bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘NEW REPUBLIC’

FASCISM’S APPEAL–IN HITLER’S GERMANY AND TRUMP’S AMERICA: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 18, 2025 at 12:06 am

Sometimes a historical novel can tell frightening truths about not only a past time but the present one.  

Such is the case with The Mitford Affair (2023), by Marie Benedict.  

The years 1933 through 1939 saw the rise of Nazi Germany and the embrace of Fascism by millions—not only Germans but those outside Germany.

Among these were members of England’s aristocratic Mitford family. As the book’s cover blurb states:

“Between the World Wars, the six Mitford sisters―each more beautiful, brilliant, and eccentric than the next―dominate the English political, literary, and social scenes.

“Though they’ve weathered scandals before, the family falls into disarray when Diana divorces her wealthy husband to marry a fascist leader and Unity follows her sister’s lead all the way to Munich, inciting rumors that she’s become Adolf Hitler’s mistress.

“As the Nazis rise in power, novelist Nancy Mitford grows suspicious of her sisters’ constant visits to Germany and the high-ranking fascist company they keep. When she overhears alarming conversations and uncovers disquieting documents, Nancy must make excruciating choices as Great Britain goes to war with Germany.”

The Mitford Affair: A Novel

From 1933 to 1939, Adolf Hitler moved from triumph to triumph—rearming Germany, largely eliminating unemployment, lifting the morale of the vast majority of Germans. And as he did so, Fascism became increasingly popular, even chic. 

Millions saw Fascism as their only protection against Communism. Democracy was widely regarded as too weak to compete with the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin’s legions.

While England was plagued by widespread unemployment and continuing disillusionment over the traumas of World War 1, Hitler’s Germany radiated a newfound pride and purpose.

Sisters Diana and Unity Mitford had their own private reasons for their attraction to Deutschland. Diane had married Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF). From Hitler, she hoped to gain funding for the BUF, and eventually did.

Mitford Sisters ...

Jessica, Nancy, Diana, Unity and Pamela Mitford in 1935

Later, she and Mosley sought the creation of a German-financed ratio station to aim propaganda at their fellow Britons. Both expected—and celebrated—the future conquest of England and its total domination by Hitler.

Unity, meanwhile, became obsessed with Hitler the man. She studied German to speak conversationally with him, and for 10 months staked out his favorite restaurant in hopes of meeting him.

Adolf Hitler

Her patience bore fruit when, after repeatedly noticing her, Hitler, through an adjutant, invited her to his table. He was charmed by her knowledge of German—and her middle name: “Valkyrie.”

In Norse mythology, Valkyries were maidens sent by the god Odin to choose the dead warriors who merited a place in Valhalla.

She won even greater favor from Hitler by giving an anti-Semitic speech at a Hitler Youth festival at Hesselberg and posting an open letter in Der Sturmer (“The Daily Stormer”), the rabidly anti-Semitic newspaper run by Julius Streicher:

“The English have no notion of the Jewish danger. Our worst Jews work only behind the scenes. We think with joy of the day when we will be able to say England for the English! Out with the Jews! Heil Hitler. P.S. please publish my name in full, I want everyone to know I am a Jew hater.”

Unity Mitford

Eva Braun, Hitler’s secret mistress, saw Unity as a rival and attempted suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills. She survived, and this led Hitler to bestow greater attention on her.

For five years—at dinners, concerts, party rallies and private meetings–-Hitler remained charmed by Unity and Diana. He reveled in the company of two beautiful women who were members of the British aristocracy—and proudly and openly Fascist.

And they, in turn, remained charmed by him—and excited at their proximity to his lethal power.

Yet, in the end, all three met with disaster.

Diana never got the German radio station for her husband. Instead, she and Mosley found themselves imprisoned as German collaborators after England declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939.

Oswald Mosley

Unity, devastated that the two countries she most loved were now at war, shot herself in the temple with a small pistol Hitler had given her for protection. She survived, but remained a vegetable for the rest of her life.

Hitler paid her doctor bills, and when she was able to speak asked her if she wanted to remain in Germany or return to England. She chose England, so Hitler arranged her transportation by ambulance to neutral Switzerland. Her mother and youngest sister, Deborah, met her there and escorted her back to England. 

She died on May 28,1948, of meningitis caused by the cerebral swelling around the bullet. 

On April 30, 1945, having lost the war he had unleashed, Hitler shot himself in his underground bunker.

The Mitford Affair ends in April, 1941, so there is no mention of the death of Unity or Hitler, or the release of Diana and Oswald Mosley from prison in 1943 due to Mosley’s ill health. They were placed under house arrest until the end of the war and denied passports until 1949.

Although the novel centers on characters and incidents that reach back almost a century ago, it’s packed with truths increasingly relevant to America as it nears the 2024 Presidential election.

Those truths will be explored in Part Two of this series.

THE DANGERS OF MERCENARIES–IN REALITY AND FICTION

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 15, 2025 at 12:08 am

In May, 2014, Yevgeny Prigozhin founded the Kremlin-affiliated mercenary army Wagner Group.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a “special military operation” against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Wagner has played a major role in the fighting. 

Prigozhin had repeatedly clashed with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, blaming him for a lack of ammunition to his embattled fighters—resulting in thousands of casualties. 

YevgenyPrigozhin.jpg

Yevgeney Prigozhin

Government of the Russian Federation, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

On June 23, 2023, Prigozhin claimed that regular Russian armed forces had launched missile strikes against Wagner forces, killing a “huge” number.

He announced: “The council of commanders of PMC Wagner has made a decision—the evil that the military leadership of the country brings must be stopped.”

In response, criminal charges were filed against Prigozhin by the Russian Federal Security Service—the renamed KGB—for inciting an armed rebellion.

Wagner withdrew from Ukraine, occupied the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don and headed for Moscow. While doing so, Wagner shot down a Russian fighter plane and several military helicopters.

Putin decried the action as treason, and vowed to quash the uprising. 

Talks between Prigozhin and Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko resulted in charges being dropped. Wagner ceased its march on Moscow. Prigozhin would move to Belarus but remain under investigation for treason. Wagner troops would return to Ukraine. 

On August 23, 2023, Prigozhin was killed along with nine other people when a business jet crashed in Tyer Oblast, north of Moscow.

American military sources believe the crash was likely caused by a bomb on board or sabotage.

The danger of relying on mercenaries forms the plot of The Profession, a 2011 novel by bestselling author Steven Pressfield.

The Profession

Pressfield made his literary reputation with a series of classic novels about ancient Greece.

In Gates of Fire (1998) he explored the rigors and heroism of Spartan society—and the famous last stand of its 300 picked warriors at Thermopylae.

In The Virtues of War (2004) he entered the mind of Alexander the Great, whose armies swept across the known world, destroying all who dared oppose them.  

But in The Profession, Pressfield created a plausible world set into the future of 2032. The book’s own dust jacket offers the best summary of its plot-line:

“Everywhere military force is for hire. Oil companies, multi-national corporations and banks employ powerful, cutting-edge mercenary armies to control global chaos and protect their riches.

“Force Insertion is the world’s merc monopoly. Its leader is the disgraced former United States Marine General James Salter, stripped of his command by the president for nuclear saber-rattling with the Chinese and banished to the Far East.”

Steven Pressfield Focused Interview

 Steven Pressfield

Salter appears as a hybrid of World War II General Douglas MacArthur and Iraqi War General Stanley McCrystal.

Like MacArthur, Salter has butted heads with his President—and paid dearly for it. Now his ambition is no less than to become President himself—by popular acclaim. And like McCrystal, he is a pure warrior who leads from the front and is revered by his men.

Salter seizes Saudi Arabian oil fields, then offers them as a gift to America. By doing so, he makes himself the most popular man in the country—and a guaranteed occupant of the White House.

Douglas MacArthur

Stanley McCrystal 

“The United States is an empire…but the American people lack the imperial temperament,” asserts Salter. “We’re not legionaries, we’re mechanics. In the end the American Dream boils down to what? ‘I’m getting mine and the hell with you.’”

Americans, says Salter, have come to like mercenaries: “They’ve had enough of sacrificing their sons and daughters in the name of some illusory world order. They want someone else’s sons and daughters to bear the burden….

“They want their problems to go away. They want me to to make them go away.”

Returning to the United States, he is acclaimed as a hero—and the next President.

He knows that his country is on a downward spiral toward oblivion: “Any time that you have the rise of mercenaries…society has entered a twilight era, a time past the zenith of its arc.”

And he doesn’t believe that his Presidency will arrest that decline: “But maybe in the short run, it’s better that my hand be on the wheel…rather than some other self-aggrandizing sonofabitch whose motives might not be as well intentioned….” 

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli warned of the dangers of relying on mercenaries:

“Mercenaries…are useless and dangerous. And if a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure; for they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, disloyal; they are brave among friends; among enemies they are cowards.

 Niccolo Machiavelli

“They have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is. For in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”

Centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli issued a warning against relying on men whose first love is their own enrichment.

Steven Pressfield, in a work of fiction, has given us a nightmarish vision of a not-so-distant America where “Name your price” has become the byward for an age.

Both warnings are well worth heeding.

IT’S THE EGO, STUPID!

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 3, 2025 at 12:09 am

It’s commonplace to read about the role sex plays in motivating behavior. But the power of ego to determine history is often ignored.   

Consider the role that ego played in igniting the American Civil War (1861 – 1865).

According to The Destructive War, by Charles Royster, it wasn’t the cause of “states’ rights” that led 11 Southern states to withdraw from the Union in 1860-61. It was their demand for “respect,” which, in reality, translates into “e-g-o.”

“The respect Southerners demanded did not consist simply of the states’ sovereignty or of the equal rights of Northern and Southern citizens, including slaveholders’ right to take their chattels into Northern territory.

“It entailed, too, respect for their assertion of the moral superiority of slaveholding society over free society,” writes Royster.

It was not enough for Southerners to claim equal standing with Northerners; Northerners must acknowledge it. But this was something that the North was less and less willing to do. 

Finally, its citizens dared to elect Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860.

An iconic photograph of a bearded Abraham Lincoln showing his head and shoulders.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln and his new Republican party damned slavery—and slaveholders—as morally evil, obsolete and ultimately doomed. And they were determined to prevent slavery from spreading any further throughout the country.

Southerners found all of this intolerable.

The British author, Anthony Trollope, explained to his readers: “It is no light thing to be told daily, by our fellow citizens…that you are guilty of the one damning sin that cannot be forgiven.

“All this [Southerners] could partly moderate, partly rebuke and partly bear as long as political power remained in their hands. But they have gradually felt that this was going, and were prepared to cut the rope and run as soon as it was gone.”

Only 10% of Southerners owned slaves. The other 90% of the population “had no dog in this fight,” as Southerners liked to say.

Yet they so admired and aspired to be like their “gentleman betters” that they threw in their lot with them.

There were some Southerners who could see what was coming—and vainly warned their fellow citizens against it.

One of these was Sam Houston, the man who had won Texas independence at the 1836 battle of San Jacinto and later served as that state’s governor.

Sam Houston

On April 19, 1860, addressing a crowd in Galveston, he said: “Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you.

“But I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states’ rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates.

“But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

Four years later, on April 9, 1865, Houston’s warning became history.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

Huge sections of the South had been laid waste by Union troops and more than 258,000 Southerners had been killed.

And slavery, the mainstay of Southern plantation life, had been ended forever.

The South had paid an expensive price for its fixation on ego.

Even more proved at risk a century later, when President John F. Kennedy faced off with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.  

Portrait of President Kennedy smiling

John F. Kennedy

In August, 1961, faced with the embarrassment of East Berliners fleeing by the thousands into West Germany, the Soviet leader erected the infamous Berlin Wall, sealing off East and West Berlin.

Khrushchev pressed his advantage, threatening Kennedy with nuclear war unless the Americans abandoned their protection of West Berlin.

In April, Kennedy had been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs when a CIA-sponsored invasion failed to overthrow the Cuba’s Fidel Castro. So he was already on the defensive when he and Khrushchev met in Vienna.

Kennedy’s reaction: If Khrushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it’s all over.”

In short: Kennedy was prepared to incinerate the planet if he felt his almighty ego was about to get smacked.

Nuclear missile in silo

What has proved true for states and nations proves equally true for those leading every other type of institution.

Although most people like to believe they are guided by rationality and morality, all-too-often, what truly decides the course of events is their ego.

For pre-Civil War Southerners, it meant demanding that “Yankees” show respect for slave-owning society.  Otherwise, they would leave the Union.

For Kennedy, it meant playing a game of “chicken,” backed up with nuclear missiles, to show Khrushchev who Numero Uno really was.

And during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October, 1962, humankind almost disappeared as Kennedy set out to make Khrushchev “blink.”

It is well to keep these lessons from history in mind when choosing political leaders—and when making our own major decisions.

READY TO END GUN MASSACRES? HERE’S HOW

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 29, 2025 at 12:14 am

The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one—no matter where he lives or what he does—can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.   

–Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968  

undefined

Senator Robert F. Kennedy announcing the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

By https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14289385

A total of 262 people had been killed and 1,161 people had been wounded in 268 shootings, as of July 31, 2025.

What should the surviving victims of gun massacres do to seek redress?

And how can the relatives and friends of those who didn’t survive seek justice for those they loved?

Two things:

First, don’t count on politicians to support a ban on assault weapons.

Politicians—with rare exceptions—have only two goals:

  1. Get elected to office, and
  2. Stay in office.

And too many of them fear the economic and voting clout of the NRA to risk its wrath.

Consider Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Both rushed to offer condolences to the surviving victims of the massacre at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012.

And both steadfastly refused to even discuss gun control—let alone support a ban on the type of assault weapons used by James Holmes, leaving 12 dead and 58 wounded.

Second, those who survived these massacres—and the relatives and friends of those who didn’t—should file wrongful death, class-action lawsuits against the NRA.

There is sound, legal precedent for this.

  • For decades, the American tobacco industry peddled death and disability to millions and reaped billions of dollars in profits.
  • The industry vigorously claimed there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, emphysema or any other ailment.
  • Tobacco companies spent billions on slick advertising campaigns to win new smokers and attack medical warnings about the dangers of smoking.
  • Tobacco companies spent millions to elect compliant politicians and block anti-smoking legislation.
  • From 1954 to 1994, over 800 private lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies in state courts. But only two plaintiffs prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on appeal.

  • In 1994, amidst great pessimism, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. But other states soon followed, ultimately growing to 46.
  • Their goal: To seek monetary, equitable and injunctive relief under various consumer-protection and anti-trust laws.
  • The theory underlying these lawsuits was: Cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry created health problems among the population, which badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
  • In 1998, the states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs. In return, they exempted the companies from private lawsuits for tobacco-related injuries.
  • The companies agreed to curtail or cease certain marketing practices. They also agreed to pay, forever, annual payments to the states to compensate some of the medical costs for patients with smoking-related illnesses.

The parallels with the NRA are obvious:

  • For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.”  With guns.

  • The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
  • The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.
  • The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.

  • The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.
  • The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
  • The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program—thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.
  • Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.

It will take a series of highly expensive and well-publicized lawsuits to significantly weaken the NRA, financially and politically.

The first ones will have to be brought by the surviving victims of gun violence—and by the friends and families of those who did not survive it. Only they will have the courage and motivation to take such a risk.

As with the cases first brought against tobacco companies, there will be losses. And the NRA will rejoice with each one.

But, in time, state Attorneys Generals will see the clear parallels between lawsuits filed against those who peddle death by cigarette and those who peddle death by armor-piercing bullet.

And then the NRA—like the tobacco industry—will face an adversary wealthy enough to stand up for the rights of the gun industry’s own victims.

Only then will those politicians supporting reasonable gun controls dare to stand up for the victims of these needless tragedies.

BACKING A DICTATOR CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 28, 2025 at 12:10 am

Donald Trump, upon taking office as President, appointed Elon Musk the head of a newly-created government agency called DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). Its stated goal: Eliminating inefficiency and waste within the federal bureaucracy.      

DOGE’s activities included shuttering government agencies, defunding programs and firing up to 100,000 federal employees.

Musk initially claimed he would save taxpayers $2 trillion. But financial records now indicate a savings of $175 billion.

Musk’s tenure with DOGE officially ended on May 29.

Portrait of Elon Musk, a white, middle-age man with short, dark hair, wearing a morning coat

Elon Musk

The Royal Society, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Musk donated $288 million to Trump’s 2024 Presidential campaign. He repeatedly praised Trump: “This election, I think, is going to decide the fate of America, and along with the fate of America, the fate of Western civilization.”

And Trump praised Musk: “Only Elon can do this,” Trump said of a SpaceX launch. “That’s why I love you, Elon.”

But that lovefest has brutally ended. On June 3, 2025, Musk blasted the massive tax-and-spending bill backed by Trump. 

Dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” by Trump—and thus by House and Senate Republicans—the legislation will:

  • Extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, keeping taxes low on the richest Americans;
  • Hurt millions of Americans by slashing $600 billion from Medicaid;
  • Cost millions some or all of their food stamp benefits;
  • Leave nine to 14 million people without health insurance by 2034;
  • Add $3.1 trillion to the nation’s debt.

Having narrowly passed the House of Representatives by one vote, the bill passed the Senate on July 4, as Trump had demanded.

Elon Musk vigorously dissented. In a post on X, his social media site, he wrote: “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore.

“This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.” 

In a follow-up post, he added: “It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.”

Tesla headquarters

Larry D. Moore, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Even worse for Republicans, Musk wrote on X: “In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,” suggesting that he would fund campaigns in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections to remove those who voted for the bill.

Many Republicans were expecting Musk to fund their midterm campaigns against Democrats—and their own primary challengers.

Donald Trump

Trump has loudly proclaimed his belief in taking vengeance on those who cross him: “If someone screws you, screw them back 10 times harder,” he told business leaders during a 2005 speech in Colorado.

Trump is an alpha male who enjoys dominating others. So is Musk. As Dan McAdams, a psychology professor at Northwestern University, told Newsweek:

“Two alphas can probably get along well enough as long as they don’t interfere with each other’s respective domain. 

“Musk is certainly a narcissist but his self-worth is caught up in what he achieves. He really cares about building electric cars, sending people into space, and so on.

“Trump does not care about anything except himself. His entire self worth depends on others adoring him and fearing him.” 

Musk is the world’s richest man, with an estimated net worth of $314 billion as of November 2024, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He owns Tesla, Inc., X (formerly Twitter), Space X and xAI, an artificial intelligence startup that he founded in 2023. 

He commands unlimited resources in money, attorneys and the ability to reach millions through X. He’s received billions of dollars in Federal contracts—among them $733.5 million for the Space Development Agency (SDA) and two for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

But Trump commands the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service. He’s already turned that machinery on former federal officials he hates—such as Chris Krebs, the former director for cybersecurity. 

Pam Bondi, Trump’s appointment for Attorney General, has proven her reliability. As Florida Attorney General, she solicited a political contribution from Trump while her office deliberated investigating alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates.

After Bondi dropped the Trump University case, Trump wrote her a $25,000 check for her re-election campaign. The money came from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

And Trump has already started his attack on Musk: On July 1, when reporters asked him if he would deport South Africa-born Musk, Trump said: “We’ll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon.” 

And on July 3, The New Republic published that Trump was responsible for rumors about Elon Musk’s rampant White House ketamine use: “‘Actually, we dropped a dime to The New York Times….on Elon’s drug taking,’” said Trump, according to his biographer Michael Wolff,

Musk could easily be indicted for corruption—even if it’s totally unwarranted. At the very least, many—if not all—of Musk’s government contracts could be cancelled. At the worst, Musk could find himself locked in combat with Federal prosecutors for the length of Trump’s term and facing huge fines—if not imprisonment.

Ernst Rohm felt invulnerable at the start of 1934. After leaving government with an effusive send-off from Trump, Elon Musk may have felt the same.

Like Rohm, Musk may live to regret the devotion he’s lavished on his choice for Fuhrer.

BACKING A DICTATOR CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 27, 2025 at 12:18 am

On June 30, 1934, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler ordered a massive purge of his private army, the S.A., (Sturmabteilungor). It was carried out by Hitler’s elite army-within-an-army, the Schutzstaffel, or Protective Squads, better known as the SS.               

The Brownshirts (also known as “Storm Troopers”) had been instrumental in securing Hitler’s rise to Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. They had violently intimidated political opponents (especially Communists) and organized mass rallies for the Nazi Party.

But after Hitler reached the pinnacle of power, they became a liability.

Ernst Rohm, their commander, had served as a tough army officer during World War 1. He was one of the few men allowed to use “du,” the personal form of “you” in German, when addressing Hitler.

Rohm urged Hitler to disband the regular German army, the Reichswehr, and replace it with his own undisciplined paramilitary legions as the nation’s defense force.

By 1934, the Storm Troopers numbered approximately three million. By contrast, about 100,000 soldiers served in the Reichswehr, owing to restrictions imposed by the 1919 Versailles Treaty which ended World War 1.

Ernst Rohm

Frightened by Rohm’s ambitions, the generals of the Reichswehr gave Hitler an ultimatum: Get rid of Rohm—or they would get rid of him.

Hitler didn’t hesitate. Backed by armed thugs, he stormed into Rohm’s apartment, catching him in bed with a young S.A. Storm Trooper.

Accusing his onetime friend of treasonously plotting to overthrow him, Hitler screamed: “You’re going to be shot!”

Rohm was not plotting a coup. But the generals had the whip hand—and, for Hitler, that was enough to literally sign Rohm’s death warrant.

Hours later, sitting in a prison cell, Rohm was offered a pistol with a single bullet.

“Adolf himself should do the dirty work,” said Rohm, adding: “All revolutions devour their own children.”

One hour later, Rohm died in a hail of SS bullets.

Earlier throughout that day, so had several hundred of his longtime S.A. cronies. Many of them yelled “Heil Hitler!” as they stood against barracks walls waiting to be shot.

A Nazi DJ spins records at a radio exhibition in Berlin, 1932 - Rare Historical Photos

SS soldiers marching

Thirteen days later, addressing the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament, Hitler justified his purge in a nationally broadcast speech:

“If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not  resort  to the  regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the Supreme Judge of the German people! 

“I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason, and I further gave the order to cauterize down to the raw flesh the ulcers of this poisoning of the wells in our domestic life.

“Let the nation know that its existence—which depends on its internal order and security—cannot be threatened with impunity by anyone! And let it be known for all time to come that if anyone raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot.”

On This Day: Nazi Germany Invades Poland, Starting World War II

Hitler giving the speech

Adolf Hitler addressing parliament

Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-E11354 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Ninety-one years after Adolf Hitler declared himself “the Supreme Judge of the German people,” the United States faces the same fate under re-elected President Donald J. Trump.

And his Number One victim may turn out to be Elon Musk, the man who played a pivotal role in sending him back to the White House. 

Musk, the leader of Space X Tesla and X (formerly Twitter), had donated tens of millions of dollars to pro-Trump super PACs, jumped around the stage behind Trump during campaign rallies, and turned X into a Right-wing cheering squad for Trump.

Trump, upon taking office, appointed Musk the head of a fictional government agency called DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). Its official goal: Eliminating inefficiency and waste within the federal bureaucracy.

But some—like former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen—had a warning for Musk: “Donald Trump is loyal to one person and one person only…himself. 

“The moment Elon steps an inch out of Trump’s line, despite all he might have done for him, Donald will cut him off, disparage and denigrate him. Elon is no different than me or anyone else similarly situated. It’s just a matter of when.”

Cohen speaks from bitter personal experience. 

A longtime executive of the Trump Organization, Cohen told ABC news in 2011: “If somebody does something Mr. Trump doesn’t like, I do everything in my power to resolve it to Mr. Trump’s benefit.”

In April 2018, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York began investigating Cohen. Charges reportedly included bank fraud, wire fraud and violations of campaign finance law.

Trump executive Michael Cohen 012 (5506031001) (cropped).jpg

Michael Cohen

By IowaPolitics.com (Trump executive Michael Cohen 012) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

On April 9, 2018, the FBI, executing a federal search warrant, raided Cohen’s office at the law firm of Squire Patton Boggs, as well as at his home and his room in the Loews Regency Hotel in New York City.

Agents seized emails, tax and business records and recordings of phone conversations that Cohen had made.

Trump’s response: “Michael Cohen only handled a tiny, tiny fraction of my legal work.”  

Thus Trump undermined the argument of Cohen’s lawyers that he was the President’s personal attorney—and therefore everything Cohen did was protected by attorney-client privilege. 

REPUBLICAN SOUTHERNERS: TREASON DIDN’T WORK, MAYBE CORRUPTION WILL

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on August 22, 2025 at 12:08 am

It’s the racism and sexism, stupid!  

That’s how Lilliana Mason, an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University’s SNF Agora Institute, sees the reason for the animosity between Republicans and Democrats. 

“Part of the reason that partisan animosity between Democrats and Republicans is so terrible right now is because what the parties are fighting over are really matters of racial and gender equality—the traditional social hierarchy—and whether we’re going to go back to being a country where White Christian men were always at the top of that hierarchy or become a more egalitarian, multiethnic democracy.” 

Lilliana Mason : Stavros Niarchos Foundation SNF Agora Institute at Johns HopkinsLilliana Mason

Lilliana Mason

Referring to the book she co-wrote with fellow political scientist Nathan P. Kalmoe, Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy, she said:

“What we found in our data was that, particularly on the right, Republicans who really hated Democrats the most were also the highest in racial resentment and sexism.

“And those who hated Democrats the least were those who were lowest in racial resentment and sexism. Actually, in our data, racial resentment is one of the most powerful predictors of Republicans hating Democrats.”

Once again—as in the years leading to the Civil War—it’s the South trying to impose a slavocracy mentality and control over the rest of the nation. 

From 1860 to 1865, the South—Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia-–produced the greatest case of mass treason in America’s history.

Map of U.S. showing two kinds of Union states, two phases of secession and territories

Union (blue) and Confederate (red) states: 1860 – 1865

According to The Destructive War, by Charles Royster, it wasn’t the cause of “states’ rights” that led 11 Southern states to withdraw from the Union in 1860-61. It was their demand for “respect.” 

“The respect Southerners demanded did not consist simply of the states’ sovereignty or of the equal rights of Northern and Southern citizens, including slaveholders’ right to take their chattels into Northern territory.

“It entailed, too, respect for their assertion of the moral superiority of slaveholding society over free society,” writes Royster.

It was not enough for Southerners to claim equal standing with Northerners; Northerners must acknowledge it. But this was something that the North increasingly refused to do. 

Finally, its citizens dared to elect Abraham Lincoln President in 1860. 

An iconic photograph of a bearded Abraham Lincoln showing his head and shoulders.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln and his new Republican party damned slavery—and slaveholders—as morally evil, obsolete and ultimately doomed. And they were determined to prevent slavery from spreading any further throughout the country. 

Southerners found all of this intolerable.

On April 12, 1861—just over a month since Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4—Southern batteries opened fire on Union Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, triggering the Civil War.

More than 750,000.Americans died—when the population of the United States stood at 31,443,321.

Four years later, on April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

Now Southerners are trying to win through political manipulation what they couldn’t by open treason.  

Red states are adopting Fascistic social policies on such issues as abortion, gay rights and classroom censorship. And they are trying to prevent the federal government or their own largest metro areas to resist those policies.

In the case of abortion, Red states are not only outlawing it within their own borders but trying to prevent states where abortion is legal from providing that service.

Thus Republicans, who began as the party of freedom, have mutated into the party now trying to end it.

According to Donald Kettl, the former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland:

“The only time I can recall in American history even remotely like this [divergence] was after the Civil War when the separate but equal doctrine began to emerge” across the South as a backlash against the attempts of the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments to ensure equality for the freed slaves.”

CNN Correspondent Ronald Brownstein warns of this development: 

“The real threat in the red state effort to set their own course may be less an advantage for one side or another than a challenge to the nation’s underlying cohesion. 

“As red states grow more aggressive about going their own way, while working to preempt challenges from above (the federal government) or below (blue local governments), they are testing how much divergence the nation’s fundamental cohesion can take before it begins to unravel.”

Thirty-one states voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Of these:

  • Twenty-four rank in the bottom 25 for the percentage of adults holding at least a four-year college degree;
  • Twenty-seven fall into the top half when ranked by the share of their population that are White Christians of who own guns; 
  • Twenty-one rank in the top 26 states for total energy-related CO₂ emissions;
  • These states have long sought to reverse the “rights revolution” of the last 60 years—on such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception.

Today’s Republican party is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

It has become the party of John Wilkes Booth, Benito Mussolini and Donald Trump.

ALBERT ANASTASIA HAS A MESSAGE FOR DONALD TRUMP: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 21, 2025 at 12:10 am

From June 15, 2015, when he launched his first Presidential campaign, until October 24, 2016, Donald Trump fired almost 4,000 angry, insulting tweets at 281 people and institutions that had somehow offended him— in politics, journalism, TV and films.       

The New York Times needed two full pages of its print edition to showcase them. 

Among his targets:

  • Hillary Clinton 
  • President Barack Obama
  • Actress Meryl Streep
  • Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Comedian John Oliver
  • News organizations
  • The State of New Jersey
  • Beauty pageant contestants

Donald Trump

Recently, Trump resurrected his longstanding feuds with megastars Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen. 

On May 19, he spent several hours on his website, Truth Social, attacking Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce and Bono for having supported Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 Presidential campaign.

In a 2 a.m. post on May 16, he charged that Harris could have paid Springsteen for an “illegal campaign contribution”–without providing any evidence to support it:

“HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT?,” Trump wrote. “WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? …AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO???

“I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment. In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT’S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic “entertainers,” this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!”

And he added: This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just “standard fare.” Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!” 

Bruce Springsteen performing in 2024

Bruce Springsteen 

Raph_PH, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

When a 34-times convicted criminal controls the Justice Department and threatens to investigate a singer for endorsing a political candidate, there is nothing to prevent him from persecuting anyone.

Trump’s rant was triggered by Springsteen’s comment to a crowd a week earlier in Manchester, England:  “In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration. 

“They’re rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just and plural society. They’re abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those struggling for their freedom.”

Nor was Springsteen the only celebrity Trump declared war on. On May 16, he posted: “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’”  

At least in the past, Trump clearly had a soft spot in his pants for Swift. In November, 2023, he told  Variety co-editor-in-chief Ramin Setoodeh: “I think she’s beautiful—very beautiful! I find her very beautiful. I think she’s liberal. She probably doesn’t like Trump. I hear she’s very talented. I think she’s very beautiful, actually—unusually beautiful!”  

Swift glancing towards her left

Taylor Swift 

iHeartRadioCA, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

That apparent one-sided infatuation ended on August 18, 2024, when Trump posted AI-generated images that falsely suggested that Swift endorsed his presidential campaign. The images showed  women wearing “Swifties for Trump” t-shirts. 

In turn, Swift posted on Instagram: “Recently I was made aware that AI of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation.

“It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth. I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.”

Five days after Swift endorsed Harris, Trump, like a spurned lover, posted on Truth Social in all caps, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”

Republicans have shown they’re willing to tolerate—if not enthusiastically support—Trump’s

  • Brazen pardoning of about 1,500 criminals for attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021;
  • Supporting Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine;
  • Attacking America’s allies Canada and Greenland;
  • Slashing Medicaid, which provides medical care for the poor.

But they might—at last—be unnerved by the spectacle of Trump’s unhinged attacks on musical superstars Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen.

Both are more than entertainers; they are role models who command huge influence among even conservative voters Republicans fear alienating.

When Albert Anastasia threatened to become a liability to the ruling chieftains of the Mafia, they decided it was time for him to go—in a hail of bullets.

House and Senate Republicans won’t put a contract out on Trump. But they may decide that it’s time to stop reflexively supporting his every act of aggression, cruelty and egomania.

It’s also possible that members of his Cabinet—including his ambitions Vice President J.D. Vance—may decide it’s time to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment. They could issue a written declaration that Trump is emotionally unable to discharge his duties.

And cite his increasingly erratic behavior—such as his feud with Springsteen and Swift—as evidence.

Only time—and Right-wing ambition—will tell.

ALBERT ANASTASIA HAS A MESSAGE FOR DONALD TRUMP: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 20, 2025 at 12:05 am

Albert Anastasia may have a lesson to teach Donald Trump.          

Born in Calabria, Italy, in 1902, he illegally entered the United States in 1919. By the late 1920s, Anastasia had become a top leader of the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA), controlling six local chapters of the labor union in Brooklyn. 

Soon he entered the ranks of the Mafia. 

His close associates included future crime bosses Charles “Lucky” Luciano, Vito Genovese, Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello.

Anastasia was not a financial wizard like Lansky or a consummate fixer like Costello. His “gift” was on a far more coarse level: He was a killer who turned murder into a highly profitable business.

As the head of “Murder, Inc.,” the Mafia’s extermination squad, Anastasia arranged for the murders of hundreds of men.

Albert Anastasia (born Sept. 26, 1902, Tropea, Italy—died Oct. 25, 1957, New York, N.Y., U.S.) was a major American gangster. Anastasia immigrated to New York City from Italy in 1919 and, in

Albert Anastasia

One of those targets was Abe “Kid Twist” Reles, a Mafia assassin who turned state’s witness in 1941. His revelations sent mobster Louis “Lepke” Buchalter to the electric chair on March 4, 1944—to date, the only mob boss to do so.

Reles’ next target was to be Anastasia himself.

But he never got the chance. Guarded constantly by NYPD detectives at the Half Moon Hotel in Coney Island, Reles was found sprawled on the sidewalk six floors below his room. Police claimed he had made a makeshift rope and climbed out of the window to play a trick on his guards. No one was ever charged with his death. 

“I never met anyone yet who thought Reles went out that window on purpose,” said later Mafia turncoat Joseph Valachi.

In 1951, Anastasia rose to the head of what is now called the Gambino family after making his boss, Vincent Mangno, “do the Houdini,” as mobsters liked to put it.

But his lethal wrath could descend on anyone—including honest citizens who had no connections to organized crime.

Such a citizen was Arnold Schuster, an American clothing salesman and amateur detective. On February 18, 1952, while riding the Brooklyn subway, Schuster spotted notorious bank robber Willie “The Actor” Sutton.

 Arnold Schuster

Following Sutton to a garage, Schuster quickly notified police of his whereabouts. They arrested Sutton as he changed a dead battery from his car, which had stalled in the street.

Schuster became—briefly—a celebrity. 

Then, on March 8, a gunman shot Schuster outside his home. Police were baffled: Schuster was not a mobster, and Sutton had no ties to organized crime.

Only years later did the truth emerge: According to Mafia informant Joseph Valachi, Anastasia was watching TV when Schuster was being interviewed. Anastasia yelled at a nearby enforcer: “I can’t stand squealers! Hit that guy!”

Anastasia’s murder of Schuster violated a cardinal Mafia rule: Police, prosecutors and and citizens who aren’t involved in organized crime are off-limits.

This isn’t because mobsters want to be “good guys.” It’s because attacks on these people draw unacceptable heat from the press and police.

In 1935, the Commission, the governing body established by Luciano, learned that mobster Arthur Flegenheimer—better known as Dutch Schultz—planned to “hit” New York Special Prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey.

Knowing that this would provoke an all-out attack on the Mafia, the Commission ordered Schutz’ own murder—which occurred on October 23, 1935.

Anastasia already had plenty of enemies within the mob. They feared his insatiable greed and willingness to destroy anyone who stood in his way. One of these was Meyer Lansky, who, by the mid-1950s, had set up a highly profitable casino empire in Havana, Cuba.

Anastasia made it clear he wanted a hefty portion of those revenues. 

Anastasia’s murder of Arnold Schuster gave his enemies another reason to scorn him: His sheer unpredictability. If he could order the execution of a “civilian” who had become a minor celebrity, he could order the execution of anyone.

Vito Genovese, eager to replace Frank Costello as “boss of all bosses” of the Mafia, knew that Anastasia was a longtime friend of Costello. And any move made against Costello would be swiftly avenged by Anastasia.

Vito Genovese

Genovese found it easy to persuade other high-ranking Mafiosi that the killing of Schuster proved that Anastasia was too unstable to be allowed to live.

On October 27, 1957, Anastasia became a victim of his own specialty. While resting under hot towels in the Sheraton Palace barber shop, he didn’t see two men with scarves covering their faces rush in.

As the gunmen fired at Anastasia, he lunged at their reflections in the wall mirror of the barber shop. The gunmen continued firing until a lucky shot struck him in the back of the head.  

So much for Anastasia.

Now for Donald Trump, a President who not only acts like a mobster but has had close business relationships with mobsters.

Specifically: Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, head of the Genovese crime Family, and Paul “Big Paul” Castellano, boss of the Gambino one. Trump reportedly employed construction companies linked to both Families to build Trump Plaza and Trump Tower.

Trump’s mania for using social media to attack everyone he hates is deservedly legendary. But his latest rabid attacks on megastars Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen may have sealed his own fate.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: CHARMING A TYRANT, OUTFOXING A FOOL–PART TWO (END)

In History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 19, 2025 at 12:04 am

On August 15, 2025, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska.    

While flying to Alaska, Trump said his main goal was a ceasefire in Ukraine—and warned of “severe consequences” if it didn’t happen.

But shortly after meeting Putin, Trump reversed himself and said a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war wasn’t critical.

He wrote on social media that “it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”

Through “by all” he meant that he—a would-be tyrant, and Putin, a demonstrated one—decided that Ukraine should submit to Putin’s imperialistic demands.

In short: There would be no “consequences” for Putin.

Trump has always shown a deference to dictators—and a disdain for democracies. He admires tyrants who can—and do—order the arrest and murder of their political opponents. And no doubt he wishes he could do the same.

This latest meeting between Trump and Putin is essentially an updated version of the infamous Munich Conference. There, on September 29, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

Hitler had threatened war with Czechoslovakia—and even with Great Britain—if the Czechs did not cede to Germany the “Sudetenland.” This consisted of the northern, southwest and western regions of Czechoslovakia, inhabited mostly by ethnic Germans. 

Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler

Hitler now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories. This would give the Czechoslovak army no time to adapt their defense measures to the new borders.

On September 29, Hitler, Chamberlain and  French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier signed the Munich Agreement, which accepted the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland.

The Czechoslovak government had not been a party to the talks. Nevertheless, it promised to abide by the agreement on September 30. 

Like Ukraine with Trump, it had been deserted by its pledged allies: Britain, France and the Soviet Union. 

On February 28, Trump had given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a foretaste of the outcome of this meeting. 

Having invited Zelensky to the White House, Trump insulted and threatened him with the loss of American support if he didn’t make concessions to Russia: “You’ve done enough talking. You’re not winning this. You gotta be thankful. You don’t have the cards.”

ZELENSKY: I’m not playing cards. I’m very serious, Mr. President. I’m the president in a war.

TRUMP:  You’re gambling with World War Three. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.

VICE PRESIDENT J.D. VANCE: Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting? No. 

It’s impossible to imagine a scene like this occurring between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

But, then, Roosevelt was a President who championed democracy and hated tyrants.

The opposite of the man now occupying the White House.

Before Trump substituted tyranny for patriotism, his predecessor, George W. Bush, substituted naïveté for common sense.

In June 2001, Bush and 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 ideology. 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 Fourmier 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.”