bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘GUATEMALA’

WHEN AMERICA IS THE TARGET FOR “REGIME CHANGE”

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 13, 2019 at 12:04 am

The CIA, FBI and National Security Agency (which cracks codes and listens to the telephone conversation of foreign leaders) unanimously agree: Russian trolls and Intelligence agents played a major role in subverting the 2016 Presidential election.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, assigned in May, 2017, to investigate charges of Russian interference, believes there was collusion. He has indicted or obtained guilty pleas from  34 people and three companies. And more are undoubtedly coming.

Director Robert S. Mueller- III.jpg

Robert Mueller

And about 58% of Americans believe that President Donald Trump has tried to obstruct the investigation.

Apparently, most Americans don’t like having their elections subverted by enemy nations.

Subverting the governments of other countries is a right that Americans have long reserved for themselves. Among those regimes that have been toppled:

  • Between 1898 and 1934, the United States repeatedly intervened with military force in Central America and the Caribbean.
  • Americans staged invasions of Honduras in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925 to defend U.S. interests. These were defined as Standard Oil and the United Fruit Company.
  • The United States occupied Nicaragua almost continuously from 1912 to 1933. Its legacy was the imposition of the tyrannical Somoza family, which ruled from 1936 to 1979.
  • The United States occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. American banks had lent money to Haiti and requested American government intervention.
  • In 1918, 13,000 American soldiers joined armies from Europe and Japan to overthrow the new Soviet government and restore the previous Czarist regime. By 1920, the invading forces proved unsuccessful and withdrew.

Wladiwostok Parade 1918.jpg

Allied troops parading in Vladivostok, 1918  

  • From 1946 to 1949, the United States provided military, logistical and other aid to the Right-wing Chinese Nationalist Party of Chiang Kai-shek. Its opponent: Communist forces led by Mao Tse-Tung, who ultimately proved victorious.
  • In 1953, the Eisenhower administration ordered the CIA to overthrew the democratically-elected government of of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. His crime: Nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913. He was succeeded by Mohammad-Reza Shah Phlavi.
  • Whereas Mossadeddgh had ruled as a constitutional monarch, Phlavi was a dictator who depended on United States government support to retain power until he was overthrown in 1979 by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
  • In 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. His crime: Installing a series of reforms that expanded the right to vote, allowed workers to organize, legitimized political parties and allowed public debate. Most infuriating to American Right-wingers: His agrarian reform law, which expropriated parts of large land-holdings and redistributed them to agricultural laborers.
  • The United Fruit Company lobbied the United States government to overthrow him—and the CIA went into action. Arbenz was replaced by the first of a series of brutal Right-wing dictators.
  • From 1959 until 1963, the United States government was obsessed with overthrowing the revolutionary Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Although not democratically elected, Castro was wildly popular in Cuba for overthrowing the dictatorial Fulgencio Batista.
  • On April 17, 1961, over 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Cuban military forces crushed the invasion in three days.
  • Infuriated with the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President John F. Kennedy authorized “Operation Mongoose” to remove Castro through sabotage and assassination. The CIA, wanting to please Kennedy, teamed up with the Mafia, which wanted to resurrect its casinos on the island.
  • Among the tactics used: Hiring Cuban gangsters to murder police officials and Soviet technicians; sabotaging mines; using biological and chemical warfare against the Cuban sugar industry. None of these proved successful in assassinating Castro nor overturning his regime.

Ernesto “Che” Guevera and Fidel Castro

  • In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon ordered the CIA to prevent Marxist Salvador Allende from being democratically elected as president of Chile. When that failed, he ordered the CIA to overthrow Allende. Allende’s crime: A series of liberal reforms, including nationalizing large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking).
  • In 1973, he was overthrown by Chilean army units and national police. He was followed by Right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who slaughtered 3,200 political dissidents, imprisoned 30,000 and forced another 200,000 Chileans into exile.

And how did Americans react to all these attempts—successful and unsuccessful—at regime change?

Through indifference or outright support.

The popular 1960s TV series, “Mission: Impossible,” regularly depicted a CIA-type agency supporting regimes “we” liked or toppling those “we” didn’t.

Americans generally assume their Presidents and Congress know best who is a “friend” and who is an “enemy.”  America’s friends usually turn out to be Right-wing dictators like Chiang Kai-Shek, Fulgencio Batista, Augusto Pinochet and Mohammad-Reza Shah Phlavi.

And its enemies often turn out to be liberal reformers like Augusto Sandino, Mohammad Mosaddegh and Salvador Allende. 

Americans tend to favor intervention for the flimsiest of reasons. In 2003, President George W. Bush claimed Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had plotted 9/11 with Osama bin Laden. There was absolutely no proof to substantiate this, yet Americans overwhelmingly supported Bush’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq. 

But now the shoe is on the other foot.

Except for President Donald Trump and his fanatical supporters, Americans are furious that a foreign power has dared to install “regime change” on them.

Americans are now tasting the medicine they have dished out to so many other countries. And they find it as repugnant as those countries have found the American brand.

THE REICHSTAG CARAVAN

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on October 25, 2018 at 12:15 am

The parallels between the Nazi party and the administration of Donald Trump continue to mount.

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. Less than one month later, a fire gave him unprecedented control over the country. 

At about 9 p.m. on February 27, a fire erupted within the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament. By 11:30, the Berlin Fire Department had put out the fire—but most of the building had already been gutted. 

Reichstagsbrand.jpg

Reichstag fire

The next day, at Hitler’s request, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree into law, citing Article 48 of the Weimar Republic Constitution.

This suspended most civil liberties in Germany, including:

  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of the press
  • The right to free association and public assembly
  • Habeas corpus and
  • Secrecy of the mails and telephone.

Adolf Hitler 

These rights were not restored until Nazi Germany collapsed in May, 1945.

Marinus van der Lubbe, a Duitch council communist, was found near the building and claimed that he, acting alone, had set the fire. He was convicted of setting the fire and sent to the guillotine on January 10, 1934.

The Nazis charged that Van der Lubbe was part of a Communist conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag and seize power. 

Many foreign journalists—such as William L. Shirer (later author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) believed the Nazis had set the fire. This suspicion was given added weight during the Nuremberg war crimes trials. 

General Franz Halder, who had often clashed with Hitler over military strategy, stated in an affidavit that Hermann Goering, Hitler’s right-hand man, had boasted about setting the fire:

“On the occasion of a lunch on the Führer’s birthday [on April 20] in 1943, the people around the Führer turned the conversation to the Reichstag building and its artistic value.

“I heard with my own ears how Goering broke into the conversation and shouted: ‘The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it.’ And saying this he slapped his thigh.”

Herman Goering

Goering dismissed Halder’s accusation as “utter nonsense.”

Now, fast forward to 2018—and a caravan of 7,000 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala and, El Salvador determinedly heading for the United States border.

Their goal: To illegally enter the United States, claiming they are victims of poverty and violence.

For President Donald Trump, this comes at an ideal time. He has made illegal immigration his Number One hot button issue. And he needs one.

  • He is currently under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for documented ties between his 2016 Presidential campaign and Russian Intelligence agents.
  • His nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, was confirmed despite being charged as an alleged rapist.
  • He has hurled numerous slanders against women—including the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of trying to rape her at a party in 1982.
  • On October 2, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Instead of voicing outrage at this butchery, Trump sided with the patently false claims of the Saudi regime.

Related image

Donald Trump

On October 18, Trump appeared at a campaign rally at Missoula, Montana, on behalf of Republican Matt Rosendale against Democratic Senator Jon Tester.

Trump—never one to tell the truth when a lie seems better—charged:

  • “Democrats are paying members of the caravan to try and get into the United States to harm Republicans in the midterms.”
  • “But a lot of money has been passing to people to come up and try and get to the border by Election Day, because they think that’s a negative for us. Number one, they’re being stopped. And number two, regardless, that’s our issue.” 
  • “The one thing, they stick together, but they wanted that caravan and there are those that say that caravan didn’t just happen. It didn’t just happen. A lot of reasons that caravan, 4,000 people.”

He has offered absolutely no proof to back up any of these slanders.

But there is another possibility to explain the timing of the caravan: That Republican—or at least Right-wing—operatives have funneled money and organizational support to its organizers.

For the moment, there is no proof that the Right is involved.

But there’s also no proof that it isn’t.

And the CIA is notorious for secretly financing a large number of “left-wing” organizations that exist to discredit left-wing interests. Among these: The National Student Association in the United States and many socialist European unions.

Just as it suited Adolf Hitler’s purposes for the Reichstag to catch fire, so, too, does it suit Trump’s to have a caravan of thousands of Central Americans marching toward the United States border:

  • He’s using the caravan to stir up the Republican base in the midterm elections.
  • He’s using the caravan to divert attention from his and his party’s embarrassing actions.
  • He has accused Democrats of somehow organizing the caravan
  • He’s charged that gang members and Middle Eastern terrorists are among its members. 
  • He’s using the caravan to rally support for stricter immigration laws, including funding for his border wall.

Thus, Democrats have nothing to gain by sponsoring hordes of marchers. But the Right has plenty.

WILL THIS BE TRUMP’S “FINAL SOLUTION” TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 19, 2018 at 12:18 am

On May 7, 2018, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy for illegal entry into the United States:

“If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law.”

In the past, those arrested while illegally entering the country were held in immigration detention and sent before an immigration judge. The judge decided if they would be deported as unauthorized immigrants.

Most first-time offenders didn’t serve time in prison. If they pleaded guilty, they were sentenced, within minutes, to time served—and deported.

But illegal aliens referred for criminal prosecution were sent to a Federal jail. Several weeks later, a Federal judge determined if they would be imprisoned. And those in Federal jail cannot be kept with their children. 

With the change in policy, all arrested illegal aliens would face criminal prosecution.

On June 15, Homeland Security officials confirmed to reporters that, from April 19 to May 31, 1,995 children were separated from 1,940 adults at the U.S.-Mexico border. These adults were referred for prosecution after illegally crossing the border.

Video images showed illegal alien children held behind chain-link cages. Children crying. An audio recording made secretly captured children calling for their mothers and fathers. 

A national uproar followed.

Illegal alien families held in cages

Democrats almost unanimously attacked the family-separation policy, while Republicans were divided over it.

On June 20, the family-separation policy was indefinitely suspended by a Presidential executive order.

Still, illegal aliens from Latin and Central America keep pouring into the country—or getting caught while trying to.

The U.S. Border Patrol arrested more than 16,500 family members in September, marking an 80% increase from July—and a new one-month record. The Department of Homeland Security states that agents took 107,212 members of “family units” into custody during fiscal 2018.

And, even now, a caravan of 3,000-4,000 migrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala is heading toward “El Norte.” Its members claim they are fleeing poverty and violence—and assert that the United States has a moral duty to take them in.

President Donald Trump has threatened to cut all aid payments to the three countries if they don’t prevent their citizens from crossing into the United States. And he has also threatened to use military force to completely close the US-Mexico border.

For Trump, halting illegal immigration is a make-or-break issue. His base—which is the only group of Americans he cares about—has made it clear: Stop the illegals—or be a one-term President.

So it’s possible he could take an even more drastic step his all-out war on illegal immigration.

Rather than deport them to countries in Central America—from which they would easily sneak back into the United States—the Federal Government could ship them off to more distant lands.

Like Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Syria.

Such a policy change would:

  1. Close the Mexican revolving door, which keeps illegal immigration flowing; and
  2. Send an unmistakably blunt message to other would-be illegals: “The same fate awaits you.”

Although this might seem a far-fetched proposal, it could be easily carried out by the United States Air Force.

According to its website: “The C-5 Galaxy is one of the largest aircraft in the world and the largest airlifter in the Air Force inventory.

“The C-5 has a greater capacity than any other airlifter. It [can] carry 36 standard pallets and 81 troops simultaneously.

C-5 transport plane 

“[It can also carry] any of the Army’s air-transportable combat equipment, including such bulky items as the 74-ton mobile scissors bridge.”

The C-5 Galaxy’s maximum cargo weight: 281,001 pounds 

Click here: C-5 A/B/C Galaxy and C-5M Super Galaxy > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Instead of being stuffed with cargo, these planes could be stuffed wall-to-wall with illegal aliens.

The United States Air Force has a proud history of successfully providing America’s soldiers—and allies—with the supplies they need.

From June 24, 1948 to May 12, 1949, only the Berlin Airlift stood between German citizens and starvation.

The Soviet Union had blocked the railway, road, and canal access to the Berlin sectors under allied control. Their goal: Force the western powers to allow the Soviet zone to supply Berlin with food, fuel, and aid.

This would have given the Soviets control over the entire city.

Air forces from the United States, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa flew over 200,000 flights in one year, dropping more than 4,700 tons of necessities daily to the besieged Berliners.

The success of the Berlin Airlift raised American prestige and embarrassed the Soviets, who lifted the blockade.

The Berlin Airlift

A similar triumph came during the Yom Kippur War after Egypt and Syria attacked Israel without warning on October 6, 1973.

A Watergate-embattled President Richard Nixon ordered “Operation Nickel Grass” to deliver urgently-needed weapons and supplies to Israel.

For 32 days, the Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of ammunition, artillery, tanks and other supplies.  These proved invaluable in saving Israel from destruction.

So the mass deportation of millions of illegal aliens lies within America’s technological capability.

The only uncertainty: Is Trump willing to give that order?

“MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE” COMES HOME

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 24, 2018 at 12:15 am

According to the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency (which cracks codes and listens to the telephone conversation of foreign leaders) it’s clear that Russian trolls and Intelligence agents played a major role in subverting the 2016 Presidential election.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, assigned in May, 2017, to investigate charges of Russian interference, believes there was collusion. He has secured criminal charges against 19 people, including five guilty pleas. And more are undoubtedly coming.

Director Robert S. Mueller- III.jpg

Robert Mueller

And 65% of Americans believe that Mueller should be allowed to continue his investigation.

Apparently, most Americans don’t like having their elections subverted by enemy nations.

Subverting the governments of other countries is a right that Americans have long reserved for themselves. Among those regimes that have been toppled:

  • Between 1898 and 1934, the United States repeatedly intervened with military force in Central America and the Caribbean.
  • Americans staged invasions of Honduras in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925 to defend U.S. interests. These were defined as Standard Oil and the United Fruit Company.
  • The United States occupied Nicaragua almost continuously from 1912 to 1933. Its legacy was the imposition of the tyrannical Somoza family, which ruled from 1936 to 1979.
  • The United States occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. American banks had lent money to Haiti and requested American government intervention.
  • In 1918, 13,000 American soldiers joined armies from Europe and Japan to overthrow the new Soviet government and restore the previous Tsarist regime. By 1920, the invading forces proved unsuccessful and withdrew.

Wladiwostok Parade 1918.jpg

Allied troops parading in Vladivostok, 1918  

  • From 1946 to 1949, the United States provided military, logistical and other aid to the Right-wing Chinese Nationalist Party of Chiang Kai-shek. Its opponent were Communist forces led by Mao Tse-Tung, who ultimately proved victorious.
  • In 1953, the Eisenhower administration ordered the CIA to overthrew the democratically-elected government of of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. His crime: Nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913. He was succeeded by Mohammad-Reza Shah Phlavi. Whereas Mossadeddgh had ruled as a constitutional monarch, Phlavi was a dictator who depended on United States government support to retain power until he was overthrown in 1979 by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
  • In 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. His crime: Installing a series of reforms that expanded the right to vote, allowed workers to organize, legitimized political parties and allowed public debate. Most infuriating to American Right-wingers: His agrarian reform law, which expropriated parts of large land-holdings and redistributed them to agricultural laborers. The United Fruit Company lobbied the United States government to overthrow him—and the CIA went into action. Arbenz was replaced by the first of a series of brutal Right-wing dictators.
  • From 1959 until 1963, the United States government was obsessed with overthrowing the revolutionary Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Although not democratically elected, Castro was wildly popular in Cuba for overthrowing the dictatorial Fulgencio Batista. On April 17, 1961, over 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Cuban military forces crushed the invasion in three days.
  • Infuriated with the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President John F. Kennedy authorized “Operation Mongoose” to remove Castro through sabotage and assassination. The CIA, wanting to please Kennedy, teamed up with the Mafia, which wanted to resurrect its casinos on the island. Among the tactics used: Hiring Cuban gangsters to murder police officials and Soviet technicians; sabotaging mines; using biological and chemical warfare against the Cuban sugar industry. None of these proved successful in assassinating Castro nor overturning his regime.

Ernesto “Che” Guevera and Fidel Castro

  • In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon ordered the CIA to prevent Marxist Salvador Allende from being democratically elected as president of Chile. When that failed, he ordered the CIA to overthrow Allende. Allende’s crime: A series of liberal reforms, including nationalizing large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking. In 1973, he was overthrown by Chilean army units and national police. He was followed by Right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who slaughtered 3,200 political dissidents, imprisoned 30,000 and forced another 200,000 Chileans into exile.

And how did Americans react to all these attempts—successful and unsuccessful—at regime change?

Through indifference or outright support.

The popular 1960s TV series, “Mission: Impossible,” regularly depicted a CIA-type agency supporting regimes “we” liked or toppling those “we” didn’t.

Americans generally assume their Presidents and Congress know best who is a “friend” and who is an “enemy.”  America’s friends often turn out, for the most part, to be Right-wing dictators like Chiang Kai-Shek, Fulgencio Batista, Augusto Pinochet and Mohammad-Reza Shah Phlavi.

And its enemies often turn out to be liberal reformers like Augusto Sandino, Mohammad Mosaddegh and Salvador Allende. 

Americans tend to favor intervention for the flimsiest of reasons. In 2003, President George W. Bush claimed Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had plotted 9/11 with Osama bin Laden. There was absolutely no proof to substantiate this, yet Americans overwhelmingly supported Bush’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq. 

But now the shoe is on the other foot. Except for President Donald Trump and his fanatical supporters, Americans are furious that a foreign power has dared to install “regime change” on them.

Americans are now tasting the medicine they have dished out to so many other countries. And they find it as repugnant as those countries have found the American brand.

IF TRUMP IS OUR HITLER, WHO WILL BE OUR STAUFFENBERG?: PART THREE (END)

In History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 6, 2017 at 12:01 am

On July 20, 1944, members of the Wehrmacht high command failed to assassinate Adolf Hitler with a bomb hidden in a briefcase.

But two setbacks prevented the conspirators from succeeding.

First, Hitler survived the bomb blast.

Second, the plotters failed to seize the key broadcast facilities of the Reich.

This allowed Hitler to make a late-night speech to the nation, revealing the failed plot and assuring Germans that he was alive. And he swore to flush out the “traitorous swine” who had tried to kill him.

Adolf Hitler

Mass arrests quickly followed. 

Among the first victims discovered and executed was the conspiracy’s leader, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Standing before a makeshift firing squad at midnight, he cried: “Long live our sacred Germany!”

At least 7,000 persons were arrested by the Gestapo. According to records of the Fuehrer Conferences on Naval Affairs, 4,980 were executed.

Had the conspiracy succeeded, history would have turned out differently:

  • If Germany had surrendered in July or August, 1944, World War II would have ended eight to nine months earlier.
  • The Russians–who didn’t reach Germany until April, 1945–could not have occupied the Eastern part of the country.
  • This would have prevented many of the future conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union over access to West Berlin and/or West Germany.
  • Untold numbers of Holocaust victims would have survived because the extermination camps would have been shut down.

Thus, history can be altered by the appearance or disappearance of a single individual.

Which brings us back to Donald Trump.

Donald Trump

Since becoming President on January 20, Trump has:  

  • Infuriated “Obamacare” patients: Trump authorized the directors of Federal agencies to waive requirements of the Affordable Care Act–which provides medical insurance to 22 million Americans–to the “maximum extent permitted by law.”  
  • Infuriated the CIA: Appearing at CIA headquarters on his first full day in office, Trump addressed about 400 case officers. Standing before the star-studded memorial wall honoring 117 CIA officers who had fallen in the line of duty. Trump ignored their sacrifice. Instead, he boasted of the size of his Inaugural crowd and how many times he had appeared on the cover of Time.
  • Infuriated Muslims: Commenting on the 2003 Iraq war during his remarks at the CIA, Trump said: “So we should have kept the oil. But okay. Maybe you’ll have another chance….”
  • Infuriated American Intelligence and military agencies: A Trump executive order allows the Director of National Intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to attend the Principals’ Committee only when it pertains to their “responsibilities and expertise.”
  • Infuriated Jews and civil rights advocates: Senior Adviser and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon–an anti-Semitic white supremacist–will now wield influence over the National Security Council, Homeland Security Council and Principal’s Committee. When Bannon–previously executive chair of Breitbart News, a Right-wing website–was appointed senior adviser to Trump, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke called the selection “excellent.”
  • Infuriated Medicare patients: During the 2016 campaign, Trump said he would allow Medicare to negotiate down the price of prescription drugs. At his January 10 press conference he charged that pharmaceutical companies were “getting away with murder.” But after meeting with pharmaceutical lobbyists on January 31, Trump said: “I’ll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market. That includes price-fixing by the biggest dog in the market, Medicare.”  

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump infuriated one group of voters after another, including: Hispanics, homosexuals, blacks, lesbians, Muslims, women, Asians, the disabled, prisoners-of-war.  

As President, he has continued to anger highly influential groups. Some of these–such as “Obamacare” and Medicare patients–can retaliate only with their votes. And that won’t affect Trump until the 2020 Presidential election.  

But other groups he has antagonized–such as the military and Intelligence communities–can do far more than vote against him.  

Both have access to vast amounts of secret–and highly embarrassing–information. And both are expert in leaking choice bits of this to favored members of the media.  

The Trump administration is only two weeks old and already this truth is on full display.

Anonymous military officials are blaming Trump for the death of a Navy SEAL during a January 29 raid on Al Qaeda in Yemen. According to Reuters, Trump approved the raid without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.  

As for the CIA: This agency has been overthrowing heads of state for decades. 

In 1953, its coup removed Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister of Iran. In 1954, another coup did the same for Guatemalan president Jacobo Árbenz. In 1970, Chile’s president, Salvadore Allende, fell victim to a CIA-instigated plot.

Seal of the Central Intelligence Agency.svg

Millions of Americans believe the CIA engineered the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. James W. Douglass’ 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable, charges that the CIA murdered Kennedy because he wanted to end the Cold War after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Like the despised Roman emperor Tiberius, Donald Trump lives by the motto: “Let them hate me, so long as they fear me.”  

Niccolo Machiavelli counseled better: “A prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred: for fear and the absence of hatred may well go together.”

IF TRUMP IS OUR HITLER, WHO WILL BE OUR STAUFFENBERG?: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 3, 2017 at 12:49 am

On July 20, 1944, a one-eyed, one-armed man tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler

Colonel Claus Schenk von Stuaffenberg had served with the Wehrmacht in Poland (1939), France (1940) and the Soviet Union (1941). And he had been seriously wounded in its service.

Colonel Claus Schenk von Stuaffenberg

Nevertheless, he now acted as the prime mover for the conspiracy among a growing number of German high command officers to arrest or assassinate Germany’s Fuehrer.

Most of the conspirators wanted to arrest Hitler and surrender to British and American forces–well before the much-feared Russians gained a foothold in Germany.

But Stauffenberg wanted him dead: A live Hitler might eventually be rescued by his Nazi colleagues.

But–how to do it?

Hitler was a closely-guarded target. He was surrounded by fanatical bodyguards who were expert marksmen. He often wore a bulletproof vest and a cap lined with three pounds of laminated steel.

Adolf Hitler

But his single greatest protection–he claimed–was an instinct for danger. He would often suddenly change his schedule–to drop in  where he was least expected. Or to suddenly depart an event where he was scheduled to stay a long time.

On November 9, 1939, this instinct saved his life. He had been set to give a long speech at a Munich beer hall before the “Old Fighters” of his storm troopers.

Sixteen years earlier on that day, in 1923, Hitler had led them in a disastrous attempt to overthrow the Bavarian government. Police had put down the effort, killing and wounding about a score of storm troopers in the process.

Hitler himself had later been arrested, tried and convicted for treason–and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.

But instead of proving to be the end of Nazism, the “Beer Hall Putsch” turned Hitler into a national celebrity. And it launched his career as a legitimate, ultimately successful politician.

So Hitler was expected to speak to his longtime supporters for a long time that evening. Instead, he suddenly cut short his speech and left the beer hall.

Forty-five minutes later, a bomb exploded inside a pillar–before which Hitler had been speaking.

Since then, a series of other assassination attempts had been made against Hitler. All of them involved time-bombs. And all of the would-be assassins were members of the German General Staff.

In one case, a bomb secretly stashed aboard Hitler’s plane failed to explode. In another, an officer who had a bomb strapped to himself unexpectedly found his scheduled meeting with Hitler called off.  He had to rush into a bathroom to defuse the bomb before it went off.

So now it was the turn of von Stauffenberg. He would carry his bomb–hidden in a briefcase–into a “Hitler conference” packed with military officers.

But Stauffenberg didn’t intend to be a suicide bomber. He meant to direct the government that would replace that of the Nazis.

His bomb–also rigged with a time-fuse–would be left in the conference room while he found an excuse to leave. After the explosion, he would phone one of his fellow conspirators with the news.

Then, the coup–“Operation Valkyrie”–would be on.

Anti-Nazi conspirators would seize control of key posts of the government. The British and Americans would then be informed of Germany’s willingness to surrender. Provided, of course, that the Russians did not have a say in its postwar future.

The Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffel (SS) had killed millions of Russians. Many had died in combat. Others had been murdered as captives. Still more had been allowed to die by starvation and exposure to the notorious Russian winter.

So the Germans–both Nazi and anti-Nazi–knew what they could expect if soldiers of the Soviet Union reached German soil.

On July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg appeared at Hitler’s well-guarded military headquarters in East Prussia. Like all his other outposts, Hitler had named it–appropriately enough–“Wolf’s Lair.”

“Wolf’s Lair”

Stauffenberg entered the large, concrete building while the conference was in session. He placed his yellow briefcase next to Hitler–who was standing with his generals at a heavy oaken table.

Then Stauffenberg excused himself to take an “urgent” phone call.

At 12:42 p.m. on July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg’s briefcase bomb erupted.

But the Third Reich didn’t come to an end–because, as if miraculously, Hitler had survived.

Hitler shows off the site of the explosion

What had happened?

First, the conference location had been changed–from a wooden building to a concrete one.  The concrete absorbed much of the blast.

Second, owing to the summer’s heat, Hitler had ordered all the windows–about ten–opened to let in a breeze.  This allowed much of the force of the blast to be dispersed.

Third, and perhaps most important: Stauffenberg had carefully placed his briefcase near Hitler, who was standing next to a heavy oaken support of the conference table.

But after Stauffenberg left the room, Colonel Heinz Brandt, who stood next to Hitler, found the briefcase blocking his legs. So he moved it–to the other side of the heavy oaken support.

When the bomb exploded, Hitler was partially shielded from its full blast. Brandt died, as did two other officers and a stenographer.

IF TRUMP IS OUR HITLER, WHO WILL BE OUR STAUFFENBERG?: PART ONE (OF THREE)

In History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on February 2, 2017 at 12:12 am

The voice belonged to Tom Moe, a retired colonel in the U.S. Air Force–and a former Vietnam prisoner-of-war.

It was a video produced by the 2016 Presidential campaign for John Kasich. Kasich, the governor of Ohio, had been peddling a message of creating jobs, balancing the Federal budget and disdain for Washington, D.C.

Related image

John Kasich

But he remained far behind in the polls, dropping 50% in support in just one month–from September to October. Meanwhile, Trump, the New York billionaire developer, was backed by 25% of Republican primary voters.

So, with nothing to lose, Kasich decided to take off the gloves. He invoked the “N” word for Republicans: Nazi. “You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims must register with the government, because you’re not one,” continues Moe.

“And you might not care if Donald Trump says he’s going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you’re not one.

Donald Trump 

“And you might not care if Donald Trump says it’s OK to rough up black protesters, because you’re not one.

“And you might not care of Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you’re not one.

“But think about this:

“If he keeps going, and he actually becomes President, he might just get around to you. And you’d better hope that there’s someone left to help you.”

Click here: Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric – YouTube

The above is indeed a paraphrase of a famous quote by Martin Niemoeller (1892–1984), a prominent Protestant pastor. Although he had been a U-boat commander during World War 1, he became a bitter public foe of Adolf Hitler.

A staunch anti-Communist, he had initially supported the Nazis as Germany’s only hope of salvation against the Soviet Union. But when the Nazis made the church subordinate to State authority, Niemoeller created the Pastors’ Emergency League to defend religious freedom.

Martin Niemöller (1952).jpg

Martin Niemoeller

For his opposition to the Third Reich, Niemoeller spent seven years in concentration camps. With the collapse of the Reich in 1945, he was freed–and elected President of the Protestant church in Hesse and Nassau in 1947.

During the 1960s, he was a president of the World Council of Churches.

He is best remembered for his powerful condemnation of the failure of Germans to protest the increasing oppression of the Nazis:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists, but I was not a Socialist, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out.

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Neither “Adolf Hitler” nor “Nazi Party” was mentioned during the one-minute Kassich video. But Trump was furious.

“I will sue him [Kasich] just for fun,” said Trump, if he could find anything “not truthful” within the ad.

So said the man who called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and accused President Barack Obama of being a Muslim and born outside the United States.

The Kasich ad was by far the darkest attack made against Trump by any candidate–Republican or Democrat.  And it raises a disturbing question:  

If Donald Trump is America’s Adolf Hitler, who will be its Claus von Stauffenberg? 

Colonel Claus Schenk von Stuaffenberg was the German army officer who, on July 20, 1944, tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

He had served with the Wehrmacht in Poland (1939), France (1940) and the Soviet Union (1941).

While serving in Tunisa, he was seriously wounded on April 7, 1943 when Allied fighters strafed his vehicle. He lost his left eye, right hand and two fingers of his left hand after surgery.

Colonel Claus Schenk von Stuaffenberg

Nevertheless, he now acted as the prime mover for the conspiracy among a growing number of German high command officers to arrest or assassinate Germany’s Fuehrer.

For most of these officers, the motive was craven: Germany was losing the war it had launched on the world–and they feared the worst. This was especially true now that the numerically superior forces of the Soviet Union had gone onto the offensive.

For Stauffenberg, there was another reason: His disgust at the horrors he had seen committed by his fellow Wehrmacht soldiers upon defenseless POW’s and civilians in Russia.

Thus, Stauffenberg–more than many German––knew firsthand the vengeance his country could expect if the “1,000 year Reich” fell.

Something must be done, he believed, to prove to the world that not all Germans–even members of the Wehrmacht–were criminals.

Most of the conspirators wanted to arrest Hitler and surrender to British and American forces–well before the much-feared Russians gained a toehold in Germany.

For Stauffenberg, arresting Hitler wasn’t enough.

Stauffenberg wanted him dead. A live Hitler might eventually be rescued by his Nazi colleagues.

But–how to do it? 

SPHERES OF INFLUENCE: OURS AND THEIRS

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on September 27, 2016 at 12:05 am

It didn’t take much for American Right-wingers to start salivating–and celebrating.

All it took was for Russia to move troops into its neighboring territories of Ukraine and Crimea.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the American Right felt dejected. Accusing Democrats of being “terrorist-lovers” just hadn’t been as profitable as accusing them of being “Communists.”

The torch had barely gone out at the much-ballyhooed 2014 Sochi Olympics when Russian President Vladimir Putin began menacing the Ukraine. 

Even while the Olympics played out on television, Ukrainians had rioted in Kiev and evicted their corrupt, luxury-loving president, Victor Yanukovych. 

And this, of course, didn’t sit well with his “sponsor”–Putin.

Yanukovych had rejected a pending European Union association agreement. He had chosen instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia.

And that had sat well with Putin.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Putin had yearned for a reestablishment of the same.  He had called that breakup “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

So it was almost a certainty that, when his chosen puppet, Yanukovych, was sent packing, Putin would find some way to retaliate.

And since late February, 2014, he has done so, gradually moving Russian troops into Ukraine and its autonomous republic, Crimea.

Related image

Vladimir Putin

By late March, it was clear that Russia had sufficient forces in both Ukraine and Crimea to wreak any amount of destruction Putin may wish to inflict.

And where there is activity by Russians, there are American Rightists eager–in Shakespeare’s word–to “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”

Or at least to use such events to their own political advantage.

Right-wingers such as Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachussetts who lost the 2012 Presidential election by a wide margin to Barack Obama.

“There’s no question but that the president’s naiveté with regards to Russia,” said Romney on March 23, 2014.

“And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia’s intentions, the president wasn’t able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you’re seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you’re seeing in Syria.”

All of which overlooks a number of brutal political truths. 

First, all great powers have spheres of interest–and jealously guard them.

For the United States, it’s Latin and Central America, as established by the Monroe Doctrine.

And just what is the Monroe Doctrine?

It’s a statement made by President James Monroe in his 1823 annual message to Congress, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

It has no other legitimacy than the willingness of the United States to use armed force to back it up. When the United States no longer has the will or resources to enforce the Doctrine, it will cease to have meaning.

For the Soviet Union, its spheres of influence include the Ukraine. Long known as “the breadbasket of Russia,” in 2011, it was the world’s third-largest grain exporter.

Russia will no more give up access to that breadbasket than the United States would part with the rich farming states of the Midwest. 

Second, spheres of influence often prove disastrous to those smaller countries affected.

Throughout Latin and Central America, the United States remains highly unpopular for its brutal use of “gunboat diplomacy” during the 20th century.

Related image

American gunboat

Among those countries invaded or controlled by America: Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama and the Dominican Republic.

The resulting anger has led many Latin and Central Americans to support Communist Cuba, even though its political oppression and economic failure are universally apparent.

Similarly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) forced many nations–such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslavakia–to submit to the will of Moscow.

The alternative? The threat of Soviet invasion–as occurred in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Third, even “great powers” are not all-powerful.

In 1949, after a long civil war, the forces of Mao Tse-tung defeated the Nationalist armies of Chaing Kai-Shek, who withdrew to Taiwan.

China had never been a territory of the United States. Nor could the United States have prevented Mao from defeating the corrupt, ineptly-led Nationalist forces.

Even so, Republican Senators and Representatives such as Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy eagerly blamed President Harry S. Truman and the Democrats for “losing China.”

The fear of being accused of “losing” another country led Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon to tragically commit the United States to “roll back” Communism in Cuba and Vietnam.

Now Republicans–who claim the United States can’t afford to provide healthcare for its poorest citizens–want to turn the national budget over to the Pentagon.

They want the United States to “intervene” in Syria–even though this civil war pits Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of America’s greatest enemies, against each other.

They want the United States to “intervene” in Ukraine–even though this would mean going to war with the only nuclear power capable of turning America into an atomic graveyard.

Before plunging into conflicts that don’t concern us and where there is absolutely nothing to “win,” Americans would do well to remember the above-stated lessons of history. And to learn from them.

SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

In History, Law, Military, Politics on January 2, 2015 at 12:43 am

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the American Right has felt dejected.

Accusing Democrats of being “terrorist-lovers” just hasn’t been as profitable as accusing them of being “Communists.”

The torch had barely gone out at the much-ballyhooed Sochi Olympics, in February, 2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin began menacing the Ukraine.

Even while the Olympics played out on television, Ukrainians had rioted in Kiev and evicted their corrupt, luxury-loving president, Victor Yanukovych.

And this, of course, didn’t sit well with his “sponsor”–Putin.

Yanukovych had rejected a pending European Union association agreement.  He had chosen instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia.

And that had sat well with Putin.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Putin had yearned for a reestablishment of the same.  He had called that breakup “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

So it was almost a certainty that, when his chosen puppet, Yanukovych, was sent packing, Putin would find some way to retaliate.

And since late February, he has done so, gradually moving Russian troops into Ukraine and its autonomous republic, Crimea.

By late March, it was clear that Russia had sufficient forces in both Ukraine and Crimea to wreak any amount of destruction Putin may wish to inflict.

And where there is activity by Russians, there are American Rightists eager–in Shakespeare’s words–to “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”

Rightists such as Mitt Romney, the former Massachussetts governor who lost the 2012 Presidential election by a wide margin to Barack Obama.

“There’s no question but that the president’s naiveté with regards to Russia,” said Romney on March 23.

“And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia’s intentions, the president wasn’t able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you’re seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you’re seeing in Syria.”

All of which overlooks a number of brutal political truths.

First, all great powers have spheres of interest–and jealously guard them.

For the United States, it’s Latin and Central America, as established by the Monroe Doctrine.

And just what is the Monroe Doctrine?

It’s a statement made by President James Monroe in his 1823 annual message to Congress, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

It has no other legitimacy than the willingness of the United States to use armed force to back it up.  When the United States no longer has the will or resources to enforce the Doctrine, it will cease to have meaning.

For the Soviet Union, its spheres of influence include the Ukraine.  Long known as “the breadbasket of Russia,” in 2011, it was the world’s third-largest grain exporter.

Russia will no more give up access to that breadbasket than the United States would part with the rich farming states of the Midwest.

Second, spheres of influence often prove disastrous to those smaller countries affected.

Throughout Latin and Central America, the United States remains highly unpopular for its brutal use of “gunboat diplomacy” during the 20th century.

Among those countries invaded or controlled by America: Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama and the Dominican Republic.

The resulting anger has led many Latin and Central Americans to support Communist Cuba, even though its political oppression and economic failure are universally apparent.

Similarly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) forced many nations–such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslavakia–to submit to the will of Moscow.

The alternative?  The threat of Soviet invasion–as occurred in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslavakia in 1968.

Third, even “great powers” are not all-powerful.

In 1949, after a long civil war, the forces of Mao Tse-tung defeated the Nationalist armies of Chaing Kai-Shek, who withdrew to Taiwan.

China had never been a territory of the United States.  Nor could the United States have prevented Mao from defeating the corrupt, ineptly-led Nationalist forces.

Even so, Republican Senators and Representatives such as Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy eagerly blamed President Harry S. Truman and the Democrats for “losing China.”

The fear of being accused of “losing” another country led Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon to tragically commit the United States to “roll back” Communism in Cuba and Vietnam.

Now Republicans–who claim the United States can’t afford to provide healthcare for its poorest citizens–want to turn the national budget over to the Pentagon.

They want the United States to “intervene” in Syria–even though this civil war pits Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of America’s greatest enemies, against each other.

They want the United States to “intervene” in Ukraine–even though this would mean going to war with the only nuclear power capable of turning America into an atomic graveyard.

Before plunging into conflicts that don’t concern us and where there is absolutely nothing to “win,” Americans would do well to remember the above-stated lessons of history.

And to learn from them.

OUTLAWING THE WORD, NOT THE ACTIVITY

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on October 27, 2014 at 12:00 am

Illegal Pete’s is a Colorado burrito chain with locations in Denver and Boulder–and a problem with Hispanics.

On October 22,  about 30 people gathered in Fort Collins to ask its owner, Pete Turner, to change the name of the chain, which will soon open an outlet there.

The reason: Apologists for illegal immigration believe that “illegal” has become the new “I-word.”

They believe that referring to someone as an “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” is dehumanizing.

But Turner didn’t have anything like that in mind when he named his burrito chain.

Peter Turner

Turner responded to critics by saying “Illegal” is a reference to a novel he read in college, and “Pete’s” refers to his own name and that of his father.

He added that he had helped pay for some employees to become citizens.

But those at a meeting in Fort Collins compared the name to a racial slur used against blacks or hanging a Confederate flag in the restaurant’s window.

“We have been getting emails comparing me to the KKK,” said Turner, who opened Illegal Pete’s in 1995.

The meeting ended on an ominous note, with its moderator, Kim Medina warning: “Let us know whether we should be there to protest or celebrate [the opening of the Fort Collins restaurant] on Nov. 13.”

“Social context is hugely important,” said Medina, a Fort Collins immigration attorney. “We’ll never get to big issues, such as immigration reform, until we can solve these smaller issues of language.”

Which goes directly to the heart of Politically Correct speech.

In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated there were 11.4 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

Their top countries of origin are:

  • Mexico (59%)
  • El Salvador (6%)
  • Guatemala (5%)
  • Honduras (3%)
  • Philippines (3%)

In 2012,  643,474 illegal aliens were arrested. More than 69% were from Mexico.

In 2012, 419,384 illegal aliens were deported from the United States. Approximately 47% of these had prior criminal convictions.

  • Deported to Mexico (73%)
  • Deported to Guatemala (9%)
  • Deported to Honduras (7%)
  • Deported to El Salvador (4%)

That’s according to DHS.  But the truth is that with so many millions of illegal aliens invading the United States on a daily basis–and doing their best to remain uncaught–nobody really knows how many there are.

Current estimates based on national surveys place their numbers from 7 to 20 million.

Then there are the costs such unending waves of illegal immigration imposes on legitimate American citizens.

According to a study by the conservative Heritage Foundation:

  • The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in 2010, 5.5 million children and illegal alien parents lived in the U.S.
  • About 1 million of these were born abroad and were brought into the U.S. unlawfully; the remaining 4.5 million were born in the U.S. and are treated under law as U.S. citizens.
  • Overall, some 8% of the children born in the U.S. each year have illegal alien parents.
  • The fiscal cost of illegal immigration must include the costs associated with these children, since these inevitably result from the illegal immigration of their parents.
  • The average earnings per worker are dramatically lower in illegal alien households.
  • Illegal aliens are far more likely to be poor.
  • Over one-third of such households have incomes below the federal poverty level, compared to 18.8% of legal immigrants and 13.6% of U.S. citizens.
  • Poorly educated men and women make up a disproportionate share of the illegal alien population. They tend to have low wages and pay comparatively little in taxes.
  • Households headed by an illegal alien received an average of $24,721 per household in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services in FY 2010.

Click here: Cost of Unlawful Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayers

So much for the fiscal costs of illegal immigration.

Other costs are not so easily measured–but can be dramatic and tragic.

Consider the recent case of Marcelo Marquez, 34, of Salt Lake City, Utah. Arrested on October 24, he is a suspect in a Northern California shooting spree that left two sheriff’s deputies dead.

Marquez and his accomplice, Janelle Marquez Monroy, 38,  are being held without bail and face multiple felony counts, including murder, attempted murder and carjacking.

According to Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Marquez is actually an alias for a man named Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte. He was deported twice from the United States.

The first deportation came in 1997 after an arrest and conviction in Arizona for narcotics possession. He was arrested and sent back to Mexico again in 2001.

Which, finally, gets back to the realities of Politically Correct speech.

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli observed the differences between image and reality:

For men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands, for every one can see, but very few have to feel.   Everyone sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are….

The viewpoint of the Hispanics taking issue with Peter Turner clearly falls into this vein: If we can ban “illegal”–as in “illegal alien”–from the language, people will forget about the hordes of illegal aliens invading the United States every day.

%d bloggers like this: