bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘TERRORISM’

REPUBLICANS: WEAPONIZING HATRED, DISAVOWING ITS RESULTS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 19, 2017 at 1:08 am

On January 8, 2011, Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head while meeting with constituents outside a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store. 

After a miraculous recovery, she continues to struggle with language and has lost 50% of her vision in both eyes. Although she returned to her Congressional duties, her injuries forced her to resign in 2012.

The shooting claimed the lives of six people and left 13 others wounded.

One of those killed was Arizona’s chief U.S. District judge, John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after celebrating Mass.

The youngest victim was nine-year-old Christiana-Taylor Green, whose desire to one day enter politics had led her to attend the scheduled meeting with her Congresswoman, Giffords. Her having been born on September 11, 2001, added a special poignancy to her tragic death.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

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.

Gabrille Giffords, then 40, was a moderate Democrat who narrowly won re-election in November, 2010, against a Republican Tea Party candidate.

Her support of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law made her a target for violent rhetoric–especially from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

In March, 2010, Palin released a map featuring 20 House Democrats that used cross-hairs images to show their districts. In case her supporters didn’t get the message, she later wrote on Twitter: “‘Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!’”

Image result for Images of Sarah Palin's crosshairs map

As the campaign continued, Giffords found her Tucson office vandalized after the House passed the healthcare  overhaul on March 21, 2010.

Giffords sensed that she had become a target for assassination. In an interview after the vandalizing of her office, she cited the animosity against her by Right-wingers:

“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 called the police after an attendee dropped a gun.

In April, 2010, Giffords  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 Giffords shooting did–then Republicans weep crocodile tears for public consumption.

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.
  • 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.

For more than 50 years, Republicans have vilified government–except when they controlled it. They convinced millions of  Americans that Democrats are potential traitors, if not actual ones. 

They have routinely slandered Democrats as: 

  • Plotting to “take away your guns.”
  • Wanting to turn America into a welfare-dependent society.
  • Being “Godless” and intending to force atheism on believing Christians.
  • Plotting to allow the United Nations to “take over” the United States.

Consciously or not, Republicans have taken their cue from Adolf Hitler, who advised in Mein Kampf: “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials.

“Those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotypical formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”

THE NEXT 9/11: TSA WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 1, 2017 at 1:05 am

All security systems–including those considered the best–are manned by humans. And humans are and will always be imperfect creatures.

So there will inevitably be times when security agents miss the assassin or terrorist intent on mayhem.  For example:

  • In September, 1975, two women–Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore–tried to assassinate President Gerald R. Ford on two separate occasions.
  • Fromme was tackled by a Secret Service agent. Moore’s aim was deflected by Oliver Sipple, a Marine and Vietnam veteran, thus saving Ford’s life.

Gerald Ford being hustled from danger by Secret Service agents

Until these incidents, the Secret Service profile of a potential assassin didn’t include a woman.

  • On March 30, 1981, John W. Hinckley, a psychotic obsessed with actress Jodie Foster, gained access to a line of reporters waiting to throw questions at President Ronald Reagan.
  • As Reagan got into his bulletproof Presidential limousine, Hinckley drew a pistol and opened fire. Wounded, Reagan escaped death by inches.

The Reagan Assassination attempt

The Secret Service Service had failed to prevent the attack because no one–until that moment–had attacked a President from the section reserved for reporters.

  • On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists armed with boxcutters highjacked four American jetliners and turned them into fuel-bombs.
  • Two of the airliners struck the North and South towers of the World Trade Center, destroying both structures.
  • A third hit the Pentagon.
  • The fourth–United Airlines Flight 93–crashed when it was diverted from its intended target (the White House or Congress) by passengers who resolved to fight back.
  • Three thousand Americans died that day–in New York City, Washington, D., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Until this day of catastrophe, no highjacker had turned a jumbo-jet into a fuel-bomb. Passengers had been advised to cooperate with highjackers, not resist them.

So how will the next 9/11 happen?  In all likelihood, like this:

  • A terrorist–or, more likely, several terrorists–will sign up for one or more airline “VIP screening” programs.
  • They will be completely clean–no arrests, no convictions.  
  • They may well be respectable citizens in their communities.
  • They will probably have amassed enough “frequent flier miles” to ingratiate themselves with the airlines and convince the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) of their integrity.
  • Then, one day, they will breeze through their selected airports–
  • Without removing their belts and shoes;
  • Without undergoing pat-down searches;
  • Without being required to remove laptops and other electronic devices from their carry-ons;
  • Without exposing their electronic devices to X-ray technology.
  • Then they will board planes–either as part of an individual terrorist effort or a coordinated one, a la 9/11.

And then it will be too late.

Memorial to the passengers and crew of United Flight 93

The TSA/airlines’ VIP programs are based on the assumption that someone who has completed a security check in the past need not be re-checked in the future.

This assumption has proven false for American Intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA.

  • FBI agent Robert Hanssen spied for Soviet and Russian Intelligence services for 22 years (1979-2001). He’s now serving a life sentence in Florence, Colorado.
  • CIA agent Aldrich Ames betrayed American secrets–including those Russians who had shared them–to Soviet and Russian espionage agencies from 1985 to 1994. He is likewise serving a life sentence.

Even requiring an agent to undergo repeated security checks is no guarantee of trustworthiness.

When asked about how he repeatedly passed CIA polygraph tests, Ames said: “There’s no special magic. Confidence is what does it. Confidence and a friendly relationship with the examiner. Rapport, where you smile and make him think that you like him.”

Thus, as William Shakespeare warned in Hamlet, “one may smile and smile and be a villain”–or a highjacker.

The TSA introduced its Pre-Check program during the fall of 2011. By May, 2017, more than four million travelers had been found worthy of “expedited” status.

In early September, 2013, TSA announced that it would more than double its “expedited screening” program, Pre-Check, from 40 to 100 airports by the end of the year.

Nor is TSA the only organization giving big-spending fliers special treatment at potential risk to their country. For example:

Delta Air Lines offers Sky Priority, described as providing “privileged access through security checkpoints” at select airports.

Another private security program, Clear, collects several pieces of biometric data on well-heeled passengers. Once verified by a kiosk local to the security checkpoint, the passengers are allowed to skirt the security barriers that poor and middle-class folks must pass through.

Priority Access, set up by TSA and the airlines, provides “expedited service” to first-class and business passengers. To qualify, you need only possess certain credit cards–such as the United Mileage Plus Club Card.

Some critics blast this two-tier passenger check-in system as an affront to democratic principles.

“It’s stratifying consumers by class and wealth, because the people who travel a lot usually have higher incomes,” said Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and frequent business traveler.

But there is an even more important reason to immediately disband these programs and require everyone–rich and middle-class alike–to undergo the same level of security screening:

The 3,000 men and women who died horrifically on September 11, 2001, at the hands of airline passengers whom authorities thought could be trusted to board a plane.

Tribute to the vanished World Trade Center

THE NEXT 9/11: TSA WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on May 31, 2017 at 12:01 am

Almost 16 years after 9/11, America is now selling its Islamic enemies access to the very weapons—jet-fueled airplanes—they need to wage jihad against its citizens.

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

This danger is brought to you by IdentoGO, the private security company chosen by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) to screen airline passengers.

Consider this ad it posts:

“How many times have you stood in line at the airport watching others breeze through security with no hassle? By enrolling in TSA Pre✓® , you too can breeze through security.

“Keep your shoes, jacket and belt on; your laptop in its case; 3-1-1 compliant liquids in your bag; and enjoy a better overall travel experience.

“TSA Pre✓® allows low-risk travelers to experience faster, more efficient screening at participating U.S. airport checkpoints for domestic and international travel.”

Yes, for a one-time payment of $85, you, too, can apply to receive such preferential treatment.  Even if it means putting the Nation’s security at risk. Travelers that are eligible for TSA Pre✓® include:

  • U.S. citizens of frequent flyer programs who meet TSA-mandated criteria and who have been invited by a participating airline;
  • U.S. citizen, U.S. national or Lawful Permanent Residents who are members of the TSA Pre✓® Application Program;
  • U.S. citizens who are members of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Trusted Traveler program, such as Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS and Canadian citizens who are members of NEXUS; and
  • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

To apply for TSA Pre✓®:

  1. Find an IdentoGO Center near you, including a growing number of airport locations, offering TSA Pre✓® and pre-enroll online.
  2. Schedule an appointment to come in for fingerprinting.
  3. Pay the $85 applications fee and show your proof-of-identity documents from the approved list of valid government IDs.
  4. A Known Traveler Number (KTN) will be mailed to you or can be obtained online.
  5. Once enrolled, your KTN is used when booking travel and your TSA Pre✓® approval is printed on your boarding passes.  
  6. Be sure to update your airline member profile to have the number automatically sent to the TSA when making reservations.

 Among the credit cards that will buy you such preferential treatment:

If you’re accepted, you don’t need to undergo another background check for the next five years.

In April 2017, 97% of TSA Pre’s more than four million passengers waited less than five minutes to board.

So what difference does it make that some passengers must submit to close inspection while others do not?

  • If you’re trying to carry a metallic firearm aboard a plane, the magnetometer will likely pick it up.  But if you’ve filled your computer with plastic explosive, the magnetometer won’t pick it up.

Related image

Advanced imaging technology

  • Or maybe you want to be a shoe-bomber like Richard Reid, who tried to blow up an American Airlines flight in 2001. Being allowed to skip the requirement to remove your shoes will certainly take you a long way toward reaching your goal.

Why is America being placed at such risk?  Three reasons:

  1. The greed of American airline corporations and the TSA.
  2. Wealthy, self-entitled Americans hate waiting in long airport security lines—like ordinary citizens.
  3. The Calvinistic belief—shared by most Americans—that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, and thus proof that its holder is worthy of deference, if not awe.

On September 11, 2001, 2,996 people were killed and more than 6,000 others wounded as three highjacked airliners slammed into:

  • The North Tower of the World Trade Center;
  • The South Tower of the World Trade Center;
  • The Pentagon; and
  • A field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after passengers and crew on United Flight 93 tried to regain control.

The attacks inflicted the worst shock and grief on America since the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

So think about how easy it is to qualify as a TSA Pre-Check passenger the next time you board an airliner.

According to Yelp! reviews of thoroughly satisfied IdentoGO customers:

  • “My TSA precheck appointment was done in 10 minutes! Plenty of free parking in their parking lot. The staff was friendly and courteous. I made an appointment thru the TSA precheck website. When I arrived, there was no wait. The office was clean, and the staff member who I met was friendly and courteous. Be sure to bring in your proper documents. $85 fee collected at the end of appointment. TSA precheck works for domestic flights only.”
  • “The friendly agent took me in right away and he proceeded to go through my application with me, just to double check that all the information in the application is correct. He took my fingerprints (all fingers) and I was pretty much done in about 10 minutes.”
  • “Going here for TSA precheck is a no-brainer.  Super easy to get an appointment, free parking, and no waiting.  Staff was friendly and efficient, explained what to expect after they submitted my information, and within less than 10 minutes I was on my way.  Went in on a Friday afternoon and by Monday evening (ok, late evening really), I had my KTN. So, so easy.”

THE MOSQUE OF THINGS TO COME: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on May 24, 2017 at 12:02 am

On April 16, 2015, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights announced that more than 310,000 people had been killed in Syria’s uprising-turned-civil war.

The Syrian conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.

And who did the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights–safely based in England–blame for this Islamic self-slaughter? Why, the West, of course.

According to its website:

“The silence of the International community for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria encourages the criminals to kill more and more Syrian people because they have not found anyone that deter them from continuing their crimes that cause to wound more than 1500000 people; some of them with permanent disabilities, make hundreds of thousands children without parents, displace more than half of Syrian people and destroy infrastructure, private and public properties.”

Got that?  

“They have not found anyone that deter them from continuing their crimes”–as if it’s the duty of non-Muslims to bring civilized behavior to Islamics.

And why are all these murderers “continuing their crimes”?  Because of an inner-religious dispute within Islam that traces back to the fourth century.

Yes, it’s Sunni Muslims, who make up a majority of Islamics, versus Shiite Muslims, who comprise a minority.

Each group considers the other takfirs–that is, “apostates.” And, in Islam, being labeled an apostate can easily get you murdered.

But, according to the Syrian Observatory, it’s the duty of the West to convince these murderers to stop slaughtering one another.

There is, however, another perspective to consider–that of the late political scientist Samuel Huntington. In his bestselling 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, he warned: 

The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

This is starkly outlined in the 2009 book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, by Dr. Peter Hammond.

Hammond explores the impact of an increasing Muslim population on non-Muslim society–and the changes that can be expected to occur within that society.

Image of Dr. Peter Hammond

Dr. Peter Hammond

According to Hammond:

Islam is not a religion nor a cult. It’s a complete system of religious, legal, political, economic and military components.  The religious component encompasses all the others.

“Islamization” occurs when there are enough Muslims in a country to agitate for their “religious rights.”

The Pew Research Center estimates there are 2.5 million Islamics in the United States. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) puts the figure at seven million.

In December, 2015, almost 150 Muslims in Fort Morgan, Colorado, gave a demonstration of what happens when the number of Islamics rises within a non-Islamic society.

Cargill Meat Solutions, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, is a division of Cargill Inc., which employees 155,000 people in 68 countries.

On December 18, 2015, 11 workers at Cargill’s beef processing plant in Fort Morgan wanted to go pray at the same time in a room in the plant that is set aside for prayer and reflection. A supervisor told the employees they could go pray, but only three at a time, so production would not be affected.

The workers complied with the supervisor’s request and went in smaller groups to pray. But after their shift ended, 10 of the 11 workers resigned, turning in their badges and hard hats.

The following Monday, about 150 employees from the Somali Muslim community didn’t show up to work for three consecutive days. The company fired them all.  

Cargill is now hiring to replace those who walked out.

Areas have been set up at Cargill since 2009 to accommodate anyone who requested time to pray.

“There are times when accommodation is not possible,” Michael Martin, a Cargill spokesman, told CBS News. “But in an overwhelming majority of instances, we do everything we can to ensure that we do accommodate employees.”  

Tony Aden, one of the fired employees, explained the situation thus: “It don’t matter if I don’t have a job, my religion is more important.”

Negotiating on behalf of the striking–and then fired–employees was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In 2007, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD). The defendants were charged with giving more than $12 million to support Hamas. 

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union, Egypt, Japan, Canada, Israel and the United States.

On November 24, 2008, the government obtained guilty verdicts on all counts against HLFRD and the five individual defendants in the retrial.

As the Islamic population rises within the United States, non-Islamics can expect increasing demands for “Islamic rights.” According to Dr. Hammond:  

At five percent of the population, Islamics try to get the ruling government to let them rule themselves under Sharia (Islamic) law.  

At 10%, they use lawlessness to complain about their conditions.  

At 20%, Islamics riot, form jihad militias and burn Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.  

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare.

Their ultimate goal: To extend Sharia throughout the world–enforcing it on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

THE MOSQUE OF THINGS TO COME: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on May 23, 2017 at 12:02 am

[Editor’s Note: As this goes to press, at least 19 people are reported dead and almost 60 injured at Manchester Arena, Manchester, England where pop singer Ariana Grande was performing. Authorities suspect an Islamic suicide bomber to be responsible.]

The headline in the December 7, 2015 issue of the British newspaper, The Guardian, read:

GERMANY ON COURSE TO ACCEPT ONE MILLION REFUGEES IN 2015

It may turn out to be Germany’s epitaph.

Germany registered 964,574 Islamic asylum-seekers in the first 11 months of 2015.

The Islamic world is at war with itself–in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. And while Islamics generally slander the West as Satan’s lair, that’s where Islamic refugees are heading.

The vast majority of these come from Syria, which is locked in a brutal civil war. This began on March 15, 2011, when protesters demanded political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad.

By April 16, 2015, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights announced that more than 310,000 people had been killed in Syria’s ongoing conflict. 

European countries soon began opening their doors to asylum-seeking Islamics. 

  • United Kingdom: Pledged to accept 20,000 Syrians by 2020.
  • Greece: By September, 2015, nearly a quarter of a million Syrians had illegally landed on Greek shores.
  • Sweden: 64,685 Islamics admitted. 
  • France: Agreed, by the fall of 2015, to accept 30,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years.
  • Italy: By the fall of 2015, more than 110 refugees had arrived there. 

Germany has been–and remains–the main destination for many Islamic immigrants, legal and illegal.

Flag of Germany.svg

Flag of Germany

According to Germany’s interior ministry, 206,101 Islamics entered the country in November, 2015, setting a new monthly record.  The previous high had been 181,166 in October.

Each immigrant has an estimated four to eight family members who could be legally allowed to enter. That could bring the number of Islamics resettled in Germany to more than seven million.

And the cost to Germany?

Germany has an aging population and one of the lowest birthrates in the world.  Of the refugees it has absorbed, only one in 10 is immediately employable.  The rest will have to be carried on welfare for months, and possibly years.

Behind this unchecked flood stands Chancellor Angela Merkel, who insisted that Germany admit tens of thousands of men, women and children of an alien faith and culture.

Angela Merkel 2011.jpg

Angela Merkel

And, so far, Germans have responded to Merkel’s call with money, food, clothes and even making spare rooms available for immigrants.

And how have many of these refugees thanked their German benefactors for their well-meaning goodwill?

On January 1, 2016, the The New York Times  published a story under this headline:

MUNICH ON HIGH ALERT AFTER NEW YEAR’S EVE TERRORISM THREAT

Hundreds of police officers were posted throughout Munich after the Islamic State threatened a suicide bombing attack.  Two train stations were evacuated.

Police believed that five to seven people were involved in the threat.

And, in Cologne, Germany, about 1,000 men congregated at Cologne’s central train station, then broke off into small groups to sexually molest and rob women. Asylum-seekers and illegal migrants from North Africa comprise the majority of suspects.

Related image

Cologne, Germany

Similar attacks were reported in Hamburg and Stuttgart on New Year’s Eve.

Earlier, in May, 2015, German authorities had called off the popular Eschborn-to-Frankfurt bike race after receiving a tip about a possible attack. Police arrested a German-Turkish couple who had been storing weapons in their home.

In November, a game in Hanover between Germany and the Netherlands was called off hours before kickoff when a suspicious package was found.

Meanwhile, uber-liberals such as those who staff Mother Jones  magazine whine that the United States hasn’t followed Germany’s example.

On September 3, 2015, the publication ran a story on the plight of Syrian refugees, under the headline:

GERMANY HAS TAKEN IN 800,000 REFUGEES.  GUESS HOW MANY THE US HAS TAKEN IN?

Quoting The Guardian, the Mother Jones writer gives the answer: “The US has admitted approximately 1,500 Syrian refugees since the beginning of the civil war there in 2011, mostly within the last fiscal year.”

Seven days after this article appeared, on September 10, the Obama administration announced that it would take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year.

That is on top of the 2,000 Islamic refugees the United States has already accepted.

According to U.S. Census data, America welcomes about 100,000 Muslim immigrants legally each year. This represents the fastest growing segment of immigrants coming to the United States.

The Pew Research Center estimates there are 2.5 million Islamics in the United States. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) puts the figure at seven million.

The Troubling Math of Muslim Migration | National Review Online

And while all this is happening, the FBI is being overwhelmed by the demands of countering Islamic terrorism against the United States.

On July 8, 2015, FBI director James Comey testified before Congress about the increasing burdens his agency faces in combating terrorism.

“We are stopping these things [Islamic terror plots] so far through tremendous hard work, the use of sources, the use of online undercovers.

“But it is incredibly difficult.  I cannot see my stopping these indefinitely.”

Consider the math: The FBI has only 35,000 agents and analysts–against seven million potential suspects.

And only a portion of those agents and analysts are charged with investigating terrorism.

How did all of this begin?  And where is it ultimately leading?

Those questions will be answered in Part Two of this series.

LEAVING THE BLOOD FEUDERS BEHIND

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 10, 2017 at 12:27 am

There can be peace–for the United States-in the Middle East.

But to achieve this, Western Europe and the United States will have to make radical changes in their approach to that part of the world.

First, the United States must embark on a crash program to develop alternatives to oil.  

The Islamic world offers only one reason for American concern: oil.

Yet its consumption threatens the future of the world through global warming. And it keeps America tethered to regimes that are fundamentally unstable and hostile to the West.

Second, once the United States weans itself from its dependency on fossil fuels, it can safely end its relationship with such regimes.

That means putting an end to spending billions of dollars every year to prop up regimes like those in Iraq and Egypt.  And it also means stopping the supply of big-ticket military hardware (like fighter planes and missiles) to Islamic regimes.

When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, he was probably the best-armed Islamic leader in the Middle East. His army and air force bristled with sophisticated American weaponry he had bought with billions of dollars in oil revenues.

Related image

Shah of Iran

But he had thoroughly alienated his people. Liberals thought him a tyrant, and conservatives thought him a traitor to Islam. So when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini flew to Iran from his self-exile in Paris, no one in the Shah’s army and air force raised a hand in his defense.

Third, the United States should end its “Permanent Bodyguard” relationship with Israel.

Every nation–including Israel–has the absolute right to defend itself from aggression.  But no nation–including Israel–should have the right to expect another nation to act as its permanent bodyguard.

Millions of Americans believe they are morally obligated to defend Israel owing to the barbarism of the Holocaust. But America was never a party to this, and has nothing to atone for.

But there is another reason many Americans feel committed to Israel. And it has nothing to do with concern for the fates of Israelis.

It lies in the mythology of the Christian Right: Many fundamentalist Christians believe that, for Jesus Christ to awaken from his 2,000-year slumber, Israel must first re-conquer every inch of territory it supposedly held during the reign of Kings David and Solomon.

Related image

Right-wing Christian fantasy: Dead man hovering

After Christ returns, they believe, the Jews will face a choice: Become Christians or go to hell. For evangelical Christians, Jews remain the eternal “Christ killers.”

And if Jews must assume temporary control of the Middle East to bring about the return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, so be it.

This is the view of many Right-wing members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Obviously, people who hold such totally irrational views shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office.

Unfortunately, such unbalanced views are shared by millions of equally irrational evangelical Christians.

Fourth, the United States and its European allies should erect a “Sand Curtain” around the Middle East.

For 44 years–1947 to 1991–the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a Cold War. Essentially, the United States drew a ring around the Soviet Union–including those nations its armies had seized following the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.

The United States said, in effect: “We can’t liberate the countries you’re now occupying”–because trying to do so would have triggered a nuclear World War III. “But we won’t allow you to occupy and enslave any other countries.  And if you try to do so, it will mean total war.”

That’s why the United States did nothing to aid Hungarians when they rose up against their Soviet occupiers in 1956. That rebellion was quickly and brutally crushed.

And that’s why America stood by when Soviet tanks rolled into Prague in 1968 when Czechoslovakia dared to relax controls over its citizens.

Fifth, a “Sand Curtain” around the Middle East would work as follows:

America would withdraw all of its forces from the Middle East–but keep a good portion stationed in Europe.

It would then publicly announce: “From now on, you are the masters of your own destinies–so long as what you do affects only those of you living in the Middle East.

“We recognize that barbarism and violence have always been a part of life in the Middle East. And we don’t expect this to change.

“So go ahead and destroy as many of your own citizens as you wish–either because they’re Jewish or Christians, or because Sunni Muslims hate Shiite Muslims and Shiite Muslims hate Sunni Muslims.

“Just don’t do anything that poses a threat to those living outside your barbaric lands.  In short: Europe and the United States are strictly off-limits to you.

“And if you aim your aggression at either, we will consider this an act of war and use all the weapons at our disposal–including nuclear ones–to wipe you from the face of the Earth.

The United States cannot enforce peace between Islamics and Israelis. Nor between Christians and Islamics. Nor between Islamics and Islamics.

But it can impose an embargo to confine such barbarism to only the Middle East.

CHEERING ON OUR ENEMIES: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 7, 2017 at 12:10 am

Contrary to the propaganda of Republican militarists and Democratic do-gooders, Americans should be thrilled at the mutual destruction of their most dedicated enemies. Such as is now taking place in Syria.

And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth. 

One man who predicted the ongoing Islamic-vs.-West conflicts with stunning clarity was Samuel P. Huntington. 

A political scientist, Huntington taught government at Harvard University (1950-1959, then at Columbia University (1959-1962). He returned to Harvard in 1963, and remained there until his death in 2008. 

The author of nine books, in 1996 he published his most influential one: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Related image

Its thesis was that, in the post-Cold War world, people’s cultural and religious identities would be the primary sources of conflict.

Huntington warned that the West’s future conflicts with Islamic nations would be rooted in the Islamic religion: 

The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.” 

Among his assertions:

  • Western nations should distance themselves from Islamic ones. The more both civilizations interact, the greater tensions between them will be.
  • Relations between Muslims and non-Muslims have been marked by Islamic antagonism and violence.
  • A fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the West is inevitable.
  • Even if Arab dictatorships fall, the new regimes won’t modernize along Western lines.
  • When the Muslim world conflicts with other civilizations, tensions and wars result.
  • Their primary attachment is to their religion, not to their nation-state.
  • Islamic civilization do not share the general ideals of the Western world–such as individualism and democracy.

Despite such realities, both Democratic and Republican politicians insist on constantly intervening in Middle East conflicts–such as the one in Syria. 

In Part One of this series, five reasons were given for why the United States should not intervene in the Syrian conflict. Here are the remaining five. 

Sixth, intervening in Syria could lead to Syrian attacks against Israel.  

An accidental or deliberate American military strike on Syrian government forces could lead the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to attack Israel–perhaps even with chemical weapons.  

If that happened, the Islamic world would rally to Syria against the United States, Israel’s chief ally.  

Seventh, committing American ground forces to Syria or just continuing to bomb targets there could lead to Islamic terrorism against the United States–at home or abroad.

Terrorists have already targeted Russia–which, on September 30, 2015, began bombing airstrikes on forces trying to overthrow Assad.

On October 31, Airbus A321, a Russian airliner, broke up in mid-air, then crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people on board. In Egypt, a militant group affiliated to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed it had brought down the plane “in response to Russian airstrikes that killed hundreds of Muslims on Syrian land.”  

D-AIAF (19552328044).jpg

Airbus A321

The same fate could well befall American civilians and/or soldiers.

Eighth, China and Russia are supporting the Assad dictatorship–and the brutalities it commits against its own citizens.  

This reflects badly on them–not the United States. And any move by the United States to directly attack the Assad regime could ignite an all-out war with Russia and/or China.  

What happens if a case of “friendly fire” leads Russian and American forces to start trading salvos? Or if Russian President Vladimir Putin orders an attack on America’s ally, Israel, in return for some perceived American slight of Russia’s ally, Syria?  

It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts between their small-state allies–that triggered World War I.  

Ninth, the United States cannot defeat ISIS in Syria through air power alone–thus making commitment of ground troops inevitable.

President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIS in September, 2014. The United States Air Force has since dropped thousands of bombs on ISIS convoys. This has not destroyed ISIS.

And its failure to do so has only led to demands by hawkish Republicans and Democrats for “boots on the ground.”  

Tenth–and most importantly: While Islamic nations like Syria, Iraq and Egypt wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources–and incentive–to attack the United States.

Every dead Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda and ISIS member makes the United States that much safer. So does the death of every sympathizer of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and ISIS.  

When Al-Qaeda blows up civilians in Beirut, their relatives will urge Hezbollah to take brutal revenge. And Hezbollah will do so.

Al Qaeda terrorists–taking aim at Hezbollah terrorists

Similarly, when Hezbollah does, those who support Al-Qaeda will demand even more brutal reprisals against Hezbollah.  

If the West is lucky, 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 S. Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis–and vice versa.”

That should be America’s position whenever its sworn enemies start killing off each other. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.  

CHEERING ON OUR ENEMIES: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 6, 2017 at 2:15 am

“Yesterday’s chemical attack, a chemical attack that was so horrific in Syria against innocent people, including women, small children and even beautiful little babies, their deaths were an affront to humanity.”

So spoke President Donald J. Trump at an April 5 press conference in the White House Rose Garden.  

He was referring to an April 4 chemical weapons attack in northwestern Syria that had killed scores of civilians. 

The bombing was carried out by the Syrian Air Force in an effort to put down a six-year civil war. 

The Syrian conflict began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad. Since then, the fighting has reportedly taken the lives of 470,000 men, women and children. 

Bashar al-Assad in Russia (2015-10-21) 08.jpg

Bashar al-Assad

Yet, despite Trump’s rhetoric, there is an optimistic way to view this incident–and the Syrian conflict generally: As a win for the United States.  

Consider:

  • As many as 470,000 actual or potential enemies of Western civilization–and especially the United States–have chosen to slaughter one another.
  • Additional thousands are certain to follow their example.
  • The United States cannot be held in any way responsible for it.
  • And Russia–which openly supports the brutal Assad dictatorship–daily earns the hatred of the Islamic world.

Yet, Left-wing do-gooders and Right-wing militarists demand that the United States thrust itself into a conflict that doesn’t threaten America in any way. 

In fact, it’s in America’s best interests that this conflict last as long as possible and spread as widely as possible throughout the Islamic community. 

Here’s why: 

First, in Syria, two of America’s most deadly enemies are waging war on each other.

Yes, it’s Hezbollah (Party of God) vs. Al-Qaeda (The Base).  Hezbollah is comprised of Shiite Muslims. A sworn enemy of Israel, it has kidnapped scores of Americans suicidal enough to visit Lebanon and truck-bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 Americans. 

Flag of Hezbollah

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is made up of Sunni Muslims. It is intolerant of Shiites and has instigated violence against them. It denounces them as takfirs–“apostates”–and thus worthy of extermination.

Flag of Al-Qaeda

Al Qaeda has attacked the mosques and gatherings of liberal Muslims, Shiites, Suffis and other non-Sunnis. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Sadr City bombings, the 2004 Ashoura massacre and the April, 2007 Baghdad bombings.

On one side of this conflict is the Ba’ath regime of Bashar al-Assad, whose allies include Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and elements of the Iraqi government.  

On the other side are a host of Syrians and thousands of foreign Sunni fighters, some of whom are affiliated with Al-Qaeda.  

Second, the United States has been at war in the Middle East for 15 years–since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

In October, 2001, America first committed its forces to Afghanistan, in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 mastermind. Failing to find him, its forces nevertheless stayed on in that country, hoping–and failing–to bring civilization to its barbaric population.

Then, in March, 2003, President George W. Bush invaded Iraq to settle a personal score with its dictator, Saddam Hussein.

After Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, launched the 1991 Gulf War, Hussein had had the bad grace to not topple from power. When the elder Bush lost a second term as President to Bill Clinton in 1992, his son blamed Hussein.  

By contrast: America entered World War 1 in 1917–and wrapped up its fighting in Europe in 1918.  Similarly, the United States first committed forces in World War II in 1942–and saw an end to that conflict in 1945.  

Even the Vietnam war–far more divisive for Americans than either World War 1 or II–ended after eight years of fighting (1965-1973.

Third, the United States is still fighting a brutal war in Afghanistan.

America originally intended to withdraw all but a small embassy-based force of 1,000 troops by the end of 2016.  

But as the Taliban re-emerged as a threat, President Barack Obama announced he would maintain 9,800 troops there for most of 2016. Those troops are still stationed there–some of them advising local Afghan troops, others locked in deadly combat with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.   

American soldiers in Afghanistan

Fourth, since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.

Among the terrorist groups it supports: Hezbollah and Hamas. For many years, Syria provided a safe-house in Damascus for Illich Ramirez Sanchez–the notorious international terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. 

Fifth, the United States had no part in creating or supporting the decades-long dictatorship of the Assad regime–which has long been hostile to America.

After a long series of political maneuverings, Hafez al-Assad seized power in 1970 and was proclaimed “president” next year. With aid from the Soviet Union, he built up the Syrian army. Using arrest, torture and execution, he ruled Syria as a dictator until he died in 2000.  

His son, Bashar, then took command of Syria. Like his father, he has supported Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups. And, like his father, he continues to receive financial and military support from the successor to the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation.

Thus, America has no moral obligation of any kind to Syria–or Syrians. 

PUBLIC ENEMY #1: CITIZENS WITH CAMERAS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 31, 2017 at 12:16 am

Want to report a crime to the FBI?  First you’ll have to prove you deserve to even see an FBI agent.

Step 1: Visit a Federal building where the FBI has a field office. To enter, you must show a driver’s license or State ID card.

If your name is on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list, you won’t show it at all (let alone visit any FBI office).

And if you aren’t a notorious criminal or terrorist, handing over a driver’s license or State ID card with the name “John Smith” isn’t going to tell the security guard anything relevant about you.

It’s simply an invasion of your privacy in the name of security theater.

Related image

Step 2: You must remove

  • Your belt;
  • Your shoes;
  • Your watch;
  • Your wallet;
  • All other objects from your pants pockets;
  • Any jacket you’re wearing;
  • Any cell phone you’re carrying.

All of these must be placed in one or more large plastic containers, which are run through an x-ray scanner.

Step 3: Assuming you avoid setting off any alarm system, you’re allowed to enter.

Step 4: Take an elevator to the floor where the Bureau has its office and walk into a large room filled with several comfortable chairs that sit close to the floor.

Step 5: Approach a window such as you find in a bank–made of thick, presumably bulletproof glass.

A secretary on the opposite side greets you, and asks why you’ve come.

Step 6: State your reason for wanting to speak with an agent. If the secretary thinks it’s legitimate, she requires you to show her your driver’s license or State ID card.

Step 7: Slide this through a slot in the glass window. Then she makes a xerox of this and hands the card back.

Step 8: Then you must fill out a single-page card, which requires you to provide your:

  • Name;
  • Address;
  • Phone number;
  • Social Security Number;
  • The reason you want to speak to an agent.

Of course, you can refuse to fill out the card. But then the secretary will refuse to let you meet with an agent.

So the FBI has no qualms about requiring others to give up their privacy. But its director, James B. Comey, believes the public actions of police should be hidden from citizens’ scrutiny.

Addressing a forum at the University of Chicago Law School on October 23, 2015, Comey offered a series of possible reasons for the recent surge in crime rates in America.

Click here: FBI — Law Enforcement and the Communities We Serve: Bending the Lines Toward Safety and Justice 

“Maybe it’s the return of violent offenders after serving jail terms. Maybe it’s cheap heroin or synthetic drugs. Maybe after we busted up the large gangs, smaller groups are now fighting for turf.

“Maybe it’s a change in the justice system’s approach to bail or charging or sentencing. Maybe something has changed with respect to the availability of guns….”

Then Comey offered what he thought was the real villain behind the rise in crime: Cellphones aimed at police.

Comey-FBI-Portrait.jpg

FBI Director James B. Comey

“In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?

“I spoke to officers privately in one big city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with mobile phone cameras held high, taunting them the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, ‘We feel like we’re under siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.’

“I’ve been told about a senior police leader who urged his force to remember that their political leadership has no tolerance for a viral video.

“So the suggestion, the question that has been asked of me, is whether these kinds of things are changing police behavior all over the country.

“And the answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.”

The FBI has

  • Lobbied Congress for an electronic “key” that would allow it to enter a cyber “back door” to eavesdrop on even those emails protected by encryption systems;
  • Monitored electronic bugs and wiretapped phones–as well as social media sites like Facebook and Twitter;
  • Treated law-abiding citizens like criminal suspects before they can even seek help from an agent; and
  • Repeatedly preached to Americans that if they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear from police surveillance.

But according to the FBI, citizens who aim cameras at cops in public places constitute a clear and present danger. This holds true even if they don’t interfere with the ability of police to make arrests.

They make heavily armed police feel so threatened that many officers are refusing to carry out their sworn duties.

THE SIX DEADLY FLAWS IN “OBAMACARE”: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on March 2, 2017 at 12:11 am

President Barack Obama was often accused of playing ruthless “Chicago politics” by his Republican enemies. But Obama’s biggest mistake lay not in cynicism but misplaced idealism.

Obama Mistake No. 5: Believing that public and private employers would voluntarily comply with the law.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to provide insurance for part-time employees who work more than 30 hours per week. Yet many employers claimed–without having to offer proof–that they couldn’t afford it.

So they limited part-time workers’ hours to 29 per week instead.

Obama was clearly surprised at this. But he shouldn’t have been.

Greed-fueled businessmen always try to avoid complying with the law–or achieve minimum compliance with it.

The Act doesn’t penalize companies for not providing health insurance coverage for part-time employees who work fewer than 30 hours.

Predictably, employers:

  • Moved fulltime workers into part-time positions;
  • Refused to provide their employees with medical insurance; and
  • Avoided fines for non-compliance with the law.

Some employers openly showed their contempt for President Obama–and the idea that employers have any obligation to those who make their profits a reality.

One was John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, who said:

  • The prices of his pizzas would go up–by 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order; and
  • He would pass along these costs to his customers.

 John Schnatter

“If Obamacare is in fact not repealed,” he told Politico, “we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders’ best interests.”

Thus, President Obama should have required all employers to provide insurance coverage for all of their employees, regardless of their fulltime or part-time status.  

This would have produced two substantial benefits:

  1. All employees would have been able to obtain medical coverage; and
  2. Employers would have been encouraged to provide fulltime positions rather than part-time ones.

Employers would thus feel: “I’m paying for fulltime insurance coverage, so I should be getting fulltime work in return.”

If Obama considered this option, he decided against pressing for it.

Obama Mistake No. 6: Failing to closely study his proposed legislation.

Throughout his campaign to win support for the ACA, Obama had repeatedly promised: “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”

But the 906 pages of the law held a fatal catch for the President’s own credibility.

The law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans–so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law.

If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain coverage that did.

But many Americans wanted to keep their current plan–even if it did not provide the fullest possible coverage.

Suddenly, the President found himself facing a PR nightmare–charged and ridiculed as a liar.

Even Jon Stewart, who on “The Daily Show,” had supported the implementation of “Obamacare,” ran footage of Obama’s “you can keep your doctor” promise.

Jon Stewart

The implication: You said we could keep our plan/doctor. Since we can’t, you must be a liar.

All of which points to a final warning offered by Niccolo Machiavelli: Whence it may be seen that hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil….  

Former Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that, if she were elected, she would seek incremental changes in the ACA. That possibility became moot when she lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants a single-payer plan.

A single-payer plan would prove simpler and more comprehensive than the ACA. But the chances of its passing a Republican-dominated Congress are absolutely zero.

The election of Donald Trump seems to have finally doomed the ACA–except for one thing: Since it became law, in 2010, 22 million Americans who had never before obtained healthcare insurance now have it.

This includes even Republicans who voted for Trump–without realizing they would be losing their only tie to medical care.  And now many of them are finally realizing this truth.

Thus, Republicans in the House and Senate now find themselves besieged by angry constituents at town hall meetings.

These Republicans care nothing for Americans who would be left without medical care. But they do care about their own futures–as members of Congress.

This has led to three schisms among Republicans:

  • Those who still demand the complete repeal of “Obamacare.”
  • Those who want the Act repealed and then replaced with an entirely different healthcare plan–which Republicans have yet to agree on. Developing this could literally take years–during which time former ACA members would have no insurance.
  • Those who want Republicans to first create an alternative healthcare plan, win its Congressional approval, and then repeal the Act.

Republicans expect Democrats to sign on with their “Obamacare replacement plan.” But Democrats have made it clear: “You repeal it, you’re on your own in replacing it.”

Republicans spent eight years demanding the repeal of “Obamacare.” But now they fear that its repeal will lead to the repeal of their own political ambitions.

%d bloggers like this: