Posts Tagged ‘THE INTERCEPT’
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, ” 9/11, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BBC, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DRUDGE REPORT, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HUFFINGTON POST, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 14, 2022 at 12:11 am
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war. neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in every country.”
—Hermann Goering
On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.
“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.
Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.
Secretary of State Colin Powell then pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. And he added: “The American people want us to do something about Al-Qaeda”—not Iraq.
On November 21, 2001, only 10 weeks after 9/11, Bush told Rumsfeld: It’s time to turn to Iraq.

Liars Club: Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld
Bush and his war-hungry Cabinet officials knew that Americans demanded vengeance on Al-Qaeda’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and not Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So they repeatedly fabricated “links” between the two:
- Saddam had worked hand-in-glove with Bin Laden to plan 9/11.
- Saddam was harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda throughout Iraq.
- Saddam, with help from Al-Qaeda, was scheming to build a nuclear bomb.
Yet as early as September 22, 2001, Bush had received a classified President’s Daily Brief intelligence report, which stated that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
The report added that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda.
Even more important: Saddam had tried to monitor Al Qaeda through his intelligence service–because he saw Al-Qaeda and other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.
Bush administration officials repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And they further claimed that US intelligence agencies had determined:
- The precise locations where these weapons were stored;
- The identities of those involved in their production; and
- The military orders issued by Saddam Hussein for their use in the event of war.
Among other lies issued by members of the Bush administration:
- Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa.
- Thousands of aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in centrifuges to create enriched uranium.
- Iraq had up to 20 long-range Scud missiles, prohibited under UN sanctions.
- Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, including nerve gas, anthrax and botulinum toxin.
- Saddam Hussein had issued chemical weapons to front-line troops who would use them when US forces crossed into Iraq.
Consider the following:
August 26, 2002: Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
September 8, 2002: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN: ”There is certainly evidence that Al-Qaeda people have been in Iraq. There is certainly evidence that Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists.”
September 18, 2002: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons–including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”
October 7, 2002: President George W. Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
March 16, 2003: Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
March 30, 2003: On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld said: “We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are.”
Bush never regretted his decision to invade Iraq, which occurred on March 20, 2003.
Even as American occupying forces repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), Bush and his minions claimed the invasion a good thing.
In fact, Bush—who hid out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard—even joked publicly about the absence of WMDs.
He did so at a White House Correspondents dinner on March 24, 2004—one year after he had started the war.

George W. Bush at the 2004 White House Correspondents’ dinner
To Bush, the non-existent WMDs were nothing more than the butt of a joke that night. While an overhead projector displayed photos of a puzzled-looking Bush searching around the Oval Office, Bush recited a comedy routine.
“Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere,” Bush laughed, while a photo showed him poking around the corners in the Oval Office.
“Nope—no weapons over there! Maybe they’re under here,” he said, as a photo showed him looking under a desk.
Meanwhile, an assembly of wealthy, pampered men and women—the elite of America’s media and political classes—laughed heartily during Bush’s performance. It was a scene worthy of the court of the ancient Caesars, complete with royal flunkies.
Ultimately, the war that Bush had deliberately provoked
- Took the lives of 4,484 Americans.
- Cost the United States Treasury at least $2 trillion.
- Created a Middle East power vacuum.
- Allowed Iran—Iraq’s arch enemy—to eagerly fill it.
- Killed at least 655,000 Iraqis.
- Bush retired from office with a lavish pension and full Secret Service protection.
- He wrote his memoirs and was paid $7 for the first 1.5 million copies.
- Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice retired to private business, wrote their own memoirs, and lived in comfort as respected elder statesmen.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, ” 9/11, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BBC, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DRUDGE REPORT, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HUFFINGTON POST, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 13, 2022 at 12:20 am
Colonel Brandt: “I wonder what we’ll do after we lose the war.”
Captain Kiesel: “Prepare for the next one.”
–-“The Cross of Iron,” film by Sam Peckinpah
September 11, 2022, marks the 21ist anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on United States soil. Inevitably, this is a time to remember all those whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out.
But it should also be a time to remember those who made this atrocity inevitable—by refusing to acknowledge and address the impending threat from Al-Qaeda.
British historian Nigel Hamilton has chronicled their arrogance and indifference in his 2010 biography: American Caesars: Lives of the Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.
Hamilton noted that Richard Clarke, the national security advisor on terrorism, was certain that Osama bin Laden had arranged the [USS.]Colebombing in Aden on October 12, 2000.

Richard Clarke
For months, Clarke tried to convince others in the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was plotting another attack against the United States—either abroad or at home.
But Clarke could not prevail against the know-it-all arrogance of such higher-ranking Bush officials as Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
Rice initially refused to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject. Then she “insisted the matter be handled only by a more junior Deputy Principals meeting” in April, 2001, writes Hamilton.
Wolfowitz, the number-two man at the Department of Defense, said: “I don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.”
Even after Clarke outlined the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, Wolfowitz–whose real target was Saddam Hussein–said: “You give bin Laden too much credit.”
Wolfowitz insisted that bin Laden couldn’t carry out his terrorist acts without the aid of a state sponsor—namely, Iraq.
Wolfowitz, in fact, blamed Iraq for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
Clarke was stunned, since there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement in this.
“Al-Qaeda plans major acts of terrorism against the United States,” Clarke warned his colleagues. He pointed out that, like Adolf Hitler, bin Laden had actually published his plans for future destruction.

Osama bin Laden
And he added: “Sometimes, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe that these people will actually do what they say they will do.”
Wolfowitz heatedly traded on his Jewish heritage to bring Clarke’s unwelcome arguments to a halt: “I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan.”
Writing in outraged fury, Hamilton sums up Clarke’s agonizing frustrations:
- Bush’s senior advisors treated their colleagues who had served in the Clinton administration with contempt.
- President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz seemed content to ignore the danger signals of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
- This left only Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy Richard Armitage, Richard Clarke and a skeptical Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to wage “a lonely battle to waken a seemingly deranged new administration.”
Clarke alerted Federal Intelligence agencies that “Al-Qaeda is planning a major attack on us.” He asked the FBI and CIA to report to his office all they could learn about suspicious persons or activities at home and abroad.
Finally, at a meeting with Rice on September 4, 2001, Clarke challenged her to “picture yourself at a moment when in the very near future Al-Qaeda has killed hundreds of Americans, and imagine asking yourself what you wish then that you had already done.”
Seven days later, Al-Qaeda struck, and 3,000 Americans died horrifically—and needlessly.
Neither Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz ever admitted their negligence. Nor would any of them be brought to account.
Disgustingly, these were the same officials who, afterward, posed as the Nation’s saviors–and branded anyone who disagreed with them as a traitor, practices the Right continues to exploit to this day.
Only Richard Clarke–who had vainly argued for stepped-up security precautions and taking the fight to Al-Qaeda–gave that apology.
On March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings. Addressing relatives of victims in the audience, he said: “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you.”
Yet even worse was to come.
On the evening after the September 11 attacks, Bush took Clarke aside during a meeting in the White House Situation Room:
“I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam [Hussein, the dictator of Iraq] did this. See if he’s linked in any way.”
Clarke was stunned: “But, Mr. President, Al-Qaeda did this.”
“I know, I know,” said Bush. “But see if Saddam was involved. I want to know.”
Hussein had not plotted the attack–and there was no evidence proving that he did. But the attack gave “W” the excuse he wanted to remove the man he blamed for the 1992 defeat of his father, President George H.W. Bush.
Bush believed that his father would have been re-elected if he had “gone all the way” into Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War.
He would finish the job that his father had started but failed to compete.
On September 12, 2001, Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.
“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.
Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, ” 9/11, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BBC, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DRUDGE REPORT, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HUFFINGTON POST, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 12, 2022 at 2:18 am
It’s that time of year again—yet another anniversary celebration of September 11, 2001.
The day when Islamic terrorists slammed two jetliners into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon.
They would have crashed a fourth jetliner into the White House or Capitol Building—except for the heroic resistance of passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93.
In the years immediately following 9/11, politicians of both parties used this anniversary to wave flags and make self-serving patriotic speeches.
This was especially true for officials of the administration of President George W. Bush—which, even as the rubble was being cleared at the Pentagon and World Trade Center, was preparing to use the attack as an excuse to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Hussein had not plotted 9/11, and there was no evidence that he did. But that didn’t matter to Bush and those planning the invasion and conquest of Iraq.

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
So here it is, 21 years later, and, like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 has become a distant memory of terror and loss.
At that time, Americans feared Islamic terrorism above all else. Today, millions of Americans fear terror from another source: A Republican party intent on imposing dictatorship through voter suppression and intimidation.
Its likely Presidential nominee in 2024: Ex-President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly admitted he wants to become “President-for-Life.”
As on past commemorations of 9/11, those who died will be remembered by friends and relatives of those who knew and loved them.

Tribute to 9/11 World Trade Center Victims
It is in fact appropriate to remember the innocents who died on that day—and the heroism of the police and firefighters who died trying to save them.
But it’s equally important to remember those who made 9/11 not simply possible but inevitable.
And that does not mean only the 19 highjackers who turned those planes into fuel-bombs. It means the officials at the highest levels of the administration of President George W. Bush.
Officials who, to this day, have never been held accountable in any way for the resulting death and destruction.
And who have been allowed to blatantly lie that they “kept us safe” from terrorism.
Obviously, such an indictment is not going to be presented by TV commentators today—not even on such liberal networks as CNN and MSNBC. And most definitely not on the right-wing Fox network.
Fortunately, British historian Nigel Hamilton has dared to lay bare the facts of this disgrace. Hamilton is the author of several acclaimed political biographies, including JFK: Reckless Youth and Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.

Nigel Hamilton
CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons
In 2007, he began research on his latest book: American Caesars: The Lives of the Presidents From Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.
The inspiration for this came from a classic work of ancient biography: The Twelve Caesars, by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus–known as Suetonius.
Suetonius, a Roman citizen and historian, had chronicled the lives of the first twelve Caesars of imperial Rome: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
Hamilton wanted to examine post-World War II United States history as Suetonius had examined that of ancient Rome: Through the lives of the 12 “emperors” who had held the power of life and death over their fellow citizens–and those of other nations.
For Hamilton, the “greatest of American emperors, the Caesar Augustus of his time,” was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led his country through the Great Depression and World War II.
His “”great successors” were Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy—who, in turn, contained the Soviet Union abroad and presided over sustained economic prosperity at home.
By contrast, “arguably the worst of all the American Caesars” was “George W. Bush, and his deputy, Dick Cheney, who willfully and recklessly destroyed so much of the moral basis of American leadership in the modern world.”
Among the most lethal of Bush’s offenses: The appointing of officials who refused to take seriously the threat posed by Al-Qaeda.
And this arrogance and indifference continued–right up to September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center and Pentagon became targets for destruction.
Among the few administration officials who did take Al-Qaeda seriously was Richard Clarke, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council.
Clarke had been thus appointed in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. He continued in the same role under President Bush–but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access.
This put him at a severe disadvantage when dealing with other, higher-ranking Bush officials—such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
These turned out to be the very officials who refused to believe that Al-Qaeda posed a lethal threat to the United States.
“Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “in the entire first eight months of the Bush Presidency, Clarke was not permitted to brief President Bush a single time, despite mounting evidence of plans for a new al-Qaeda outrage.” [Italics added]
Nor did it help that, during his first eight months in office before September 11, Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CANDICE BERGIN, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, DRUDGE RETORT, ENGLAND, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANCE, GERMANY, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, ISRAEL, JAPAN, JOHN MILIUS, MEDIA MATTERS, MOROCCO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MOVIES, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEAN CONNERY, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WIND AND THE LION, THEODORE ROOSEVELT, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, USA TODAY ABC NEWS, WONKETTE, WORLD WAR ii, WORLD WAR l, YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK
In Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 9, 2022 at 12:39 am
There is a poignant scene in the middle of John Milius’ classic 1975 adventure film, The Wind and the Lion, that Americans would do well to remember.
The movie is set in 1904 America and Morocco. An American woman, Eden Pedicaris (Candice Bergen) and her two children have been kidnapped while vacationing in Tangier.
The kidnapper is a Berber brigand named Mulai Ahmed el Raisuli (Sean Connery—then successfully trying to shed his recent James Bond image).
To Raisuli, the Sultan and his uncle, the Pasha of Tangier, are corrupt and beholden to the European powers struggling to control Morocco.
Raisuli issues an outrageous ransom demand to provoke an international incident, embarrass the Sultan and start a civil war.
In the United States, President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) is running for re-election. He sees the crisis as a way to win votes and demonstrate America’s military strength as a new power.
So he issues a demand of his own: “Pedicarus alive—or Raisuli dead!”
While events rapidly spiral out of control in the Middle East, Roosevelt decides to vacation in Yellowstone National Park.
One night, a grizzly bear attacks the camp and is shot by Roosevelt and several other campers. The next morning, Roosevelt holds an imprumptu press conference for the reporters who have accompanied him.

Brian Keith (left) as Theodore Roosevelt
REPORTER: Did you take part in killing the grizzly, Mr. President?
ROOSEVELT: Yes, unfortunately.
REPORTER: Why do you say, ‘unfortunately,’ Mr. President?
ROOSEVELT: The American grizzly is a symbol of the American character: strength, intelligence, ferocity. Maybe a little blind and reckless at times, but courageous beyond all doubt. And one other trait that goes with all previous.
REPORTER: And that, Mr. President?
ROOSEVELT: Loneliness. The American grizzly lives out his life alone. Indomitable, unconquered—but always alone. He has no real allies, only enemies, but none of them as great as he.
REPORTER: And you feel this might be an American trait?
ROOSEVELT: Certainly. The world will never love us. They respect us—they might even grow to fear us. But they will never love us, for we have too much audacity! And, we’re a bit blind and reckless at times, too.
REPORTER: Are you perhaps referring to the situation in Morocco and the Panama Canal.
ROOSEVELT: If you say so. The American grizzly embodies the spirit of America. He should be our symbol! Not that ridiculous eagle—he’s nothing more than a dandified vulture.
When the Pasha of Tangier refuses to negotiate with Raisuli to secure the return of Pedecaris, the American Consul to Tangier, Samuel Gummere, decides on action. He confers with Admiral Chadwick, commanding the South Atlantic Squadron, and a Marine captain named Jerome.
Gummere then orders a company of Marines, supported by a small detachment of sailors, to seize the Pasha. But then he admits to the riskiness of the decision:
GUMMERE: You realize, of course, that if we fail in even the slightest way, we’ll all be killed.
CHADWICK: Yes, and the whole world will probably go to war.
JEROME: Gentlemen, if we fail and are killed, I certainly hope the world does go to war.
CHADWICK: A world ar war!
GUMMERE: A world war. Now that would be something to go out on.
In just ten years, they will get their hearts’ desire when World War 1 erupts.
The Marines quickly overwhelm the Pasha’s palace guard, take the Pasha hostage and force him to negotiate.
During the hostage exchange, Raisuli is betrayed and captured by German and Moroccan troops. His friend, the Sherif of Wazan, organizes the Berber tribe for an attack on the Europeans and their Moroccan lackeys.
Eden Pedecaris, who has grown to admire Raisuli, convinces a Marine captain and his men to rescue the Berber chieftain. She argues that President Roosevelt had promised that Raisuli would be unharmed if the Pedecarises were returned safely.
The Berbers and Marines team up to defeat the Germans and their Moroccan allies, rescuing Raisuli in the process.

Thirteen years later—in 1917—the United States will officially take on the Germans in World War 1. And in another 37 years—in 1941—America will again declare war on Germany.
The film ends with a confident Theodore Roosevelt expecting (accurately) to be re-elected—and telling reporters that “the fate of Morocco will be decided tomorrow by me.”
The Wind and the Lion is set in an era when
- Nuclear weapons did not exist;
- Russia and China were militarily insignificant nations;
- England was the world’s superpower;
- America, Germany and Japan were on the rise;
- Israel was still a distant dream in the eyes of European Jews;
- The “Great Powers”—Germany, France and Great Britain—were struggling to carve up the Middle East to exploit its massive oil reserves; and
- Americans did not feel threatened by Islamic radicals.
As complex and dangerous as that era often seemed to those living more than 100 years ago, it has been succeeded by one even more complex and dangerous.
In this new and even more lethal era, it is well to remember Theodore Roosevelt’s warning that “we’re a bit blind and reckless at times, too.”
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, ANTHONY SPILOTRO, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE, CARDROOMS, CASINO (BOOK), CASINO (MOVIE), CBS NEWS, CLIMATE CHANGE, CNN, CRIME, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANK ROSENTHAL, GAMBLING, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HOMELESSNESS, HORSE RACING, HUFFINGTON POST, JOE PESCI, LAS VEGAS, MARTIN SCORSESE, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PROPOSITION 27, PROPOSITON 26, RAW STORY, REUTERS, RISING PRICES, ROBERT DE NIRO, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SHARON STONE, SLATE, STATE LOTTERY, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRIBAL CASINOS, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 7, 2022 at 12:47 am
The pace of climate change is dangerously accelerating.
A psychopathic dictator—Donald Trump—is preparing to overturn democratic rule in the United States.
And COVID-19 continues to ravish the globe—and its economy.
But in California, the most important issue—according to seemingly nonstop TV and Internet ads—is which Indian casinos deserve support.
Two propositions—26 and 27—are on the ballot for the November 8 mid-term elections. And both are dueling for public support.
In the previous column, Proposition 26 was covered in detail. Now for Proposition 27.
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office states the change that would occur under Proposition 27:
“Proposition 27 allows tribes or gambling companies to offer online sports betting. It requires tribes and gambling companies that offer online sports betting to make certain payments to the state for specific purposes—such as to support state regulatory costs and to address homelessness. The proposition also creates a new online sports betting regulatory unit. Finally, it provides new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting.
“Proposition 27 changes the California Constitution and state law to allow online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices. People 21 years of age and older in California, who are not on tribal lands, would be able to place bets no later than September 2023. The proposition allows bets on athletic events (such as football games) and some non-athletic events (such as awards shows and video game competitions). However, it bans bets on certain other events such as high school games and elections.”

The analyst’s office then states what a Yes or No vote on Proposition 27 would mean:
“A YES vote on this measure means: Licensed tribes or gambling companies could offer online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices to people 21 years of age and older on non-tribal lands in California. Those offering online sports betting would be required to pay the state a share of sports bets made. A new state unit would be created to regulate online sports betting. New ways to reduce illegal online sports betting would be available.
“A NO vote on this measure means: Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.”

Indian tribes themselves are divided on the merits of Proposition 27. It has the support of three tribes—the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe.
The “No on 27” campaign lists 60 Indian tribes that oppose it.
“Prop 27 is a direct attack on Indian self-reliance, and Indian Country overwhelmingly opposes this deceptive measure,” said California Nations Indian Gaming Association Chairman James Siva in a statement.
“Prop 27 jeopardizes Indian gaming and vital funding that both gaming and non-gaming tribes use to provide housing, healthcare, firefighting services, education, cultural preservation, and other services for our communities. That’s why more than 50 California Indian tribes— both gaming and nongaming alike—strongly oppose Prop 27.”
Needless to say, the backers of Proposition 27 have a different view.
According to their website, “Yes On Prop 27”:
“Prop 27 has strict protections to prevent minors from betting, including substantial fines for violators, and it bans betting on youth sports.
“Proposition 27 is the ONLY permanent funding solution for California’s homelessness and mental health crises.
“Prop 27 is the ONLY ballot measure that guarantees hundreds of millions dollars every year to fund mental health treatment and solutions to homelessness and addiction.”
Both sides use misleading language to win support.
Neither the backers—nor opponents—of these propositions mention “gambling” in their advertising. Instead, they refer to “Indian gaming” or “tribal gaming.” As if visitors to casinos aren’t being lured to squander their hard-earned money on the nearest craps table.
As for the term: “Indian self-reliance”: The tribes are playing on white guilt over the treatment of the Indians during the “winning of the West.”
As if Indians can’t support themselves except by taking advantage of people’s greed.
Yet that doesn’t give today’s tribes a moral right to fleece visitors to casinos on Indian reservations.
To understand the real purpose of casinos you need only watch the 1995 film, “Casino.” Directed by Martin Scorsese, it stars Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci and Sharon Stone.
It’s based on the nonfiction 1995 book Casino: Love and Honor in Las Vegas, by Nicholas Pileggi. It chronicles the alliance of expert gambler Frank Rosenthal and mobster Anthony Spilotro to run the Tangiers Casino in Las Vegas.
The movie pulls no punches in explaining the true purpose of a casino. As narrated by the character of Frank Rosenthal:
“Cash. Tons of it. It’s all this money. This is the end result of all the bright lights and the comped trips, of all the champagne and free hotel suites, and all the broads and all the booze. It’s all been arranged just for us to get your money.
“That’s the truth about Las Vegas. We’re the only winners. The players don’t stand a chance. And their cash flows from the tables to our boxes through the cage and into the most sacred room in the casino, the place where they add up all the money. The holy of holies—the count room.”
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, ANTHONY SPILOTRO, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE, CARDROOMS, CASINO (BOOK), CASINO (MOVIE), CBS NEWS, CLIMATE CHANGE, CNN, CRIME, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANK ROSENTHAL, GAMBLING, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HOMELESSNESS, HORSE RACING, HUFFINGTON POST, JOE PESCI, LAS VEGAS, MARTIN SCORSESE, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PROPOSITION 27, PROPOSITON 26, RAW STORY, REUTERS, RISING PRICES, ROBERT DE NIRO, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SHARON STONE, SLATE, STATE LOTTERY, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRIBAL CASINOS, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 6, 2022 at 12:10 am
According to the August 24 edition of the Orange County Register, Californians are most concerned about these issues:
Their No. 1 concern remains COVID-19.
After that come
- Homelessness
- Rising prices
- Crime
But the average Californian wouldn’t know that from watching the flood of “dueling casino” ads on TV and the Internet.
Yes, it’s Proposition 26 versus Proposition 27, each one claiming a non-existent righteousness on behalf of different Indian tribes.
From these, Californians get the overwhelming message that the most important issue for their state is: “Our casinos are moral; theirs are not.”
According to the website of the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor:

California Legislative Analyst’s Office
“The California Constitution and state law limit gambling in California. For example, state law bans sports betting, roulette, and games with dice (such as craps). However, it allows some gambling.
“This includes:
- State Lottery: About 23,000 stores in all 58 counties sell lottery games. Lottery sales—after prizes and operation costs—support education. About $1.9 billion in lottery revenue supported education last year.
- Cardrooms: Currently, 84 cardrooms in 32 counties can offer certain card games (such as poker). Cardrooms pay state and local feels and taxes. For example, cardrooms pay the state around $24 million each year (annually) generally for regulatory costs. Cardrooms also pay around $100 million each year to the cities they are located in.
- Horse Racing Betting: Four privately operated racetracks as well as 29 fairs, publicly operated racetracks, and other facilities in 17 counties offer betting on horse racing. The horse racing industry pays state and local fees and taxes. Last year, the industry paid the state around $18 million in fees primarily for state regulatory costs.
- Tribal Casinos: Tribes operate 66 casinos in 28 counties under specific agreements between certain tribes and the state. These casinos offer slot machines, lottery games, and card games on tribal lands. Last year, tribes paid around $65 million to support state regulation and gambling addiction programs. Tribes also pay tens of millions of dollars to local governments each year. Additionally, tribes operating larger casinos pay nearly $150 million each year to tribes that either do not operate casinos or have less than 350 slot machines.”
Then the analyst’s office defines Proposition 26:
“Proposition 26 allows in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos. It requires that racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting make certain payments to the state—such as to support state regulatory costs. The proposition also allows additional gambling—such as roulette—at tribal casinos. Finally, it adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws.
“Proposition 26 changes the California Constitution and state law to allow the state’s privately operated racetracks and tribal casinos to offer sports betting. However, the proposition bans bets on certain sports—such as high school games and games in which California college teams participate.”
The analyst’s office then states what a Yes or No vote on Proposition 26 would mean:
“A YES vote on this measure means: Four racetracks could offer in-person sports betting. Racetracks would pay the state a share of sports bets made. Tribal casinos could offer in-person sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice (such as craps) if permitted by individual tribal gambling agreements with the state. Tribes would be required to support state sports betting regulatory costs at casinos. People and entities would have a new way to seek enforcement of certain state gambling laws.”
“A NO vote on this measure means: Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California. Tribal casinos would continue to be unable to offer roulette and games played with dice. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.”
(Color print is not included in the website.)

Opposing Proposition 26 are the backers of Proposition 27.
More than a century ago, opposing Indian tribes fought with knives, tomahawks and arrows. The reason: To acquire the better hunting grounds of neighboring tribes.
Today they wield multi-million-dollar advertising spots on television. And the reason: To gain more customers for their casinos while siphoning off customers from their rivals.
As a result, California’s TVs and computers are now clogged round-the-clock with dueling gambling propositions.
And directly competing with Proposition 26 for votes is Proposition 27.
According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 27 will allow “online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands.
“In California, compacts allow tribal casinos to offer slot machines and other games on tribal lands. These compacts lay out how gambling will be regulated. They also require certain payments, such as to the state and local governments. Tribes can ask for these compacts to be changed, such as when new types of gambling become legal in the state.
“California currently has compacts with 79 tribes. Tribes currently operate 66 casinos in 28 counties. Last year [2021], tribes paid around $65 million to support state regulatory and gambling addiction program costs. Tribes also pay tens of millions of dollars to local governments each year (annually). Additionally, tribes operating larger casinos pay nearly $150 million each year to tribes that either do not operate casinos or have less than 350 slot machines.”
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, “EL CID” (MOVIE, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CAMILLUS, CBS NEWS, CHARLTON HESTON, CHRISTOPHER SWANSON, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DEREK CHAUVIN, DONALD TRUMP, DRUDGE RETORT, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FLINT TOWNSHIP, GEORGE FLOYD, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, LOS ANGELES, MARCUS FURIUS, MEDIA MATTERS, MOORS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEW YORK CITY, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, RODRIGO DIAZ DE VIVAR, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SPAIN, ST. JOHN’S CHURCH, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE DISCOURSES, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VALENCIA, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 26, 2022 at 1:26 am
Two stories—one fictitious, the other historical.
Story #1: In the 1961 historical epic, “El Cid,” Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, known as “The Lord,” besieges the Spanish city of Valencia, which has been captured by the Moors.
Months have passed. The city’s population is starving and without hope.
Then, one day, El Cid (Charlton Heston) calls out over the city’s walls: “Soldiers and citizens of Valencia! We are not your enemy! Ben Yusof [the powerful emir who plans to conquer Spain with an invading army] is your enemy!
“Join us! We bring you peace! We bring you freedom! We bring you bread!”

Suddenly El Cid’s Spanish catapults spring into action—loaded not with stones but loaves of bread. The loaves land in the city’s streets, where starving citizens and soldiers greedily devour them.
Then those citizens attack the bodyguards of the emir ruling Valencia—and throw the emir himself from a high wall.
The army of El Cid marches peacefully into the city.
Story #2: In Book Three, Chapter 22 of his classic masterwork, The Discourses, Niccolo Machiavelli offers the following: “An Act of Humanity Prevailed More With the Falacians Than All the Power of Rome.”
Marcus Furius Camillus, a Roman general, was besieging the city of the Faliscians, and had surrounded it. A teacher charged with the education of the children of some of the noblest families of that city decided to ingratiate himself with Camillus by leading those children into the Roman camp.
Presenting them to Camillus the teacher said to him, “By means of these children as hostages, you will be able to compel the city to surrender.”
Camillus not only declined the offer but went one step further. He ordered the teacher stripped and his hands tied behind his back. Then Camillus had a rod put into the hands of each of the children and directed them to whip the teacher all the way back to the city.
Upon learning this, the citizens of Faliscia were so much touched by the humanity and integrity of Camillus, that they surrendered the place to him without any further defense.
Summing up the meaning of this, Machiavelli writes: “This example shows that an act of humanity and benevolence will at all times have more influence over the minds of men than violence and ferocity. It also proves that provinces and cities which no armies…could conquer, have yielded to an act of humanity, benevolence, chastity or generosity.
“…History also shows us how much the people desire to find such virtues in great men, and how much they are extolled by historians and biographers of princes….Amongst these, Xenophon takes great pains to show how many victories, how much honor and fame, Cyrus gained by his humanity and affability, and by his not having exhibited a single instance of pride, cruelty or luxuriousness, nor of any of the other vices that are apt to stain the lives of men.”

Niccolo Machiavelli
These stories—the first the product of a movie screenwriter’s imagination, the second recorded by a master political scientist and historian—remain highly relevant today.
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a black unemployed restaurant security guard, was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis police officer. While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on a city street during an arrest, Chauvin kept his knee on the right side of Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds.
Cities across the United States erupted in mass protests over Floyd’s death—and police killings of black victims generally. Most of these demonstrations proved peaceful.
But cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York City saw stores looted, vandalized and/or burned. In response, President Donald Trump called for harsh policing, telling governors in a nationwide conference call that they must “dominate” protesters or be seen as “weak.”
To drive home his point, Trump ordered police and National Guard troops to violently remove peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, which borders St. John’s Church near the White House.
The purpose of the removal: To allow Trump to have a photo opportunity outside the church.
“I imposed a curfew at 7pm,” tweeted Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. “A full 25 minutes before the curfew & w/o provocation, federal police used munitions on peaceful protestors in front of the White House, an act that will make the job of @DCPoliceDept officers more difficult. Shameful!”
Contrast that with the example of Sheriff Christopher Swanson of Genesee County, Michigan.


Sheriff Christopher Swanson
Confronting a mass of aroused demonstrators in Flint Township on May 30, Swanson responded: “We want to be with you all for real.”
So Swanson took his helmet off. His deputies laid their batons down.
“I want to make this a parade, not a protest. So, you tell us what you need to do.”
“Walk with us!” the protesters shouted.
“Let’s walk, let’s walk,” said Swanson.
Cheering and applause resounded.
“Let’s go, let’s go,” Swanson said as he and the cheering crowd proceeded. “Where do you want to walk? We’ll walk all night.”
And Swanson and his fellow officers walked in sympathy with the protesters.
No rioting followed.
ABC NEWS, ABORTION, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BIBLE, BILL KOENIG, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA DROUGHT, CALIFORNIA PROLIFE LEGISLATIVE BANQUET, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DAVID AND GOLIATH (MOVIE), FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GLOBAL WARMING, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, HURRICANE KATRINA, LIGHTNING, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PAT ROBERTSON, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, RICK PERRY, SALON, SCIENCE VS. SUPERSTITION, SEATTLE TIMES, SHANNON LEE GROVE, SLATE, STEVE LEFAMINE, SUPERSTITION, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TEXAS, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, RELIGION, Social commentary on August 22, 2022 at 12:13 am
In the 1960 movie, “David and Goliath,” the hero and his girlfriend are sitting in a cave during a thunderstorm. David assures her of his undying love, and they share a passionate kiss.
Then, amidst the sound of thunder, she says, “I must go—I cannot tarry.”
David tries to talk her out of it, but she rushes out of the cave into a nearby flock of sheep—and is struck dead by lightning.
David is horrified—and grief-stricken: “Why, Lord, why?”
In the ancient world, lightning bolts were seen as the arrows of Zeus—or Yahweh (the Hebrew name of God). There could be no clearer sign of Heaven’s anger at a particular person that s/he was struck by lightning.
Today, we know that lightning, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory, is “a giant spark of electricity in the atmosphere between clouds, the air, or the ground.”
At least, those who believe in science—not superstition—know this.
And if you are the tallest object around, or are close to water or trees or metallic objects, you are likely to be struck. It doesn’t matter whether you’re good or evil.

Lightning
Yet millions of superstitious Americans continue to believe that their lives are ruled by forces of Good (as symbolized by God) or Evil (as symbolized by Satan).
One of these is Assemblywoman Shannon Lee Grove, who represents Kern County in Central California. A Republican, she served as the minority leader of the California State Senate from 2019 to 2021.
Grove has a unique explanation for California’s worsening drought: Climate change/global warming has nothing to do with it. It’s God’s wrath over legalized abortion.
Speaking before the California ProLife Legislative Banquet held in Sacramento on June 8, 2015, Grove said:
“Texas was in a long period of drought until Governor [Rick] Perry signed the fetal pain bill,” she told the audience. “It rained that night. Now God has his hold on California.”
Grove was referring to House Bill 2, a Texas bill banning abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, four weeks earlier than the standard set by Roe v. Wade. It was based on the unproven assertion that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks.
In addition, the bill:
- Required all clinics to become ambulatory surgical centers, even if they did not provide surgical abortions; and
- Mandated that abortion clinics have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility.

Shannon Lee Grove
“This is the infallible word of God,” Grove said, holding a Bible above her head as attendees clapped. “I fear Him more than I fear anyone.”
Among her audience at the Grand Hotel were anti-abortion activists and clergy, including Catholic Bishops for Life, Pray California, Californians for Life and the California Republican Assembly.
Apparently, God still has his hold on Texas, even though Texans passed a rabidly anti-abortion bill.
Almost all of Texas is facing a severe level of drought. Only a few parts of the state—such as El Paso—aren’t abnormally dry.
The website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the drought was primarily caused by natural climate variability and climate change caused by human activity.

Drought
Asked specifically about her comments, Grove refused to expound on the relationship between abortion and drought.
But on June 11, 2015, she issued a statement on her Facebook page: “I believe—and most Americans believe—-that God’s hand is in the affairs of man, and certainly was in the formation of this country.
“Is this drought caused by God? Nobody knows. But biblical history shows a consequence to man’s actions.
“We do know for sure that California’s water shortage crisis has been compounded by liberal politicians’ poor decisions—not properly managing our water resources and refusing to build water storage for decades.”
Clearly embarrassed at being unable to prove her own statement, Grove retreated to a safer line of attack: Drought is the fault of “liberal politicians.”
Even some anti-abortion activists didn’t agree with Grove’s theory.
Pro-Choice Kern County called her comments “absolute lunacy” and created a mock-up of a T-shirt: “I made a desert with my abortion and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”
Grove isn’t alone in believing that God’s displeasure lies behind natural disasters.
Another is Bill Koenig, the conservative editor of World Watch Daily. God, he asserts, is righteously enraged at California’s acceptance of same-sex marriage and abortion.
“We’ve got a state that over and over again will go against the word of God, that will continually take positions on marriage and abortion and on a lot of things that are just completely opposed to the scriptures.”
Abortion isn’t mentioned as a sin in the Bible. Yet it’s a ready culprit for natural disasters—in the sermons of fundamentalist preachers.
Evangelist Pat Robertson blamed abortion for Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
And Steve Lefamine, the director of Columbia Christians for Life in South Carolina, agreed with Robertson that abortion caused Hurricane Katrina.
In an interview with the Washington Post, he claimed that when he viewed the full-color satellite map of the hurricane, he saw an eight-week-old fetus in the image.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, COVID-19, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DAVID MCCULLOUGH, DEMOCRATS, DISNEY, FACEBOOK, FIRST AMENDMENT, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HISTORICAL ILLITERACY, HISTORY, HUFFINGTON POST, JAY LENO, JOE BIDEN, MARK ZUCKERBERG, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SHERYL SANDBERG, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TONIGHT SHOW, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, Business, Entertainment, History, Politics, Social commentary on August 17, 2022 at 12:10 am
As it now operates, Facebook poses a direct threat to the First Amendment, the privacy of its users and democratic elections.
Facebook is the world’s largest social media company, with 2.936 billion users by April, 2022. Its social and political influence on the United States is enormous. According to its profile on Wikipedia:
“The subject of numerous controversies, Facebook has often been criticized over issues such as user privacy (as with the Cambridge Analytica data scandal), political manipulation (as with the 2016 U.S. elections) and mass surveillance.
“Posts originating from the Facebook page of Breitbart News, a media organization previously affiliated with Cambridge Analytica, are currently among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.
“Facebook has also been subject to criticism over psychological effects such as addiction and low self-esteem, and various controversies over content such as fake news, conspiracy theories, copyright infringement, and hate speech. Commentators have accused Facebook of willingly facilitating the spread of such content as well as exaggerating its number of users to appeal to advertisers.”
To which can be added the following:
- I was sentenced to “Facebook Jail” for two posts. The first of these stated: “Americans are historical illiterates.” This was labeled “hate speech and inferiority.” The fact that the distinguished historian David McCullough had said exactly the same meant nothing to Facebook.
- Comedians have long gained laughs at Americans’ historical illiteracy: When Jay Leno hosted The Tonight Show, he often did “Jaywalking Tours” where he asked people about seemingly well-known historical events. It was common to see people say the Civil War happened in the 1940s (instead of 1861-1865) or to believe that the Texans won at the battle of the Alamo.
- A second post deleted showed a group of heavily-armed Proud Boys standing around a cross. Above this I had posted the caption: “Proud Boys posing with their latest victim.” This was labeled as “hate speech.”
- Since this post was bluntly critical of the Proud Boys, the question emerges: Does criticizing the Proud Boys—Fascists who played a major role during the January 6 attempted coup against the Capitol Building—constitute “hate speech”?

Proud Boys
Anthony Crider, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
- I am currently banned from Facebook for posting the following: A Facebook member had posted this solution for achieving universal peace: All enlisted members of all the world’s militaries should refuse to serve. In 2002-3, I had watched President George W. Bush lie the country into a needless, bloody, budget-busting war in Iraq. Thus, I felt the poster’s “solution” required a serious dose of realism.
- So I posted a meme below it that contained an image of Herman Goring—chief of the German Luftwaffe (air force) during World War II. As a convicted war criminal, he should, I felt, have insight into how easy it is to lead a nation into war. And he did: “Naturally, the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in every country.”
- No sooner had I posted this than I found myself once again accused of violating Facebook’s “Community Standards.” As in past cases, Facebook did not deign to state, specifically, what standards I had violated, or how the post endangered other Facebook members. I simply found myself blocked from Facebook.

- Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, disclosed tens of thousands of Facebook’s internal documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Wall Street Journal in 2021. She testified before Congress that Facebook promotes conflict to increase its readership and keep them reading—and buying. So the comment I made fell exactly into that category of exciting controversy.
People who libel and/or harass others should be banned from social media. It’s precisely because Twitter refuses to do so that its reputation is fatally tainted.
But posting a comment that is based on accurate history should not qualify as hate speech. And none of the examples I have cited fit that definition.
Through its worldwide membership, Facebook exerts an influence that rivals—if not exceeds—that of most government institutions. Its greatest infamy: Allowing Russian trolls to play a lethal role in electing Donald Trump President in 2016. And no doubt they are preparing to do so again in 2024.
In a highly polarized political environment, Mark Zuckerberg holds the unique distinction of having infuriated both Democrats and Republicans during his appearances before Congress. His secret: The overweening arrogance he routinely displays to those he considers lesser mortals. His motto is: ““Move fast and break things. Unless you are breaking stuff, you are not moving fast enough.”
It’s long past time for those at the legislative level to show him that some things—such as the First Amendment, the right to privacy and elections free of foreign influence—should not be broken. And that there is a high price to pay for those who do.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CNN, COVID-19, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DAVID MCCULLOUGH, DEMOCRATS, DISNEY, FACEBOOK, FIRST AMENDMENT, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HISTORICAL ILLITERACY, HISTORY, HUFFINGTON POST, JAY LENO, JOE BIDEN, MARK ZUCKERBERG, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SHERYL SANDBERG, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TONIGHT SHOW, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WONKETTE
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on August 16, 2022 at 12:10 am
There is an urgent need for states—and especially the Federal government—to impose serious regulatory controls on Facebook.
Facebook is the world’s largest social media company, with 2.936 billion users by April, 2022. Its social and political influence on the United States is enormous. According to its profile on Wikipedia:
“The subject of numerous controversies, Facebook has often been criticized over issues such as user privacy (as with the Cambridge Analytica data scandal), political manipulation (as with the 2016 U.S. elections) and mass surveillance.
“Posts originating from the Facebook page of Breitbart News, a media organization previously affiliated with Cambridge Analytica, are currently among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.
“Facebook has also been subject to criticism over psychological effects such as addiction and low self-esteem, and various controversies over content such as fake news, conspiracy theories, copyright infringement, and hate speech. Commentators have accused Facebook of willingly facilitating the spread of such content as well as exaggerating its number of users to appeal to advertisers.”

Facebook / Meta headquarters in Menlo Park, California
LPS.1, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
To which should be added the following:
- Facebook operates as virtually a law unto itself, arbitrarily deciding which posts violate its “Community Standards” and deleting them (and their posters) without warning and right to appeal.
- No details are ever given as to what about the post, specifically, posed a threat to other Facebook members.
- Facebook claims that its users have the right to appeal: “You can disagree with the decision if you think we got it wrong.”
- But then Facebook declares: “We usually offer the chance to request a review and follow up if we got the decision wrong. We have fewer reviewers available right now because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. We’re trying hard to priorities reviewing content with the most potential for harm. This means we may not be able to follow up with you, though your feedback helps us do better in the future.”
- Using COVID as an excuse to avoid responsible behavior is despicable. If Facebook is going to ban people for supposedly violating its “Community Standards,” there is a moral obligation—if not a legal one—to give them a chance to share their side of the story.
- Facebook revenues have made its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, worth $71.5 billion. But Facebook refuses to provide its users with an 800 number so they can appeal directly to the Censorship Committee and share their reasons for posting the comments they did.

Mark Zuckerberg
Anthony Quintano from Westminster, United States, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
- Nor does Facebook provide even an Instant Messaging capability, so members can do so.
- Facebook’s refusal to provide a contact number for its members exposes them to potential fraud. National Public Radio published a January 31, 2017 article on “Searching for ‘Facebook Customer Service’ Can Lead To a Scam.”
- “According to Google data: “‘Facebook customer service’ gets searched, on average, about 27,000 times a month in the U.S.” Yet on its own “Help Community” page, Facebook admits: “Facebook doesn’t offer a phone number for support.”
- Nor do Facebook’s executives deign to respond to letters sent to them. I have sent letters to its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and to Sheryl Sandberg, a member of its board of directors. Neither had the courtesy to reply.
- Many of those I know on Facebook have been censored for posts that criticize Donald Trump. Apparently, “freedom of expression” exists only for those who support a man who staged an illegal coup to overturn a totally legitimate election.
- Members can be banned from Facebook for posting entirely legitimate news stories. One such story described how Texas Congressman Joe Burton had sent a series of smarmy emails to numerous women—while posing as a paragon of “family values.”
- The post was removed and its poster was sent the following message: “We removed content you posted. We removed this content because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.” Then the member who posted it found himself blocked from Facebook.

- One Facebook member posted an innocuous anti-Trump cartoon: A group of children are lined up at a house on Halloween. A woman at the door says: “Oh, look. We have a pirate, a witch and a Trump supporter [a boy wearing a white sheet as a ghost].” The post was removed and the poster blocked from Facebook:
- Many Facebook users have found themselves punished after Facebook’s star chamber censors found a post they didn’t like from four years earlier.
- Facebook’s arbitrary and punitive actions are so notorious they have become grist for countless memes—some of which are hilarious: “Warning: You have violated a rule we haven’t made up yet. Because you’re a known troublemaker you’ve been banned for 30 days. Thank you for using Facebook, have a nice day.”

- I was sentenced to “Facebook Jail” for two posts. The first of these stated: “Americans are historical illiterates.” This was labeled “hate speech and inferiority.” The fact that the distinguished historian David McCullough had said exactly the same meant nothing to Facebook.
- Taken to its logical conclusion, only comments celebrating the ignorance of ignorant people will be considered acceptable on Facebook.
ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AMERICAN CAESARS: THE LIVES OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO GEORGE W. BUSH, AMERICAN EMPIRE, AP, ” 9/11, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, BBC, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUREAUCRACY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, DRUDGE REPORT, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HUFFINGTON POST, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NIGEL HAMILTON, NPR, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, RICHARD CLARKE, RICHARD NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SEPTEMBER 11, SLATE, SUETONIUS, SYRIA, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE TWELVE CAESARS, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
SALUTING THE AMERICANS WHO GAVE US 9/11: PART THREE (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 14, 2022 at 12:11 am“Naturally, the common people don’t want war. neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in every country.”
—Hermann Goering
On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.
“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.
Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.
Secretary of State Colin Powell then pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. And he added: “The American people want us to do something about Al-Qaeda”—not Iraq.
On November 21, 2001, only 10 weeks after 9/11, Bush told Rumsfeld: It’s time to turn to Iraq.
Liars Club: Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld
Bush and his war-hungry Cabinet officials knew that Americans demanded vengeance on Al-Qaeda’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and not Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So they repeatedly fabricated “links” between the two:
Yet as early as September 22, 2001, Bush had received a classified President’s Daily Brief intelligence report, which stated that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
The report added that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda.
Even more important: Saddam had tried to monitor Al Qaeda through his intelligence service–because he saw Al-Qaeda and other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.
Bush administration officials repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And they further claimed that US intelligence agencies had determined:
Among other lies issued by members of the Bush administration:
Consider the following:
August 26, 2002: Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
September 8, 2002: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN: ”There is certainly evidence that Al-Qaeda people have been in Iraq. There is certainly evidence that Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists.”
September 18, 2002: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons–including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”
October 7, 2002: President George W. Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
March 16, 2003: Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
March 30, 2003: On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld said: “We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are.”
Bush never regretted his decision to invade Iraq, which occurred on March 20, 2003.
Even as American occupying forces repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), Bush and his minions claimed the invasion a good thing.
In fact, Bush—who hid out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard—even joked publicly about the absence of WMDs.
He did so at a White House Correspondents dinner on March 24, 2004—one year after he had started the war.
George W. Bush at the 2004 White House Correspondents’ dinner
To Bush, the non-existent WMDs were nothing more than the butt of a joke that night. While an overhead projector displayed photos of a puzzled-looking Bush searching around the Oval Office, Bush recited a comedy routine.
“Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere,” Bush laughed, while a photo showed him poking around the corners in the Oval Office.
“Nope—no weapons over there! Maybe they’re under here,” he said, as a photo showed him looking under a desk.
Meanwhile, an assembly of wealthy, pampered men and women—the elite of America’s media and political classes—laughed heartily during Bush’s performance. It was a scene worthy of the court of the ancient Caesars, complete with royal flunkies.
Ultimately, the war that Bush had deliberately provoked
Share this: