OPERATOR: OK, what’s your name?
MATEEN: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OPERATOR: Alright, where are you at?
MATEEN: In Orlando.
OPERATOR: Where in Orlando?
[End of call]

J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building
Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department apologized for having censored the transcript.
“Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime,” both the DOJ and FBI said in a statement.
Since September 11, 2001, Americans have been actively at war with Islamic nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
Yet high-ranking officials in the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have repeatedly and loudly denied that America is at war with Islam.
Even if this is true, a large portion of the Islamic world is at war with the United States.
Only Donald Trump–alone of the 2016 Presidential candidates–has dared to say what the vast majority of Americans know: America is at war with Islamics who openly proclaim that their actions are motivated by their Islamic religious beliefs.
And it’s a major reason why Trump is about to receive the Republican nomination for President.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PAUL RYAN, RACIAL PROFILING, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 27, 2016 at 12:19 am
If Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
And it doesn’t involve building a wall along the Mexican border–which would prove ridiculously expensive and easily circumvented.

(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities which have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way that President Andres Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify”–or ignore–any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.

(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.

(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should stop apologizing for the right to control the country’s national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.

(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2016 at 1:30 am
In 2014, President Barack Obama issued an executive order, declaring that illegal aliens living in the United States since 2010 could become citizens or lawful residents, thus shielding them from deportation.
Texas challenged that executive order, claiming that Obama had acted unconstitutionally by encroaching on the duties of Congress. Another 25 Republican states joined the lawsuit.
The case went to the Supreme Court–which, on June 23, blocked the implementation of Obama’s executive order.
The Justices deadlocked on the issue 4-4, thus returning the case to the lower court in Texas that ruled against the administration’s carrying out the policy.

U.S. Supreme Court
In doing so, the Justices denied at least 4 million illegal aliens the right to remain in the country without fear of deportation.
For Republicans, the ruling upheld the separation of powers.
Donald Trump–the presumptive Republican nominee for President–issued a statement: “Today’s 4-4 Supreme Court ruling has blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.”
And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis) declared:
“The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and voice. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
Obama quickly expressed his disappointment, saying that the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
Other Democrats were equally upset by the Court’s decision.
One of these was Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who wrote on Twitter: “Deeply saddened by divided #SCOTUS decision in #USvTexas. We should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart!”
Another was Hillary Clinton–the presumed Democratic Presidential nominee–who used the Court’s decision as a way to troll for Hispanic votes.
“[Donald] Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office,” Clinton said.
“He has called Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘murderers.’ He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes. I believe we are stronger together.”
Both Lee’s and Clinton’s accusations ignored a blunt reality: Families of illegal aliens did not have to break up.
Some members did not have to stay in the United States while others were deported. Instead, they could leave together and live together in the Latin or Central American country of their origin.
Illegal immigration has always been a highly emotional issue for conservatives. But it’s been given added impetus this year.

For years, Republicans and Democrats have clashed over the subject of illegal immigration.
Democrats favor wholesale grants of unearned citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who brazenly violated the law when they sneaked across American borders.
And Republicans favor beefing up security against future waves of such invaders.
But the brutal truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans truly want to end these invasions. Nor do they want to deport the millions of illegals who have already taken up residence here.
They don’t care that these illegals:
- Flood the United States with millions of poor non-citizens who don’t speak English.
- Overwhelm the public school system with children–who also don’t speak English–who require bilingual education.
- Overwhelm the public healthcare system–especially emergency rooms–with poor illegal aliens. As a result, urgently-needed medical care is often denied to legal American citizens.
Democrats, primarily governed by liberal ideology, believe it’s racist for whites to demand control of their own national borders. They also see illegal aliens as a huge constituency.
And Republicans want them as low-skilled, low-wage fodder for their major campaign contributors–such as corporate-farms and retail outlets like Wal-Mart.
Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans like to feign outrage at the presence of so many illegal aliens within their midst.
It’s the Republican base that’s demanding an end to illegal immigration.
Those masses of alienated and angry whites who find themselves living in a nation that’s increasingly alien from themselves. And who have made Donald Trump their overwhelming choice for President in 2016.
Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans ignore a blunt reality: Mexico–America’s largest source of illegal aliens–strictly enforces control of its own borders.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Meanwhile, Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, BLACKS, BOEING, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE C. WALLACE, HILLARY CLINTON, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN MCCAIN, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MAFIA, MEXICANS, NBC NEWS, PRISONERS OF WAR, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SAUDI ARABIA, STATE DEPARTMENT, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE KENNEDYS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WOMEN
In History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on June 6, 2016 at 12:01 am
Today, America has two major candidates running for President: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Trump is a billionaire businessman. Clinton is a former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.
Despite the great differences in their backgrounds, they both share one thing in common: Extremely high negatives among voters.
Trump’s hate-filled rhetoric has deliberately or unintentionally offended almost every major American voting group, including:
- Mexicans: “They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He’s also promised to “build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”
- Prisoners-of-War: Speaking of Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain, a Vietnam POW for seven years: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”
- Women: “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”
These insults delight his white, uneducated followers. But they have alienated millions of other Americans who might have voted for him.
As for Clinton: She continues to be dogged by charges that she used her position as Secretary of State (2009-2013) to enrich herself.
Countries that made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation got an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
For example: In 2011, the State Department green-lighted a $29 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, despite its dismal record on human rights.
Years before Clinton became Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. And Boeing, the biggest defense contractor involved, donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation just two months before the deal was finalized.
But 48 years ago, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy aroused passions of an altogether different sort.
Kennedy had been a United States Attorney General (1961-1964) and Senator (1964-1968). But it was his connection to his beloved and assassinated brother, President John F. Kennedy, for which he was best known.

Robert F. Kennedy campaigning for President
Millions saw RFK as the only candidate who could make life better for America’s impoverished–while standing firmly against those who threatened the Nation’s safety.
As television correspondent Charles Quinn observed: “I talked to a girl in Hawaii who was for [George] Wallace [the segregationist governor of Alabama]. And I said ‘Really?’ [She said] ‘Yeah, but my real candidate is dead.’
“You know what I think it was? All these whites, all these blue collar people who supported Kennedy…all of these people felt that Kennedy would really do what he thought best for the black people, but, at the same time, would not tolerate lawlessness and violence.
“They were willing to gamble…because they knew in their hearts that the country was not right. They were willing to gamble on this man who would try to keep things within reasonable order; and at the same time do some of the things they knew really should be done.”
Campaigning for the Presidency in 1968, RFK had just won the crucial California primary on June 4–when he was shot in the back of the head. His killer: Sirhan Sirhan, a young Palestinian furious at Kennedy’s support for Israel. He died at 1:44 a.m. on June 6.
On June 8, 1,200 men and women boarded a specially-reserved passenger train at New York’s Pennsylvania Station. They were accompanying Kennedy’s body to its final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery.
As the train slowly moved along 225 miles of track, throngs of men, women and children lined the rails to pay their final respects to a man they considered a genuine hero.
Little Leaguers clutched their baseball caps across their chests. Uniformed firemen and policemen saluted. Burly men in shirtsleeves held hardhats over their hearts. Black men in overalls waved small American flags. Women from all levels of society stood and cried.

A nation says goodbye to Robert Kennedy
Commenting on RFK’s legacy, historian William L. O’Neil wrote in Coming Apart: An Informal History of America in the 1960′s:
“…He aimed so high that he must be judged for what he meant to do, and, through error and tragic accident, failed at….He will also be remembered as an extraordinary human being who, though hated by some, was perhaps more deeply loved by his countrymen than any man of his time.
“That too must be entered into the final account, and it is no small thing. With his death something precious disappeared from public life.”
The Kennedy family never again roused the same passions among voters as it did during RFK’s short-lived run for the Presidency.
And America has never again since seen a Presidential candidate who combined toughness on crime and compassion for the poor.
Republican candidates have waged war on crime–and the poor. And Democratic candidates have moved to the Right in eliminating anti-poverty programs.
RFK had the courage to fight the Mafia–and the compassion to fight poverty. At a time of rising rates of income inequality and corporate crime, his kind of politics are sorely missed.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BORIS YELTSIN, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, KIM JONG-UN, MISS TEEN USA, MISS UNIVERSE, MISS USA, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, RED ARMY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOVIET UNION, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WEHRMACHT, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on June 3, 2016 at 12:01 am
“And I have to say, I don’t understand Donald [Trump’s] bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.”
The speaker was Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, addressing an audience in San Diego, California, on June 2.
“He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength.
“He said, ‘You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit’ for taking over North Korea–something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie.
“And he said if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he’d give him an A. Now, I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants,” said Clinton.
Yes, Donald Trump admires Vladimir Putin. And Vladimir Putin admires Donald Trump.
To many people, it’s the ultimate odd-couple: The lifelong Communist and former KGB officer (Putin) walking arm-in-arm with the billionaire, publicity-hungry capitalist.
What could be going on here?
First Putin:
“He is a bright personality, a talented person, no doubt about it. It is not up to us to appraise his positive sides, it is up to the U.S. voters. but, as we can see, he is an absolute leader in the presidential race.
“He is saying that he wants to move to a different level of relations with Russia, to a closer, deeper one. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome that.”
Now Trump:
“It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”

Donald Trump
Appearing on the December 18, 2015 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
The host, Joe Scarborough, was upset by Trump’s praise for Putin: “Well, I mean, [he’s] also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. obviously that would be a concern, would it not?”
TRUMP: He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. Unlike what we have in this country.
SCARBOROUGH: But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.
TRUMP: I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m confused. So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?
TRUMP: Oh sure, absolutely.
When Trump praised Putin as a leader–“unlike what we have in this country”–he no doubt meant President Barack Obama.
Ironically, it is Obama–not Trump–who has repeatedly been named in Gallup polls as the most admired man in America in each of the last seven years, beginning with 2008, the year he was elected president.
Although Trump didn’t mention former President George W. Bush, his insult applies–unintentionally but accurately–to Obama’s predecessor.
In June 2001, Bush and Vladimir Putin met in Slovenia. During the meeting a truly startling exchange occurred.

Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush
Putin, a former KGB Intelligence officer, had clearly done his homework on Bush. When he mentioned that one of the sports Bush had played was rugby, Bush was highly impressed.
“I did play rugby,” said Bush. “Very good briefing.”
Bush knew that Putin had worked for Soviet intelligence. So he should not have been surprised that the KGB had amassed a lengthy dossier on him.
But more was to come.
BUSH: Let me say something about what caught my attention, Mr. President, was that your mother gave you a cross which you had blessed in Israel, the Holy Land.
PUTIN: It’s true.
BUSH: That amazes me, that here you were a Communist, KGB operative, and yet you were willing to wear a cross. That speaks volumes to me, Mr. President. May I call you Vladimir?
Putin instantly sensed that Bush judged others–even world leaders–through the lens of his own fundamentalist Christian theology.
Falling back on his KGB training, Putin seized on this apparent point of commonality to build a bond. He told Bush that his dacha had once burned to the ground, and the only item that had been saved was that cross.
“Well, that’s the story of the cross as far as I’m concerned,” said Bush, clearly impressed. “Things are meant to be.”
Afterward, Bush and Putin gave an outdoor news conference.
“Is this a man that Americans can trust?” Associated Press correspondent Ron Fournier asked Bush.
“Yes,” said Bush. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue.
“I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.”
Of course, no one from the Right–including Trump–is now recalling such embarrassing words.
It’s far more politically profitable to pretend that all of America’s tensions with Russia began with the election of Barack Obama.
And that those tensions will vanish once another Rightist–and non-black–President enters the White House.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ABC NEWS, ANTHEM INC., ASHLEY MADISON, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, CYBERSECURITY, DAIRY QUEEN, DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HACKING, HILLARY CLINTON, HOME DEPOT, JPMORGAN/CHASE, KMART, NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SONY PICTURES, STAPLES, TARGET, THE DISCOURSES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, THE PENTAGON, THE PRINCE, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WIKILEAKS
THE FIRST RULE OF CONSPIRACIES–AND COMPUTERS
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 26, 2016 at 12:15 amOn July 22, Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The emails were exchanged from January 2015 through May 2016.
These clearly reveal a bias for Hillary Clinton and against her lone challenger, Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
One email revealed that Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the DNC, suggested that Sanders, who is Jewish, could be portrayed as an atheist.
Sanders’ supporters have long charged that the DNC and its chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, were plotting to undercut his campaign. Now thousands of them are expected to descend on the Democratic convention as furious protesters.
The leak could not have come at a worse time for Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York and Secretary of State under President Barack Obama.
About to receive the Democratic nomination for President, she finds herself charged with undermining the electoral process.
Wasserman-Schultz has proven the first casualty of the leak, resigning from her position as chair of the DNC and saying she would not open the Democratic convention as previously scheduled.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
As for Clinton: Her campaign manager, Bobby Mook, blamed the Russians for the leak. Their alleged motive: To help Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Cyber-security experts believe the hackers originated from Russia–and that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have authorized it.
His alleged motive: Trump has repeatedly attacked United States’ membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
He believes the United States is paying an unfairly large portion of the monies needed to maintain this alliance–and he wants other members to contribute far more. Otherwise, if he is elected President, they would be on their own if attacked by Russia.
Trump took to twitter to offer his take on the release: “How much BAD JUDGEMENT was on display by the people in DNC in writing those really dumb e-mails, using even religion, against Bernie!”
Bernie Sanders
Which brings up the obvious question: Why was such sensitive information entrusted to computers that could be hacked?
This is not the first time a major corporation or government agency has fallen prey to hackers.
Name-brand companies, trusted by millions, have been hit with massive data breaches that compromised their customers’ and/or employees’ most sensitive financial and personal information.
Among those companies and agencies:
Perhaps the most notorious target so far hacked is Ashley Madison, the website for cheating wives and husbands. Launched in 2001, its catchy slogan is: “Life is short. Have an affair.”
On July 15, 2015, its more than 37 million members learned that highly embarrassing secrets they had entrusted to Ashley Madison had been compromised.
This included their sexual fantasies, matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails.
A website offering cheating services to those wealthy enough to afford high-priced fees is an obvious target for hackers. After all, its database is a blackmailer’s dream-come-true.
And the same is true for computers of one of the two major political parties of the United States.
Among the secrets unearthed in the WikiLeaks document-dump: Plans by Democratic party officials to reward large donors and prominent fundraisers with lucrative appointments to federal boards and commissions.
Most of the donors listed gave to Clinton’s campaign. None gave to Sanders.
According to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group:
“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party. That is unethical, if not illegal.”
Centuries before the invention of computers–and the machinery needed to hack into them–Niccolo Machiavelli offered cautionary advice to those thinking of entering into a conspiracy. He did so in his masterwork on politics, The Discourses.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Unlike his better-known work, The Prince, which deals with how to secure power, The Discourses lays out rules for preserving liberty within a republic.
In Book Three, Chapter Six (“Of Conspiracies”) he writes:
“I have heard many wise men say that you may talk freely with any one man about everything, for unless you have committed yourself in writing, the ‘Yes’ of one man is worth as much as the ‘No’ of another.
“And therefore one should guard most carefully against writing, as against a dangerous rock, for nothing will convict you quicker than your own handwriting.”
In 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul of France, ordered the execution of the popular Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, claiming that he had aided Britain and plotted against France.
The aristocracy of Europe, still recalling the slaughters of the French Revolution, was shocked.
Asked for his opinion on the execution, Napoleon’s chief of police, Joseph Fouche, said: “It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.”
This may prove to be history’s verdict on the storing of so many incriminating computer files by the DNC.
Share this: