Posts Tagged ‘THE PRINCE’
2016 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA), BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DEBT CEILING, DONALD TRUMP, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, HARDBALL, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, MAFIA, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, ROBERT PAYNE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, U.S. SENATE, U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, U.S. SUPREME COURT, USA PATRIOT ACT, WARREN BUFFETT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 23, 2016 at 12:01 am
On July 9, 2011, Republican extortionists threatened the Nation with financial ruin and international disgrace unless their demands were met. They refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to massively cut social programs for the elderly, poor and disabled.
If Congress failed to raise the borrowing limit of the federal government by August 2, the date when the U.S. reached the limit of its borrowing abilities, it would begin defaulting on its loans.
As Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, explained the looming economic catastrophe: “If you don’t send out Social Security checks, I would hate to think about the credit meeting at S&P and Moody’s the next morning.
“If you’re not paying millions and millions and millions of people that range in age from 65 on up, money you promised them, you’re not a AAA,” said Buffett.
Warren Buffett
A triple-A credit rating is the highest possible rating that can be received.
And while Republicans demanded that the disadvantaged tighten their belts, they rejected any raising of taxes on their foremost constituency–the wealthiest 1%.
To raise taxes on the wealthy, they insisted, would be a “jobs-killer.” It would “discourage” corporate CEOs from creating tens of thousands of jobs they “want” to create.
Republicans knew this argument was a lie. And so did the editors of Time. The difference between them: The editors of Time were willing to reveal the truth.
In its June 20, 2011 cover-story on “What U.S. Economic Recovery? Five Destructive Myths,” Rana Foroohar, the magazine’s assistant managing editor in charge of economics and business, delivered this warning: Profit-seeking corporations can’t be relied on to ”make it all better.”
Wrote Foroohar:
“There is a fundamental disconnect between the fortunes of American companies, which are doing quite well, and American workers, most of whom are earning a lower hourly wage now than they did during the recession.
“The thing is, companies make plenty of money; they just don’t spend it on workers here.
“There may be $2 trillion sitting on the balance sheets of American corporations globally, but firms show no signs of wanting to spend it in order to hire workers at home.”
As the calendar moved ever closer to the fateful date of August 2, Republican leaders continued to insist: Any deal that includes taxes “can’t pass the House.”
One senior Republican said talks would go right up to–and maybe beyond–the brink of default.
“I think we’ll be here in August,” said Republican Rep. Pete Sessions, of Texas. “We are not going to leave town until a proper deal gets done.”
President Obama had previously insisted on extending the debt ceiling through 2012. But in mid-July, he simply asked congressional leaders to review three options with their members:
- The “Grand Bargain” choice—favored by Obama–would cut deficits by about $4 trillion, including spending cuts and new tax revenues.
- A medium-range plan would aim to reduce the deficit by about $2 trillion.
- The smallest option would cut between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion, without increased tax revenue or any Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
And the Republican response?
Said Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Quite frankly, [Republican] members of Congress are getting tired of what the president won’t do and what the president wants.”
Noted political analyst Chris Matthews summed up the sheer criminality of what happened within the House of Representatives.
Speaking on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” on July 28–five days before Congress reached its August 2 deadline to raise the debt-ceiling–Matthews noted:
“The first people to bow to the demands of those threatening to blow up the economy were the Republicans in the House, the leaders. The leaders did what the followers told them to do: meet the demands, hold up the country to get their way.
Chris Matthews
“Those followers didn’t win the Senate, or the Presidency, just the House. But by using the House they were able to hold up the entire United States government. They threatened to blow things up economically and it worked.
“They said they were willing to do that–just to get their way–not by persuasion, not by politics, not by democratic government, but by threatening the destruction of the country’s finances.
“Right. So what’s next? The power grid? Will they next time threaten to close down the country’s electricity and communications systems?”
With the United States teetering on the brink of national bankruptcy, President Obama faced three choices:
- Counter Republican extortion attempts via RICO–the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.
- Make a “Cuban Missile Crisis”-style address to the American people, seeking to rally them against a criminal threat to the financial security of the Nation.
- Cave in to Republican demands.
Unfortunately for Obama and the Nation, he chose Number Three.
But he could have countered that danger via the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
In 1970, Congress passed RICO, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. Its goal: Destroy the Mafia.
U.S. Department of Justice
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
2016 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA), BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DEBT CEILING, DONALD TRUMP, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, HARDBALL, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, MAFIA, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, ROBERT PAYNE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, U.S. SENATE, U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, U.S. SUPREME COURT, USA PATRIOT ACT, WARREN BUFFETT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 22, 2016 at 12:01 am
On March 16, Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination, issued a warning to his fellow Right-wingers: If he didn’t win the GOP nomination at the convention in July, his supporters would literally riot.
“I think we’ll win before getting to the convention. But I can tell you if we didn’t, if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400…I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think you’d have riots.
“I think you would see problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen. I really do. I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen.”
Donald Trump
An NBC reporter summed it up as follows: “As Trump indicated, there is a very real possibility he might lose the nomination if he wins only a plurality of delegates thanks to party rules that allow delegates to support different candidates after the initial ballot.
“In that context, the message to Republicans was clear on [March 16]: Nice convention you got there, shame if something happened to it.”
Anyone who’s ever watched a Mafia movie has heard similar threats: “You really ought to think about paying that protection money. Nice family you got–it would be a shame if anything happened to ’em.”
Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, was quick to respond.
On March 17, he said that it was “unacceptable” for Trump to suggest there would be rioting if he was not chosen as the Republican nominee.
“Nobody should say such things in my opinion because to even address or hint to violence is unacceptable.”
Paul Ryan
And Ohio governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich chinned in. “Leaders don’t imply violence,” Kasich told “Face the Nation” on March 20.
“When he says that there could be riots, that’s inappropriate. I think you understand that, okay? Secondly, while we have our differences and disagreements, we’re Americans. Americans don’t say, ‘Let’s take to the streets and have violence.’
John Kasich
“I don’t even want to use the word ‘riots’ or ‘violence.’ That’s inappropriate. Our kids are watching. Now…that doesn’t mean I’m not running a positive campaign, but those kind of comments are way out of bounds. Frankly, they’re outrageous,” said Kasich.”
Yet, for all their public outrage, Republicans are no strangers to the uses of extortion and threats. Their tactics are straight out of the playbook of Adolf Hitler.
Robert Payne, author of the bestselling biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), described the “negotiating” style of the Nazi dictator thus:
“Although Hitler prized his own talents as a negotiator, a man always capable of striking a good bargain, he was totally lacking in finesse. He was incapable of bargaining. He was like a man who goes up to a fruit peddler and threatens to blow his brains out if he does not sell his applies at the lowest possible price.”
In 1994, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, shut down the Federal Government. Officially, the reason was a budget impasse with President Bill Clinton.
Unofficially–and in reality–the reason was altogether different: Clinton had forced him to sit in the back of Air Force One on a trip to Israel for the funeral of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
“This is petty,” Gingrich confessed to startled reporters. “I’m going to say up front it’s petty, But I think it’s human.
“When you land at Andrews [Air Force Base, in Washington, D.C.] and you’ve been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get off by the back ramp….You just wonder, where is their sense of manners, where is their sense of courtesy?”
Gingrich’s childish verbal tirade was a public relations disaster for the Republicans. “Cry Baby,” screamed the New York Daily News, next to a picture of Gingrich in a diaper.
When House Democrats brought a poster-sized image of the cartoon onto the floor, the Republican majority forced them to remove it.
But the damage was done, and Republicans paid a fearful price at the polls for the shutdown and Gingrich’s candor about the reason for it, losing heavily in the House and Senate.
Still, the Republicans continued their policy of my-way-or-else.
In April, 2011, the United States government almost shut down over Republican demands about subsidized pap smears.
During a late-night White House meeting with President Barack Obama and key Congressional leaders, Republican House Speaker John Boehner made this threat:
His conference would not approve funding for the government if any money were allowed to flow to Planned Parenthood through Title X legislation.
Facing an April 8 deadline, negotiators worked day and night to strike a compromise–and finally reached one.
Three months later–on July 9–Republican extortionists again threatened the Nation with financial ruin and international disgrace unless their demands were met.
Sign of The Black Hand
President Obama had offered to make historic cuts in the federal government and the social safety net–on which millions of Americans depend for their most basic needs.
But House Speaker John Boehner rejected that offer. He would not agree to the tax increases that Democrats wanted to impose on the wealthiest 1% as part of the bargain.
John Boehner
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, Medical, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLFFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on February 9, 2016 at 12:04 am
Barack Obama is one of one of the most highly educated Presidents to occupy the White House.
When he took office, he intended to make healthcare available to all Americans–and not just the wealthiest 1%.
President Barack Obama
But he made a series of deadly mistakes:
- In crafting the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare);
- In building public support for it; In underestimating the venom and opposition of his Right-wing enemies;
- In underestimating the opposition of the business community in complying with the law; and
- In allowing himself to be cowed by his political enemies.
Obama is by nature a supreme rationalist and conciliator–not a rough-and-tumble street fighter.
And his career before becoming President in 2008–or even the United States Senator from Illinois in 2004–greatly strengthened this predisposition.
From 1985 to 1988, Obama worked as a community organizer, setting up a job-training program, a college preparatory tutoring program and a tenants’ rights organization.
Such activities demand skills in building consensus, not confrontation.
He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years–as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, teaching Constitutional law.
University of Chicago Law School
Law professors spend their time in clean, civil classrooms–far removed from the rough-and tumble of criminal defense/prosecution.
If Obama had accused President George W. Bush of conspiring with Al Qaeda–as Republicans have repeatedly accused Obama–retribution would have been swift and brutal.
(On March 10, 2003, nine days before Bush ordered the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the country music band, the Dixie Chicks, told a London concert audience: “We don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”
(A Republican-approved boycott of Dixie Chicks music followed, as well as death threats DJs refused to play their music, and President Bush refused to criticize the KGB-like tactics of his Right-wing supporters.)
Natalie Maines, left, of the Dixie Chicks
But Obama could not–or would not–bring himself to attack his sworn enemies by attacking their own patriotism or invoking Federal criminal statutes against their extortionate and terrorist threats.
In short: Obama–who believes in reason and conciliation–paid the price for allowing his sworn enemies to insult and obstruct him.
Obama Mistake No. 6: Failing to closely study his proposed legislation.
Throughout his campaign to win support for the Affordable Care Act (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, hidden in the 906 pages of the law, was 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.
It soon soon turned out that 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.
As a result, the President found his reputation for integrity–long his greatest asset–shattered.
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 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that, if she’s elected President, she will push for incremental changes in the ACA.
Vermont United States Senator Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has called for the implementation of a single-payer plan. This, in effect, would accomplish what Republicans have spent the last seven years trying to do: Repeal “Obamacare.”
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 passage of the ACA was–as the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo–“a damned, close-run thing.”
Right-wingers like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin flat-out lied that the ACA would create “death panels.” And millions of reactionaries, furious that a black man now occupied the Oval Office, eagerly believed it.
When Democratic politicians organized town meetings for public discussion of the Act, Rightist hooligans often used violence to break them up.
Republicans remained silent while President George W. Bush lied the nation into a bloody, budget-busting war in Iraq. But they have repeatedly damned the ACA as a lethal drain on the American taxpayer.
Thus, any changes to come in the ACA will have to come as Hillary Clinton proposes, on an incremental basis.
The only thing that can be said with certainty about the ACA is this:
If any Republican wins the Presidency in 2016, the Republican-dominated House and Senate will send him legislation decreeing the death of affordable healthcare for all Americans. And he will of course sign it.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JOHN STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLLFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics on February 8, 2016 at 12:15 am
On July 2, 2013, the Treasury Department announced a major change in the application of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more popularly known as “Obamacare”:
“We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively…We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.
“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.”
[Boldface in the original document.]
In short: The administration allowed employers an additional year to refuse providing healthcare to their employees–or to face fines for not doing so.
And how did Obama’s self-declared enemies react to this effort at compromise?
On July 30, 2013, House Republicans voted to proceed with a lawsuit against the President–for failing to enforce the Affordable Care Act.
“In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it,” House Speaker John A. Boehner said in a statement.
“That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own.”
John Boehner
Thus, Boehner intended to sue the President to enforce the law that the House had voted 54 times to repeal, delay or change.
Obama Mistake No. 5: Believing that public and private employers would voluntarily comply with the law.
The ACA requires employers to provide insurance for part-time employees who work more than 30 hours per week. Yet many government employers claim they can’t afford it–and have thus limited part-time workers’ hours to 29 per week instead.
Among those states affected:
- “Our choice was to cut the hours or give [employees] health care, and we could not afford the latter,” Dennis Hanwell, the Republican mayor of Medina, Ohio, said in an interview with The New York Times.
- Lawrence County, in western Pennsylvania, reduced the limit for part-time employees to 28 hours a week, from 32.
- In Virginia, part-time state employees are generally not allowed to work more than 29 hours a week on average over a 12-month period.
President Obama and those who crafted the Act may have been surprised at what happened. But they shouldn’t have been.
Greed-addicted officials will always seek ways to avoid complying with the law–or achieve minimum compliance with it. And what goes for public employers goes for private ones, too.
The Act doesn’t penalize a company for failing to provide health insurance coverage for part-time employees who work fewer than 30 hours.
The result was predictable. And its consequences are daily becoming more clear:
- Increasing numbers of employers are moving fulltime workers into part-time positions;
- Refusing to provide their employees with medical insurance; and
- Avoiding fines for non-compliance with the law.
Some employers have openly shown their contempt for President Obama–and the idea that employers have an obligation to those who make their profits a reality.
One of these is John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, who has been quoted as saying:
- The prices of his pizzas will go up–by 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order; and
- He will 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.”
If President Obama were truly a student of Realpolitick, he would have predicted that most businesses would try to avoid compliance with the ACA.
And the remedy would have been simple: Require all employers to provide insurance coverage for all of their employees, regardless of their fulltime or part-time status.
This, in turn, would have produced two substantial benefits:
- All employees would have been able to obtain medical coverage; and
- Employers would have been encouraged to provide fulltime positions rather than part-time ones.
The reason: Employers would feel: “Since I’m paying for fulltime insurance coverage, I should be getting fulltime work in return.”
If the President ever considered the merits of this, he decided against pressing for such a requirement.
Obama is one of the most rational and educated men to occupy the White House. So why did he fail to expect the worst in people–especially his self-declared enemies–and arrange to counter it?
Niccolo Machiavelli provides a shrewd insight into the repeated failures of the Obama Presidency.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Writing in The Prince, his classic work on the realities of politics, Machiavelli states:
…He is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and similarly, he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times….
If it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence he will be successful But if time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change the mode of this procedure.
Put another way: A conciliator will prosper so long as he works with others willing to compromise. But facing uncompromising fanatics, he will be defeated–unless he can exchange conciliation for confrontation.
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARCK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NESS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLFFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on February 5, 2016 at 12:08 am
President Barack Obama came into office determined to find common ground with Republicans.
But they quickly made it clear to him that they only wanted his political destruction. At that point, he should have put aside his hopes for a “Kumbaya moment” and re-read what Niccolo Machiavelli said in The Prince on the matter of love versus fear:
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved or feared, or feared more than love. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved.
For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain.
As long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours: they offer you their blood, their goods, their life and their children, when the necessity is remote. But when it approaches, they revolt….
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Moreover, Machiavelli warns that even a well-intentioned leader can unintentionally bring on catastrophe.
This usually happens when, hoping to avoid conflict, he allows a threat to go unchecked. Thus:
A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must inevitably come to grief among so many who are not good. And therefore it is necessary, for a prince who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case.
For Obama, such a moment came in 2011, when House Republicans threatened to to destroy the credit rating of the United States unless the President agreed to scrap Obamacare.
Obama, a former attorney, heatedly denounced House Republicans for “extortion” and “blackmail.”
Unless he was exaggerating, both of these are felony offenses that are punishable under the 2001 USA Patriot Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act of 1970.
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
The RICO Act defines “a pattern of racketeering activity” as “at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years…after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.”
And if President Obama believed that RICO was not sufficient to deal with extortionate behavior, he could have relied on the USA Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11.
In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior that is defined as criminal:
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior were legally in place. President Obama could have directed the Justice Department to apply them.
If violations had been discovered, indictments could have quickly followed–and then prosecutions. The results of such action could be easily predicted:
- Facing lengthy prison terms, those indicted Republicans would have first had to lawyer-up.
- This would have imposed huge monetary costs on them, since good criminal attorneys don’t come cheap.
- Obsessed with their personal survival, they would have had little time to engage in more of the same thuggish behavior that got them indicted. In fact, doing so would have only made their convictions more likely.
- Those Republicans who hadn’t (yet) been indicted would have feared; “I could be next.” This would have produced a chilling effect on their willingness to engage in further acts of subversion and extortion.
- The effect on Right-wing Republicans would have been the same as that of President Ronald Reagan’s firing of striking air traffic controllers: “You cross me and threaten the security of this nation at your own peril.”
It would no doubt have been a long time before Republicans dared to engage in such behavior–at least, while Obama held office.
So: Why didn’t President Obama act to punish such criminal conduct?
Obama Mistake No. 4: He allowed himself to be cowed by his enemies.
In The Prince, Machiavelli laid out the qualities that a successful ruler must possess. There were some to be cultivated, and others to be avoided at all costs. For example:
Niccolo Machiavelli
He is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute–which a prince must guard against as a rock of danger….
[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude. As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.
So how has Obama fared by this standard?
ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STRIKE, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIXIE CHICKS, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, FBI, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HENRY J. KAISER FOUNDATION, HILLARY CLINTON, IRAQ WAR, JOHN BOEHNER, JOHN SCHNATTER, JON STEWART, JONATHAN ALTER, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, KOCH BROTHERS, MEDICAL CARE, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, PATRIOT ACT, public relations, RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, REFORM, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD WOLFFE, Ronald Reagan, TEA PARTY, TERRORISM, THE DAILY SHOW, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on February 4, 2016 at 12:10 am
One of the major differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton lies in their views about what should be the future of “Obamacare.”
Sanders, the longtime independent Senator from Vermont, wants to scrap The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with a single-payer plan.
Clinton, the former Secretary of State, wants to make “incremental” changes in the Act.
The Sanders plan promises greater simplicity and comprehensiveness in providing benefits to those millions of Americans who previously could not obtain medical insurance.
The Clinton approach promises to keep the best features of “Obamacare” and improve those that need changing.
But neither Sanders nor Clinton has directly addressed certain unpalatable truths about the ACA.
These stem not from any intended evil on the part of its chief sponsor, President Barack Obama. Instead, they spring from his idealistic belief that reasonable men could always reach a compromise.
As a result, much of the Act remains seriously flawed. Here are the six reasons why.
Barack Obama is easily one of the most highly educated Presidents in United States history. He is a graduate of Columbia University (B.A. in political science in 1983).
In 1988, he entered Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude–“with great honor”–in 1991.
He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year.
President Barack Obama
He then taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years–as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
So where did he go wrong? Several ways:
Obama Mistake No. 1: Putting off what people wanted while concentrating on what they didn’t.
Obama started off well when he took office. Americans had high expectations of him. This was partly due to his being the first black to be elected President.
And it was partly due to the disastrous legacies of needless war and financial catastrophe left by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Obama entered office intending to reform the American healthcare system, to make medical care available to all citizens, and not just the richest. But that was not what the vast majority of Americans wanted him to concentrate his energies on.
With the lost of 2.6 million jobs in 2008, Americans wanted Obama to find new ways to create jobs. This was especially true for the 11.1 million unemployed, or those employed only part-time.
Jonathan Alter, who writes sympathetically about the President in The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies, candidly states this.
But Obama chose to spend most of his first year as President pushing the Affordable Care Act (ACA)–which would soon become known as Obamacare–through Congress.
The results were:
- Those desperately seeking employment felt the President didn’t care about them.
- The reform effort became a lightning rod for Right-wing groups like the Koch-brothers-financed Tea Party.
- In 2010, a massive Rightist turnout cost the Democrats the House of Representatives, and threatened Democratic control of the Senate.
Obama Mistake No. 2: He underestimated the amount of opposition he would face to the ACA.
For all of Obama’s academic brilliance and supposed ruthlessness as a “Chicago politician,” he displayed an incredible naivety in dealing with his political opposition.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the Florentine statesman and father of modern politics, could have warned him of the consequences of this–through the pages of The Prince, his infamous treatise on the realities of politics.
Niccolo Machiavelli
And either Obama skipped those chapters or ignored their timeless advice for political leaders.
He should have started with Chapter Six: “Of New Dominions Which Have Been Acquired By One’s Own Arms and Ability”:
…There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things.
For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.
This proved exactly the case with the proposed Affordable Care Act.
Its supporters–even when they comprised a majority of the Congress–have always shown far less fervor than its opponents.
This was true before the Act became effective on March 23, 2010. And it has remained true since, with House Republicans voting more than 60 times to repeal, delay or revise the law.
So before President Obama launched his signature effort to reform the American medical system, he should have taken this truism into account.
Obama Mistake No. 3: Failing to consider–and punish–the venom of his political enemies.
The ancient Greeks used to say: “A man’s character is his fate.” It is Obama’s character–and America’s fate–that he is by nature a man of conciliation, not conflict.
Richard Wolffe chronicled Obama’s winning of the White House in his 2009 book, Renegade: The Making of a President. He noted that Obama was always more comfortable when responding to Republican attacks on his character than he was in making attacks on his enemies.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANWAR AL-AWALAKI, BARACK OBAMA, BERNIE SANDERS, CBS NEWS, CNN, D-DAY, DAVID BARRON, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, FACEBOOK, GEORGE S. PATTON, HEINZ GUERIAN, HILLARY CLINTON, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, LIBERALS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NOCCOLO MACHIAVELLI, RAND PAUL, REPUBLICAN PARTY, STALINGRAD, TERRORISM, THE PRINCE, TWITTER, WAFFEN-SS
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 11, 2015 at 11:43 am
Most Americans believe that Nazi Germany was defeated because “we were the Good Guys and they were the Bad Guys.”
Not so.
The United States–and its allies, Great Britain and the Soviet Union–won the war for reasons that had nothing to do with the rightness of their cause. These included:
- Nazi Germany–i.e, its Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler–made a series of disastrous decisions. Chief among these: Attacking its ally, the Soviet Union, and declaring war on the United States;
- The greater material resources of the Soviet Union and the United States; and
- The Allies waged war as brutally as the Germans.
On this last point:
- From D-Day to the fall of Berlin, captured Waffen-SS soldiers were often shot out of hand.
- When American troops came under fire in the German city of Aachen, Lt. Col. Derrill Daniel brought in a self-propelled 155mm artillery piece and opened up on a theater housing German soldiers. After the city surrendered, a German colonel labeled the use of the 155 “barbarous” and demanded that it be outlawed.
German soldiers at Stalingrad
- During the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, Wilhelm Hoffman, a young German soldier and diarist, was appalled that the Russians refused to surrender. He wrote: “You don’t see them at all, they have established themselves in houses and cellars and are firing on all sides, including from our rear–barbarians, they use gangster methods….”
In short: The Allies won because they dared to meet the brutality of a Heinz Guderian with that of a George S. Patton.
This is a lesson that has been totally lost on the liberals of the Democratic Party. Which explains why they lost most of the Presidential elections of the 20th century.
It also explains why President Barack Obama has found most of his legislative agenda stymied by Right-wing Republicans.
Consider this example: In 2014, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) warned then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would place a hold on one of President Obama’s appellate court nominees.
Rand Paul
David Barron had been nominated to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. And Paul objected to this because Barron authored memos justifying the killing of an American citizen by a drone in Yemen.
The September 30, 2011 drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric notorious on the Internet for encouraging Muslims to attack the United States.
So President Obama authorized a drone stroke against him, thus removing that danger. Paul demanded that the Justice Department release the memos Barron crafted justifying the drone policy.
Anwar al-Awlaki
Imagine how Republicans would depict Paul–or a Democratic Senator–if he behaved in a similar manner with a Republican President: “Rand Paul: A traitor who supports terrorists. He sides with America’s enemies against its own lawfully elected President.”
To Republicans, “lawfully elected” applies only to Republican Presidents. A Democrat who runs against a Republican is automatically considered a traitor.
And a Democrat who defeats a Republican is automatically considered a usurper, and thus deserves to be slandered and obstructed, if not impeached.
Unable to defeat Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Republicans tried in 1998 to impeach him for getting oral sex in the White House.
Similarly, 2012 Presidential candidate Herman Cain, asked in a conference call with bloggers why Republicans couldn’t just impeach President Obama, replied:
“That’s a great question and it is a great–it would be a great thing to do but because the Senate is controlled by Democrats we would never be able to get the Senate first to take up that action.”
On May 22, 2014, the Senate voted 53–45 to confirm Barron to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Renegade: The Making of a President, Richard Wolffe chronicled Obama’s successful 2008 bid for the White House. Among his revelations:
Obama, a believer in rationality and decency, felt more comfortable in responding to attacks on his character than in making them on the character of his enemies.
A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama is easily one of the most academically gifted Presidents in United States history.
But for all this, he failed–from the onset of his Presidency–to grasp and apply this fundamental lesson taught by Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science. In The Prince Machiavelli warns:
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared more than loved.
The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved….
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
On Facebook and Twitter, liberals are already celebrating the “certain” Presidency of Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders or former First Lady Hillary Clinton in 2016.
They forget that, in 1968, 1980, 1988 and 2000, liberals couldn’t believe America would elect, respectively, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
For Democrats to win elective victories and enact their agenda, they must find their own George Patton to take on the Waffen-SS generals among Republican ranks.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ABORTION, AESOP'S FABLES, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, FBI, JOANN WINDHOLZ, NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NBC NEWS, NEWTOWN SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NYPD, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, REPUBLICANS, ROBERT DEAR, ROE V. WADE, SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WAYNE LAPIERRE, WORLD TRADE CENTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on December 7, 2015 at 12:26 am
On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adult staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
As it usually does after a mass shooting, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remained silent for a few days.
Then on December 18, its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, broke that silence. In doing so, he offered his suggestion for preventing further tragedies perpetrated by heavily armed criminals.
Speaking at an NRA press conference, LaPierre said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
“Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?”
Wayne LaPierre
And LaPierre demanded that armed guards be placed in every school in the United States:
“Politicians pass laws for gun-free school zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them, and in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
“We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers.
“Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family–our children–we as a society leave them everyday utterly defenseless.
“And the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.”
Without knowing it, Wayne LaPierre came up with a solution to the history of attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics.
Between 1973, when the Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout the United States, and 2003, abortion providers were targeted for more than 300 acts of extreme violence, including arson, bombings, murders and butyric acid attacks.
The National Abortion Federation documents more than 176,000 instances of picketing at clinics (and nearly 34,000 arrests) since 1977. More than 16,000 hate mail or harassing phone calls, over 1,500 acts of vandalism and 400 death threats have been aimed at clinics.
The latest of these attacks came on November 27, at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. An anti-abortionist shot and killed a police officer and two civilians. An additional five police officers and four civilians were injured.
The arrested suspect, Robert Lewis Dear, mentioned “baby parts” as his reason for the attack. During questioning by police, Dear expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a police source told CNN.
Robert Lewis Dear, Jr.
Those on the Left were outraged at this latest attack on the reproductive rights of women. But those on the Right offered no sympathy for the victims–or women who sought out medical care at Planned Parenthood clinics.
Colorado state Rep. JoAnn Windholz issued a statement blaming Planned Parenthood for the attack:
“The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves.
Rep. JoAnn Windholz
“Violence is never the answer, but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. [Italics added.]
“Violence begets violence. So Planned Parenthood: YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.”
Planned Parenthood offers reproductive health care, sex education to women and men and, at some clinics, abortions.
Since Planned Parenthood can’t expect help from Republican lawmakers, perhaps it’s time for its officials to consider the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli.
“For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible,” he writes in Chapter 14 of The Prince, his primer on gaining political power.
“Because there is no comparison whatever between an armed and a disarmed man. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed….”
In short: Planned Parenthood should begin training its personnel in the use of automatic firearms. And widely advertising the fate that awaits future terrorist attackers.
This would send an unmistakable message to future would-be terrorists: We will no longer be passive victims to your violent fanaticism. Attack us–and die.
By doing so, Planned Parenthood would be following the example set by New York City after 9/11.
In 1993, Islamic terrorists unsuccessfully bombed the World Trade Center. Six people were killed and 1,042 others were injured during escape attempts.
Eight years later, on September 11, 2001, they launched their second–and this time successful–attack on the Center, killing 2,977 New Yorkers.
On both occasions, New Yorkers had expected the Federal Government to protect them. After 9/11, the NYPD decided it could no longer rely on the FBI and CIA for protection.
The NYPD greatly expanded the ranks of its Counterterrorism Division. More than 600 officers and operatives both stateside and worldwide now stood guard over New York City.
Since 9/11, New York has not faced a similar terrorist attack.
Finally, an Aesop’s fable serves up a lesson known long ago–but repeatedly ignored by the idealistic but ineffectual Left:
A snake was stepped on by so many people that, one day, he prayed to Zeus for help. And Zeus replied: “If you had bitten the first person who stepped on you, the second would have thought twice about it.”
2013 GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, ADOLF HITLER, BARACK OBAMA, DEBT CEILING, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER, NEGOTIATING, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, PAP SMEARS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, R.I.CO. ACT, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, RICO ACT, THE PRINCE, TWITTER, USA PATRIOT ACT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 29, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Fascism is a lie told by bullies.
–Ernest Hemingway
In 2011, Republicans threatened to destroy the Nation’s credit rating unless their budgetary demands were met.
Yet President Barack Obama could have ended that threat via the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Had he done so, he would have prevented the 2013 shutdown of the Federal Government over Republican demands that he de-fund “Obamacare.”
He would have also pre-empted current Republican demands to shut down the Government over continued funding for Planned Parenthood.
Passed by Congress in 1970, as Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968, the goal of the RICO Act was to destroy the Mafia.
Originally, RICO was aimed at the Mafia and other organized crime syndicates. But in United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), the Supreme Court held that RICO applied as well to legitimate enterprises being operated in a criminal manner.
After Turkette, RICO could also be used against corporations, political protest groups, labor unions and loosely knit-groups of people.
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
The RICO Act defines “a pattern of racketeering activity” as “at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years…after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.”
And if President Obama had believed that RICO was not sufficient to deal with Republicans’ extortion attempts, he could have relied on the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9/11.
In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior that is defined as criminal:
“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior were now legally in place. President Obama needed only to direct the Justice Department to apply them.
- President Obama could have directed Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether actions by Republican Congressman—and their Tea Party cohorts—broke Federal anti-racketeering and/or anti-terrorism laws.
- Holder, in turn, could have ordered the FBI to conduct that investigation.
- If the FBI found sufficient evidence that these laws had been violated, Holder could have empaneled criminal grand juries to indict those violators.
Criminally investigating and possibly indicting members of Congress would not violate the separation-of-powers principle. Congressmen have in the past been investigated, indicted and convicted for various criminal offenses.
Such indictments and prosecutions–and especially convictions–would have served notice on current and future members of Congress: The lives and fortunes of American citizens may not be held hostage to gain leverage in a political settlement.
In short: Obama could have replaced the law of fear with the rule of law.
But Obama could have stood up to Republican extortionists in another way: By urging his fellow Americans to rally to him in a moment of supreme national danger.
President John F. Kennedy did just that–successfully–during the most dangerous crisis of his administration.
Addressing the Nation on October 22, 1962, Kennedy shocked his fellow citizens by revealing that the Soviet Union had installed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba.
John F. Kennedy
Kennedy outlined a series of steps he had taken to end the crisis–most notably, a blockade of Cuba. Then he sought to reassure and inspire his audience:
“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.”
President Obama could have sent that same message to the extortionists of the Republican Party–by explaining to the American people:
- Republicans have adopted the same my-way-or-else “negotiating” stance as Adolf Hitler.
- Like the Nazis, they are determined to gain absolute power–or destroy the Nation they claim to love.
- They raised the debt ceiling seven times during the eight-year Presidency of George W. Bush.
- But now that a Democrat holds the White House, raising the debt ceiling is unacceptable.
- Despite Republican lies, we cannot revitalize the economy by slashing taxes on the wealthy and on cash-hoarding corporations while cutting benefits for millions of average Americans.
- We will need both tax increases and sensible entitlement cuts to regain our economic strength.
And he could have ended his speech with a direct call for action by the American people:
“We stand on the edge of economic disaster. Therefore, I am asking each of you to stand up for America tonight–by demanding the recall of the entire membership of the Republican Party.
“This is the moment when each of us must decide–whether we will survive as a Republic, or allow ruthless political fanatics to destroy what has lasted and thrived for more than 200 years.”
To paraphrase Winston Churchill: President Obama had to choose between timidity and confrontation.
He chose timidity.
He would get contempt and obstruction at every turn.
ABC NEWS, CHRIS WALLACE, CNN, DEBATE, EVASION, FACEBOOK, FOX NEWS NETWORK, GOP DEBATE, JOHN KASICH, LYING, MEGYN KELLY, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SCOTT WALKER, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on August 17, 2015 at 12:05 am
As the August 6 Republican debate wore on, so did the evasive answers.
Chris Wallace, Fox News Commentator to Businessman Donald Trump: “In 2011, you told Forbes magazine that ‘I’ve used the laws of the country to advantage.’ But at the same time, financial experts involved in those bankruptcies say that lenders to your companies lost billions of dollars.
“…With that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?”
TRUMP: “Because I have used the laws of this country just like the greatest people that you read about every day in business have used the laws of this country, the chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family, et cetra. I have never gone bankrupt, by the way.”
[Trump totally ignored the charge that “lenders to your companies lost billions of dollars.” He bragged that he had “used the laws” to “do a great job for my company….” He seemed to be saying that as long as he made a killing, it didn’t matter if his lenders got nothing.]
Donald Trump
Chris Wallace persisted in his questioning: “Well, sir, let’s just talk about the latest example, which is Trump Entertainment Resorts, which went bankrupt in 2009.
“In that case alone, lenders to your company lost over $1 billion and more than $1,100 people were laid off. Is that the way that you’d run the country?”
TRUMP: “…First of al, these lenders aren’t babies. These are total killers….And I had the good sense to leave Atlantic City….Every company virtually in Atlantic City went bankrupt.
“…Seven years ago I left Atlantic City before it totally cratered, and I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I’m very proud of it….”
WALLACE: “So….”
TRUMP: “And by the way, this country right now owes $19 trillion. And they need somebody like me to straighten out that mess.”
[Trump bragged about making “a lot of money” in Atlantic City while ignoring the jobs lost by his employees and the monies lost by his lenders. He said that America needed “somebody like me” to straighten out its financial mess.
[But there is a difference between making a profit for yourself as a businessman and ensuring a just society for all Americans as President.]
Fox News Moderator Megyn Kelly to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush: “…A story appeared today quoting an anonymous GOP donor who said you called Mr. Trump a clown, a buffoon….”
BUSH: “None of which is true.”
Then, after saying “I want to win,” he attacked President Barack Obama:
“We’re not going to win by doing what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do each and every day. Dividing the country. Saying, creating a grievance kind of environment.”
[From literally the first day Obama’s Presidency, Republicans tried to block every piece of legislation he proposed. This was especially true of his efforts to provide healthcare for all Americans.
[Thus, Bush slandered the President and distorted history while denying that he had slandered Trump.]
Jeb Bush
Sometimes it is the moderator who raises non-issues, as Megyn Kelly did with Senator Rand Paul:
“In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on same sex marriage…what will you do to ensure Christians are not prosecuted for speaking out against gay marriage….?”
[Christians are not being “prosecuted for speaking out against gay marriage.” The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, especially on controversial issues.]
Fox News Moderator Brett Baier asked Dr. Benjamin Carson: “As President, would you have used military force [in Syria, when its dictator, Bashir al-Assad, was found to have used chemical weapons against his own citizens]?”
CARSON: “…I would shore up our military first, because if you don’t get the military right, nothing else is going to work.”
[In short, Carson didn’t say whether he would have used military force in Syria.]
* * * * *
So how do you tell when a politician is evading?
First, educate yourself on the issues. If you know that President George W. Bush intended to go to war with Iraq when he took office in 2001, you won’t buy the line that he was the victim of poor intelligence two years later.
Second, pay attention to the question being asked. If it seeks a specific answer, the failure of a candidate to give one will alert you that s/he’s evading. Be especially alert to the unwillingness of candidates to directly answer “Yes” or “No” questions.
Third, look for contradictions in the candidates’ statements. If he describes himself as “pro-life” but calls for huge increases in the nuclear arsenal, it means: He’s anti-abortion but pro-slaughter–so long as the victims aren’t fetuses.
Fourth, beware of meaningless babble. A favorite trick of highly-polished debators–such as President John F. Kennedy–is to throw out impressive-sounding statistics which seem to answer the question but don’t.
Fifth, beware the emotion-charged story. To inflame Americans against Saddam Hussein in 1991, President George H.W. Bush clamed that Iraqi soldiers had ripped Kuwaiti babies from incubators. Only after the Gulf (oil) war did the story prove to be false.
.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDonald_Trump&docid=oUQ97aEz8anNMM&tbnid=QsnpHu5vtl_y5M%3A&w=342&h=465&ved=0ahUKEwjN_t6ZzNDLAhUE0mMKHRRiAzcQxiAIAg&iact=c&ictx=1)
.jpg)
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2016 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, ABC NEWS, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA), BARACK OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, DEBT CEILING, DONALD TRUMP, EXTORTION, FACEBOOK, HARDBALL, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, MAFIA, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, OBAMACARE, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, REPUBLICANS, RICHARD WOLFFE, ROBERT PAYNE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, U.S. SENATE, U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, U.S. SUPREME COURT, USA PATRIOT ACT, WARREN BUFFETT
REPUBLICANS: EXTORTION IS US: PART TWO (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 23, 2016 at 12:01 amOn July 9, 2011, Republican extortionists threatened the Nation with financial ruin and international disgrace unless their demands were met. They refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to massively cut social programs for the elderly, poor and disabled.
If Congress failed to raise the borrowing limit of the federal government by August 2, the date when the U.S. reached the limit of its borrowing abilities, it would begin defaulting on its loans.
As Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, explained the looming economic catastrophe: “If you don’t send out Social Security checks, I would hate to think about the credit meeting at S&P and Moody’s the next morning.
“If you’re not paying millions and millions and millions of people that range in age from 65 on up, money you promised them, you’re not a AAA,” said Buffett.
Warren Buffett
A triple-A credit rating is the highest possible rating that can be received.
And while Republicans demanded that the disadvantaged tighten their belts, they rejected any raising of taxes on their foremost constituency–the wealthiest 1%.
To raise taxes on the wealthy, they insisted, would be a “jobs-killer.” It would “discourage” corporate CEOs from creating tens of thousands of jobs they “want” to create.
Republicans knew this argument was a lie. And so did the editors of Time. The difference between them: The editors of Time were willing to reveal the truth.
In its June 20, 2011 cover-story on “What U.S. Economic Recovery? Five Destructive Myths,” Rana Foroohar, the magazine’s assistant managing editor in charge of economics and business, delivered this warning: Profit-seeking corporations can’t be relied on to ”make it all better.”
Wrote Foroohar:
“There is a fundamental disconnect between the fortunes of American companies, which are doing quite well, and American workers, most of whom are earning a lower hourly wage now than they did during the recession.
“The thing is, companies make plenty of money; they just don’t spend it on workers here.
“There may be $2 trillion sitting on the balance sheets of American corporations globally, but firms show no signs of wanting to spend it in order to hire workers at home.”
As the calendar moved ever closer to the fateful date of August 2, Republican leaders continued to insist: Any deal that includes taxes “can’t pass the House.”
One senior Republican said talks would go right up to–and maybe beyond–the brink of default.
“I think we’ll be here in August,” said Republican Rep. Pete Sessions, of Texas. “We are not going to leave town until a proper deal gets done.”
President Obama had previously insisted on extending the debt ceiling through 2012. But in mid-July, he simply asked congressional leaders to review three options with their members:
And the Republican response?
Said Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Quite frankly, [Republican] members of Congress are getting tired of what the president won’t do and what the president wants.”
Noted political analyst Chris Matthews summed up the sheer criminality of what happened within the House of Representatives.
Speaking on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” on July 28–five days before Congress reached its August 2 deadline to raise the debt-ceiling–Matthews noted:
“The first people to bow to the demands of those threatening to blow up the economy were the Republicans in the House, the leaders. The leaders did what the followers told them to do: meet the demands, hold up the country to get their way.
Chris Matthews
“Those followers didn’t win the Senate, or the Presidency, just the House. But by using the House they were able to hold up the entire United States government. They threatened to blow things up economically and it worked.
“They said they were willing to do that–just to get their way–not by persuasion, not by politics, not by democratic government, but by threatening the destruction of the country’s finances.
“Right. So what’s next? The power grid? Will they next time threaten to close down the country’s electricity and communications systems?”
With the United States teetering on the brink of national bankruptcy, President Obama faced three choices:
Unfortunately for Obama and the Nation, he chose Number Three.
But he could have countered that danger via the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
In 1970, Congress passed RICO, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. Its goal: Destroy the Mafia.
U.S. Department of Justice
RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys. Among those crimes: Extortion.
Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.”
Share this: