Category Archives: Terrorism

“An electronic Pearl Harbor”

Posted on by

Last Sunday, a report by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes discussed the threat of cyber terrorism.

At the center of his report, Kroft interviewed Jim Lewis who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to Lewis, the United States has already experienced “an electronic Pearl Harbor.” Lewis continued, “Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high-tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information. Someone was able to get past the firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military computer systems and stay inside for several days,” he stated. The system he referred to is the CENTCOM network, which is our military’s control center for fighting wars. Lewis said that the hackers sat inside the network, tracking information and documents “like they were part of military command.” According to Lewis, this is the “most significant” breach of security ever “acknowledged by the Pentagon.”

Proof that the Obama administration is weak militarily and soft on terrorism? No, wait!

Why different standards for ACORN and Halliburton?

Posted on by

Recently, Congress voted overwhelmingly to suspend funds for ACORN.  Never mind that the bill violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder (singling out a single group or individual for punishment).  According to Republicans, ACORN must be punished for the actions of a few of its staffers.

Why suspend funds from an organization that has a long history of helping the poor?  The short answer is that ACORN has made it more difficult for Republicans to be elected, and Democrats are simply afraid to be painted as too partisan. 

During last year’s presidential election, ACORN invoked the fury of conservative talk radio and Fox News by registering voters.  Since most of these newly registered voters were minorities and/or poor it is assumed that they voted for President Obama.  Of course, the conservatives cried foul.  They accused ACORN of helping to steal the election.  They claimed that ACORN had registered tens of thousands of illegal votes.  There were widely publicized registration forms for Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, etc., which seemed to point to widespread voter fraud. 

The problem with that argument is that ACORN pays members to register voters.  Since the members are paid by the number of registration forms filled out, some of these people inevitably try to scam the system.  ACORN recognizes that possibility, and since it has to account for every single voter registration form, the organization sorts the forms into three categories before submitting them to the local voter registration office:  Those that can be confirmed, those that cannot be confirmed, and those that are obviously fraudulent.  Therefore, if there is fraud, it occurs at the voter registration office.  ACORN should not be held accountable.

Nevertheless, Republicans felt they must do something to rid the country of ACORN, so a few enterprising conservatives went looking for evidence that ACORN is a renegade organization defrauding the American public.  Two young people posed as a pimp and a prostitute and visited ACORN offices looking for advice on how to run a brothel and funnel the money into a Congressional campaign.  In three offices, ACORN volunteers provided advice.  In another, the ACORN volunteers recognized the scam and “punked” the actors. 

There is no question that those who provided the advice should be fired.  And they were.  But attacking an organization of more than 500,000 members for the bad behavior of a few is ridiculous.  If we’re going to use that standard for all organizations receiving money from the federal government, then why not suspend all further contracts with Halliburton?  After all, the sloppiness of a few employees in its KBR subsidiary caused numerous soldiers to be electrocuted in Iraq.  There are also accusations that several Halliburton employees gang-raped a woman in Iraq.  When the woman tried to sue Halliburton for her treatment, she was told that the fine print in her contract prevents lawsuits.  Finally, there is alleged evidence that Halliburton has defrauded the government out of millions of dollars.  Yet there is no parallel outcry against Halliburton such as that against ACORN.  No legislation to withhold funds.

Or how about Blackwater, aka XE?  Blackwater mercenaries have been accused of murdering Iraqi civilians and raping Iraqi women.  Yet XE still receives lucrative contracts with the Defense Department.

There can be only two explanations:  Money and influence.  Halliburton and XE have them.  ACORN does not.

Like father like daughter.

Posted on by

When Dick Cheney held the office of vice-president, we all held our breath (and our noses) whenever he emerged from his dark cave.  We knew that his emergence could only mean trouble for the free world.  Either he was going to start another war, announce a new surveillance scheme for innocent Americans, or he was going to devise new ways to torture suspected terrorists and/or Democrats.

Now that the election of President Obama has sent the Dark One scurrying back to his badger hole, it appears that his offspring has taken it upon herself to remind us of how lucky we are that he’s no longer in office.  No one to rattle sabers?  Liz Cheney will show up on Fox News to promote war against somebody.  No one to promote torture?  Liz Cheney will torture us with her opinions.  No one to blame the Bush administration’s failures on Democrats?  Liz Cheney knows who’s really at fault.

Most recently, she appeared on Fox News to react to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.  (After all, who would know more about peace than someone whose father is so versed in war, torture and draft deferments.)  Not surprisingly, she believes that Obama is totally undeserving of the award.  She explained that Obama has not proven anything yet – he hasn’t invaded Iran or North Korea.  Why he hasn’t even acquiesced to the military’s request for more troops in Afghanistan yet. 

The Dark One’s offspring even had a suggestion for President Obama.  Instead of traveling to Oslo to pick up the Peace Prize, she announced that the president should send the mother of a dead American soldier in his place.  (Perhaps Ms. Cheney hasn’t yet realized that any mother we would send is likely grieving as a result of a decision by Dick Cheney.)  Liz said she believes it would make a great statement to let the world know that it’s the lives of American soldiers that keep the world safe.  Apparently, in the Cheney family, nothing says peace like a grieving mother and the promise of more wars. 

Sowing the seeds of violence

Posted on by

In the early 70s, Nixon and Agnew began a culture war.  They rightfully guessed that they could win the White House by dividing the nation into the Far Left, the Far Right and the Great Silent Majority.  By labeling the educated who opposed many of their ideas “effete intellectual snobs” and castigating the media as biased, they essentially declared war on those who were educated, anti-war or anti-big business.

Since then, there have been many right wing politicians to continue the fight:  Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.  They have been gleefully aided by those who learned how to make money by siding with them.  Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have made millions by inciting the angry rabble to “take back America.”

Their actions have (either directly or indirectly) resulted in the threat of violence against those who they politically oppose.  Timothy McVeigh reportedly was whipped into a murderous rage by the Turner Diaries and the ranting of conservative talk radio.  It’s likely that O’Reilly’s constant references to Dr. Tiller as a “baby killer” and websites, such as that operated by The Army of God, incited Scott Roeder to act.  Glenn Beck, Fox News and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks rallied the torch and pitchfork crowd to interrupt town hall debates on health care.  And, on several occasions, right wingers have been inspired to bring guns to Presidential events.

Most recently, a part-time Census worker was found hanged with “Fed” scrawled on his chest.   That wouldn’t have anything to do with Congresswoman Michelle Bachman’s rant against the Census as an administration plot to spy on conservatives would it?

It appears the constant verbal attacks on the Left are increasingly becoming violent attacks.  Gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed following the election of President Obama.  The Secret Service, which is charged with defending the President, has disclosed that threats against the President are at an all-time high.  And the rhetoric is angrier than ever.

Where does it stop?  When does freedom of speech become incitement to riot? 

Before deregulation, radio and television stations were held to higher standards.  Stations were forced to show that they were acting in the public interest in order to keep their broadcast licenses.  The necessity to prove their worthiness precluded stations from knowingly broadcasting lies and hate speech. 

But Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and company are mere megaphones in this assault on political opponents.  As a result of its constant drumbeat against regulation and government intervention, the organization most responsible for the current level of public discourse is the Republican Party.

“Teabaggers”, “Birthers” and other racists.

Posted on by

Demonstrators at this past weekend’s rally at the U.S. Capitol carried a powerful message. They toted signs with photos of President Obama wearing a Hitleresque moustache. There were signs that called Obama a socialist, a Marxist and even a Nazi. There were signs calling him a “Muslim Kenyan” and an “African Lyin’.” There were signs stating “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” and “We came unarmed (this time).” The only things they were lacking were torches and pitchforks.

These messages were not just tasteless and threatening. They were revealing. They exposed those who carried them as a rabble of misinformed racists who are angry and aren’t going to take it anymore. But they can’t even say what “it” is. All they seem to know is that President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are the problem.

Could it be that these people simply can’t accept an African-American and a woman as our nation’s leaders?

Of course, Republicans dismiss any such claims. They’re fond of pointing to the demonstrations against President Bush. However, there’s a significant difference. During the Bush administration, political opponents attacked his policies. During the Obama administration, the opponents seem to want to attack Obama. And not just with words. Why else would the demonstrators feel it necessary to threaten violence? Why else would they feel the need to bring guns to demonstrations?

If it were economic policy that concerned these people, they would be protesting against Bush for overseeing the first real decline in median household income in recent history. If the issue was spending, these people would have brought out the torches and pitchforks during the Reagan years or as the result of the $2 trillion war in Iraq. If it were the housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown that concerned them, they would be looking to lynch Bush, Greenspan and Henry Paulson. And if rationed health care was the problem, they would be surrounding the headquarters of United Health Group, Cigna and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

No, these people are not angry about policy. They believe their country is being taken away by a black man and a powerful woman. They’ve been fuming for many years as they’ve seen African, Asian and Latino immigrants arrive in large numbers. They’ve been told that their “values” and religions are under attack. They’ve been told that President Obama hates white people. They’re easily manipulated by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and organizations such as Fox News Network and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. They’re encouraged by elected officials like Dick Cheney, Sen. DeMint, Rep. Boehner and Rep. Cantor. Worse yet, they’re given publicity and credibility by a media too lazy or afraid to expose them for what they really are.

Rewarding unreasonable behavior.

Posted on by

On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service.  Wow!  How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive!  How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation! 

Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice.  In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping.  And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.)  Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war.  Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would.  “Pay no attention to what’s behind that curtain.”

But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obama’s statements and actions.  He’ll be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does.   That’s not surprising.  After all, we’re talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate.  They’re the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate Clinton’s investment loss in Whitewater.  They’re the same people who called Democrats “whack jobs” and “conspiracy nuts” for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election.   (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, “It’s clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.”)  And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard. 

Republicans are good at attacking.  In fact, they’re great at it.  Many of today’s Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew.  Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.

What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them.  And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior.  It’s astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow “You lie” to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilson’s outburst.  (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.) 

The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work. 

So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like “Death Panels”.  They’ll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them.  And they’ll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler.  (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?) 

Someone once said, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”  Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans.  Why? 

The revealing nature of Republican attacks.

Posted on by

Following Representative Wilson’s outburst during the President’s address before a joint session of Congress, I believe we have to ask ourselves some questions:  Is it a coincidence that the first such outburst was aimed at our first African-American President?  Is it a coincidence that the outburst came from a Congressman from South Carolina?  Is it coincidence that this is the first President accused of being born in another country despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of creating death panels for senior citizens despite the facts?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of trying to “indoctrinate our children” by merely encouraging them to work hard?  And is it coincidence that the number of death threats against our President has increased dramatically?

The conclusion is inescapable.  The attacks against President Obama represent more than a mere difference of opinion or ideology. 

From the moment he was sworn in, President Obama has been faced with an unprecedented combination of crises – a floundering economy, a failed financial system, a collapsed auto industry, millions of foreclosed homes, out of control health care costs, skyrocketing deficits and two wars.  These weren’t crises of his own making.  These were crises created under the previous administration.  Yet rather than rallying behind the President in the face of these crises as Democrats rallied behind Bush after 9/11, the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine Obama’s attempts to right our ship of state.   

Granted the attacks against President Obama are coming from a small, angry minority in Southern states.  (Okay, okay, I know I just described the Republican Party.)  But, in my lifetime, no President has faced such venomous and personal attacks.  Not Richard Nixon following the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.  Not Ronald Reagan following the cover-up of the sale of weapons to Iran.  Not George W. Bush following the lies that led to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. 

Perhaps the real lesson of a Republican shouting “You lie!” at President Obama in the House chamber is this:  Pathological liars often assume everyone else is like them. 

The myth of guns as self-defense weapons.

Posted on by

For years, the NRA and its associated wing nuts have been trying to convince Americans that everyone should carry a gun.  And some of those card-carrying dimwits came to Congressional town hall meetings armed with guns to make their point. 

The 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The gun-toting NRA supporters always focus on the second part of the sentence.  They choose to ignore the first part.  In any event, the amendment raises more questions than it answers.  It seems the intent of the founding fathers was to ensure the defense of our nation and the ability to protect it from an insurrection.  But what is the definition of a well regulated militia?  Is that not intended to refer to our nation’s military?  Or perhaps the National Guard?  Or does an armed mob of “tea baggers” and sheet-clad, anti-Obama fascists qualify?

Similarly, if everyone is permitted to keep and bear arms, where do you draw the line?  Currently, anyone can purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns.  But should an NRA member also be allowed to own a 50-caliber machine gun (I hear they’re fabulous for deer hunting)?   A fully-functional Abrams tank (maybe for big game)?  A nuclear-tipped cruise missile?  Certainly, the nation’s founders would have drawn a line in there somewhere. 

Moreover, despite statements of NRA gunslingers to the contrary, a gun is an offensive weapon.  It is, in fact, a lousy defensive weapon.  If you’re attacked while carrying a gun, you have to count on drawing your gun and getting off an accurate shot before the attacker gets to you.  If you don’t, the attacker may actually turn your own gun against you. 

And if both you and the attacker are armed with guns, the “winner” is determined by whoever gets off the more accurate shot first.  (I hear you want to give yourself an edge by keeping the sun to your back.)

The fact is that guns tend to escalate confrontations more often than they solve them.  If you have a gun, you feel compelled to use it.  (My distant relative, Billy Clanton, was armed at the OK Corral, and look how well that turned out for him.)  But if you don’t have a gun, you tend to avoid confrontations or look for other ways to resolve them. 

I own several rifles and a shotgun, but I don’t carry them to public meetings.  Neither do I carry my Tibetan sword, Chinese hook swords, butterfly swords, broadsword, Tai Chi sword, Indonesian Kris, chain whip, 3-section staff, spear, staff, nunchakaus, tonfas, and knives.   But maybe I should.  There must be a Republican town hall coming to my vicinity soon.