Posts Tagged ‘THE WALL STREET JOURNAL’
60 MINUTES, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL MUELLER, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOK, FACEBOOK, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA (ISIS), ISRAEL, KAYLA MUELLER, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SYRIA, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on February 24, 2015 at 12:06 am
The father of Kayla Jean Mueller has a bone to pick with the United States Government.
“We understand the policy about not paying ransom but on the other hand…we tried and we asked. But they put policy in front of American citizens’ lives,” Carl Mueller told NBC’s “Today” show.
Mueller was referring to the kidnapping and death of his daughter, Kayla, who began assisting Syrian refugees in Southern Turkey in December, 2012.
The United States has a policy of not paying ransom to terrorist groups in return for hostages.

Kayla Mueller
Although Turkey lies right on the border of Syria–where a brutal civil war has raged since March 15, 2011–Mueller insisted on putting herself at even greater risk.
In December, 2012, Mueller attended a two-day international conference in Aleppo, 70 miles inside Syria. She survived that trip without incident, and returned to Turkey.
But as the fighting intensified and casualties mounted, she wanted to return to Syria to collect stories for her blog. She begged her Syrian boyfriend to take her along during his trips there.
Her boyfriend relented in August, 2013, and she accompanied him on another trip to Aleppo during a 10-day break from her work. But as they were leaving, this time Mueller didn’t prove so lucky.
On August 4, 2013, as they drove to the bus station in Aleppo, gunmen ambushed them. Mueller’s boyfriend was beaten and released.
He was Syrian, so his life didn’t count for propaganda material. But Mueller was an American–and her captors were members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
According to Catherine Herridge, an American reporter, the White House learned the location of Mueller in May, 2014. But no decision was made on a rescue mission for seven weeks.
By that time, the hostages had been dispersed. On February 6, 2015, ISIS released a statement claiming that a female American hostage–Kayla Mueller–they had been holding was killed by one of a dozen Jordanian airstrike in Raqqa, Syria.
These airstrikes had been triggered by ISIS’ release of a February 3 video showing the barbaric “execution” of a captured Jordanian fighter pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kasaesbeh.
Al-Kasaesbeh, locked in a steel cage like an animal, could only watch stoically as an ISIS member ignited a trail of flammable liquid leading directly to him. The pilot stood upright throghout the ordeal until the flames at last consumed him.

ISIS burning of captured Jordanian fighter pilot Muath al-Kasaesbeh
So the Jordanians bombed a series of ISIS targets in Syria. And Kayla Mueller, who had thrust herself into a Syrian civil war, was apparently killed in one of those raids.
Which led to the interview with Kayla’s distraught parents.
“Any parents out there would understand that you want anything and everything done to bring your child home,” said Carl Mueller. His wife, Marsha, sitting next to him, naturally agreed.
Referring to the United States’ policy of refusing to pay ransom for hostages, Mueller said:
“And we tried. And we asked. But they put–they put policy in front of American citizens’ lives. And it didn’t get changed. So, that’s something they’re going to work on. I’m sure that’s in the works.”
Asked if his daughter hadn’t put herself in peril by jumping into the middle of a Syrian civil war, Mueller replied:
“Well, yeah, it was overenthusiastic youth and, of course, being naive. But who wasn’t, you know? How many mistakes have we all made in life that were naive and didn’t get caught at?
“Kayla was just in a place that was more dangerous than most. And she couldnt’ help herself. She had to go there and had to help.”
But did she have to go there?
On the September 28, 2014 edition of 60 Minutes, President Barack Obama spoke about his recent decision to commit American troops to fighting ISIS.
Steve Kroft: I think everybody applauds the efforts that you’ve made and the size of the coalition that has been assembled.
But most of them are contributing money or training or policing the borders, not getting particularly close to the contact. It looks like once again we are leading the operation. We are carrying…
President Obama: Steve, that’s always the case. That’s always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation. We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world.
And when trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don’t call Beijing. They don’t call Moscow. They call us. That’s the deal.

President Obama
Steve Kroft: I mean, it looks like we are doing 90 percent.
President Obama: Steve, there is not an as issue … when there’s a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who’s helping the Philippines deal with that situation. When there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge making sure Haiti can rebuild. That’s how we roll. And that’s what makes this America.
President Obama is right: “When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don’t call Beijing. They don’t call Moscow. They call us.”
And, according to former CIA agent Michael Scheuer, that’s the problem: America can’t learn to mind its own business.
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ASSASSINATION, BARACK OBAMA, BUREAUCRACY, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ WAR, ISIS, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH CLANCY, NBC NEWS, PENTAGON, PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION, REP. PETER KING, RICHARD NIXON, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, RONALD KESSLER, Secret Service, SECURITY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WORLD TRADE CENTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics on February 20, 2015 at 12:46 am
The United States Secret Service is an agency in trouble.
- On September 16, 2014, while on a trip to Atlanta’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, President Barack Obama was inside an elevator with a private security contractor who was armed with a pistol. The Secret Service did not know he was armed until his supervisor, who fired him on the spot, requested his weapon. A national database check revealed the contractor had a criminal record with three convictions for assault and battery.
- On September 27, 2014, an unidentified man posing as a member of Congress made his way into a secure area backstage at a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation awards dinner in Washington, D.C. where Obama was attending.
Asked for Obama’s reaction to a series of Secret Service foulups, White House spokesman Frank Benenati gave this boilerplate reply: “The president has full confidence in the Secret Service and is grateful to the men and women who day in and day out protect himself, his family and the White House.”
But by October 1, then-Director Julia Pierson was forced out of the agency and replaced by an interim director: Joseph Clancy, formerly head of the presidential protection detail.
But the blunt truth is that many of the problems now plaguing the U.S. Secret Service were on full display as early as 2009. That was when well-known investigative reporter Ronald Kessler published his latest book, In the President’s Secret Service.

Kessler had previously pubilshed books outlining the inner workings of the White House, the CIA and the FBI. Kessler praised the courage and integrity of Secret Service agents as a whole.
But he warned that the agency was risking the safety of many of its protectees, including President Obama. He was particularly critical of SS management for such practices as:
- Shutting off weapon-scanning magnetometers at rallies for Presidential candidates–and even for Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.
- During a speech Bush gave at Tbilisi, Georgia in 2005, an assailant threw a live hand grenade–which failed to explode–at him.
- Despite 9/11, Secret Service agents are still being trained to expect an attempt by a lone gunman—rather than a professional squad of terrorist assassins.
- The Service’s Counter Assault Teams (CATs) have generally been cut back from five or six agents to two, rendering them useless if a real attack occurred.
- Salaries paid to SS agents have not kept pace with reality. Veteran SS men and women are now being offered up to four times their salary for moving to the private sector, and many are leavleaving the agency for that reason.

Secret Service agents protecting President Barack Obama
- While Congress has greatly expanded the duties of this agency, Secret Service management has not asked for equivalent increases in funding and agents.
- Many agents are leaving out of frustration that it takes “juice” or connections with top management to advance one’s career.
- SS agents are being trained with weapons that are outdated (such as the MP5, developed in the 1960s) compared to those used by other law enforcement agencies and the potential assassins they face (such as the M4–with greater range and armor-piercing capabilities).
- The Service refuses to ask for help from other agencies to meet its manpower needs. Thus, a visiting head of state at the U.N. General Assembly will usually be assigned only three agents as protection.
- The agency tells agents to grade themselves on their physical training test forms.
- Agents are supposed to be evaluated on their marksmanship skills every three months. But some agents have gone more than a year without being tested.
- Some agents are so overweight they can’t meet the rigorous demands of the job. As a result, they pose a danger to the people they’re supposed to be protecting.
- The Secret Service inflates its own arrest statistics by claiming credit for arrests made by local police.
- Congressional members who visit the agency’s James Rowley Training Center in Laurel, Maryland, are treated to rehearsed scenarios of how the agency would deal with attacks. If agents were allowed to perform these exercises without rehearsals, Congress members would see they can and do make mistakes like everyone else.
Kessler closes his book with the warning: “Without….changes, an assassination of Barack Obama or a future president is likely.
“If that happens, a new Warren Commission will be appointed to study the tragedy. It will find that the Secret Service was shockingly derelict in its duty to the American people and to its own elite corps of brave and dedicated agents.”
And the effects will be not only momentary but long-term. As Kessler writes: “By definition, an assassination threatens democracy.
“If Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated, Andrew Johnson, his successor, would not have been able to undermine Lincoln’s efforts to reunite the nation and give more rights to blacks during the Reconstruction period.
“If John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated, Lyndon Johnson likely never would have become President. If Robert F. Kennedy had not been killed and had won the presidency, Richard Nixon might never have been elected.”
9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ASSASSINATION, BARACK OBAMA, BUREAUCRACY, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ WAR, ISIS, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH CLANCY, NBC NEWS, PENTAGON, PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION, REP. PETER KING, RICHARD NIXON, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, RONALD KESSLER, Secret Service, SECURITY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WORLD TRADE CENTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics on February 19, 2015 at 2:21 am
The White House has made it official: President Barack Obama has chosen the man he wants to run the agency responsible for protecting him.
It’s Joseph Clancy, the former special agent who Obama asked in October, 2014, to temporarily run the troubled Secret Service.
Clancy is the former head of the service’s presidential protective division. He was quickly appointed on an interim basis in a hurry after then-Director Julia Pierson was forced to resign on October 1 after a series of highly embarrassing security breaches.

Joseph Clancy
On October 10, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a four-member panel to conduct an independent review of the Secret Service. Its results were presented in December.
Among the panel’s recommendations: The next Secret Service director should be an outsider:
“The next director will have to make difficult choices, identifying clear priorities for the organization and holding management accountable for any failure to achieve those priorities.
“Only a director from outside the (Secret) Service, removed from organizational traditions and personal relationships, will be able to do the honest top-to-bottom reassessment this will require.”
Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said it was “disappointing” that Obama decided not to follow the panel’s recommendations.
If Clancy is serious about reforming the agency, he has a lot of work to do.
Consider:
On September 11, 2001, Secret Service agents literally grabbed Vice President Dick Cheney and hauled him from the White House to a secure facility beneath the Executive Mansion.
As for everyone else who worked in the White House, agents simply threw open the White House doors and ordered: “Run!”
“Women, take off your shoes!” agents shouted–so they could run faster. Frightened Presidential aides were told to remove their White House badges–just in case snipers were lurking nearby.
That was it. 
A Secret Service agent posted outside the White House on September 11, 2001
Not knowing what to do, some aides walked home in a daze.
Click here: Amazon.com: Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House (9780385525190): Peter Baker: Books
(President George W. Bush was not in the White House at the time. He was reading The Pet Goat to a group of children at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.)
Three days later, on September 14, Andy Card, Bush’s chief of staff, addressed White House staffers in Room 450 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the West Wing.
Card said he understood that “this is not what any of you signed up for when you joined the White House staff.” And he offered them the chance to resign without anyone–himself or the President–thinking any less of them.
When no one offered to leave, Card let a Secret Service agent offer security advice:
- Vary your routines to and from work.
- Watch out for any cars that might be following you.
- Go to different restaurants for lunch.
At least one member of the audience, Bradford Berenson, an associate White House counsel, knew he wouldn’t be taking that advice.
Like most of the others at the meeting, his name was listed in the local phone book. A terrorist wanting to kill him need only lurk outside Berenson’s home and open fire when he appeared.
Click here: 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars: Kurt Eichenwald: 9781451669398: Amazon.com: Books
And that was it, as far as the Secret Service was concerned.
No offers of even temporary escorts by Secret Service agents. No offers to install “panic buttons” in their homes in case of emergency.
In essence: “We’re really glad you’ve decided to serve your country. But don’t expect us to protect you. You’re on your own.”

Fast forward 13 years later.
On the night of September 19, 2014, an Iraq war veteran, Omar Gonzales, jumped the White House fence, ran more than 70 yards across the north lawn, and sprinted just past the north portico White House doors.
Gonzalez appeared unarmed as he ran across the lawn–which may be why Secret Service agents didn’t shoot him or release their service dogs to detain him. But he had a small folding knife with a three-and-one-half-inch serrated blade when he was apprehended.
And he could have been wearing a suicide vest under his shirt.
At least one Secret Service agent was on his cellphone at the time of the intrusion and thus missed the alarm.
According to a criminal complaint, when he was arrested he told Secret Service agents he was “concerned that the atmosphere was collapsing” and needed to contact the President “so he could get word out to the people.”
Even more disturbing: At the time of his arrest, Gonzalez had a machete, two hachets and 800 rounds of ammunition in his car.
In late August, Gonzalez had been stopped while walking along the White House fence. He was carrying a hatchet and allowed police to search his car, where they found camping gear and two dogs. He was not arrested then.
Then, less than 24 hours after Gonzalez’s arrest, a second man was apprehended after he drove up to a White House gate and refused to leave. This triggered a search of his vehicle by bomb technicians in full gear. Other agents shut down nearby streets. No bombs were found.
ABC NEWS, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FBI, INCOME INEQUALITY, MAFIA, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, POLITICS, TAX HAVENS, TAX JUSTICE NETWORK, 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, WEALTH
In Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 16, 2015 at 2:04 am
As Americans vacation their way through yet another observance of Presidents’ Day, it’s well to remember the man whose name defines modern politics.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who has been called the father of modern political science, published his best-known work: The Prince.

Niccolo Machiavelli
Among the issues he confronted was how to preserve liberty within a republic. And key to this was mediating the eternal struggle between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.
Machiavelli deeply distrusted the nobility because they stood above the law. He saw them as a major source of corruption because they could buy influence through patronage, favors or nepotism.
Successful political leaders must attain the support of the nobility or general populace. But since these groups have conflicting interests, the safest course is to choose the latter.
….He who becomes prince by help of the [wealthy] has greater difficulty in maintaining his power than he who is raised by the populace. He is surrounded by those who think themselves his equals, and is thus unable to direct or command as he pleases.
But one who is raised to leadership by popular favor finds himself alone, and has no one, or very few, who are not ready to obey him. [And] it is impossible to satisfy the [wealthy] by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way.

For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the [wealthy], the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression. [And] the prince can never insure himself against a hostile population on account of their numbers, but he can against the hostility of the great, as they are but few.
The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned, but from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition. And as they are more far seeing and more cunning, they are always in time to save themselves and take sides with the one who they expect will conquer.
The prince is, moreover, obliged to live always with the same people, but he can easily do without the same nobility, being able to make and unmake them at any time, and improve their position or deprive them of it as he pleases.
Unfortunately, political leaders throughout the world–including the United States–have ignored this sage advice.
The results of this wholesale favoring of the wealth and powerful have been brilliantly documented in a recent investigation of tax evasion by the world’s rich.
In 2012, Tax Justice Network, which campaigns to abolish tax havens, commissioned a study of their effect on the world’s economy.
The study was entitled, “The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality and Lost Taxes.”
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf
The research was carried out by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co. Among its findings:
Summing up this situation, the report notes: “We are up against one of society’s most well-entrenched interest groups. After all, there’s no interest group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful.”
Fortunately, Machiavelli has supplied a timeless remedy to this increasingly dangerous situation:
- Assume evil among men–and most especially among those who possess the greatest concentration of wealth and power.
- Carefully monitor their activities–the way the FBI now regularly monitors those of the Mafia and major terrorist groups.
- Ruthlessly prosecute the treasonous crimes of the rich and powerful–and, upon their conviction, impose severe punishment.
1991 IRAQ WAR, 2003 IRAQ WAR, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CNN, D-DAY, FACEBOOK, FLAMETHROWERS, GENERAL CURTIS E. LEMAY, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, NAVY SEALS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, PREDATOR DRONES, REPUBLICANS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIR FORCE, USA TODAY, VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER, VIETNAM WAR, WALT DISNEY, WORLD WAR 11
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on February 13, 2015 at 12:00 am
Victory Through Air Power is a 1943 Walt Disney animated Technocolor feature film released during World War II. It’s based on the book–of the same title–by Alexander P. de Seversky.
Its thesis is summed up in its title: That by using bombers and fighter aircraft, the United States can attain swift, stunning victory over its Axis enemies: Germany, Italy and Japan.
Although it’s not explicitly stated, the overall impression given is that, through the use of air power, America can defeat its enemies without deploying millions of ground troops.

The movie has long since been forgotten except by film buffs, but its message has not. Especially by the highest officials within the U.S. Air Force.
The Air Force regularly boasted of the tonage of bombs its planes dropped over Nazi Germany, but it failed to attain its primary goal: Break the will of the Germans to resist.
On the contrary: Just as the German bombings of England had solidified the will of the British people to resist, so, too, did Allied bombing increase the determination of the Germans to fight on.
Nor did the failure of air power end there.
On June 6, 1944–D-Day–the Allies launched their invasion of Nazi-occupied France.
It opened shortly after midnight, with an airborne assault of 24,000 American, British, Canadian and Free French troops. This was followed at 6:30 a.m. by an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armored divisions on the French coast.
The operation was the largest amphibious invasion in history. More than 160,000 troops landed–73,000 Americans, 61,715 British and 21,400 Canadians.
Allied air power bombed and strafed German troops out in the open. But it couldn’t dislodge soldiers barricaded in steel-and-concrete-reinforced bunkers or pillboxes. Those had to be dislodged, one group at a time, by Allied soldiers armed with rifles, dynamite and flamethrowers.

American soldier using flamethrower
This situation proved true throughout the rest of the war.
Then, starting in 1964, the theory of “Victory Through Air Power” once again proved a dud–in Vietnam.
Air Force General Curtis E. LeMay said, “We should bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age.” And the bombers under his command did their best to achieve this.
From 1964 to 1975, 7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia–more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II.
Yet the result proved exactly the same as it had in World War II: The bombing enraged the North Vietnamese and steeled their resolve to fight on to the end.

American bomber dropping its cargo over North Vietnam
The belief that victory could be achieved primarily–if not entirely–through air power had another unforeseen result during the Vietnam war. It gradually sucked the United States ever deeper into the conflict.
To bomb North Vietnam, the United States needed air force bases in South Vietnam. This required that those bombers and fighters be protected.
So a force to provide round-the-clock security had to be maintained. But there weren’t enough guards to defend themselves against a major attack by North Vietnamese forces.
So more American troops were needed–to guard the guards.
North Vietnam continued to press greater numbers of its soldiers into attacks on American bases. This forced America to provide greater numbers of its own soldiers to defend against such attacks.
Eventually, the United States had more than 500,000 ground troops fighting in Vietnam–with no end in sight to the conflict.
Then, in 2014, with forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) launching a blitzkreig throughout Iraq, President Barack Obama caught the “Victory Through Airpower” disease.
ISIS had thrown the American-trained Iraqi Army into a panic, with soldiers dropping their rifles and running for their lives.
This led Republicans to accuse the President of being about to “lose” Iraq.
As a result, he shipped at least 300 American “advisors” to Iraq, to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad.
And he authorized American Predator drones to traverse Iraq, keeping tabs on the advancing ISIS forces.
Then, in September, 2014, Obama ordered airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.
Yet that didn’t alter the balance of power in Iraq. Nor had it worked for America in the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq.
Both wars opened with massive barrages of American missiles and bombs. The 1991 war saw the first use of the vaunted “stealth bomber,” which could avoid detection by enemy radar.
The 2003 war opened with an even greater bombardment intended to “shock and awe” the Iraqis into surrendering. They didn’t.

Baghdad under “shock and awe” bombardment
Nor did air power prove effective on the Iraqi insurgency that erupted after American forces occupied Baghdad and much of the rest of the country.
That war had to be fought by U.S. Army regulars and Special Operations soldiers–especially Navy SEALS. It was a dirty and private effort, marked by nightly kidnappings of suspected Iraqi insurgents.
Finally, on February 11, 2015, Obama called on Congress to formally authorize the use of ground forces against ISIS. This would include supporting and training Iraqi forces and Syrian insurgents on the ground
Obama stressed that his request for authorization does not call for deploying American ground troops in Syria or Iraq.
The rerun of the Vietnam/Iraq experience will begin showing in the months ahead.
ABC NEWS, AIRLINES, ANTHEM INC., BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, COMPUTER SECURITY, CREDIT CARDS, CYBERSECURITY, DAIRY QUEEN, FACEBOOK, JOHN HERING, JPMORGAN/CHASE, LILY TOMLIN, LOOKOUT, LUGGAGE THEFTS, MA BELL, NBC NEWS, ROWAN & MARTIN'S LAUGH-IN, SOCIAL SECURITY, STAPLES, TARGET, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 9, 2015 at 2:06 am
Comedian Lily Tomlin rose to fame on the 1960s comedy hit, Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, as Ernestine, the rude, sarcastic switchboard operator for Ma Bell.
She would tap into customers’ calls, interrupt them, make snide remarks about their personal lives. And her victims included celebrities as much as run-of-the-mill customers.

Lily Tomlin as Ernestine
She introduced herself as working for “the phone company, serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth.”
But perhaps the line for which her character is best remembered was: “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Watching Ernestine on Laugh-In was a blast for millions of TV viewers. But facing such corporate arrogance in real-life is no laughing matter.
Clearly, too many companies take the same attitude as Ernestine: “We don’t care. We don’t have to.”
This is especially true for companies that are supposed to safeguard their customers’ most sensitive information–such as their credit card numbers, addresses, emails and phone numbers.
An October 22, 2014 “commentary” published in Forbes magazine raised the highly disturbing question: “Cybersecurity: Does Corporate America Really Care?”
And the answer is clearly: No.
Its author is John Hering, co-founder and executive director of Lookout, which bills itself as “the world leader in mobile security for consumers and enterprises alike.”
Click here: Cybersecurity: Does corporate America really care?
October, 2014 proved a bad month for credit card-using customers of Kmart, Staples and Dairy Queen.
All these corporations reported data breeches involving the theft of credit card numbers of countless numbers of customers.
Earlier breaches had hit Target, Home Depot and JPMorgan/Chase.
And on February 5, 2015, health insurance giant Anthem Inc. announced that hackers had breached its computer system and accessed the medical records of tens of millions of its customers and employees.

Anthem, the nation’s second-largest health insurer, said the infiltrated database held records on up to 80 million people.
Among the customers’ information accessed:
- Names
- Birthdates
- Social Security numbers
- Member ID numbers
- Addresses
- Phone numbers
- Email addresses and
- Employment information.
Some of the customer data may also include details on their income.
Click here: Anthem hack exposes data on 80 million; experts warn of identity theft – LA Times
Bad as that news was, worse was to come.
A February 5 story by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Anthem stored the Social Security numbers of 80 million customers without encrypting them.

The company believes that hackers used a stolen employee password to access the database
Anthem’s alleged reason for refusing to encrypt such sensitive data: Doing so would have made it harder for the company’s employees to track health care trends or share data with state and health providers.
Anthem spokeswoman Kristin Binns blamed the data breach on employers and government agencies who “require us to maintain a member’s Social Security number in our systems so that their systems can uniquely identify their members.”
She said that Anthem encrypts personal data when it moves in or out of its database–but not where it is stored.
This is a commonplace practice in the healthcare industry.
The FBI is now investigating the hack.
According to an anonymous source, the hackers used malware that has been used almost exclusively by Chinese cyberspies.
Naturally, China has denied any wrongdoing. With a completely straight face, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said:
“We maintain a cooperative, open and secure cyberspace, and we hope that countries around the world will make concerted efforts to that end.”
He also said that the charge that the hackers were Chinese was “groundless.”
Click here: Health Insurer Anthem Didn’t Encrypt Stolen Data – WSJ
Meanwhile, John Herring’s complaints remain as valid today as they did last October.
“One thing is clear,” writes Hering. “CEOs need to put security on their strategic agendas alongside revenue growth and other issues given priority in boardrooms.”
Hering warns that “CEOs don’t seem to be making security a priority.” And he offers several reasons for this:
- The sheer number of data compromises;
- Relatively little consumer outcry;
- Almost no impact on the companies’ standing on Wall Street;
- Executives may consider such breaches part of the cost of doing business.
“There’s a short-term mindset and denial of convenience in board rooms,” writes Hering.
“Top executives don’t realize their systems are vulnerable and don’t understand the risks. Sales figures and new products are top of mind; shoring up IT systems aren’t.”
There are three ways corporations can be forced to start behaving responsibly on this issue.
- Smart attorneys need to start filing class-action lawsuits against companies that refuse to take steps to protect their customers’ private information. There is a name for such behavior: Criminal negligence. And there are laws carrying serious penalties for it.
- There must be Federal legislation to ensure that multi-million-dollar fines are levied against such companies–and especially their CEOs–when such data breaches occur.
- Congress should enact legislation allowing for the prosecution of CEOs whose companies’ negligence leads to such massive data breaches. They should be considered as accessories to crime, and, if convicted, sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Only then will the CEO mindset of “We don’t care, we don’t have to” be replaced with: “We care, because our heads will roll if we don’t.”
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, ANDERSON COOPER, ANTI-COMMUNISM, ARTHUR MILLER, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DICK CHENEY, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEINRICH HIMMLER, HERMAN CAIN, HERMAN GORING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN, JEWS, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN STEINBECK, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, LIZ CHENEY, LUCILLE BALL, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARY CHENEY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PETE SEEGER, RED SCARE, REINHARD HEYDRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, Ronald Reagan, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SENATOR MIKE ENZI, SOVIET UNION, SS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WYOMING
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 6, 2015 at 12:15 am
With the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Republican Party went into a tailspin of dismay.
For almost 50 years, Republicans had conjured up The Red Bogeyman to scare voters into sending them to Congress and the White House.

But now that the “workers’ paradise” had disappeared, Americans seemed to lose interest in the Communist Menace.
True, the People’s Republic of China remained, and its increasing economic clout would challenge the United States well into the 21st century. But Americans didn’t seem to fear the Red Chinese as they had the Red Russians.
What was the Republican Party to do to lure voters?
On September 11, 2001, the answer arrived–in two highjacked jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York and one that struck the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

Exit The Red Bogeyman. Enter The Maniacal Muslim.
Consider:
- Mike Huckabee – “If the purpose of a church is to push forward the gospel of Jesus Christ, and then you have a Muslim group that says that Jesus Christ and all the people that follow him are a bunch of infidels who should be essentially obliterated, I have a hard time understanding that.”
- Herman Cain – ”I would not” appoint a Muslim in his administration.
- Newt Gingrich – “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they [his grandchildren] are my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists. …”
- Rick Santorum – On supporting the racial profiling of Muslims: “Obviously, Muslims would be someone you look at, absolutely.”
- Mitt Romney – “Based on the numbers of American Muslims in our population, I cannot see that a Cabinet position [for a Muslim] would be justified.”
And on July 13, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of
- Defense;
- State;
- Justice; and
- Homeland Security.
“The purpose of these letters,” wrote Bachmann, was to “request a multi-department investigation into potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government.”

Michelle Bachmann
Bachmann further asserted in her letter to the State Department that Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
And the evidence for this?
The Center for Security Policy’s claim that Abedin’s father (who died when she was a teenager), mother and brother are “connected” to the organization.
And what is the Center of Security Policy? A private organization subsidized by donors to neo-conservative causes.
In a separate letter, Bachmann demanded to know how Abedin received her security clearance.
Among the co-signers of Bachmann’s letter to the Inspectors General were:
- Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who has said abortion has done more harm to blacks than slavery;
- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who called presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, ”uppity”; and
- Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who claims that terrorist organizations send pregnant women into the U.S. so that their children will be American citizens–who can enter and leave the country at will as they are trained to be terrorists abroad.
When pressed for their evidence of “a vast Muslim conspiracy,” right-wing accusers usually refuse to provide any.
An example of this occurred during an August 13, 2010 interview between Gohmert and CNN’s Anderson Cooper:
COOPER: What research? Can you tell us about the research?
GOHMERT: You are attacking the messenger, Anderson, you are better than this. You used to be good. You used to find that there was a problem and you would go after it.
COOPER: Sir, I am asking you for evidence of something that you said on the floor of the House.
GOHMERT: I did, and you listen, this is a problem. If you would spend as much time looking into the problem as you would have been trying to come after me and belittle me this week –
COOPER: Sir, do you want to offer any evidence? I’m giving you an opportunity to say what research and evidence you have. You’ve offered none, other than yelling.
Nor did Gohmert offer any evidence that evening.
Of course, the ultimate Republican Muslim slander is that President Barack Obama–a longtime Christian–is himself a Muslim.
No doubt Republicans feel totally safe in making these attacks, since Muslims comprise only 1% of the American population.
This has long been a hallmark of right-wing attacks–to go after a minority that cannot effectively defend itself.
Thus, Adolf Hitler attacked the Jews of Germany.
And Republicans have successively attacked blacks, Hispanics and gays–until each group became politically influential enough to defeat Republican candidates.
Today, most right-wing politicians at least grudgingly court all of these groups.
When Muslims become a significant political force in their own right, the Right will court them, too. And then move on to yet another helpless scapegoat to blame for America’s troubles.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, ANDERSON COOPER, ANTI-COMMUNISM, ARTHUR MILLER, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DICK CHENEY, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEINRICH HIMMLER, HERMAN CAIN, HERMAN GORING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN, JEWS, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN STEINBECK, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, LIZ CHENEY, LUCILLE BALL, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARY CHENEY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PETE SEEGER, RED SCARE, REINHARD HEYDRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, Ronald Reagan, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SENATOR MIKE ENZI, SOVIET UNION, SS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WYOMING
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 5, 2015 at 12:08 am
“Judge not, that you not be judged. For with what judgment you judged, you shall be judged, and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
So warns the Gospel of St. Matthew, 7:1-2. It’s advice that Right-wingers Joseph McCarthy, Robert Welch and George H.W. Bush would have done well to heed.
Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin’s gift to the United States Senate, became infamous as the demagogue whose Red-baiting accusations terrified America from 1950 to 1954.

Joseph McCarthy
Elected to the Senate in 1946, he rose to national prominence on February 9, 1950, after giving a fiery speech in Wheeling, West Virginia:
“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”
Americans were already growing increasingly fearful of Communism:
- Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had not withdrawn the Red Army from the countries it had occupied in Eastern Europe during World War II.
- In 1948, the Soviet Union developed–and demonstrated–its own atomic bomb, an achievement U.S. scientists had claimed would not happen for at least a decade.
- In 1949, China fell to the triumphant armies of Mao Tse Tung.
But anti-communism as a lever to political advancement sharply accelerated following McCarthy’s speech. Republicans–resentful at being denied the White House since 1932–seized upon anti-communism as their passport to power.
No American–no matter how prominent–was safe from the accusation of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer–”a Comsymp” or “fellow traveler” in the style of the era.
Among those accused:
- Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who had overseen America’s strategy for defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan
- President Harry S. Truman
- Playwright Lillian Hellman and Arthur Miller
- Actors Charlie Chaplin, Zero Mostel, Lloyd Bridges, Howard Da Silva, Edward G. Robinson and John Garfield
- Composers Arron Copland and Elmer Bernstein
- Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who presided over the creation of America’s atomic bomb
- Actressses Lee Grant, Delores del Rio, Ruth Gordon and Lucille Ball
- Journalists Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer, who had chronicled the rise of Nazi Germany
- Folksinger Pete Seeger
- Writers Irwin Shaw, Howard Fast, John Steinbeck and Dashiell Hammett
Even “untouchable” Republicans became targets for such slander.
The most prominent of these was President Dwight D. Eisenhower–labeled ”a conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy” by Robert Welch, who founded the John Birth Society in 1958.

Robert Welch
Welch, an independently wealthy businessman, used his money to publicize the Society and its views. Welch saw even hardline anti-Communists like Vice President Richard Nixon and actor Ronald Reagan as dangerously liberal.
Meanwhile, McCarthy finally overstepped himself. In 1953, he attacked the leadership of the United States Army as “a hotbed of traitors” and convened an inquiry through the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
But the hearings backfired, exposing McCarthy as the bullying demagogue he was. A Senate committee voted to condemn his behavior, charging that he had “acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.”
Although McCarthy remained in the Senate another two and a half years, his political influence had ended.
Journalists who had raced to cover his latest slander now avoided him. So did his Republican colleagues–many of whom had once sought his help at election time.
Yet even without McCarthy, Republicans rode the issue of anti-Communism to victory from 1948 to 1960.
After holding the White House for eight years under Eisenhower, they lost it in 1960 to John F. Kennedy and again in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson.
By 1968, with the nation mired in Vietnam and convulsed by antiwar demonstrations, Americans turned once more to those who preyed upon their fears and hates. They elected Richard Nison–and re-elected him in 1972.
After Jimmy Carter won the Presidency in 1976 and lost it in 1980, Republicans held the White House until 1992. Throughout that time, they continued to accuse their opponents of being devious agents–or at least unwitting pawns–of “the Communist conspiracy.”
Even as late as 1992, President George H.W. Bush and the Republican establishment charged that Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton might be a KGB plant.

George H.W. Bush
Their evidence: During his tenure at Oxford University in 1969-70, Clinton had briefly visited Moscow.
Thus, the Republican charged that he might have been “programmed” as a real-life “Manchrian candidate” to become, first, Governor of Arkansas–one of America’s poorest states–and then President.
What made this charge all the more absurd: The Soviet Union had officially dissolved in December, 1991.
Although Republicans continued to hurl “Communist!” and “treason!” at their opponents, these charges no longer carried the weight they had while the Soviet Union existed.
Right-wingers had to settle for attacking their opponents as “liberals” and “soft on crime.”
Then, on September 11, 2001, Republicans–and their right-wing supporters–at last found a suitable replacement for the Red Menace.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, ANDERSON COOPER, ANTI-COMMUNISM, ARTHUR MILLER, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, CHINA, CHRIS MATTHEWS, CNN, DICK CHENEY, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EDWARD R. MURROW, FACEBOOK, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARRY S. TRUMAN, HEINRICH HIMMLER, HERMAN CAIN, HERMAN GORING, HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN, JEWS, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOHN STEINBECK, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, LIZ CHENEY, LUCILLE BALL, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MARY CHENEY, MICHELLE BACHMANN, MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY, MSNBC, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PETE SEEGER, RED SCARE, REINHARD HEYDRICH, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD NIXON, RICK SANTORUM, Ronald Reagan, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SENATOR MIKE ENZI, SOVIET UNION, SS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WYOMING
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 4, 2015 at 12:02 am
All revolutions,” said Ernst Rohem, leader of Adolf Hitler’s brown-shirted thugs, the S.A., “devour their own children.”

Ernst Rohem
Fittingly, he said this as he sat inside a prison cell awaiting his own execution.
On June 30, 1934, Hitler had ordered a massive purge of his private army, the S.A., or Stormtroopers. The purge was carried out by Hitler’s elite army-within-an-army, the Schutzstaffel, or Protective Squads, better known as the SS.
The S.A. Brownshirts had been instrumental in securing Hitler’s rise to Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. They had intimidated political opponents and organized mass rallies for the Nazi Party.
But after Hitler reached the pinnacle of power, they became a liability.
Ernst Rohem, their commander, urged Hitler to disband the regular German army, theReichswehr, and replace it with his own legions as the nation’s defense force.
Frightened by Rohem’s ambitions, the generals of the Reichswehr gave Hitler an ultimatum: Get rid of Rohem–or they would get rid of him.
So Rohem died in a hail of SS bullets–as did several hundred of his longtime S.A. cronies.

SS firing squad
Among the SS commanders supervising those executions was Reinhard Heydrich–a tall, blond-haired formal naval officer who was both a champion fencer and talented violinist.
Ultimately, he would become the personification of the Nazi ideal–”the man with the iron heart,” as Hitler eulogized at Heydrich’s funeral just eight years later.

Reinhard Heydrich
Even so, Heydrich had a problem: He could never escape vicious rumors that his family tree contained a Jewish ancestor.
His paternal grandmother had married Reinhold Heydrich, and then Gustav Robert Suss. For unknown reasons, she decided to call herself Suss-Heydrich.
Since “Suss” was widely believed in Germany to indicate Jewish origin, the “stigma” of Jewish heritage attached itself to the Heydrich family.
Heydrich joined the SS in 1931 and quickly became head of its counterintelligence service. But his arrogance and overweening ambition created a great many enemies.
Only a year later, he became the target of an urgent investigation by the SS itself. The charge: That he was part-Jewish, the ultimate sin in Hitler’s “racially pure” Nazi Germany.
The investigation cleared Heydrich, but the rumor of his “tainted” origins persisted, clearly tormenting the second most powerful man in the SS. Even his superior, Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer-SS, believed it.
When Heydrich was assassinated in 1942 by Czech assassins in Prague, Himmler attended his funeral. He paid tribute to his former subordinate at the service: ”You, Reinhard Heydrich, were a truly good SS-man.”
But he could not resist saying in private: “He was an unhappy man, completely divided against himself, as often happened with those of mixed race.”
Those who dare to harshly judge others usually find themselves assailed just as harshly.
A modern-day example is Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and a 2014 candidate for U.S. Senator from Wyoming.
Liz tried to position herself as far more right-wing than her opponent, Republican U.S. Senator Michael Bradley “Mike” Enzi. She found her work cut out for her: In March, 2007, Enzi was ranked by National Journal as the sixth-most conservative U.S. Senator. Among his legislative priorities:
- Supporting partial privatization of Social Security
- Consistently voting against expanding Medicare.
- Voting against enrolling more children or the poor in public healthcare.

Mike Enzi
And Liz had a problem Enzi did not: Her sister, Mary, was not only a lesbian but legally married to another woman: Heather Poe. This led many Wyoming voters to wonder if Liz Cheney was far-Right enough to merit their support.
So Liz went all-out to assure them that even though her sister led a degenerate lifestyle, she, Liz, stood foursquare against legalizing gay marriage: “I do believe it’s an issue that’s got to be left up to states. I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.”

Liz Cheney
And, in another statement: “I am strongly pro-life and I am not pro-gay marriage.
“I believe the issue of marriage must be decided by the states, and by the people in the states, not by judges and not even by legislators, but by the people themselves.”
This stance led to a heated rift between her and Mary. “For the record, I love my sister, but she is dead wrong on the issue of marriage,” Mary Cheney wrote in a Facebook post in September, 2013.
“Freedom means freedom for everyone,” she continued. “That means that all families–regardless of how they look or how they are made–all families are entitled to the same rights, privileges and protections as every other.”
Adding to the complications: Their father, Dick Cheney—often ridiculed as “Darth Vader” for his own extreme Right-wing views—endorsed same-sex marriage in 2009.
(After a brief run, Cheney, on January 6, 2014, Cheney withdrew from the race.)
But, as was true for officials in Nazi Germany, so is it true for Right-wing Republicans: It’s impossible to be too radical a Right-winger.
In the 1930s and 40s, it was politically—and personally—dangerous to be labeled “pro-Jewish” or “pro-Communist” in Hitler’s Germany.
And today it is equally dangerous—at least politically—to be labeled “pro-liberal” or “pro-gay” in the Republican Party.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, ANTISEMITISM, ARIZONA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DISCRIMINATION, FACEBOOK, GAYS, GOVERNOR RICK SNYDER, JEWS, MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NUREMBERG LAWS, RELIGION, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SHARIA LAW, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on February 3, 2015 at 12:05 am
Christmas was fast approaching in 2014. So Republicans in the Michgan House of Representatives decided to honor the spirit of “peace on earth, good will toward men” in their own special way.
They passed a bill legalizing religious discrimination.
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act” passed on partisan lines–59 Republicans to 50 Democrats–on December 4, 2014.
It next goes to the Senate, and, if passed there, to Republican Governor Rick Snyder. It isn’t known if he would sign it.
The bill would allow anyone to refuse service to anyone under the claim that their “religious beliefs” had been affronted.
And the State government would be legally prevented from intervening if a person claimed that his/her “deeply-held religious beliefs” was the reason for acting–or not acting–in a certain way.
Thus:
- An emergency room doctor could refuse service to a gay or lesbian needing medical care.
- A pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription for birth control, or HIV medication.
- A DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver’s license to someone who’s divorced.
- A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple.
- An employer could deny equal pay to women.

The bill seems modeled on a proposed law that the Republican House and Senate in Arizona sent to Governor Jan Brewer in 2014.
Under threat of a nationwide boycott of Arizona if the bill became law, Brewer vetoed it.
Supporters of the bill claim they aren’t seeking a license to discriminate, only to live by the tenets of their religious beliefs withouot government interference.
But opponents see it differently. Among these is Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan.
“The idea that we need to ‘restore’ religious freedom–rights that are already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution–is a farce created by conservative lawmakers for the sole purpose of appeasing their far-right donors and the religious-right.
“This extreme bill attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, promotes discrimination and does nothing to make Michigan a better place to live,” Scott said in a statement.
This is certainly not the first time Right-wing zealots have sought to enshrine religious discrimination in law.
On September 15, 1935, the Nazis–who had taken power in Germany in 1933–introduced a series of anti-Semetic laws at their annual Nuremberg rally.

Adolf Hitler addressing a Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party
Under the Nuremberg laws:
- Marriages between Jews and German citizens were forbidden.
- Extramarital relations between Jews and German citizens were forbidden.
- Jews were forbidden to employ female German citizens under the age of 45 as domestic workers.
- Jews were banned from employment as attorneys, doctors or journalists.
- Jews were forbidden to use state hospitals.
- Jews could not be educated by the state past the age of 14.
- Jews were forbidden to enter public libraries, parks and beaches.
- The names of Jewish soldiers were to be expunged from war memorials.
With anti-Semitism now codified in German law, the foundations for the coming Holocaust were firmly laid. The “Religious Freedom Act” introduced in 2014 to Arizona would have:
- Expanded the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.
- Allowed someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.
- Expanded those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
- Allowed any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.
- Allowed the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of religion.
Advocates often cited the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who was sued after refusing to take photos of a same-sex couople’s commitment ceremony due to the photographer’s religious beliefs.
“We are trying to protect people’s religious liberties,” said Representative Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park.
“We don’t want the government coming in and forcing someone to act against their religious sacred faith beliefs or having to sell out if you are a small-business owner.”

Arizona Representative Steve Montenegro
Republicans have introduced similar “right-to-discriminate” legislation in other states as well:
- In Kansas, lawmakers voted to exempt individuals from providing any service that was “contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
- That bill passed the state’s House chamber on February 11, 2014, triggering national backlash. It stalled in the Senate didn’t advance beyond that body.
- In January, 2014, South Dakota Republicans introduced a bill to allow businesses refuse to serve same-sex couples on the grounds that “businesses are private and that their views on sexual orientation are protected to the same extent as the views of private citizens.”
- The bill–which was killed in February, 2014–would have made it illegal for a gay person to file a lawsuit charging discrimination.
Ironically, many Right-wingers who support the right of Christians to discriminate fear that they will become victims of religious persecution if Islamic Sharia law comes to the United States.
ABC NEWS, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FBI, INCOME INEQUALITY, MAFIA, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, POLITICS, TAX HAVENS, TAX JUSTICE NETWORK, 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, WEALTH
MACHIAVELLI WAS RIGHT: DISTRUST THE RICH
In Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 16, 2015 at 2:04 amAs Americans vacation their way through yet another observance of Presidents’ Day, it’s well to remember the man whose name defines modern politics.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who has been called the father of modern political science, published his best-known work: The Prince.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Among the issues he confronted was how to preserve liberty within a republic. And key to this was mediating the eternal struggle between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.
Machiavelli deeply distrusted the nobility because they stood above the law. He saw them as a major source of corruption because they could buy influence through patronage, favors or nepotism.
Successful political leaders must attain the support of the nobility or general populace. But since these groups have conflicting interests, the safest course is to choose the latter.
….He who becomes prince by help of the [wealthy] has greater difficulty in maintaining his power than he who is raised by the populace. He is surrounded by those who think themselves his equals, and is thus unable to direct or command as he pleases.
But one who is raised to leadership by popular favor finds himself alone, and has no one, or very few, who are not ready to obey him. [And] it is impossible to satisfy the [wealthy] by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way.
For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the [wealthy], the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression. [And] the prince can never insure himself against a hostile population on account of their numbers, but he can against the hostility of the great, as they are but few.
The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned, but from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition. And as they are more far seeing and more cunning, they are always in time to save themselves and take sides with the one who they expect will conquer.
The prince is, moreover, obliged to live always with the same people, but he can easily do without the same nobility, being able to make and unmake them at any time, and improve their position or deprive them of it as he pleases.
Unfortunately, political leaders throughout the world–including the United States–have ignored this sage advice.
The results of this wholesale favoring of the wealth and powerful have been brilliantly documented in a recent investigation of tax evasion by the world’s rich.
In 2012, Tax Justice Network, which campaigns to abolish tax havens, commissioned a study of their effect on the world’s economy.
The study was entitled, “The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality and Lost Taxes.”
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf
The research was carried out by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co. Among its findings:
Summing up this situation, the report notes: “We are up against one of society’s most well-entrenched interest groups. After all, there’s no interest group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful.”
Fortunately, Machiavelli has supplied a timeless remedy to this increasingly dangerous situation:
Share this: