The Worst of Times, the Best of Times

I suppose that throughout history men and women have asked themselves if they were living through either the worst or best of times. The times between wars are most surely the best of times and the times leading up to and during a war qualify as the worst.  They are, however, rather quickly forgotten. It only takes about two generations—sometimes less—to move on from such events.

May 8, is “VE Day” celebrating the U.S. victory in Europe in World War Two. I suspect that most of our younger generations, including some of the Boomers, have no idea what the “VE” stands for.

World War Two ended seven decades ago, but not only have most Americans moved on from the horror of September 11, 2001, but it would appear that even the killing of an American ambassador and three security personnel in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 doesn’t arouse much anger even as we learn of a White House cover-up that utterly debases their sacrifice and loss. “Dude, that was two years ago,” said one White House staff member; as crass and crude a dismissal as one can imagine.

From a perspective of more than seventy and a half years, my mind flashes back to the Watergate scandal that began in June 1972 and concluded with President Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. That was a long two years as the attending events unfolded.

Forty-three people in the Nixon administration went to jail for their participation in the cover-up. The current Attorney General received a Contempt of Congress citation for his failure to provide information about one of the administration’s many scandals and during a recent speech to the National Action Network, a group founded by Rev. Al Sharpton, asked “What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” Does the name John Mitchell ring a bell? He was Nixon’s Attorney General.

Holder apparently believes that the charges hurled at him and President Obama are mostly based on the color of their skin. We live in a nation that has a black President, a black Attorney General, and a black member of the Supreme Court, to name just a few Afro-Americans who have made it to the topmost circles of power. There are 43 black members of the House and one in the Senate. I grew up in a nation where blacks could not eat in certain restaurants, get a room at a hotel, and even had separate drinking fountains. I witnessed the Civil Rights era and these, for black Americans, are the best of times in the long history of our nation.

For nearly all Americans, however, these are far from the best of times. In 1981 President Reagan pulled the nation out of a recession and set it on a path of prosperity that lasted well in the Clinton years. A financial crisis occurred in the last year of President Bush’s second term. If President Obama didn’t want to “inherit” that, he should not have run for office, but he spent his entire first term blaming the economy and everything else on Bush to the point where he made himself look foolish. And then he was reelected!

We are now two years into Obama’s second term and failed economic and national security policies that include the shrinking of our military power to the levels of pre-World War Two years. Domestic policies are having their effect on failed foreign policies. There are some 90 million Americans out of work or who ceased to look for it.

Peace, some say, is the period between wars and there is great truth in that. Most of my life was spent in the last century, starting in the latter years of the 1930s. There were thirty-two wars, large and small, somewhere in the world during the last century, including a Cold War from 1945 to 1991 between the U.S. and the then-Soviet Union.

So far as the U.S. was concerned, our military saw action in World War One (1914-1918), World War Two (begun in 1939, we entered in 1941-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (begun in 1959 with initial U.S. participation in 1961. We would abandon the conflict in 1973). In 1990 the U.S. led the Persian Gulf War to drive Iraq’s Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We would invade Iraq in 2003 to depose Hussein. In the wake of the 9/11/2001 attack, our forces were dispatched to Afghanistan and are in the process of withdrawing.

War is the way nations tend to settle their differences. Despite the creation of the United Nations after World War Two ended, the U.S. has been engaged in wars and their deterrence. The rest of the world during the last century pursued wars in places that included Mexico, Russia, China, Spain and the rest of Europe, the French Indochina War, the French-Algerian War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Iran-Iraq War, the third Balkan War, the Rwandan genocide, and the wars that Israel has endured over the more than sixty years of its existence.

This is why many are inclined to think, not only in terms of the U.S. economy, but in response to events beyond our borders—once again in Europe—that the conflict in the Ukraine may metastasize into World War Three if NATO is forced to confront a Russia behaving like it did before its former government collapsed.

I would, however, suggest that the greatest threat of war is staring the entire world in the face and that is an Iran with nuclear weapons.

We have a President who has displayed virtually no knowledge, nor understanding of the history briefly detailed here. Instead, he has pursued a deal with an Iran that has hated the U.S. (and Israel) as the heart of its foreign policy since 1979, As one former senior intelligence official was recently quoted as saying, “The fear is that the Iranians are going to pretend to give up their nuclear weapons program—and we are going to pretend to believe them.”

The only outcome of that would be an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel for whom a nuclear Iran would be a second Holocaust. Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007.

In a broader context, we and the rest of the world are living in an era in which Islam is challenging Western, modern civilization with precepts that embrace beheading, amputation, stoning to death, and other forms of violence, often against women, that must be confronted and defeated.

So, if these are best of times, they could rapidly turn into the worst of times…again.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Son of Martian running for President of the United States

Marco Cruz, a Martian, landed in the U.S. in 1970, met a woman named Stanley and she gave birth to a son they named Marco Cruz II in 1971.

Father Marco didn’t stay long in the states and returned to his native tribal area on Mars only to return briefly once years later.

Qualifying for affirmative action young Marco wasted no time in attending the finest universities in the country on the taxpayers dime and immediately upon graduation jumped into the political world seeing that as a honeypot for amassing great wealth.

Marco said what ever was necessary to get elected telling young inexperienced voters he promised them “Out of this world” stuff if elected which always got great applause.

Today Marco is a U.S. Senator and has his eye on becoming President which is the largest honeypot in the political world.

Fearing he would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen which he was taught required a child to born to parents who are both citizens at the time of birth as a requirement to be president, Marco met with Jack Maskell, the Legislative Attorney of the Congressional Research Service who gave Congress cover for the current President Obama whose father was not a U.S. citizen.

Maskell assured Marco he would write the same type of nonsensical report politicians never bother to read giving him cover as a Natural Born Citizen even though only his mother is a citizen.

He said “I gave Obama cover and no one has impeached him yet for not being a Natural Born Citizen and his father never was a citizen. I provided the same for Ted Cruz and his father was not Naturalized until 2005. I can do the same for you and I’m sure you will be an out of this world president!”

Soviet Socialism in the 21st Century Part 7: Knowledge is Power

The old saying “Knowledge is Power” is not a cliche, it is a reality of our life. I have an impression that knowledge has escaped the Obama Administration. Don’t the officials know that evil exists? Why they are not fighting it effectively? Do they have a cohesive view of what to do and what is their strategy in Ukraine this particular time? Considering the predicament, they either have no needed knowledge or they do not want to fight Evil… None of three rounds of the Obama weak and toothless sanctions will stop Russian aggression. Moreover, Russia is responsible for all the troubles in the world, including Ukraine, but the West fundamentally misunderstands Russia.

Annexation of Crimea is a beginning of the monumental offensive against Ukraine. Crimea has no drinking water, it was provided for two million people by the Ukrainian government. Russia has no other means to to do that, but the further occupation of the Ukrainian territory. The offensive will continue from different sides, South, North, West, and East. For your information, a former Soviet Republic Moldova can be a decisive point in this war. After the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, all its military equipment had been brought to Moldova in town Kolbasnoe. Look at the map of Ukraine and see the strategic location of Moldova, which has pro-Russian enclave of separatist-Kazaks there. But don’t be confused–the storage of arms doesn’t mean only a military Russian offense.

The next Crimea’s peculiarity is its demography and history; both are intertwined in a dangerous knot of contradictions and antagonism. Crimea has many different ethic groups, yet only one can be called the native Crimean–Crimean Tatars, the part of really peaceful Muslims. Fifteen thousand of them had already left Crimea as the refugees: they remember the past and do not want to live under Russian regime. To know the tragedy of their deportation by Stalin and his “Russification policy” implemented in the country, please read Baltic Winds. History provides you with the modus operadi of Stalinism, you have already seen in Ukraine: subversive activities, provocations, and cover ups used by Russia.

Here is the report about the event taking place in the Eastern Ukraine: “World leaders and Jewish groups condemned a leaflet handed out in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk in which Jews were told to “register” with the pro-Russian militants who have taken over a government office in an attempt to make Ukraine part of Russia, according to Ukrainian and Israeli media.Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city’s Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee “or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated,” reported Ynet News, Israel’s largest news website, and Ukraine’s Donbass news agency.”

Confusion has overwhelmed America. Who could do that in the 21st century?? ? History is the best teacher in all foreign and domestic affairs. We, the former citizens of the socialist countries know that history and know who committed that act, because we know Russian mentality, the KGB modus operandi , and the meaning of the term Spez. (special) Operation. The crises in Ukraine is not a mini-version of the Cold War, it is a military Spez. Operation, the continuation of WWIII, I have already described in the preceding articles. Russia is an anti-Western country with all the negative consequences of that for the world, while Ukraine wants freedom and a good relationship with the West. Current Russia is a cursed land, its agenda now to prevent the peaceful election in Ukraine. Please remember that.

Those who think that Putin is not a Soviet apparatchik are very wrong. Since the time he came to power, the liberties implemented by Yeltsin in the 1990s have been slowly but surely disappearing in Russia–the propaganda-machine of the past was reinstated. Putin is a devoted disciple of Andropov and Stalin–this is the crux of the matter in his strategy and agenda. The agenda hasn’t changed since the Stalin’s time and that is the task of this series to introduce the history of Soviet Socialism and the ideology design by Stalin. It was Stalin , who planned One World Government under the Kremlin auspices. I have already dedicated a lot of pages to him, and his activities as the Commissar for Nationalities, implementing bigotry, hate, racism, and aggression. This is an additional page.

I am not only a child of Stalinism, I am also a former Soviet defense attorney, who attended law school with some future members of the KGB and I continued a friendships with them after the graduation . Being an American citizen now, I am concerned about the state of affairs in my country America, because of what is going on in Ukraine is somewhat similar to the events going on in America. Don’t be surprised by my statement, I am intending to prove it by the comparative point… I have already started doing that on the Chapter 7, WWIII: Recruitment and Drugs, Infiltration and Assassinations, in my book titled What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction, Xlibris, 2012. It is time for you to read what Stalin had predicted for America seven decades ago:

Living in the Stalinist Russia under the predicament of constant lies and promises we knew the way Stalin would implement his agenda. Pay attention to Stalin’s targets–he concretely identified them. They are:the American “patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.” When I heard Obama speaking about Benghazi my pulse went up–I knew, he was deceiving us, I knew about his partnership with Putin and Russian agenda in the Middle EAST. Several decades of WWIII, introduced by me earlier , also effected our foreign policy–the Stalinist offense is acting in many different fronts, in variety of forms and shapes to achieve that. It has also fundamentally effected and changed the political agenda of the Democrat Party, for the last decades.

Don’t you noticed a tremendous shift in our culture? The statements of the Democrat leaders in the Senate calling the Tea Party–the racist and terrorists are also an attempt to deceive, mislead us and to change our value system, our morality (watch Harry Reid.) The Tea Party is neither of the two. Like in Russia, the propaganda and a Spin Zone has occupied the Senate, ran by the Democrats, followed their leaders. So, let’s go to the history, comparing the events in Stalinist Russia with a contemporary America:

Truth was the main target of Soviet Socialism! Needing to defend its ideology and lacking trust in society, the system “invented” a new notion of Socialist Morality, which fundamentally affected traditional Russian culture. Socialist Morality was uniforming everything for conformity and control. This new “value” system changed the country and dehumanized its people, turning one against another, brother against brother and child against parent. Living in an atmosphere of constant fear and distrust had a profound influence on us and shaped us to a new reality.

Socialist Morality confused and cowed people. I saw it with my own eyes over the years, in the stories of thousands of people who visited my office looking for help. I could assist some of them, but there was nothing to be done for many others. We actually were forced to take part in building “the bright future of Communism.” A new, rigidly enforced set of rules and regulations in our collective society acted to discourage an individual from acting independently for fear of the consequences. Socialist Morality reigned supreme.

The Stalinist system was built on an enormous bureaucracy, and the mammoth security apparatus was an integral part of it. To safeguard the ideology and preserve Socialist Morality, Soviet Socialism created several institutions that kept us in a constant state of fear. One of them was the institutionalization of the informant system. Every office and enterprise had its cadre of informers. There were approximately 25 million informers in the country of 300 million people in 1980s. The concentration of informers was particularly intense in the intellectual fields of activity — in the educational system and especially within the media. Their numbers decreased in other fields. The informers did their “job” extremely well—the Gulag’s forced labor camps and mental institutions were filled to overflow with those who complained, criticized or dissented.

Another method of safeguarding Stalinist ideology and imposing Socialist Morality was the manipulation of religion. It made no difference if the faith was Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or some other sect. Priests, rabbis, imams and other prelates could function only under the supervision of the KGB. Every house of worship was registered and subordinated to a respective local KGB office. Those priests or rabbis who refused to cooperate were sent to the Gulag or to mental institutions. The congregants themselves were watched and often harassed, especially if the believer was among the younger generation. It was hardly worth the trouble of going after elderly believers, but ideological deviancy among youth – the country’s future – was intolerable.

The informant system and the manipulation of religion were only two methods among many for controlling the human psyche, but they were the most effective ways to enforce ideological orthodoxy. The use of violence, intimidation, deception, and the certainty of reprisal against ideological heresy kept the Russian people downtrodden and, most importantly, silent. The instruments of fear and violence did the job they were intended to do. That was our life under Soviet Socialism–we have been trapped in total Government’s control.

We are terrified to see patterns of Stalinism in our America the Beautiful today. I call a social model of Stalinism–Soviet Fascism.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com

Cinco de Amnesty and other glorious news from the Cube

Cinco de Amnesty!


Once and Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (S-CA) took the opportunity of Cinco de Mayo to call on House Republicans to get behind Amnesty. She exhorted her colleagues across the aisle to “emulate the bravery demonstrated in the battle of Puebla” to find the courage to pass a comprehensive amnesty measure.

The Battle of Puebla, which took place on 5 May 1862, was a major victory for the Mexican army over the French. The French had invaded Mexico contrary to Mexican law and refused to return to their own country, citing the excellent employment opportunities in Mexico, and claiming Mexico owed them compensation for past wrongs.

Although it is not celebrated as a national holiday in Mexico, Cinco de Mayo has proved a boon to American beer distributors.

In case you missed this weekend on the People’s Cube:

Rutgers: a bold stroke for freedom of our type of speech

Offline

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Debuts New Hat Look

Interstate Tolls: New Sliding Scale

Goodlatte tells Hollywood: Immigration “Grand Bargain” coming

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), however, would not predict during the interview when such amnesty legislation would pass.”My job isn’t to predict when it’s going to happen. My job is to build the consensus that we need to have immigration reform,” Goodlatte said.

Chair Goodlatte, I suggest you do what the large majority of American CITIZENS want and that is for Congress to fulfill the promises made when the first amnesty was made. The promises never fulfilled to this day are:

  1. SECURE THE BORDER AS WE DO IN KOREA.
  2. MANDATE E-VERIFY SO ALL WORKERS ARE LEGAL
  3. NEVER HAVE ANOTHER AMNESTY.

If Congress would have done that in 1986, 31 years ago, today you wouldn’t be bloviating about a “GRAND BARGAIN.” It might also help the dismal opinion WE THE PEOPLE have of you in Congress. Instead, Congress has passed six additonal amnesties or amnesty adjustments from 1987 to 2000 yet never a word is mentioned about them. Chair Goodlatte, do you know the meaning of insanity?

Chair Goodlatte, are you aware  20% of all immigrants in the world are in our country yet the senate voted to double the yearly number to 2 million a year! Our poverty rate is stuck at 15% even though you in Congress have thrown over 15 Trillion in the past 40 years, nearly equaling our current national debt, but ti won’t decrease.

Do you think the reason our poverty level won’t go down is the large majority of those brought into the country since 1965 are uneducated and unskilled and so long as you continue the madness of importing poverty it won’t decrease?

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is courtesy of NBC News.

The Liberal Media’s Donald Sterling Race-baiting

Never let a racial crisis go to waste is, I suppose, the credo of the Machiavellian mainstream media. Since the release of the Don Sterling audio, liberals haven’t missed a chance to play the race card for all its worth. One of the worst offenders is a New York Daily News columnist named Harry Siegel, who — in a piece of pablum bearing a picture of NBA owners portrayed as Klansmen — bemoans the lack of Diversity™ in league ownership and management. Unfortunately for Siegy, his points, which start with the Klan hoods, only get worse from there.

A man with a conscience (malformed though it is), Siegel laments that the NBA is “a league where three-quarters of the players are black, but fewer than half the coaches and not even a fifth of the league office staff are black, as of October, 2013, and every majority team owner except Michael Jordan is white.” But there’s an easy remedy.

Institute a quota ensuring that whites, and other races, get proportionate representation among NBA players.

This would make the league approximately 63 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, 13 percent black and 6 percent Asian. The remaining one percent can be represented by Clint Eastwood’s empty chair on the sidelines, and we can throw in a primordial dwarf if it makes the Diversity™ didacts feel better.

And why not? Why should proportionality go only one way? The bias here lies in self-righteously bloviating about Diversity™ when whites dominate an area while acting as if you don’t even notice it when blacks do.

Of course, liberals would say that the players have earned their positions. But how do we know the owners haven’t? After all, some individuals definitely seem to have a gift for building financial empires. This isn’t to say that every rich person makes his fortune through respectable means. Heck, some people even make millions dribbling a ball around.

But it seems that liberals, prejudiced to the core, only have a problem with it when the “wrong” groups succeed. With the contraception con spent, Barack Obama (PBUH) has used his Teleprompter recently to rail against the male/female wage gap — and he wasn’t talking about the one where young urban women earn 8 percent more than their male peers (because they’re 50 percent more likely to graduate college; I don’t think ol’ Barry mentions this gap, either). Libs could also cite how NBA owners are inordinately Jewish, but that narrative won’t work yet. And the highest-earning religious group in the nation is Hindus, but, last I heard, colleges weren’t schooling mush-head kids in “Hindu privilege.”

But talking about those things might be “publicly toxic”; you know, in the sense that Siegel said he’s sure that Sterling is “not the only owner whose private thoughts are publicly toxic.” No doubt. And I’m certain this is limited to rich white NBA owners, or at least white people in general. It also occurs to me, however, that people can develop a tolerance for certain toxins, such as when black ex-basketball players suggest all-black leagues or black civil-rights hustlers call a city “Hymietown.” And, in keeping with the toxicological principle “The dose makes the poison,” tolerance for toxins disgorged by whites stands at about .010 parts per million.

Then there are the millions, of dollars, that Siegel laments the NBA players are not getting, writing that theirs is a “league where the 360 or so athletes who, in fact, make the game, split its proceeds about 50-50 with ownership.” Note that he also dismissed the owners, who allegedly believe they make the game, as “[w]ealthy men…[who] think highly of their own contributions.”

Now, some might say that the fans make the game; after all, you earn zilch without a market. But what is Siegel’s point? Wouldn’t the proceeds split be much the same in the virtually all-white NHL? And how is that different from any corporation or successful business? A person doesn’t invest his heart and soul and risk capital in a venture without the carrot of a possibly handsome return; not even liberals such as Little Big Gulp (a.k.a. Michael Bloomberg), Warren Buffet and Donald Sterling do that.

So it sounds as if Siegel is lamenting economic freedom, as if he’d prefer a Marxist model (this certainly would have the upside of not enriching men who dribble balls and pundits who dribble ideas). Of course, nothing is stopping the players from pooling their resources and trying to buy into their team.

But perhaps most telling about Siegel’s article is what could be akin to a Freudian slip. A recurrent theme of his is that “we” can feel good about ourselves for taking the principled stand against Sterling, but there is much work yet to do. He writes, “We can all take a moment and pat ourselves on the back for not being as horrible as this appalling old man,” and later, “Once we’re done feeling good about not being Sterling…,” it’s time to beat the Diversity™ drum. But he also self-righteously states that Sterling’s “obscene behavior…has been well documented” and asks, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

What this gets at is the phoniness of the left. Let’s be clear on something: the “we” here isn’t me. It’s not most of you readers, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention.

It is the left.

Notoriously liberal Mark Cuban, who now calls Sterling “abhorrent,” said in 2009, “I like Donald. He plays by his own rules.” (Translation: a lib who becomes a liability to the cause is “abhorrent.” A lib who is getting away with it “plays by his own rules.”) Black actor Leon Isaac Kennedy called Sterling “a prince among men.” The NAACP gave him an award and was set to bestow another. And ex-NBA commissioner David Stern, who some libs now criticize for not only tolerating the owner but even rewarding him, is, like Sterling, a Democrat donor.

The “we,” libs, is you.

It’s not conservatives. It’s not white people. It’s you.

You anointed yourselves arbiters and overseers of acceptable racial commentary; “racism” is your hang-up, your defined One Deadly Sin, your great litmus test. Don’t blame “society” — upholding your principles is your responsibility.

So most of the lib outrage over “racism” is, when not downright phony, motivated by selectively triggered emotion. It’s a ploy used to tear down tradition and traditionalists on specious grounds and win the culture war. It’s not for lib-enablers, such as late Senator Robert Byrd, who’d been in the KKK; blacks such a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; Bill Clinton with his Obama-coffee remark; or fat cats who make big donations — until it’s time to throw them under the bus.

As for Siegel, if he’s so concerned about Diversity™, perhaps he could turn his columnist slot over to a minority. After all, the vast majority of columnists are white, Siegy, and you wouldn’t want some future writer to have to lament, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Racism, Sexism, Hate-Speech: Let’s level the playing field

What is this world coming to?

While presenting a monologue on HBO in 2012, comedian Bill Maher called former republican governor Sarah Palin a “cunt “and “dumb twat”on national television. (excuse the graphic reference, it was necessary, for effect)

What were Maher’s consequences? Laughs.

No walk-out from women’s groups. No protests from feminists. No demand for resignation from anyone. No response from the FCC.

Maher is still working as an unfunny comedian, drawing audiences in theaters and on television, while the left-leaning media refer to his critics as right wing nuts or republican extremists. Instead of banishing, HBO signs him to more multi-million dollar contracts, some proceeds of which is proudly filtered to democratic campaigns, including Barack Obama.

The double-standard is nauseating.

There is no term more disgusting or vile to call any female, be it in private, or more so, for millions to hear – ON PURPOSE. It is far more vile than calling a black person the “N” word. The “N” word is prolifically acceptable in many venues, particularly by blacks themselves, including rap music, black theater, black on black in sports and entertainment, and in the streets in general. The “N” word is used far more often by blacks than by whites. Yet, whites are dumbed down, excoriated as racists should they use that same term.

If a prominent white person makes negative reference to blacks in any manner, he/she will be expelled, disbarred, disengaged, fired, castigated and hated in the media. Follow the path of banished food icon, Paula Deen, who admits that she used the “N” word sometimes in her early life. Twelve years a success on television; She’s out!

The “N” became the focus on the O.J. Simpson trial, as referred to in former detective Mark Fuhrman’s history. It had virtually NOTHING to do with the evidence of murdering two people by Simpson, yet it clouded the entire trial. The defense infuriated the mostly black jury using emotion, not evidence, as proof of innocence.

In 2007, Donald Imus lost his MSNBC talk show when he referred to the Rutgers basketball team as “nappy-headed hoes,” a term taken from within the black community and in rap music where it was often uttered. Imus was banished. Out.

But it’s okay to call a female politician a “cunt.” That’s not worth losing a job. It’s worth laughs and big contracts. Truth is, people like Maher think they’re immune from decorum and decency because they have a political constituency on their side.

Can anyone imagine that from a Johnny Carson or Jay Leno?

The “Racist” term is bandied about so much these days that it has lost it’s true meaning. People (including black politicians and journalists) who expose Barack Obama’s failings as a president, are ultimately deemed “racist.” When the president’s integrity is questioned, the convenient response is the “R” word. Cloud it up. I’ve been critical of Obama’s policies, and sure enough, I’ve been subjected to accusations of “racism.”

A 2013 Rasmussen poll found that, between blacks, whites and Hispanics, blacks are the most racist – even according to blacks.

The nation’s most prominent racist has been promoted to a commentator on MSNBC. Al Sharpton’s racist reputation came to the forefront in the now-famous Tawana Brawley case where he went after white men for raping a black girl, who lied. She wasn’t raped at all. Yet, when one black girl accuses whites of raping her, Al Sharpton is out of the woodwork. Never mind, that interracial rapes are committed far more often by blacks on whites than whites on blacks. And considering the population ratios, the odds show that white females will be a hundred times more likely to be raped by blacks, than a black females will be raped by whites. But leave it up to the famous reverend to inject “Racism” as the key adjective in anything he pursues. He was also famous for encounters with Jewish shopkeepers, using the term “white interlopers” in New York City 25 years ago. The target of that verbal assault had his shop burned down. Thank you Reverend Sharpton.

Sharpton has used the “N” word as much as any white bigot, including those directed at former black Mayor David Dinkins. Just recently, Sharpton has been exposed in video tapes from his earlier period as an FBI informant for alleged favors, an “N-word” spouting activist with no more interest in helping the black community other than raising all the support and money he can to espouse his political agenda. Sharpton, nevertheless, is admired by the president and by Attorney General Eric Holder. In other words, if you’re black, it’s ok. “If you’re white, we’ll get you.”

George Zimmerman committed no act of racism when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in the tragic incident in Sanford, Florida in 2012. None whatsoever! Zimmerman’s entire life had been infused with multiculturalism, tolerance and friendships with blacks, including mentoring black kids. But no sooner than the “preliminary” reports came out that a white man shot a black teenage kid, the hordes of Sharptonites came out of the woodwork, demonstrating in the streets – aided by the Holder Justice Department – condemning Zimmerman, trying and convicting him in the press and then lashing him and his family with death threats. All this based on the premise that Zuimmerman was a racist, when in fact, he was not…as proven in his trial.

That was the same justice department, incidentally, that dropped the charges against the new Black Panthers in 2009 for wearing fatigues and intimidating white voters with night sticks at a precinct in Philadelphia, a clear-cut federal crime. But if you’re black, it’s ok. If that was the KKK, the culprits would still be in prison today.

It’s time for change all right. It’s time the race baiters face their own condemnation and charges of incitement.

I agree, that there is no room for racism in America. But it is just as wrong for a black to be a racist, than it is for a white.

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was surreptitiously recorded on a phone line that was taped, without his knowledge or approval. That’s a crime in many states, including California. When I speak to any person on a phone, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If that is violated, no matter my opinions of anything, (excepting threats to national security) someone should be charged and prosecuted.

The words of Mr. Sterling were prejudiced, racist and vile. But they were not boldly aired, they were intended as private. Nevertheless, now that they are public, team players are understandably outraged and consequences are undoubtedly forthcoming. But we must also remember that Donald Sterling is an American, just like you and me, who enjoys the rights provided by the First Amendment. He has a right to be prejudiced, he has a right to be a racist, he has a right to hate anyone he wants, he has a right to all his opinions so long as his views do not injure or deprive others of their due rights and entitlements.

And if we’re going to be so indignant, perhaps we should write MSNBC a letter expressing outrage they have employed a racist as a journalist, which destroys the credibility of that cable news station.

Demonizing is a two-way street. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

If Sterling must go, Bill Maher must go.

RELATED STORIES:

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin A ‘Dumb [Vagina]‘ | NewsBusters

Rev. Al Sharpton worked as FBI informant, taping conversations with mob

What About Donald Sterling’s Right To Privacy? – NPR

Sterling, Media and the Race Card — a Confederacy of Dunces – Larry Elder Page 1

FrontPage Magazine – The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken in 1989 by Cliff Wildes. It is of Cliff Wildes NBA sponsor with Donald Sterling owner of LA Clippers (center).  This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

So What if Cliven Bundy is a “Racist”?

For the record, I don’t believe Cliven Bundy is a “racist.”

For the record, I don’t even care.

Such indifference to that damnable failing, that thing we all know is the worst thing one can be, must make me a damnable man. But I am flexible. I just want equality. I’m perfectly willing to demonize “racists,” provided we give other sinners equal time.

I just want to hear, for example, “Forget the facts of the matter! The man is lustful!” or “Don’t listen to that miscreant. He’s guilty of sloth!” Or let’s say a fellow posits an opinion on, oh, taxation. Our very intellectual response could be, “Hey, didn’t I hear you talkin’ to your girlfriend about how you scarfed down four cheeseburgers at the barbecue and binged on ice cream in your easy chair? Look, everyone, he’s a glutton!”

This isn’t to say that being a bigot — the word “racist” is in quotation marks because it’s an invention of leftist language manipulators — is a good thing. Not at all. But neither is being lustful, slothful or gluttonous. Yet people who couldn’t name three of the Seven Deadly Sins and are thoroughly guilty of at least six, will claim they can disqualify a person, and his point of view, from debate based on their assessment of his moral state. What blindness — and hubris.

Bigotry is simply a sub-category of wrath, one part of one-seventh, not the moral end-all and be-all. And even if Bundy did have racial hang-ups, would it follow that he was wrong about his case or on federal power in general? Can a man be flawed, and even sinful, but yet right on a matter? Can he still have virtues? Albert Einstein could be lewd and lascivious, Galileo an irascible jerk, Ernest Hemingway was a drunkard.

This isn’t to say, as certain people with poor character once averred, that character doesn’t matter. It’s not to say a person’s vices can’t speak to motivations; it’s valid to point it out if a judge who rules that pornography has First Amendment protections habitually views porn himself. But it’s not valid to fixate on the allegedly “racist” tendencies of a judge who rules that racial commentary enjoys such protections (at least not within the context of analyzing the ruling). The difference is that since the former is wrong, there’s good reason to believe that his personal inclinations corrupted his judgment on the matter; with the latter judge, however, dwelling on the supposed flaw in question would only serve to discredit a legitimate ruling.

The point is that we all have flaws, yet all can be correct about a whole host of things. I wouldn’t have wanted Einstein to care for a teenage daughter or be president, but I wouldn’t deny that E=mc2.

Of course, it really is true that some flaws are more unequal than others — there is a hierarchy of sin — but moderns’ sense of proportion is highly askew. G.K. Chesterton said that a “Puritan is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things.” Today we have Impuritans, complete reprobates worshipping at hedonism’s altar, who pour their indignation onto others in a vain attempt to wash their own souls clean of sin. But there is much more to being a “good” person than simply not being bigoted.

To further illustrate this askew sense of proportion, consider again the gluttony example. Gluttony is a sin, no doubt. But now let’s say that our society considered it the ultimate disqualifier. Let’s say we might scrutinize a person, asking “What are his food bills?” “Do cookbooks figure too prominently in his library?” “Does he wile away excessive time watching Emeril Live?” “Is he the one who cleared the buffet table like a hurdler?” And imagine we visited pariah status on the person after deeming him guilty.

Would you think this society’s greater fault was gluttony — or being hung-up about it? I’d think it exhibited a gluttonous zeal for eradicating gluttony.

The problem is that man always swings from one extreme to another. The early to mid 20th century saw the embrace of eugenics and racial-superiority dogma, which was then discredited by the loathsome Nazis. But now we just as zealously impose a dogma denying the reality of group differences and mandating equality of outcome among races.

This tendency toward true extremism — meaning, extreme deviation from Truth — brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ observation that evil always tries to persuade us to exaggerate our flaws, telling the militant he’s too pacifistic and the pacifist that he’s too militant. As an example, today we have Impuritans who, awash in the Great Sexual Heresy, will still lament how “Puritan” America is so sexually “repressed.” Evil tells the pervert he’s too prudish, just as it tells self-hating whites that they’re too anti-black.

But what we should be is anti-“racism.” I don’t mean what you think. We need to oppose both the word and the concept — at least how the latter is often conceptualized.

Bigotry is bad by definition, and that definition is commonly agreed upon. But “racism” often has a different meaning, one whose influence is readily apparent in the reaction to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s much reported comments. Al Sharpton, who once used the term “white interlopers” and once said, “White folks was in caves while we were building empires…,” called for a boycott of the NBA. Former hoop star Larry Johnson reacted to a man who didn’t want blacks around by saying he didn’t want whites around, as he suggested creating an all-black basketball league. Spike Lee told CNN he wished that white NBA players would speak out against Sterling, which is a bit like John Gotti having wished that someone would speak out against racketeering. And Barack Obama took time away from destroying our world standing, healthcare system, social policy and economy to say that “comments reportedly made by Sterling are ‘incredibly offensive racist statements,’ before casting them as part of a continuing legacy of slavery and segregation that Americans must confront,” wrote CBS DC. He then opined, “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t really have to do anything; you just let them talk” (you don’t have to do anything except, I suppose, “confront” a “legacy of slavery and segregation”). But, okay, I’ll just let Obama talk.

Now, opportunism is often a factor in such hypocrisy, but there is something else: a striking sense of entitlement. This is why many black people will condemn a white person for making a bigoted comment with an equally bigoted comment without batting an eye; when whites are bigoted, it’s “racist”; when blacks are, it’s something else. And, in fact, this idea is encapsulated in the definition of “racism” I alluded to earlier. It’s one you’ve probably heard:

Only whites can be “racist” because a prerequisite for “racism” is not only bigoted intent, but the power to act upon it.

And, actually, they’ll get no argument from me. As I’ve said before, the left originated the word “racism,” so they may define it. They may have it.

And if they ask, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The problem is that conservatives, being conservative — meaning, conserving yesterday’s liberals’ social victories — parrot the word. It’s another example of how, forgetting that the side defining the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate, conservatives slavishly use the Lexicon of the Left.

Of course, eventually this will all be left in the dustbin of history. Movements, peoples and civilizations come and go, and we’ll get over our fixation with one part of one-seventh of the Deadly Sins. And then man will swing to another extreme, as he goes on to the next great mistake.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED STORIES:

BLM Land-Grabbing 140 Acres From the Boy Scouts, No Tortoises Here
Democrat Mayoral Candidate Caught on Tape in Racist Tirade and the Crickets Chirping are Just Amazing

A Picture a Day keeps Thought Crimes at Bay

The latest images from The People’s Cube (March-April 2014). For a larger printable version click on your favorite thought-crime picture. 

Black Media Need Ownership—And Control

With the continued consolidation going on within the media (radio, TV, newspapers), there is never-ending debate over the issue of ownership and diversity. But how do you define ownership? Is ownership the issue or editorial control or both?

As members of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) like to remind me, Black media is by definition Black-owned and operated. The NNPA is composed of approximately 200 Black newspapers in the United States and the Virgin Islands. They have a combined readership of nearly 20 million and the organization also has a digital presence in BlackPressUSA.com, which enables newspapers to provide real time news and information to its national constituency.

There is no question that these newspapers are wholly owned and operated by Blacks, unlike media outlets such as The Grio, The Root, Essence magazine or Black Entertainment Television (BET). These outlets are merely White media masquerading as Black-owned media. The Grio is owned by NBC, The Root is owned by the Washington Post, Essence is owned by Time, Inc., and BET is owned by Viacom.

Each of these outlets is run by Black people who serve as the public face of their White-owned companies. Each of these outlet’s owners are all liberal and that seems to carry over into the work they produce.

So, with these corporate owners and their designated staffers from these Black outlets all being politically liberal, there seems to be no thought or interest in diversity of views. For the most part, Blacks crave to inclusion and then turn around and excluded those who do not agree with them politically.

The Black operators have effectively created a false narrative that they represent the views of the Black community. Nothing could be further from the truth. They represent the views of some of the Black community.

If you the Republican National Committee (RNC), it makes more sense to cultivate strong relationships and spend money with Black newspapers instead of those sickened by an identity crisis. The reason is quite simple.

Black newspapers are not beholden to white, corporate masters. Black newspaper owners are a better reflection of the true thinking within the Black community and their newspapers better reflect the full range of thinking within the Black community. Do you really think it is a coincidence that these Black outlets that are owned by white corporations are aggressively pushing a homosexual agenda or amnesty for illegals? This is in keeping with the agendas of these corporations.

You do not see these issues pushed within Black newspapers. Some individual owners may support these issues on a personal level, but it is rarely reflected in their newspapers. These corporations have invested in Black media outlets not to promote issues of relevance to the Black community, but to push an ideology and promote a cause, i.e., liberalism, homosexuality, amnesty.

Why is diversity of thoughts beneficial? Is diversity of ownership within media necessary?

What can we extrapolate from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) report that stated, “As of 2011, whites owned 69.4% of the nation’s 1,348 television stations? That’s up from 63.4% in 2009, when there were 1,187 stations.” The report continued, “While white ownership increased, most minority ownership decreased. Blacks went from owning 1% of all commercial TV stations in 2009 to just 0.7% in 2011. Asian ownership slipped from 0.8% in 2009 to 0.5% last year. Latino ownership increased slightly from 2.5% to 2.9.” “Females owned 6.8% of all commercial TV stations in 2011, compared to 5.6% in 2009.

The same report indicated that Whites own almost 80 percent of all AM and FM radio stations, with more than 70 percent owned by men.

So, I think ownership and diversity are Siamese twins; you can’t separate one from the other. Only when Blacks own their own media outlets can they control the message that comes out of their outlets. When Whites are masquerading as Black media, their goal is to push an agenda; and in the vast majority of cases, it is antithetical to the thinking in the real Black community. Black newspapers provide a variety of issues within the Black community, liberal and conservative. The philosophical diversity of their ownership is more diverse with Black newspapers than in all the other media combined (radio, TV).

So, if the RNC is trying to establish a dialogue and a relationship with the Black community and they are trying to maximize the effort; there is no question that Black newspapers, including their websites, provide the most bang – and authenticity – for the buck.

Emerging Consensus that LBJ Killed JFK?

More than a thousand books have been written on the John F. Kennedy assassination, yet there remains much controversy as to what happened that day in Dallas. To the casual observer, the Warren Commission’s narrative of three shots in six seconds by a lone gunman may appear to be plausible. Search a bit below the surface, however, and you find many inconsistencies that call into question the entire story.

With the passage of time and the information explosion online and in books, the scope of the conspiracy and the cover-up in the JFK assassination comes more clearly into focus to anyone willing to wade through it, and look at it with fresh eyes.

Three books published in the time leading up to the 50th anniversary of the assassination present a common narrative that JFK was killed by a conspiracy led politically by Lyndon Johnson, and operationally by the CIA and J. Edger Hoover. In their books, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, by Roger Stone; LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, by Phillip F. Nelson; and Who Really Killed Kennedy?, by Jerome R. Corsi, the authors explain the psychology of LBJ, and how he conspired to bring together the details of the plot, and the cover-up that followed.

In them, we learn about a rush to advance the lone gunman narrative, about how evidence was mishandled and destroyed by the cleaning and refurbishment of the limousine, and how two mishandled autopsies on JFK’s body forever buried evidence that could explain much of what happened. We also learn how the plot was to unfold, how the CIA was to bring in the sharpshooters and provide the patsy to take the blame. We learn how the FBI, on authority by LBJ himself, would handle the cover-up, and how LBJ would then appoint a blue-ribbon commission who would confirm the cover-up of the prearranged narrative.

Lyndon Johnson was a psychopath willing to do anything to advance his rise to power. His rise was fueled by graft, corruption, and murder. Yes, murder. LBJ’s hitman, Malcolm Wallace, had killed seven other people in Johnson’s rise to power, including LBJ’s own sister, Josefa Johnson. LBJ’s high handed wheeling and dealing knew no bounds other than what he could keep from public exposure. Johnson was a ruthless politician who would go to any length to attain the presidency, including killing the president in order to assume his job. It is not much of a stretch to see a personality of his type behind the conspiracy.

The assassination of a president itself is shocking enough, but to think the succeeding president was behind the killing was beyond outrageous. It was unthinkable. Yet that is the truth we must face. Indeed, the public never seriously considered that possibility, and gave LBJ a benefit of the doubt he did not deserve.

That Day in Dealey Plaza

You do not have to be a forensic expert to know that more than one individual was involved in the assassination. A lone gunman would fire three shots in roughly equally spaced intervals. Witnesses on the plaza heard a shot, a pause, and then two more shots in rapid succession. This alone indicates more than one gunman was involved.

Yes, there were shots from the rear of the motorcade, but there were no eyewitnesses to Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman. Oswald’s rifle had a misaligned scope and a malfunctioning magazine receiver. Oswald was a mediocre shot at best. To accurately shoot three shots in six seconds by an expert sharpshooter with a functioning sniper rifle would be almost impossible. For Oswald and his malfunctioning rifle, it surely was impossible.

Many believe the Zapruder film has been doctored and is not a reliable source of evidence. Yet in it, there is still sufficient reality to show what truly happened in those critical seconds. One sees the kill shot to JFK’s head with an exploding type of bullet. JFK’s head jerks left and rearward indicating he was struck from the right-front. Jacqueline Kennedy’s climbing onto the trunk of the car to recover a piece of skull fragment confirms the kinetic force of the bullet spraying bone and brain matter rearward. This shows that the shot was not possible from the School Book Depository to the rear. It had to come from the grassy knoll.

In the seconds after the shooting, dozens of witnesses rushed to the sound of the gunfire on the knoll to find the shooters. They could still smell the gunsmoke in the air. Once there, some found official looking men brandishing credentials claiming to be the Secret Service. These agents were impostors. The Secret Service later said that they did not have any agents in that area until at least an hour later.

Oswald was a CIA pawn, set up to be the fall guy. And in case you didn’t know, he personally knew Jack Ruby. There were no fingerprints linking him to the shooting. The paraffin test on his cheek came back negative, indicating Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. Modern voice technologies have also determined Oswald was speaking the truth about his innocence.

The Troubled Kennedy Presidency

JFK started his presidency by botching the Bay of Pigs invasion. The failure was squarely his. For those in the Pentagon and the CIA, his appearance was weak at a time when America needed to show strength and resolve in the face of the increasing Soviet threat. In the year to come, the Bay of Pigs fiasco would lead directly to the Berlin crisis, and then to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps the CIA is somewhat to blame as well, but no matter. JFK fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and other CIA leaders shortly afterwards personalizing the distrust between him and the agency.

In the summer of 1963, JFK had an epiphany of sorts, and sought a more peaceful dialogue with Castro and Khrushchev. Gone were his “go anywhere, pay any price” inaugural ideals. His June speech at American University gave voice to his new attitude.

At the same time, Vietnam was spiraling out of control. Hardliners wanted a strong response in Vietnam, and Kennedy was not to give it to them. That fall, JFK decided to pull troops out of Vietnam by 1965. With the hindsight of 50 years, this was the right decision, a true profile in courage. But with his failure at the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy had no credibility with military leaders, or with the CIA. To them, his decision to go soft on the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Vietnam amounted to treason, and it set events moving toward a fateful day in Dallas.

As the rift between Kennedy and hardliners widened, into the void stepped Lyndon Johnson. Never to let an opportunity go to waste, LBJ found the ultimate solution to his Bobby Baker scandal that was coming to a boil on Capitol Hill. LBJ’s days were numbered, and he was facing possible prison time. Kennedy was already showing signs that Johnson would be dumped from the 1964 ticket. With his ruthless drive for power, and RFK as the likely successor to the JFK legacy, LBJ would be out in the cold, except of course, if he could pull off the crime of the century, kill JFK, and garner public support in the process.

Johnson’s Involvement

Oliver Stone produced the movie, JFK, based on Jim Marrs’ 1989 masterwork, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy. In the book and in the movie, you get a scattershot of diverse motives and factoids, but not the plausibility of it happening in concert. It was the CIA, the FBI, the mob, Texas oilmen, Dallas Police, the Secret Service, and so on. Too many people involved, too many loose ends, too many ways for the secrets to come out.

Missing in both accounts was a central figure in the assassination plot. If there was a conspiracy involving the mob, the FBI, the CIA, the oilmen in Texas, Lyndon Johnson would have had to be involved. Anybody he could not payoff, intimidate or bully into a corner, LBJ would just have them put away. This was as true for JFK as it was for anyone else.

Lyndon Johnson is the key to the Kennedy assassination. Johnson had the most to gain. He had the means and the motive to bury the facts. There was nobody with the leverage he had. He was the Vice President, and if he wanted to kill the president, he had the ability to do so by corrupting a wide array of people to do the deed and cover it up. LBJ was sufficiently ruthless to do whatever it took.

For many years, Johnson was a neighbor and a close confidante to J. Edger Hoover, Director of the FBI. Normally, people like him would be in jail, but in LBJ’s case, he held much sway with Hoover and the justice system. JFK, however, planned to force Hoover out in 1965 with the mandatory retirement at 70 for all federal employees.

With LBJ in the White House, the Bobby Baker Scandal investigation would be dropped. LBJ correctly calculated a grieving nation would rally behind him as JFK’s successor. Johnson would then have avoided political exile and incarceration, Hoover would get a lifetime tenure in the FBI, the CIA would have their war in Vietnam, big oil would have a politician office to legislate in their favor, and the mob would have someone to call off the dogs. It all hinged on the narrative of Kennedy being killed by a crazed lone gunman.

Johnson met the night before the assassination with the Suite 8F Group of co-conspirators at the Dallas home of Clint Murchison to finalize details of “The Big Event,” as it was called. Johnson’s mistress,Madeleine Brown, told investigators years later that Johnson told her that evening, “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That is no threat. That is a promise.”

Not seen in the famous Ike Altgens photo was the 6’4” LBJ as he rode in the pale blue Lincoln, two cars back in the motorcade, a second or so after JFK had been shot in the throat. The much smaller Lady Bird can be clearly seen, however. LBJ was ducking low in his car as it approached Elm Street even before the shots were fired. He knew the shots were coming, and he was trying to take cover.

Moreover, Malcolm Wallace’s fingerprint was found on a box in the sniper’s nest of the School Book Depository. Within minutes of the shooting, a general description of the suspect fitting Oswald hit the newswires. So started the Oswald frame-up on the lone gunman narrative, and woe to anyone who might know too much and inadvertently tell the truth.

It is astonishing how many witnesses to the assassination met untimely and abnormal deaths. In his book, Hit List, Richard Belzer estimated that in the 14 years that followed, of the 1400 witnesses involved, 70 had died by homicide, suicide, or by some other unnatural way (an extremely improbable statistic). Most notable among them are William PitzerGuy BannisterDavid FerrieDorothy KilgallenLee BowersMary Pinochot MeyerSam GiancanaJohnny Roselli, and George de Mohrenshildt.

Allen Dulles, having been fired as Director of the CIA, loathed Kennedy. This attitude was found throughout the agency. It would not be difficult to find individuals to participate in the plot. Dulles, through his contacts may have provided many of the resources. After the assassination, LBJ named him to the Warren Commission, which would then overlook and cover-up much of the evidence.

Johnson and Hoover’s involvement of the assassination begs the question on whether they were also involved in the Robert Kennedy assassination. They knew that if RFK became president in 1968, their cover-up would likely be revealed. The JFK and RFK assassinations are likely linked according to Roger Stone.

What the Assassination Means Today

With the perspective of time, and dedicated research by countless individuals, we now know the central figure in the plot and the cover-up was Lyndon Johnson, and with him, the narrative comes more clearly into focus. However, the larger implications of our nation’s history, and what we think of ourselves, are more muddled than ever.

Phillip Nelson poses some basic questions. Who had the most to gain and the least to loose, who had the means to do it, and who had the apparatus in place to subsequently cover it up? Who had the kind of narcissistic sociopathic personality capable of rationalizing the action as a greater good together with the resolve to carry it though? Only one person had the wherewithal to do all this. Only LBJ was in a position to control the pre and post assassination conspiracy. The totality of the evidence points to him.

Johnson is revered by liberals for the legislation he rammed through Congress in the years after his taking office. To Johnson, the ends justify the means. But is this how Americans like to think of themselves? Roger Stone writes:

Lyndon Johnson, as a psychopathic serial murderer, is not a pleasant topic to think about for establishment liberals who like to think of him as a belated champion of civil rights, voting rights, and a slew of Great Society programs. In fact, acknowledging the JFK assassination for what it was— a coup d’état— is discrediting to the narrative of the United States as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and justice as well as a place that is morally superior to banana republics and third-world dictatorships. Establishment conservatives, just like the liberals, choke on that bone in unison.

The JFK Assassination is, by far, the biggest cover-up in American History, the consequences of which still reverberate loudly over the American political and social landscape. For the public, the shock of the assassination was terrible enough. But to even think that the Vice President was behind a coup d’état was just unbelievable. Johnson used this disbelief to his advantage, and covered up the truth until years after his death in 1973.

More than fifty years later, what does revelation of a coup d’état in the United States mean? That is a huge question. Who we are and who we wish to be as a nation was severely damaged that day. Because of the assassination, the trust in government by many citizens was lost, perhaps forever. America lost its innocence in this horrendous event, and the lessons learned have yet to be publicly discussed. With the passage of decades not knowing the truth, and a now a majority of Americans born after that fateful day, we stumble on as a lesser people. It is time to set the record straight.

Pentagon to destroy $1 billion worth of ammo. This makes sense because?

Why is the Pentagon to destroy ammunition for our men and women in uniform while the Department of Homeland Security is buying up millions of rounds of ammunition? As we asked last week, why are we decimating our military while many government agencies are arming up?

You really have to wonder why, according to USA Today, “The Pentagon plans to destroy more than $1 billion worth of ammunition although some of those bullets and missiles could still be used by troops, according to the Pentagon and congressional sources. It’s impossible to know what portion of the arsenal slated for destruction — valued at $1.2 billion by the Pentagon — remains viable because the Defense Department’s inventory systems can’t share data effectively, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by USA TODAY. The result: potential waste of unknown value.”

Everyone complains about fraud, waste and abuse of American taxpayer dollars, and I will admit there is a degree of that in the Department of Defense (DoD), the Pentagon. I firmly supported — still do –an audit of the DoD when I sat on the House Armed Services Committee. But still, it makes you wonder.

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said, “Despite years of effort, the Army, Navy and Air Force still don’t have an efficient process for doing something as basic as sharing excess bullets. This Government Accountability Office (GAO) report clearly shows that our military’s antiquated systems lead to millions of dollars in wasteful ammunition purchases.” The Army and Pentagon, in a statement, acknowledged “the need to automate the process” and will make it a priority in future budgets. In all, the Pentagon manages a stockpile of conventional ammunition worth $70 billion.

Now, this last part is quite perplexing to me, having spent 22 years in the US Army as a combat artillery officer and being quite involved in ammunition management as a Brigade/Regimental operations officer, a Battalion Executive officer, and a Battalion Commander. We constantly received spreadsheets that were reconciled monthly for ammunition allocation and use. In the Army we have Division and Corps level Ammunition Officers whose sole mission is ammunition management, which is forecasted out and allocated yearly.

Excess ammunition? We were begging for excess ammunition for training purposes. And I recall on several occasions when I was an Army exchange officer with the II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune working out some issues on ammunition transfer and training between XVIIIth Airborne Corps, Ft. Bragg. So what is this baloney?

Folks, this is why we need more men and women serving on Capitol Hill who have served in uniform and can raise the Bovine Excrement flag. It would also behoove these Members of the House and Senate who are on Armed Services committees to have staffers who are veterans and can provide proper insight and perspective.

However, more importantly, we need former servicemen and women in civilian leadership with oversight of the military who understand the tactical level processes and procedures so that at the higher strategic level, this type of foolishness does not occur. Instead, we have political nepotism and cronyism, as too many are positioned due to their campaign contributions or agenda allegiance, not because of their military experience or expertise.

USA Today says the GAO report illustrates the obsolete nature of the Pentagon’s inventory systems for ammunition. A request for ammunition from the Marine Corps, for example, is e-mailed to the Army. The e-mail is printed out and manually retyped into the Army system because the services cannot share data directly. Not only is this time consuming, but it can introduce errors — by an incorrect keystroke, for example.

Waste, buying new ammunition while usable stockpiles exist, can occur “because the Army does not report information on all available and usable items,” the report states. The annual conference among the services — although it saves about $70 million per year, according to the Pentagon — is inadequate. The services, in fiscal year 2012, exchanged 44 million items, including 32 million bullets for machine guns and pistols. Specifically, the Army’s report does not include information from prior years about usable ammunition that was unclaimed by another service and stored for potential foreign military sales or slated for potential disposal,” the report says.

All of which begs the simple question: who is in charge? Who is tracking ammunition production, allocation, usage, and redistribution? This is why a serious audit system is necessary. If a monthly reconciliation is done at the unit/installation level, there should at least be a quarterly reconciliation at higher levels. If that is being done, then we should have fail-safe systems as well as procedures and methods upgraded to ensure effective and efficient management.

This is unacceptable and I bet you could sell the excess usable 9 mm ammunition at a reduced price to civilian outlets — and make money for the DoD. But then that would mean you’re arming civilians…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

The New York Times Discovers the Rule of Law

Leave it to The Gay Lady to be a day late and a few brain cells short. The New York Times recently published an article by some journalism-school retread about the Cliven Bundy situation, a piece containing all the usual talking points about how the “racist” rancher’s reasoning is really risible. Rinse, wash and repeat. What interests me right now are not the facts of the case, however, but one particular line in the Times commentary.

The sentence is a quotation from ex-superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area Alan O’Neill, a line that the Times writer, a Mr. Adam Nagourney, obviously felt was so powerful and profound that it warranted closing his piece with. Here’s the passage containing the line:

“He [Bundy] calls himself a patriot, and says he loves America,” Mr. O’Neill said. “And yet he says he won’t follow any federal laws. You just can’t let this go by, or everybody is going to be like, ‘If Bundy can break the law, why can’t I?’”

Wow, an example of not following the law. Shocking! Unprecedented! A threat to the republic!

All I can say about Nagourney is that, for sure, one of us has taken the blue pill.

Has it escaped the Times’ notice that the feds have been found wanting in the enforcement of immigration law for decades and that Barack Obama has basically cast enforcement to the winds? Has the paper ever heard of sanctuary cities? Have its editors gotten the memo about rule by executive order and Obama’s suspension of ObamaCare provisions he finds politically inconvenient? Have they noticed that Uncle Scam has been violating the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — for nigh on 100 years and that Obama wipes his feet on it?

Gay Lady, I hereby re-christen thee The Blue Pill Times.

The BPT is certainly right in assuming that unanswered lawbreaking makes people conclude, “If ______ can break the law, why can’t I?” But it isn’t “Bundy” that fills in that blank.

In point of fact, the reason we had troves of people rallying to Bundy’s side is the same reason why we’re seeing state nullification movements pushing back against ObamaCare, federal gun-control law and other central-government measures:

The blatant and criminal disregard the feds have shown for the Constitution — the contract the American people have with one another — and the feds’ continual overstepping of their bounds and aggregation of power, have caused people to say, “If the feds can break the law, why can’t I?”

It has further made citizens realize that they have a right and a duty to oppose federal law. Why a right? Well, if a party subject to a contract consistently and obstinately violates the contract’s terms for the purposes of advantaging itself and undermining the other parties subject to the contract, are the latter still bound by the now broken agreement?

It is rendered null and void.

As for duty, to sit idly by while the feds violate the contract and trample rights makes one complicit in the crime, an accessory perhaps before, and certainly during and after, the fact.

This, mind you, is the main reason I side with Cliven Bundy. The particulars of the case are irrelevant because the feds long ago demonstrated their ill will and illegitimacy. As for The Blue Pill Times, it’s great it has discovered the value of the rule of law. Now all it need do is reveal what entity truly undermined it and the manifold ways in which it has been done. Of course, this would mean actually presenting, for the first time, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Pope Francis orders Catholics to violate the Tenth Commandment?

On April 28, 2014 Pope Francis Tweeted: “Inequality is the root of social evil.” It appears Pope Francis is asking all Catholics to “covet the money” of those who have it in the name of “equality.” Is Pope Francis re-stating, in his Tweet, what Karl Marx wrote – “From each according to his ability to each according to his need?”

On November 24th, 2013 Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium : Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World wrote:

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule. [Emphasis added]

Gary M. Galles in his column For the Love of Money writes, “To do things for money is nothing more than to advance what we care about. In markets, we do for others as an indirect way of doing for ourselves.” Perhaps Pope Francis has forgotten the Tenth Commandment (cf Ex 20: 2-17):

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;
you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,
or his manservant, or his maidservant,
or his ox, or his ass,
or anything that is your neighbor’s.

Julian Adorney writes, “In A Dynamic Analysis of Economic Freedom and Income Inequality in the 50 States: Empirical Evidence of a Parabolic Relationship, Daniel L. Bennett and Richard K. Vedder argue that, past a certain point, economic freedom decreases inequality. Increasing economic freedom benefits the poor and middle class more than it helps the wealthy.”

Adorney notes:

The Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) Annual Report, published by the Fraser Institute, analyzes around 150 countries in terms of factors like their economic freedom, closeness to a laissez-faire state, poverty levels, and per capita income. The results are a striking indictment of the idea that more government intervention in the economy can help the poor.

As EFW points out, the shares of a country’s GDP going to the bottom 10 percent are pretty consistent regardless of how free the country is. From communist states to progressive countries to almost laissez-faire societies, the poorest 10 percent of citizens receive about 2.5 percent of the country’s wealth. No amount of progressive policies has changed that number. But for the poor, life is still much better in an economically free country than in one with more government. More economically free countries have more wealth than less free ones, meaning the poorest 10 percent can end up with thousands of dollars more per year. The poorest citizens of the 25 percent most-free countries earn an average of $10,556 per year. The poorest citizens in the middle 50 percent of countries earn less than a third of that.

Max Borders, Editor of the Freeman writes:

When we hear people fretting about inequality, we should ask ourselves: Are they genuinely concerned for the poor or are they indignant about the rich? Here’s how to tell the difference: Whenever someone grumbles about “the gap,” ask her if she’d be willing for the rich to be even richer if it meant improved conditions for the absolute poorest among us. If she says “no,” she’s admitting that her concern is really with what the wealthy have, not what the poor lack. If her answer is “yes,” then the so-called “gap” is irrelevant. You can then go on to talk about legitimate concerns, like how best to improve the conditions of the poor without paying them to be wards of the State. In other words, the meaningful conversation we should be having is about absolute poverty, not relative poverty.

In so many of the discussions about income inequality, there is a basic emotional dynamic at work. Someone sees they have less than another, and they feel envious. Perhaps they see they have more than another, and they feel guilty. Or they see that someone has more than someone else, and they feel indignation. Envy, guilt, and indignation. Are these the kinds of emotions that should drive social policy? When we begin to understand the origins of wealth—honest entrepreneurs and stewards of capital in an inherently unequal ecosystem—we can learn to leave our more primitive emotions behind.

Is Pope Francis succumbing to envy? Is the Pontiff showing an emotional dynamic? Is Francis asking all Catholics to violate the Tenth Commandment? Is Francis confusing money with economic freedom?

Holocaust Memorial Day and the Pathetic Palestinians

AA - Palestinians

Children waving PLO banner.

“The demands, conditions, stipulations, and decisions pouring out of Mahmoud Abbas’s office in the last month or so have persuaded everyone concerned that the Palestinian’s mind is in a total muddle,” opined an April 24 Israeli-based news-wire Debka File. It reported that Israel’s Prime Minister, Binjamin Netanyahu, had broken off peace talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), also known as Fatah, after Abbas, its leader, had announced Fatah would unite with Hamas, another Palestinian group with which it had been at odds since 2007.

Confusing? You’re not alone. As Debka File put it, “No one in Jerusalem or Washington can figure out what he wants. And even his closest aides believe that he doesn’t know his own mind and are afraid of what he may dream up next.”

As Israel commemorates Holocaust Remembrance Day which began at sundown on Sunday, Abbas grabbed international headlines by declaring that the Holocaust was the “most heinous” modern crime, but seemed to equate what happened to Europe’s Jews during World War II with Palestinians today who, he said, “suffer from injustice, oppression, and are denied freedom and peace…” The fact that they and the Arab League have refused for over six decades to accept Israel’s right to exist went unmentioned. Now that’s chutzpah!

“In Gaza City, meanwhile,” reported Debka File, “his Fatah and the rival Hamas celebrated their umpteenth unity pack in nine years, although not a single clause of any of the foregoing documents was ever implemented.”

If the Palestinians as a whole and the two organizations that self-identify as representing them seem unable to function in a rational fashion, that is a fair conclusion.

This is what the Israelis have been dealing with before and ever since Yasser Arafat created the Palestinian Authority in 1959 directing it until his death in 2004. Its original purpose was the destruction of Israel, but Arafat modified that on occasion to give the impression of legitimacy and to seek ways to return Israel to its original borders in 1948 and later 1964. In 1987 he launched a prolonged Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada, killing many Israelis. And you wonder why Israel has built high walls and fences in some areas?

Hamas is closer to Arafat’s original goal, having been openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel since its formation in 1987 during the Intifada. It is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and has controlled Gaza since June 2007, having forcibly driven out Fatah representatives. It has been deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. since 1997, as does the European Union, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, but not by Iran, Turkey, and China. In 2005 Israel turned over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians as a gesture of peace which has been rewarded by constant rocketing launched from there ever since.

Sarah Stern, the founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) said on April 25 that “Since September 13, 1993, the Palestinian Authority has been playing a double, duplicitous and highly dangerous game of ‘good cop/bad cop.’ While the Palestinian Authority ended their diplomatic isolation in the community of nations by signings Oslo, Wye, the Roadmap for Middle East Peace, and all subsequent agreements, they have used their enhanced diplomatic status to wage a nonphysical war against Israel through systematic campaigns of distortion and dehumanization of Israel and the Jew in the international court of public opinion.”

EMET condemned the Palestinian Authority for supporting terrorism against Israel “regularly applauding suicide bombers and calling on children to become martyrs…it is time to stop giving American’s taxpayer dollars, to the tune of more than $600 million a year, to the PA.”

One has to ask why Secretary of State John Kerry has wasted months trying to secure peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel when the former has never demonstrated any real effort to engage in peace beyond the formalities of treaties it has routinely ignored. The announcement that it would join with Hamas is testimony to its dedication to destroying Israel in its quest to declare control of the disputed area. Since 1948, Israel has been a sovereign state. All previous efforts by the U.S. have ended in failure.

Lately, the PA, designated a United Nations “observer”, has been applying for membership to 15 UN bodies. The UN has demonstrated its support for the PA for years, even annually celebrating a day devoted to the Palestinian “refugees”, the oldest such “refugee” group in history, due in large part by the refusal of Arab nations to extend citizenship to them. The UN has maintained UNRWA, its Relief and Works Agency, since 1948 when Israel was attacked and defeated its neighbors. In subsequent wars it expanded its borders to include the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

If the Fatah-Hamas unity effort is successful, it will further isolate the Palestinians who have few, if any, friends left in the Middle East and it renders the United Nations, presumably devoted to peace, as pathetic as the Palestinians.

The restraint that the Israelis have demonstrated over the past 66 years has been quite extraordinary. They are not, however, going to accept several generations of Palestinians to “return” into their nation where many have never lived since 1948.

The Palestinians have not given Israel any reason to have any confidence in what they say publicly for world consumption and the latest “unity” announcement at least confirms their bad intentions. In addition to Hamas, the Iranian pawn, Hezbollah, composed largely of Palestinians, gives Israel even less reason to regard them as anything than enemies.

And while this goes on, the Israelis must make plans to respond to the failure of the U.S. effort to get Iran to stop enriching uranium to make their own nuclear weapons. When it is declared dead, they will have no other option than to attack Iranian facilities.

© Alan Caruba, 2014