Posts Tagged ‘PBS NEWSHOUR’
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ARIZONA SHOOTINGS, ASSASSINATION, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRISTINA-TAYLOR GREEN, CNN, CONFEDERATE FLAG, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DRUDGE REPORT, DYLANN ROOF, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HATE CRIMES, HEALTHCARE, HUFFINGTON POST, MEDIA MATTERS, MEIN KAMPF, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, RICK PERRY, RICK SANTORUM, RODNEY KING RIOTS, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE, SALON, Sarah Palin, SEATTLE TIMES, Secret Service, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN ROLL, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am
“The Republican Party has weaponized its supporters, made violence a virtue and, with almost every pronouncement for 50 years, given them an enemy politicized, radicalized and indivisible.”
So wrote Rolling Stone writer in a blistering June 19 editorial. The touchstone was the slaughter of nine black worshipers by a white supremacist at a South Carolina black church.
But the proof of Republican culpability in political violence goes back much further.
Consider:
Gabrille Giffords, 40, is a moderate Democrat who narrowly wins re-election in November, 2010, against a Republican Tea Party candidate.
Her support of President Obama’s health care reform law has made her a target for violent rhetoric–-especially from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
In March, 2010, Palin releases a map featuring 20 House Democrats that uses cross-hairs images to show their districts. In case her supporters don’t get the message, she later writes on Twitter: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”

Sarah Palin’s “Crosshairs” Map
As the campaign continues, Giffords finds her Tucson office vandalized after the House passes the healthcare overhaul in March.
Giffords senses that she has become a target for removal–in more than political terms. In an interview after the vandalizing of her office, she refers to the animosity against her by conservatives.
She specifically cites Palin’s decision to list her seat as one of the top “targets” in the midterm elections.
“For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the cross-hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,” Giffords tells MSNBC.
At one of her rallies, her aides call the police after an attendee drops a gun.
Giffords may have seen the spectre of violence closing in on her. In April, 2010, she supported Rep. Raúl Grijalva after he had to close two offices when he and his staff received threats.
He had called for a boycott of Arizona businesses in opposition to the state’s controversial immigration law.
“I am deeply troubled about reports that Congressman Grijalva and members of his staff have been subjected to death threats,” Giffords said.
“This is not how we, as Americans, express our political differences. Intimidation has no place in our representative democracy. Such acts only make it more difficult for us to resolve our differences.”
But intimidation–-and worse–-does have a place among the tactics used by influential Republicans in the pursuit of absolute power.
Increasingly, Republicans have repeatedly aimed violent–-and violence-arousing–-rhetoric at their Democratic opponents. This is not a case of careless language that is simply misinterpreted, with tragic results.
Republicans like Sarah Palin fully understand the constituency they are trying to reach: Those masses of alienated, uneducated Americans who live only for their guns and hardline religious beliefs–and who can be easily manipulated by perceived threats to either.
If a “nutcases” assaults a Democratic politician and misses, then the Republican establishment claims to be shocked–-shocked!–-that such a thing could have happened.
And if the attempt proves successful–-as the January 8, 2011 Tucson shootings did–-then Republicans weep crocodile tears for public consumption.
The difference is that, in this case, they rejoice in knowing that Democratic ranks have been thinned and their opponents are even more on the defensive, for fear of the same happening to them.
Consider the following:
- Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) yelled “baby killer” at Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on the House floor.
- Florida GOP Congressional candidate Allen West, referring to his Democratic opponent, Rep. Ron Klein, told Tea Party activists: You’ve got to make the fellow scared to come out of his house. That’s the only way that you’re going to win. That’s the only way you’re going to get these people’s attention.”
- Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said Tea Partiers had “every right” to use racist and homophobic slurs against Democrats, justifying it via Democrats’ “totalitarian tactics.”
- Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she wanted her constituents “armed and dangerous” against the Obama administration.
- Sarah Palin told her supporters: “Get in their face and argue with them. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!”
- Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”
- Senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) “We’re going to keep building the party until we’re hunting Democrats with dogs.”
- Rep. Louisa M. Slauter (D-NY) received a phone message threatening sniper attacks against lawmakers and their families.
Since the end of World War 11, Republicans have regularly hurled the charge of “treason” against anyone who dared to run against them for office or think other than Republican-sponsored thoughts.
Republicans had been locked out of the White House from 1933 to 1952, during the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
Determined to regain the Presidency by any means, they found that attacking the integrity of their fellow Americans a highly effective tactic.
During the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy rode a wave of paranoia to national prominence–by attacking the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with him.
The fact that McCarthy never uncovered one actual case of treason was conveniently overlooked during his lifetime.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ARIZONA SHOOTINGS, ASSASSINATION, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRISTINA-TAYLOR GREEN, CNN, CONFEDERATE FLAG, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DRUDGE REPORT, DYLANN ROOF, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HATE CRIMES, HEALTHCARE, HUFFINGTON POST, MEDIA MATTERS, MEIN KAMPF, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, RICK PERRY, RICK SANTORUM, RODNEY KING RIOTS, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE, SALON, Sarah Palin, SEATTLE TIMES, Secret Service, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN ROLL, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 23, 2015 at 3:39 pm
On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof, a white high school dropout, gunned down three black men and six black women at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
At 21, Roof was unemployed, dividing his time between playing video games and taking drugs.

Dylann Roof
The signs of Roof’s malignant racism were evident long before he turned mass murderer:
- He had posed for a photo sitting on the hood of his parents’ car–whose license plate bore a Confederate flag.
- He had posed for pictures wearing a jacket sporting the white supremacist flags of Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.
- He told a friend that he hoped “to start a civil war” between the black and white races.
- Roof reportedly told friends and neighbors of his plans to kill people.
- In the midst of his massacre of unarmed worshippers, he told one of his victims: “You’ve raped our women, and you are taking over the country.” Then Roof shot him.
The evidence makes clear that Roof’s slaughter was racially motivated. Yet one Republican Presidential candidate after another has refused to acknowledge it.
Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida: “I don’t know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes.”
Rick Santorum, former United States Senator from Pennsylvania: “You talk about the importance of prayer in this time and we’re now seeing assaults on our religious liberty we’ve never seen before. It’s a time for deeper reflection beyond this horrible situation.”
Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana: “I don’t think we’ll ever know what was going on in his mind.”
But Rolling Stone magazine writer Jeb Lund left no doubt as to what–and who–was ultimately responsible for this crime: Racism and Republicans.
In a June 19 editorial–published two days after the massacre–Lund noted: “This [crime] is political because American movement conservatism has already made these kinds of killings political.
“The Republican Party has weaponized its supporters, made violence a virtue and, with almost every pronouncement for 50 years, given them an enemy politicized, racialized and indivisible.
“Movement conservatives have fetishized a tendentious and ahistorical reading of the Second Amendment to the point that the Constitution itself somehow paradoxically ‘legitimizes’ an armed insurrection against the government created by it.
“Those leading said insurrection are swaddled by the blanket exculpation of patriotism. At the same time, they have synonymized the Democratic Party with illegitimacy and abuse of the American order.
“This is no longer an argument about whether one party’s beliefs are beneficial or harmful, but an attitude that labels leftism so antithetical to the American idea that empowering it on any level is an act of usurpation.”
Click here: The Charleston Shooter: Racist, Violent, and Yes – Political | Rolling Stone
Lund is absolutely right. And the evidence for this was on display long before Dylann Roof opened fire on “uppity blacks” praying in their own church.
Consider:
On January 8, 2011, Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head while meeting with constituents outside a grocery store in Tucson, Arizona. After a miraculous recovery, she continues to struggle with language and has lost 50% of her vision in both eyes.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
She vowed to return to her former Congressional duties, but was forced to resign for health reasons in 2012.
Giffords was only one victim of a shooting spree that claimed the lives of six people and left 13 others wounded.
Also killed was Arizona’s chief U.S. District judge, John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after celebrating Mass.
Although the actual shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was immediately arrested, those who fanned the flames of political violence that consumed 19 people that day have remained unpunished.
Consider the circumstances behind the shootings:
John Roll is Arizona’s chief federal judge. Appointed in 2006, he wins acclaim as a respected jurist and leader who pushes to beef up the court’s strained bench to handle a growing number of border crime-related cases.
In 2009, he becomes a target for threats after allowing a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit by illegal aliens to proceed against a local rancher. The case arouses the fury of local talk radio hosts, who encourage their audiences to threaten Roll’s life.
In one afternoon, Roll logs more than 200 threatening phone calls. Callers threaten the judge and his family. They post personal information about Roll online.
Roll and his wife are placed under fulltime protection by deputy U.S. marshals. Roll finds living under security “unnerving and invasive.”
Authorities identify four men believed responsible for the threats. But Roll declines to press charges on the advice of the Marshals Service.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, ARTHUR WELLESLEY, BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE, BLACKMAIL, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DENNIS HASTERT, DUKE OF WELLINGTON, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, FEDERAL BANKING LAWS, HARRIETTE WILSON, J. EDGAR HOOVER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH STOCKDALE, JUDITH CAMPBELL, MAFIA, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SALON, SAM GIANCANA, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 10, 2015 at 12:03 am
On May 28, Dennis Hastert, the former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives (1999-2007) was indicted for violating federal banking laws and lying to the FBI.
He had tried to conceal $3.5 million in hush-money payments over several years to a man who was blackmailing him.

Dennis Hastert
The source of the blackmail: A homosexual–and possibly coerced–relationship with an underage student while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at Yorkville High School, in Yorkville, Illinois–long before Hastert entered Congress in 1981.
Hastert wasn’t indicted for having had a sexual relationship with an underage student. The statute of limitations had long ago run out on that offense.
He was indicted for trying to evade federal banking laws and lying to the FBI.
According to the indictment, the FBI began investigating the cash withdrawals in 2013.
The Bureau wanted to know if Hastert was using the cash for criminal purposes or if he was the victim of a criminal extortion.
When questioned by the FBI, Hastert said he was storing cash because he didn’t feel safe with the banking system: “Yeah, I kept the cash. That’s what I’m doing.”
Thus, irony: By giving in to blackmail, Hastert:
- Lost $3.5 million;
- Unintentionally engineered his arrest and indictment; and
- Ensured that his darkest secret would be revealed.
There is a lesson to be learned here–one that longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover well understood: Giving in to blackmail only empowers the blackmailer even more.
As William C. Sullivan, the onetime director of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Divison, revealed after Hoover’s death in 1972:
“The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator, he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter.
“‘But we wanted you to know this. We realize you’d want to know it.’ Well, Jesus, what does that tell the senator? From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.”
“Boy, the dirt he [Hoover] has on those Senators!” John F. Kennedy–a former Senator now President–gushed to his journalist-friend, Benjamin C. Bradlee.
Kennedy soon came to know that even Presidents could be targeted for blackmail.
In May, 1962, Hoover privately informed Kennedy that the FBI had learned that Judith Campbell, the mistress of Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana, had another bedmate: JFK himself.

John F. Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover and Robert F. Kennedy
Hoover had feared being retired by the President’s brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. It had been RFK who had ordered Hoover to attack the Mafia as he had long attacked the Communist Party USA.
Now, as a result of that anti-Mob effort, the FBI had picked up evidence linking the President with the mistress of a top Mafia boss.
Hoover’s tenure as FBI director was thus assured–until his death on May 2, 1972, of a heart attack.
Narcotics agents have their own methods of blackmail in dealing with informants.
When a drug-abuser and/or dealer is coerced into becoming a “snitch,” the narcotics agent orders him to call another user/dealer he knows.
The agent then tapes the call–and makes sure his new informant knows it. From that moment, the “snitch” knows there’s no way out except cooperating with his new master.
The only effective way of handling blackmail was demonstrated by Arthur Wellesley, known to history as the Duke of Wellington.

The Duke of Wellington
In 1815, he had defeated Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo, ending France’s longstanding threat to England. With that victory came the honors of a grateful nation.
Then, in December, 1824, Wellington found himself the target of blackmail by Joseph Stockdale, a pornographer and scandal-monger.
“My Lord Duke,” Stockdale write in a letter, “In Harriette Wilson’s memoirs, which I am about to publish, are various anecdotes of Your Grace which it would be most desirable to withhold….
“I have stopped the Press for the moment, but as the publication will take place next week, little delay can necessarily take place.”
Wilson was a famous London courtesan past her prime, then living in exile in Paris. She was asking Wellington to pay money to be left out of her memoirs.
From Wellington came the now-famous reply: “Publish and be damned!”
Wilson’s memoirs appeared in installments, naming half the British aristocracy and scandalizing London society.
And, true to her threat, she named Wellington as one of her lovers–and a not very satisfying one at that.
Wellington was a national hero, husband and father. Even so, his reputation did not suffer, and he went on to become prime minister.
Click here: Rear Window: When Wellington said publish and be damned: The Field Marshal and the Scarlet Woman – Voices
Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, might now wish he had followed the example of the Duke of Wellington.
His reputation might have been trashed, but he wouldn’t now be facing prosecution.
As matter now stand, his reputation has been trashed, and he is facing prosecution.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DENNIS HASTERT, FACEBOOK, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, JEB BUSH, JOSH DUGGAR, MIKE HUCKABEE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICK SANTORUM, SALON, SCOTT WALKER, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TED CRUZ, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 4, 2015 at 12:45 am
May was a cruel month for sexual perverts posing as “family values” patriots.
On May 21, Josh Duggar resigned as director of the Family Research Council, a Right-wing organization dedicated to fighting sexually-oriented issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion and pornography.
The reason: The oldest son of the “all-American” Duggar family turns out to have been an “all-American” child molester as a teenager.
That would have been bad enough for Right-wingers who claim to be God’s anointed, charged with a sacred mission to “save” American sinners from themselves.
But then the other shoe dropped.
On May 28, Dennis Hastert, the former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives (1999-2007) was indicted for violating federal banking laws and lying to the FBI.
He had tried to conceal $3.5 million in hush-money payments over several years to a man who was blackmailing him.

Dennis Hastert
The source of the blackmail: A homosexual–and possibly coerced–relationship that had occurred before Hastert entered Congress in 1981.
Except that it was more than a homosexual relationship. It was a relationship with an underage student while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at Yorkville High School in Yorkville, Ill.
“I felt a special bond with our wrestlers,” Hastert wrote in his 2004 memoirs, Speaker: Lessons From Forty Years of Coaching and Politics. “And I think they felt one with me.”
Apparently that “special bond” extended to activities outside the ring.
Hastert wasn’t indicted for having had a sexual relationship with an underage student. The statute of limitations had long ago run out on that offense.
He was indicted for trying to evade federal banking laws and lying to the FBI.
The indictment did not provide specifics about Hastert’s relationship with the former student. But it clearly indicated that Hastert’s early career at Yorkville High School was material to the charges.
Jeffrey Cramer, a former federal prosecutor now head of the Chicago division of the private security company, Kroll, told the Chicago Tribune:
“The feds don’t put superfluous facts in an indictment. If it’s in there, it’s relevant.”
Cramer added that the sheer size of the payoffs pointed to a secret that was clearly devastating: “$3.5 million is a lot of money to keep a secret hidden.”
According to the indictment, the FBI began investigating the cash withdrawals in 2013.
The Bureau wanted to know if Hastert was using the cash for criminal purposes or if he was the victim of a criminal extortion.
When questioned by the FBI, Hastert said he was storing cash because he didn’t feel safe with the banking system: “Yeah … I kept the cash. That’s what I’m doing.”
One part of Hastert’s life was not secret: His opposition to homosexual rights.
From 1997 to 2007, Hastert voted for the Marriage Protection Act, which “forbids requiring any state or any other political subdivision of the United States to credit as a marriage a same-sex relationship treated as marriage in another state or equivalent government.”
Hastert also voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment to “establish that marriage shall consist of one man and one woman.”
He also voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which banned companies from discriminating against employees “on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Owing to Hastert’s “deeply conservative” voting record, in 1998, he received perfect scores of 100 from
- The National Rifle Association;
- The Christian Coalition;
- The National Right to Life Committee; and
- The Chamber of Commerce
Click here: Dennis Hastert’s secret gay ‘misconduct’ is even worse given his terrible voting record on gay rights
Hastert makes the third Republican “family values” Speaker of the House to become ensnared in an ethics scandal.
Newt Gingrich was the first Speaker (1985-1999) in the history of the House to be reprimanded and punished for ethics violations. His offense: Claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes.
He successor, Bob Livingston, was forced to resign when publisher Larry Flynt revealed his sexual infidelities.
And now there’s Dennis Hastert, whose conduct involved neither money nor women–just a male high school student.
Of course, Democrats have had their sex scandals as well–as President Bill Clinton can thoroughly attest. But Democrats usually don’t suffer as badly from them.
The reason: Republicans portray themselves as moral examples for the nation. So for them, being caught literally with their pants down proves a double-whammy.
They are condemned for their specific illegal/immoral acts–and for the sheer hypocrisy of their false claims of sainthood.
Ironically, Right-wingers like Hastert would fare better when caught in homosexual affairs if they simply admitted their sexual tastes and registered as Democrats.
But in heavily Right-wing states like Texas and Oklahoma, they wouldn’t stand a chance of being elected as a Democrat.
And Red-state voters, feeling themselves moral arbiters of the nation, wouldn’t elect anyone they thought was “unnatural.”
So Right-wingers will continue pretending to be moral paragons–and will continue paying the price when they’re exposed as fallible humans.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DENNIS HASTERT, FACEBOOK, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, JEB BUSH, JOSH DUGGAR, MIKE HUCKABEE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICK SANTORUM, SALON, SCOTT WALKER, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TED CRUZ, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on June 3, 2015 at 1:13 am
May was a cruel month for sexual perverts posing as “family values” patriots.
On May 21, Josh Duggar resigned as director of the Family Research Council, a Right-wing organization dedicated to fighting sexually-oriented issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion and pornography.
Duggar, 27, had owed his position to his status as the oldest son of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, of Tonitown, Arkansas.
Until his resignation, the Duggars were famous for popping out babies (19 at last count) and championing Right-wing “family values” causes.

Josh Duggar, the “all-American” child molester
Then came the bombshell: On May 21, Josh Duggar issued a statement to People magazine explaining why he had resigned from the Family Research Council. He later published the statement on his Facebook page.
It read, in part:
“Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation.
“We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life.”
What his statement didn’t say was this:
- In 2002-3, as a 14-15 year-old, Josh Duggar had fondled the breasts and vaginas of five underage girls–four of whom were his own sisters.
- Although his parents knew about his perverted activities, Jim Bob Duggar waited more than a year after Josh confessed before contacting the police.
- Police began investigating the abuse in 2006 when tipped by a family friend but concluded the statute of limitations had lifted.
- His father later took him to talk with a close family friend, an Arkansas state trooper. The trooper gave him a “stern talk,” but did not open a case. Nor was Duggar referred for criminal charges.
- The same state trooper was later arrested on child pornography charges and is now in prison serving a 56-year sentence.
- His resignation wasn’t prompted by a guilty conscience but by two days of media reports on this story.
As a result of these revelations, on May 22, The Learning Channel (TLC) canceled its high-rated “reality” series, 19 Kids and Counting, which had showcased the Duggar family since 2008.
The scandalous revelations have turned the reactionary, anti-abortion, anti-gay Duggars into comedic fodder for standup comedians, cartoonists and visitors to Twitter and Facebook.
One cartoon showed Josh Duggar saying, “I got a word named after me,” and holding a sign defining that word: “Duggar: To sexually abuse innocent victims while trumpeting your own moral superiority. Example: Hold my Bible while I duggar you.”
And on Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show, Larry Whitmore made Josh Duggar a target for dark humor:
“So you mean to tell me the family that goes around saying gay and trans people are pedophiles preying on America’s young people actually has a pedophile that preys on America’s young people? I hate pedophiles, but I love irony.”
And on Twitter, the criticism continued:
- “Josh Duggar says no child should feel the pain of being aborted. I say no child should feel the pain of being molested.”
- “So daddy Duggar is ok with his son molesting his daughters, but not ok with his daughters leaving for college. Misogyny at its greatest.”
- “In the Duggar family, you’re reprimanded for kissing before marriage but not for assaulting your siblings.”
- “Hope no gay wedding cakes were baked while Duggar was molesting girls because that would go against his religious beliefs.”
So far, the Duggars and TLC have taken the hits in public opinion. But Republican candidates and party officials may be next.
The family has been a magnet for Right-wingers owing to its staunchly anti-abortion and anti-gay stance. Add to this the Duggars’ claims to religious devotion and their clear disregard for birth control–and their being stars in “reality TV.”
And Josh Duggar has shown his gratitude for the fawning attention lavished upon him by these Right-wingers.
That gratitude–captured in a series of Tweets on Twitter–may prove highly embarrassing to the careers of many of these political figures.
Among those Tweets:

ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FULL METAL JACKET, ISIS, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MARK SHIELDS, NBC NEWS, PBS NEWSHOUR, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER, SHIITE MUSLIMS, STANLEY KUBRICK, SUNNI MUSLIMS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on May 26, 2015 at 12:11 am
The relationship between the United States and Iraq has become dangerously similar to the one that existed between America and South Vietnam from 1955 to 1973.
From 1955 to 1963, the United States backed Ngo Dinh Diem as the “president” of South Vietnam. During those eight years:
- Diem was a Catholic mandarin who was alienated from an overwhelmingly poor, 95% Buddhist country.
- The Shiite-dominated government of Iraq refuses to grant political concessions to alienated Sunnis.
- Diem’s authority didn’t extend far beyond Saigon.
- The Iraqi government controls little outside of Baghdad.
- Diem didn’t believe in democracy–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring it to Vietnam.
- Neither does the government in Baghdad.

Ngo Dinh Diem
- Diem was widely regarded in Vietnam as an illegitimate leader, imposed by the Americans.
- Ditto for the leaders of the Iraqi government.
- American soldiers were sent to Vietnam because America feared Communism.
- American soldiers have were sent to Iraq because America fears Islamic terrorism.
- American troops were ordered to train the South Vietnamese army to defend themselves against Communism.
- American troops were ordered to train the Iraqi army to defend themselves against terrorism.
- Americans quickly determined that the South Vietnamese army was worthless–and decided to fight the Vietcong in its place.
- Americans–such as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter–have determined that the Iraqi army is worthless. Yet many Americans on the Right believe the United States should commit American ground troops to fight ISIS in its place.

American soldiers in Vietnam
- The Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) fought to unify their country–and posed no threat to the United States.
- ISIS is warring on Shiite Muslims–and poses no direct threat to the United States.
- The far Right embraced the Vietnam war to assert American power in Asia.
- The far Right embraces the Iraqi war to assert American power in the Middle East.
- Americans entered Vietnam without an exit strategy.
- Americans entered Iraq without an exit strategy.

American soldiers in Iraq
The United States’ relationship with Diem ended on November 1, 1963. A coup led by generals of the South Vietnamese army ousted–and murdered–Diem.
But America continued to support successive and incompetent South Vietnamese dictatorships up to the end of the war in 1973.
Americans have been at war with Islamic expansionists since 2001. But Republicans and their Rightist supporters want more of the same.
Rick Perry, former governor of Texas, has stated: “We face a global struggle against radical Islamic terrorists, and we are in the early stages of this struggle.”
And New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has declared: “No wonder we’re not intimidating our adversaries and they’re running around wild in the world, because they know we’re not investing in our defense anymore.”
As political commentator Mark Shields said on the May 22 edition of The PBS Newshour:
“Rick Perry has said–wants boots on the ground. Other Republicans have said they want boots on the ground, but they don’t necessarily have to be American boots. They should be Arab boots.
“Now, there are 60 nations in this coalition. I haven’t seen people lining up to join this fight. I mean, in a proxy war, you are dependent upon your proxies. And the Iraqis turn out to be not particularly engaged, divided, not unified, not committed the same way….
“[Republicans are saying] Get tough, get tough, swagger; 10,000 troops….
“George Pataki said, put in as many as you need, and kill everybody you can and get out. Now, getting out, I think, was the question and it remains the dilemma to this moment.”
* * * * *
Almost 50 years ago, American “grunts” felt about their South Vietnamese “allies” as American troops now feel about their Iraqi “allies.”
Dr. Dennis Greenbaum, a former army medic, summed it up as follows:

American surgical team in Vietnam
“The highest [priority for medical treatment] was any U.S. person.
“The second highest was a U.S. dog from the canine corps.
“The third was NVA [North Vietnamese Army].
“The fourth was VC [Viet Cong].
“And the fifth was ARVIN [Army of the Republic of South Vietnam], because they had no particular value,” said Greenbaum.
When you despise the “ally” you’re spending lives and treasure to defend, it’s time to pack up.
President Obama should recognize this–and start shipping those troops home. And he should explain to Americans that a war among Islamics is actually in America’s best interests:
- While Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources–and incentive–to attack the United States.
- Every dead Hezbollah, ISIS and Al-Qaeda member makes the United States that much safer.
- The peoples of the Middle East have long memories for those who commit brutalities against them. In their veins, the cult of the blood feud runs deep.
- This conflict could easily become the Islamic equivalent of “the Hundred Years’ War” that raged from 1337 to 1453 between England and France.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing off each other. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.
ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FULL METAL JACKET, ISIS, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MARK SHIELDS, NBC NEWS, PBS NEWSHOUR, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER, SHIITE MUSLIMS, STANLEY KUBRICK, SUNNI MUSLIMS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on May 25, 2015 at 12:54 am
From 1965 until 1973, the United States lent its full military power to aiding the dictatorship of South Vietnam against the dictatorship of North Vietnam.
Despite this, veterans of combat with the North Vietnamese Army showed far more respect for their hard-core enemies than their supposedly staunch South Vietnamese allies.
Consider the following examples, taken from the screenplay of Stanley Kubrick’s classic 1987 film, Full Metal Jacket.
The movie is largely based on Dispatches, the Vietnam memoirs of Michael Herr, a war correspondent for Esquire magazine (1967-1969).
Example 1:
A group of Marines are resting on the plaza of a pagoda. One of them calls to a photographer for the Marine newspaper, The Sea Tiger: “Hey photographer! You want to take a good picture? Here, man, take this. This is my bro….”
He lifts a hat, which is covering the face of a dead man–and reveals the face, not of an American, but of a North Vietnamese soldier.

“This is my bro…”
“This is his party. He’s the guest of honor. Today is his birthday. I will never forget this day. The day I came to Hue City and fought one million N.V.A. [North Vietnamese Army] gooks.
“I love the little Commie bastards, man, I really do. These enemy grunts are as hard as slant-eyed drill instructors. These people we wasted here today are the finest human beings we will ever know.
“After we rotate back to the world [the United States] we’re gonna miss not having anyone around that’s worth shooting.”
Example 2:
A reporter for a TV news crew is interviewing Marines during a lull in the fighting for the city of Hue.
EIGHTBALL: “Personally, I think they don’t really want to be involved in this war. I mean, they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the gookers, you know. But they don’t want it. They’d rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.”
COWBOY: “Well, the ones I’m fighting at are some pretty bad boys. I’m not real keen on some of these fellows that are supposed to be on our side. I keep meeting ’em coming the other way.”
DONLON: “I mean, we’re getting killed for these people and they don’t even appreciate it. They think it’s a big joke.”
ANIMAL MOTHER: “Well, if you ask me, uh, we’re shooting the wrong gooks.”
Example 3:
Haggling with a South Vietnamese pimp over the cost of a prostitute’s wares, a Marine recites a joke popular among American forces: “Be glad to trade you some ARVN rifles. Never been fired and only dropped once” [by retreating South Vietnamese forces].
* * * * *
Now, fast-forward from Vietnam in 1968 to Iraq in 2015.
Once again, the United States seems poised to embrace another worthless “ally.”
On May 25, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter bluntly accused the army of Iraq of lacking the will to stand up to its enemies in the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter
On May 17, the Iraqi city of Ramadi fell to ISIS after the Iraqi army deserted the citizens counting on its protection.
Appearing on CNN’s Sunday news show, State of the Union, Carter said:
“What apparently happened is that the Iraqi forces showed no will to fight. They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force.
“That says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight [ISIS] and defend themselves.”
On the May 22, edition of the PBS Newshour, political commentator Mark Shields–a former Marine–sized up the situation:
“And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said they were not driven, the Iraqi army was not driven out of Ramadi. They drove out of Ramadi.
“They aren’t a paper tiger. They’re a paper tabby cat….
“But I will say that there are 250,000 Iraqi troops. There are, by CIA estimates, up to 31,000 ISIS troops.
“And you have full flight. I mean, they won’t be engaged. They haven’t been engaged.”
In 2010, President Barack Obama announced the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq.
Since then, Obama’s strategy for turning Iraq into a bulwark against islamic extemism has rested on two goals:
- Rebuilding and retraining the Iraqi army; and
- Prodding the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad to reconcile with the nation’s Sunnis.
The second goal is especially important. The Sunnis, a religious minority in Iraq, ruled the country for centuries until the United States drove Saddam Hussein from power in 2003.
Now the Shiites are in control of Iraq, and they have been unwilling to grant political concessions to the alienated Sunnis. Baghdad has continued to work closely with Shiite militias backed by Iran.
In turn, the Sunnis have become a source of manpower and money for ISIS.
America’s relationship with Iraq has become eerily similar to the one it had with South Vietnam from 1955 to 1973.
And that relationship led the United States into the most divisive war in its history since the Civil War (1861-1865).
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS THEORY, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, EMPLOYMENT, FACEBOOK, INCOME INEQUALITY, JOHN BOEHNER, MARK SHIELDS, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, OBAMACARE, PBS NEWSHOUR, PLUTOCRACY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on April 24, 2015 at 12:15 am
If passed by Congress and vigorously enforced by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor, an Employers Responsibility Act would ensure full-time, permanent and productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans.
Among its remaining provisions:
(10) CEOs whose companies employ illegal aliens would be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates. Upon conviction, the CEO would be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least ten years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for controlling illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./ Mexican border.
With CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions, they would take drastic steps to ensure their companies complied with Federal immigration laws.

(11) The seeking of “economic incentives” by companies in return for moving to or remaining in cities/states would be strictly forbidden.
Such “economic incentives” usually:
- allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting employees from unsafe working conditions;
- allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting the environment;
- allow employers to pay their employees the lowest acceptable wages, in return for the “privilege” of working at these companies; and/or
- allow employers to pay little or no business taxes, at the expense of communities who are required to make up for lost tax revenues.
(12) Employers who continue to make such overtures would be prosecuted for attempted bribery or extortion:
- Bribery, if they offered to move to a city/state in return for “economic incentives,” or
- Extortion, if they threatened to move their companies from a city/state if they did not receive such “economic incentives.”
This would protect employees against artificially-depressed wages and unsafe working conditions; protect the environment in which these employees live; and protect cities/states from being pitted against one another at the expense of their economic prosperity.
(12) The U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor would regularly monitor the extent of employer compliance with the provisions of this Act.
Among these measures: Sending undercover agents, posing as highly-qualified job-seekers, to apply at companies—and then vigorously prosecuting those employers who blatantly refused to hire despite their proven economic ability to do so.
This would be comparable to the long-time and legally-validated practice of using undercover agents to determine compliance with fair-housing laws.
(13) The Justice Department and/or the Labor Department would be required to maintain a publicly-accessible database on those companies that had been cited, sued and/or convicted for such offenses as
- discrimination,
- harassment,
- health and/or safety violations or
- violating immigration laws.
Employers would be legally required to regularly provide such information to these agencies, so that it would remain accurate and up-to-date.
Such information would arm job applicants with vital information about the employers they were approaching. They could thus decide in advance if an employer is deserving of their skills and dedication.
As matters now stand, employers can legally demand to learn even the most private details of an applicant’s life without having to disclose even the most basic information about themselves and their history of treating employees.
* * * * *
Reform starts with facing the truth–however painful–for what it is. And with seeing one’s enemies–however powerful–for what they are.
For thousands of years, otherwise highly intelligent men and women believed that kings ruled by divine right. That kings held absolute power, levied extortionate taxes and sent countless millions of men off to war–all because God wanted it that way.
That lunacy was dealt a deadly blow in 1776 when American Revolutionaries threw off the despotic rule of King George III of England.
But today, millions of Americans remain imprisoned by an equally outrageous and dangerous theory: The Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.
Summing up this employer-as-God attitude, Calvin Coolidge still speaks for the overwhelming majority of employers and their paid shills in government:
“The man who builds a factory builds a temple, and the man who works there worships there.”
America can no longer afford such a dangerous fallacy as the Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.
The solution lies in remembering that the powerful never voluntarily surrender their privileges.
Americans did not win their freedom from Great Britain–-and its enslaving doctrine of “the Divine Right of Kings”-–by begging for their rights.
And Americans will not win their freedom from their corporate masters–-and the equally enslaving doctrine of “the Divine Right of Employers”––by begging for the right to work and support themselves and their families.
And they will most certainly never win such freedom by supporting right-wing political candidates whose first and only allegiance is to the corporate interests who bankroll their campaigns.
Corporations can–and do–spend millions of dollars on TV ads, selling lies–lies such as the “skills gap,” and how if the wealthy are forced to pay their fair share of taxes, jobs will inevitably disappear.
But Americans can choose to reject those lies–and demand that employers behave like patriots instead of predators.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS THEORY, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, EMPLOYMENT, FACEBOOK, INCOME INEQUALITY, JOHN BOEHNER, MARK SHIELDS, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, OBAMACARE, PBS NEWSHOUR, PLUTOCRACY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on April 23, 2015 at 12:01 am
An Employers Responsibility Act (ERA) would quickly return millions of willing-to-work Americans to fulltime, permanent employment.
Such legislation would legally require employers to demonstrate as much initiative for hiring as job-seekers are now expected to show in searching for work.
Among the provisions of a nationwide Employers Responsibility Act:
(1) American companies that close plants in the United States and open others abroad would be forbidden to sell products made in those foreign plants within the United States.
This would protect both American and foreign workers from employers seeking to profit at their expense. American workers would be ensured of continued employment. And foreign laborers would be protected against substandard wages and working conditions.
Companies found violating this provision would be subject to Federal criminal prosecution. Guilty verdicts would result in heavy fines and lengthy imprisonment for their owners and top managers.
(2) Large companies (those employing more than 100 persons) would be required to create entry-level training programs for new, future employees.
These would be modeled on programs now existing for public employees, such as firefighters, police officers and members of the armed services.
Such programs would remove the employer excuse, “I’m sorry, but we can’t hire you because you’ve never had any experience in this line of work.”
After all, the Air Force has never rejected an applicant because, “I’m sorry, but you’ve never flown a plane before.”
This Nation has greatly benefited from the humane and professional efforts of the men and women who have graduated from public-sector training programs.
There is no reason for the private sector to shun programs that have succeeded so brilliantly for the public sector.
(3) Employers would receive tax credits for creating professional, well-paying, full-time jobs.
This would encourage the creation of better than the menial, dead-end, low-paying and often part-time jobs which exist in the service industry. Employers found using such tax credits for any other purpose would be prosecuted for tax fraud.
(4) A company that acquired another–through a merger or buyout–would be forbidden to fire en masse the career employees of that acquired company.
This would be comparable to the protection existing for career civil service employees. Such a ban would prevent a return to the predatory “corporate raiding” practices of the 1980s, which left so much human and economic wreckage in their wake.
The wholesale firing of employees would trigger the prosecution of the company’s new owners. Employees could still be fired, but only for provable just cause, and only on a case-by-case basis.
(5) Employers would be required to provide full medical and pension benefits for all employees, regardless of their full-time or part-time status.
Increasingly, employers are replacing full-time workers with part-time ones—solely to avoid paying medical and pension benefits.
Requiring employers to act humanely and responsibly toward all their employees would encourage them to provide full-time positions—and hasten the death of this greed-based practice.
(6) Employers of all part-time workers would be required to comply with all Federal labor laws.
Under current law, part-time employees are not protected against such abuses as discrimination, sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions. Closing this loophole would immediately create two positive results:
- Untold numbers of currently-exploited workers would be protected from the abuses of predatory employers; and
- Even predatorily-inclined employers would be encouraged to offer permanent, fulltime jobs rather than only part-time ones—since a major incentive for offering part-time jobs would now be eliminated.
(7) Employers would be encouraged to hire to their widest possible limits, through a combination of financial incentives and legal sanctions.
Among those incentives: Employers demonstrating a willingness to hire would receive substantial Federal tax credits, based on the number of new, permanent employees hired per year.
Employers claiming eligibility for such credits would be required to make their financial records available to Federal investigators. Employers found making false claims would be prosecuted for perjury and tax fraud, and face heavy fines and imprisonment if convicted.
(8) Among those sanctions: Employers refusing to hire could be required, to prove, in court:
- Their economic inability to hire further employees, and/or
- The unfitness of the specific, rejected applicant.
Companies found guilty of unjustifiably refusing to hire would face the same penalties as now applying in cases of discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex and disability.
Employers would thus fund it easier to hire than to refuse to do so. Job-seekers would no longer be prevented from even being considered for employment because of arbitrary and interminable “hiring freezes.”
(9) Employers refusing to hire would be required to pay an additional “crime tax.”
Sociologists and criminologists agree that “the best cure for crime is a job.” Thus, employers who refuse to hire contribute to a growing crime rate in this Nation.
Such non-hiring employers would be required to pay an additional tax, which would be earmarked for agencies of the criminal justice system at State and Federal levels.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BARACK OBAMA, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS THEORY, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, EMPLOYMENT, FACEBOOK, INCOME INEQUALITY, JOHN BOEHNER, MARK SHIELDS, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, OBAMACARE, PBS NEWSHOUR, PLUTOCRACY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on April 22, 2015 at 12:10 am
Republicans, always ready to attack President Barack Obama, have found a new cause for blame: Obama is responsible for increased inequality.
“Frankly, the president’s policies have made income inequality worse,” House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in January.
And he blamed Obamacare for the growing inequality:
“All the regulations that are coming out of Washington make it more difficult for employers to hire more people, chief amongst those, I would argue is Obamacare–which basically puts a penalty or a tax on employers for every new job they create.”
Even Mitt Romney has suddenly discovered that millions of Americans are suffering from income inequality.
Yes, that Mitt Romney–who famously said during his 2012 campaign for President: “Corporations are people, my friend”; “I like being able to fire people”; and “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”
“Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before,” Romney told a crowd of Republican National Committee members in January.

Mitt Romney speaking on the USS Midway
“Their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign, but they don’t get the job done,” he said from the deck of the USS Midway in San Diego.
“The only policies that will reach into the hearts of the American people and pull people out of poverty and break the cycle of poverty are Republican principles, conservative principles.”
Click here: The reinvention of Mitt Romney – Edward-Isaac Dovere – POLITICO
But syndicated political columnist Mark Shields has another reason for why millions of Americans can’t find jobs–or jobs that pay a living wage.
His culprit: International trade agreements.

Mark Shields
“They have been a disaster for American workers, a total disaster, beginning with NAFTA,” said Shields on the April 17 edition of the PBS Newshour.
“They have put all the power in the hands of the employer.
“The employer threatens, if you don’t go along, if you don’t surrender your bargaining rights, if you don’t surrender your health and pension benefits, if you don’t surrender collective union membership, we will move your job overseas.
“And as consequence of NAFTA some 22 years ago, documented by our own government, 755,000 jobs lost immediately, five million fewer American–five million fewer American manufacturing jobs than there were….
“We see it where all–the trade agreements, the investor class capital is protected, whether it’s copyrights or whatever, intellectual property, their investments. And they just pay lip service to workers’ rights….
“Median household income in the United States was lower in 2012 than it was in 1989. I’m not saying solely because of this, but largely because of this.
“If you want to see the dominance of capital that I think these trade agreements exemplify and embody, all you have to see is the 2008 crisis, economic crisis in this country.
“Millions of ordinary Americans saw their futures, their savings, their homes wiped out. And they got nothing in the way of relief.
“Those who had caused it, who had brought the country to its knees, the big banks and the investment houses of Wall Street, were bailed out by people. They were made whole.
“So, you had a choice. Who are you going to help and who you going to leave to make out for their own?
“We have capitalism for the rich and we have free enterprise, high risk for workers. And I just think this is what it exemplifies….American workers have lost their clout politically.”
Click here: Shields and Brooks on Pacific trade deal politics
Romney is right: “The rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before.”
And so is Shields: “American workers have lost their clout politically.”
But what neither man offered was a solution–although one is available.
It is long past time for Americans to address the following evils for which employers are directly responsible:
- The loss of jobs within the United States owing to companies’ moving their operations abroad—solely to pay substandard wages to their new employees.
- The mass firings of employees which usually accompany corporate mergers or acquisitions.
- The widespread victimization of part-time employees, who are not legally protected against such threats as racial discrimination, sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions.
- The refusal of many employers to create better than menial, low-wage jobs.
- The widespread employer practice of extorting “economic incentives” from cities or states in return for moving to or remaining in those areas. Such “incentives” usually absolve employers from complying with laws protecting the environment and/or workers’ rights.
- The refusal of many employers to provide medical and pension benefits—nearly always in the case of part-time employees, and, increasingly, for full-time, permanent ones as well.
- Rising crime rates, due to rising unemployment.
The solution to these evils can be summed up in three words: Employers Responsibility Act (ERA).
If passed by Congress and vigorously enforced by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor, an ERA would ensure full-time, permanent and productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans.
And it would achieve this without raising taxes or creating controversial government “make work” programs.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ARIZONA SHOOTINGS, ASSASSINATION, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRISTINA-TAYLOR GREEN, CNN, CONFEDERATE FLAG, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DRUDGE REPORT, DYLANN ROOF, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HATE CRIMES, HEALTHCARE, HUFFINGTON POST, MEDIA MATTERS, MEIN KAMPF, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, RICK PERRY, RICK SANTORUM, RODNEY KING RIOTS, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE, SALON, Sarah Palin, SEATTLE TIMES, Secret Service, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN ROLL, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
REPUBLICANS AND WEAPONIZED HATRED: PART TWO (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am“The Republican Party has weaponized its supporters, made violence a virtue and, with almost every pronouncement for 50 years, given them an enemy politicized, radicalized and indivisible.”
So wrote Rolling Stone writer in a blistering June 19 editorial. The touchstone was the slaughter of nine black worshipers by a white supremacist at a South Carolina black church.
But the proof of Republican culpability in political violence goes back much further.
Consider:
Gabrille Giffords, 40, is a moderate Democrat who narrowly wins re-election in November, 2010, against a Republican Tea Party candidate.
Her support of President Obama’s health care reform law has made her a target for violent rhetoric–-especially from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
In March, 2010, Palin releases a map featuring 20 House Democrats that uses cross-hairs images to show their districts. In case her supporters don’t get the message, she later writes on Twitter: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”
Sarah Palin’s “Crosshairs” Map
As the campaign continues, Giffords finds her Tucson office vandalized after the House passes the healthcare overhaul in March.
Giffords senses that she has become a target for removal–in more than political terms. In an interview after the vandalizing of her office, she refers to the animosity against her by conservatives.
She specifically cites Palin’s decision to list her seat as one of the top “targets” in the midterm elections.
“For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the cross-hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,” Giffords tells MSNBC.
At one of her rallies, her aides call the police after an attendee drops a gun.
Giffords may have seen the spectre of violence closing in on her. In April, 2010, she supported Rep. Raúl Grijalva after he had to close two offices when he and his staff received threats.
He had called for a boycott of Arizona businesses in opposition to the state’s controversial immigration law.
“I am deeply troubled about reports that Congressman Grijalva and members of his staff have been subjected to death threats,” Giffords said.
“This is not how we, as Americans, express our political differences. Intimidation has no place in our representative democracy. Such acts only make it more difficult for us to resolve our differences.”
But intimidation–-and worse–-does have a place among the tactics used by influential Republicans in the pursuit of absolute power.
Increasingly, Republicans have repeatedly aimed violent–-and violence-arousing–-rhetoric at their Democratic opponents. This is not a case of careless language that is simply misinterpreted, with tragic results.
Republicans like Sarah Palin fully understand the constituency they are trying to reach: Those masses of alienated, uneducated Americans who live only for their guns and hardline religious beliefs–and who can be easily manipulated by perceived threats to either.
If a “nutcases” assaults a Democratic politician and misses, then the Republican establishment claims to be shocked–-shocked!–-that such a thing could have happened.
And if the attempt proves successful–-as the January 8, 2011 Tucson shootings did–-then Republicans weep crocodile tears for public consumption.
The difference is that, in this case, they rejoice in knowing that Democratic ranks have been thinned and their opponents are even more on the defensive, for fear of the same happening to them.
Consider the following:
Since the end of World War 11, Republicans have regularly hurled the charge of “treason” against anyone who dared to run against them for office or think other than Republican-sponsored thoughts.
Republicans had been locked out of the White House from 1933 to 1952, during the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
Determined to regain the Presidency by any means, they found that attacking the integrity of their fellow Americans a highly effective tactic.
During the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy rode a wave of paranoia to national prominence–by attacking the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with him.
The fact that McCarthy never uncovered one actual case of treason was conveniently overlooked during his lifetime.
Share this: