« July 2011 | Main | September 2011 »
Not sure what the conundrum has been. If you simply take about 1/2 hour and listen to the actuall tapes of President John Kennedy and his advisers discussing the withdrawal options from Vietnam in 1963... it is pretty clear what JFK was going to do... withdrawal from Vietnam... if there is a debate, it is over 1964 (pre-Election) or 1965 (post-Election).
Could someone please call Texas... that's where our history books are written.
Here is a list of blogs from all 50 United States of America.
I got some on this list from Daily Kos and listed some that I found on Left Blogs. Just do a Google search for Lefty Blogs and the name of a State and you will be taken to a list of local blog posts and news stories.
A great way to spend a weekend exploring our nation from your computer.
-Alabama: Left in Alabama notes that the state is in a race to the bottom in terms of getting rid of jobs.
-Alaska: Mudflats points out that the state of Alaska is supporting efforts to silence Alaskans.
-Arizona: Arizona Netroots asks where the green jobs are.
-Arkansas: Blue Arkansas questions who the AFL-CIO supporots in state senate races.
-California: Calitics isn't surprised that Republicans are attacking the Democratic-proposed redistricting maps.
-Colorado: Square State introduced progressive legislative candidate Tracy Kraft-Tharp.
-Connecticut: CT News Junkie says there is a move to decertify AFSCME in the state.
-Delaware: Delaware Liberal gives a rundown of legislative candidates for 2012.
-Florida: Beach Peanuts lists the latest horrors from Gov. Rick Scott.
-Georgia: Blog For Democracy says that the Georgia Republican Party is planning to purge white Democrats.
-Hawaii: A list of lists for Hawaii-cenrtric news.
-Idaho: 43rd State Blues notes that Sen. Jim Risch compared Barack Obama to Casey Anthony.
-Illinois: Progress Illinois says that unions are calling on Gov. Pat Quinn to keep his word.
-Indiana: Blue Indiana Network applauds John Gregg's run for governor.
-Kentucky: Page One notes Rand Paul's flip-flopping on military spending cuts.
-Louisiana: Daily Kingfish says that taxpayers are on the hook for $81,000 to defend the House redistricting map.
-Maine: Dirigo Blue says that Republicans are up to their same old tricks in redistricting the state.
-Maryland: a list of lists of local news... this ain't no tea party.
-Massachusetts: Blue Mass Group points out that Elizabeth Warren wants to talk to the voters and that the media isn't happy about it.
-Michigan: Michigan Liberal is skeptical about using volunteers to gather petitions for recall efforts.
-Mississippi: a link to a list of links including Gulf Watchers Diaries on DKOS.
-New Hampshire: Blue Hampshire shows Rep. Fank Guinta getting schooled by a constituent.
-New Jersey: Blue Jersey notes that Olympic hero Carl Lewis is running for state senate.
-North Carolina: BlueNC applauds the courts stopping the state's attack on Planned Parenthood.
-North Dakota: North Decoder calls out state Republicans for focusing on state college nicknames instead of important issues.
-Ohio: Plunderbund shoots down John Kasich's claim that unions are divided in the state.
-Oklahoma: Blue Oklahoma notes that the state's child poverty rate has gone up.
-Oregon: BlueOregon applauds Sen. Ron Wyden for his 600th town hall meeting.
-Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Progressive isn't excited about Sen. Pat Toomey being named to the supercommittee.
-Pennsylvania: Young Philly Politics needs their own link... Philadelphia is not like the rest of the State.
-Rhode Island: RI Future mourns the passing of state progressive leader Miguel C. Luna.
-South Carolina: Another list of lists of local blogs and news.
-South Dakota: A list of lists of news and blogs including who is boinking whom.
-Tennessee: KnoxViews asks Gov. Bill Halsem where the jobs are.
-Texas: Burnt Orange Report gathers the research on Rick Perry.
-Utah: The new Sheriff ain't drinking no tea.
-Vermont: Green Mountain Daily thanks Gov. Peter Shumlin for meeting with progressives in the state.
-Virginia: VB Dems says Gov. Bob McDonnell is auditioning to be vice president.
-Washington: HorsesAss makes the case that unions are more grassroots than corporations and the wealthy.
-West Virginia: West Virginia Blue links to a poll that sayd the majority of residents oppose mountain-top removal mining.
-Wyoming: Bitching about Dick Cheney's memoirs missing Vietnam War chapter
The subtly of the insidious message is disgusting.
But good leaders like... well, all the progressive leaders in American history... and let's throw in Gandhi... were mentally ill... but in a good way!
NPR has been pushing this book for over a week.
I am reading The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis... and I am not seeing signs of mental illness... he is the only sane one in the room... let's compare them with say... Rickard Nixon's White House Tapes... or god forbid, Bush, Jr. White House Tapes.
Some day, a hard rain is going to fall.
NPR goes on the terrorist watch list.
The rule was introduced during an era in which there were far fewer media outlets and regulators wanted to ensure that listeners had access to both sides of political debate.
The FCC abandoned the policy in 1987 during the Reagan administration, saying it violated broadcasters’ free speech rights, but the regulation remained on the books...
...FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told lawmakers in June that the agency planned to dump the rule as part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to eliminate outdated and unneeded regulations. The agency’s media bureau said Monday that it will eliminate 83 rules including the Fairness Doctrine.
Excuse me, Mr. President, but a little Fairness Doctrine enforcement would go a long way in relieving the Republican/Corporate shit storm we've lived in since the Reagan Administration... dick.
It has reached an indefensible state. The Obama Administration has made all the wrong moves since the American economy was trashed by the Bush, Jr. Administration. Now his only hope for reelection is for a fringe candidate from the Republican Party, pushed on stage by the treacherous American media to make him sound... reasonable?
Well where does that leave me... and you? Jon Hunstsman?
Fuckin' hell... Joe Wilson was right.
"Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.
But Mr. Donovan and others in the administration have been contacting not only Mr. Schneiderman but his allies, including consumer groups and advocates for borrowers, seeking help to secure the attorney general’s participation in the deal, these people said. One recipient described the calls from Mr. Donovan, but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation."
I Love L. A.
Los Angeles, which recently saw its $7-billion investment portfolio downgraded by Standard & Poor's, has decided to no longer hire the rating company to rate the soundness of the city's investments.
"We have really lost faith in S&P's judgment," Interim Treasurer Steve Ongele said.
After its downgrade of U.S. debt last week, S&P cut its rating of L.A.'s general investment pool to AA from AAA. It also downgraded dozens of other municipalities with large investments in U.S. Treasury notes.
"The market crash that came with the real estate debacle, it happened because folks like S&P rated AAA corporations that were not worth much of anything, corporations that are no longer there today," Ongele said. "The fact that we have the courage to do this, the fact that we are the first city, I think that's a big bragging right."
Fight the power.
Don't get your hopes up kids... he never keeps his promises...
Conservative media is earning its new 'terrorist' stripes with its coverage of the Republican Party Presidential nomination circus. Corporate terrorist whores get endless coverage, no matter how insane they are... but a crazy guy like Ron Paul, who isn't exactly a corporatist terrorist... get ignored and even mocked... (see video in the link.)
Pretty sleazy all around and quite disrespectful of the Tea Party...
Chuck Todd: Perry-Obama would be a picture of sharp contrasts.
David Gregory: You know, Perry talked about potentially seceding from the union. You think that's extreme. Well people on the other side think that introducing health care reform for the whole country is akin to European Socialism.
Are you kidding, David?
How much do you get paid?
From The New York Times archive: August 15, 1961 -
"As an uneasy quiet prevailed on the border between East and West Berlin, the East German Communists tightened their squeeze on the Western sectors early today. The East German Interior Ministry announced that vehicles from West Berlin must have permits to cross into the Communist zone. (pg. 1:8)
Adenauer said the West might have to decide on a total trade embargo of the Soviet bloc if Moscow did not agree to reasonable negotiations with NATO. (1:7)
President Kennedy was said to have decided on vigorous protests and propaganda on Berlin. But extreme countermeasures were ruled out as too likely to lead to war. (1:6-7)"
It is the 50th anniversary of what has become know in the history books as The Berlin Crisis of 1961. As part of the terrorist-corporate media's rewriting of those American history books, we have lots of badly researched and false analysis in the Press (TV, radio, books, websites) of President Kennedy's handling of the political crisis. This weekend, our conservative pundists are slobbering all over the latest revisionist histoy book by Frederick Kempe.
President Kennedy faced crisis after crisis in the early 1960's as the military industrial complex fought to take hold of the reigns of power in America. By 1963, JFK was a different man, a different President than he was on his Inauguration Day. He had been through the fire of handling these crisis and by 1963, had become the great President we still honor today... just listen to his speeches from 1963... it would have been a very different America if he had not been assassinated in Dallas in November of that year.
Here is a post on The Berlin Crisis of 1961 by David Lifton (you can follow the comments thread by clicking here to Lifton's 50th anniversary post.)
Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:34 PM
This thread concerns Kennedy's "Berlin policy," and the recently published book by Frederick Kempe, "Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth." The Kempe book revives a very important issue, one that author Richard Reeves analyzed in depth 18 years ago in his book, "President Kennedy: Profile of Power." I thought I'd start this thread, to put the matter in context.
In my opinion, understanding what happened in Berlin in the "summer of '61" (and in what is called "the Berlin Crisis") is critical to understanding what followed in the Kennedy administration in the area of JFK's foreign policy towards Cuba and--consequently--Berlin figures as another marker on the road to Dallas.
I have not read Kempe's book (just yet) but those interested in this subject should be aware that the basic situation JFK was facing in Berlin is narrated (and analyzed, in considerable detail), in author Richard Reeves' 1993 book "President Kennedy: Profile of Power." What is known as the Berlin crisis began on 6/4/61, when JFK met Khrushchev in Vienna (at what is sometimes referred to as the "Vienna Summit"), and Khrushchev delivered an ugly, fist-banging ultimatum: that he was going to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, that access to Berlin (located over 100 miles inside East Germany) would then be controlled by East Germany (and the Communist regime of Walter Ulbricht) and the west be damned.
Kennedy was faced with this ugly ultimatum and the problem of what to do about it. For a brief while, what actually happened in Vienna, and the full extent of Khrushchev's ultimatum was not made public.
What happened next: The hawks in JFK's administration clustered around former Secretary of State Dean Acheson who, on 6/28/61, wrote a critical memo that defined the parameters of the situation. Acheson decided that Berlin was the place to face down the Soviets,once and for all. Acheson's memo instructed Kennedy to "prepare for war. . .nuclear war." Siding with Acheson were the JCS AND Vice President Johnson--yes "and Vice President Johnson". Moreover, the JCS sought authority to use tactical nukes to defend West Berlin (can you believe that? Well, its true).
Kennedy sought to find a way to avoid war, and to maneuver around this dangerous situation, and convince Khrushchev that he meant business. His brain trust consisted of Sorenson, Schlesinger, Mansfield---and a young MIT whiz named Thomas Schelling, an expert in game theory. (You can buy his books on game theory on Amazon).
As events unfolded, Kennedy learned (to his distress) that Khrushchev did not care what Kennedy said--only what he did. So: Kennedy basically had to bluff Khrushchev--publicly--but the stakes were huge and the risks were terrible. A strategy had to be devised that projected the credible appearance that Kennedy would in fact go to war over Berlin, without actually going to war. For Kennedy, it was touchy, scarey, and just plain awful. He had to tread a very fine line.
JFK went on TV on July 25, 1961, calling for increased money, calling up reserves, increasing draft calls, etc. There were also very serious (and secret) back channel communications, involving Bobby Kennedy and the Russian spy Bolshakov.
The bottom line: Kennedy made the decision that what counted (i.e., what he ultimately wanted) was Western access to West Berlin--that he could not be responsible for what East German did in its zone (i.e., the Soviet Zone). In other words, JFK made the decision that the U.S. would not go to war to protect the "freedom" of East Berlin--just the freedom of West Berlin. That's where he drew the line.
Most important: JFK was able to "walk in the other guy's shoes." He understood that East Germany was hemorrhaging at the rate of 2,000 per day. So he understood that the East German government was going to have to do something about that.
Kennedy was (apparently) hoping that the East German government would simply seal off their own border, and solve their political problem that way. And in fact, Senator Fulbright, in a national TV appearance on "Issues and Answers," signaled that that would in fact be acceptable to the U.S.
The public response to JFK's 7/25/61 speech was very positive. Hugely positive, in fact.
Behind the scenes, much of JFK's strategy was dictated by his conferring with Thomas Schelling. (All this is spelled out in Reeves).
During this very dangerous period, after the July 25, 1961 nationwide TV address (but before the Wall went up [8/14/61] which marked "the end" of the Berlin Crisis ), Bobby Kennedy thought the chances of a major nuclear war were one in five. Yes, one in five. It was that serious.
The "resolution" of the crisis was the erection of the Berlin Wall on 8/14/61. As explained by Reeves, that avoided a nuclear war in Europe. No question about it.
Its all spelled out in Richard Reeves; and you've got to read BOTH the text, AND the footnotes.
The Berlin Crisis --starting on 6/4/61 and ending on 8/14/61--is every bit as hair raising as the Cuban Missile Crisis the following year. But Kennedy played it down, after it was over. No proclamations were made. Just two key news stories--one in the NY Times and the other in the Washington Post--explaining the "real-politik" of the situation, and that the Wall marked the end of what had been a dangerous situation.
From a memo in my files that I wrote three years ago. . .:
QUOTE: I've read through Reeves' chapters (and all the footnotes) very carefully, and now have a much greater understanding of what happened between June 4 and August 14 (1961) It seems clear to me that "the Berlin Crisis" is almost as dramatic as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the details are not known because many of the most fundamental documents (including the official record of the JFK-Khr meeting of June 4, 1961) were not available until the 1990s, and both Schlesinger AND Sorenson hid the true nature of the frightening way Khrushchev behaved on June 4, in delivering his ultimatum. (So did Hugh Sidey, who also--apparently--had access to the official notes of the meeting.) Again, Reeves' book was not written until 1993, and the other key sources on which he relies. . .. UNQUOTE
Here's another passage:
QUOTE:
Anyway, nuclear war was avoided because of some very sophisticated maneuvering by JFK (and Sorenson, and Schlesinger, and probably RFK, too) that was on a par with-and completely equivalent to--the strategic maneuvering and tactical thinking that JFK again employed during the much more well known Cuban missile crisis, which commenced fourteen months later, and lasted for the famous period known as "13 days." UNQUOTE
And another:
QUOTE: "However, in the lead-up to the climax--which extended through must of June, and into July (and which ended with a major nationwide TV address by JFK on the address of 7/25)--former Secretary State Dean Acheson (who was called in as an adviser) weighed in with a critical memo (6/28/61)--a very hawkish document recommending that JFK prepare for nuclear war over Berlin. The JCS wanted to use nukes, too. In the key meetings, LBJ sided with Acheson and the JCS.
In this [memo], I cannot possibly adequately summarize the complex situation, but the story of how JFK maneuvered through this diplomatic and military minefield is all laid out in Reeves' 1993 book--IF you not only read the text, but also the footnotes.
What I learned from this is that its not possible to understand how JFK/RFK approached Cuba (with Mongoose, starting in October/Nov 1961) if one does not understand what happened in the 10-week period between June 4 and August 14, and which must have been a thoroughly terrifying experience (and a prelude, of course, to what happened in October 1962, when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba). UNQUOTE
Here's some more background. During the crisis (and apparently as part of the strategy), JFK authorized Joseph Alsop to air his personal views in a Saturday Review article. The headline of the Alsop Saturday Review article: "The Most Important Decision in U.S. History—And How the President is Facing It"
Now, focus this language (QUOTING ALSOP, reporting Kennedy's thinking):
* * * The decision, as Alsop phrased it, was “Whether the United States should risk something close to national suicide in order to avoid national surrender.” UNQUOTE
Kennedy knew he had to avoid appeasement, or even the appearance of it. "What he said to insiders: If he wants to rub my nose in it. . its over."
"It's over" meant just that--that if, after all JFK did, Khrushchev insisted on "taking" Berlin (via the use of its proxy, the East German government) there would indeed be war.
From my notes on JFK's 7/25/63 Berlin Speech:
JFK addresses the nation—and played his hand, to show how serious he was, designed to make Khrushchev "pay attention":
--tripled draft calls
--Personal sacrifice neccessary
--fallout shelters
--More $ for military (put in details)
I don't know how this data is treated in Kempe's book (my copy is on order from Amazon). What I'm laying out here is how author Richard Reeves dealt with this remarkable situation in his really excellent 1993 book--and remember, that was 18 years ago.
There's little question in my mind that the prospect of nuclear war was very serious--as I said above, Bobby Kennedy estimated the chances at 1 in 5.
There's also no question that JFK's key adversary, politically, was former Secretary State Dean Acheson (supported by the JCS AND Vice President Johnson). Acheson, in the aftermath, viewed Kennedy as an "uninformed" young man, who was "out of his depth," etc. When Kennedy navigated the dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis, 14 months later, he (Acheson) called the positive outcome "pure dumb luck."
(If you want to understand the nature of "political forces" that were allied against Kennedy, it wasn't just people like Lyman Lemnitzer and Curtis Lemay. One cannot ignore Acheson.)
So much for what you will find in Reeves book. . now, here are some of my own views.
DSL PERSONAL VIEWS ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BERLIN CRISIS AND SUBSEQUENT CUBA POLICY
FIRST: Kennedy's failure to "knock down the wall" (and other such crazy ideas) was viewed, by the top political/military leadership, as on a par with his failure to send in the Marines in connection with the Bay of Pigs. So to those people, by August, 1961, Kennedy was an out and out appeaser, and it looked this way:
--March 1961: Kennedy failed to go into Laos with troops, as advocated by Sec State Dean Rusk
--April 1961 Kennedy failed at the Bay of Pigs
--August 1961 Kennedy failed to knock down the Berlin Wall
To me, this kind of "analysis" is sheer lunacy, but. . and here's where I am heading. .
SECOND: when it came to Cuba, and the fall of 1961. . I don't believe that John Kennedy was going to risk another brush with thermonuclear war because of what he viewed as a revolutionary out-of-control Marxist in the Caribbean, whose associate, Che Guevara, was fomenting revolution in South America.
Consequently--and this is just my opinion--understanding what happened in Berlin (circa 6/4/61 - 8/14/61) is essential to understanding the "moral calculus" or "ethical calculus" that motivated Kennedy in deciding --if necessary--to treat Castro (personally) as a military target and overthrow his regime, rather than risk a rerun of the frightening experience he (and brother Robert) had just had in Berlin. (And can you blame them?)
So that, imho, explains his calling in Tad Szulc, and asking: "What would you say if I gave the order to assassinate Castro?" etc. He simply had no intention of losing his presidency by being "tolerant" of a Marxist regime 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
What's amazing to me, once you read Reeves, is how Sorenson played it down, in his book, and even in Counselor, his recently published memoir published just a year or so prior to his death. I think that he simply didn't want to let the world know that Kennedy had played nuclear poker. Again, that's my opinion.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading Kempe's book, but I don't think I will agree with his conclusions, at all.
There's little question in my mind that, as historian Robert Dallek correctly has said (and Dallek probably has pored over all the same documents that Reeves had, and to which Kempe had access) that this was THE single most dangerous crisis (other than the Cuban Missile Crisis).
I really do not believe that how JFK viewed the "world stage" and the rapidly evolving events, and the problem posed by his own recalcitrant military can be properly understood without appreciating the super-charged Berlin crisis (6/4-8/14/61), and how it ended without a war (on 8/14/61) BECAUSE OF "the wall."
As JFK said on 8/14/61: "Better a wall, than a war" (from memory).
I agree. We're here today, and the map of Europe looks the way it does, because of how that crisis was handled.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
Kempe talks of his visit to East Berlin, and his traverse through Checkpoint Charlie. I had the same experience, but at a much earlier time. As I write this post, I have in front of me my passport from 1961, when I was briefly living in Paris, and in general, was touring Europe in a VW "bug" that I purchased when I first arrived. The Wall was big news--all over the world--and I and a companion, a Fulbright Scholar, set out from Paris and went to Berlin. We entered East Germany on August 30, 1961 (at Helmstedt) and were in Berlin in a few hours. As U.S. citizens, we had the right to go into the "eastern zone," and that's what we did. I have some vivid memories of that day--just two weeks after the Wall went up. Checkpoint Charlie--the crossing point on the Frederichstrasse, looked exactly as it did in the movie "The Spy That Came in from the Cold." Parked nearby were the U.S. tanks, that had been involved in the famous standoff. As we passed through Checkpoint Charlie, off to one side were men with microphones, taking down everyone's license number. We spent several hours in East Berlin (which was akin to a poor section of Brooklyn) with some buildings emblazoned with large posters of Soviet astronaut Yuri Gargarin, and then returned to the glass and steel beauty of West Berlin. It was a memorable experience.
Of course, at the time I had no idea of the behind the scenes policy debates that were going on. Or how close the world had come to the outbreak of a nuclear war in Europe.
DSL
6/21/11 5:45 PM PDT
Los Angeles, CA
From the New York Times Archives:
August 13, 1961: To halt the exodus of East Germans to the West, Communist party brigades and East German soldiers early today blocked the border between East and West Berlin. All means of exit roads, subways and elevated lines, were closed. East German commuters who work in West Berlin will be barred from reaching their jobs tomorrow. East German troops took up guard posts at the Brandenburg Gate and elsewhere. (pg. 1:1)
The Kennedy Administration believes that the Berlin dispute can be talked out peacefully later this year. But there is concern for the cohesion of the Western alliance in the coming weeks, when pressures for a quick settlement are expected to increase. (1:2-3)
-----
August 13, 1961: Berliners wake to divided city.
Troops in East Germany have sealed the border between East and West Berlin, shutting off the escape route for thousands of refugees from the East.
Barbed wire fences up to six feet (1.83 metres) high were put up during the night, and Berliners woke this morning to find themselves living in a divided city.
Train services between the two sectors of the city have been cut, and all road traffic across the border has been stopped.
Thousands of angry demonstrators quickly gathered on the West Berlin side of the divide. At one crossing point, protesters tried to trample down the barbed wire, only to be driven back by guards with bayonets.
The West German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, appealed for calm, saying in a broadcast to the nation this evening: "Now, as always, we are closely bound to the Germans of the Russian zone and East Berlin.
"They are and remain our German brothers and sisters. The Federal Government remains firmly committed to the goal of German unity."
There has been outrage from the international community at the abrupt decision to cut off one side of the city from the other.
A Foreign Office spokesman in London said the restrictions were contrary to the four-power status of Berlin, and therefore illegal.
The American Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, called it a "flagrant violation" of East-West agreements, and said there would be a vigorous protest to Russia.
The tide of people fleeing East Germany has grown to a flood in recent days, as the Soviet Union has taken an increasingly hard line over breaking away from the three Allied powers and forming a separate peace treaty with East Germany over Berlin.
Nearly 12,500 people left East Germany this week - over 2,000 more than the previous week.
The East German government has been taking desperate measures to stem the flow. Yesterday, border guards were intercepting trains near Berlin and interrogating passengers. Those who arrived in Berlin said only one in 10 was allowed through.
There had been rumours of a decisive crackdown on refugees since the East German parliament met yesterday and approved new, unspecified measures against them.
The rumours provoked an even more frantic exodus. Just before the borders were closed, the numbers more than doubled, with some 3,000 East Germans fleeing to the West in just 24 hours.
When I would tell my friends that their kids best chance for a job in the future would be to sew zippers into blue jeans for the Chinese... but, sadly, our American Dream is truly becoming the right- nightmare...
"The announcement that a German company is opening a small manufacturing facility in Wisconsin brings up a question that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable:
Is this another case of a European company coming to the United States for the cheap labor?
As contrary to the stature we're accustomed to the United States having in the world, this is a very real trend. Ikea, a company that has done just fine in Sweden with strong unions and a $19 minimum wage, came to Virginia and started its employees at $8 per hour, with many of them temps at lower wages and no benefits. T-Mobile, owned by a heavily unionized German company, fights unions here. BMW recently drove down wages by laying off unionized workers at a California distribution center and outsourcing their jobs to a subcontractor. But in South Carolina, BMW skipped ever having a union, paying its workers $15 an hour, half what German BMW workers make. The kicker:
"We are a low-wage country compared to Germany," said Kristin Dziczek, director of the Labor and Industry Group at the Center for Automotive Research. "And that helps put jobs here..."
We have elections, some are stolen, but most are not... and we vote the conservatives back in, time after time.
Even your neighbor, who puts a Republican candidate's sign on his lawn is a terrorist. He is out to destroy your job, your children's education, reduce the value of your home and your retirement plan, keep you away from health care and Social Security.
Hitler and the Nazis, The Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union were unable to do the damage that the Republican Party, conservatives and the media have done to America.
"Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced to 28 years in federal prison for taking a $1 million bribe from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as "kids for cash...."
...Ciavarella, known for his harsh and autocratic courtroom demeanor, pocketed the cash while filling the beds of the private lockups with children as young as 10, many of them first-time offenders convicted of petty theft and other minor crimes. Ciavarella often ordered youths he had found delinquent to be immediately shackled, handcuffed and taken away without giving them a chance to say goodbye to their families."
Some stories just seem like symbols for America in the 21st century. Sadly this is one of them. Money corrupting the Judaical system that destroys the powerless... us.
"The destruction of a US forces helicopter with 38 people on board demonstrates the degree to which the Coalition campaign in Afghanistan has become dependent on special operations raids.
It also effectively marks the loss of an entire squadron of Seal Team 6, the "Tier 1" commando unit that killed Osama Bin Laden in May.
Small bands of nomads or goat herders living in caves don't kill an entire squadron of Seal Team 6... without a little help in the form of intelligence.
This is a strange story and I believe Americans will get a sad parade instead of the facts. Our military and CIA operations are out there running missions and fighting battles and American citizens have no idea what is going on.
Deals made when Bush, Jr./Cheney were in charge still rule the table.
What is to become of our military arm when our body collapses back home..? Does it break off and keep fighting, becoming a pack of powerful nomadic warriors in the middle east working for... who?
This seems like revenge for the death of Osama Bin Laden, but was it a deal... a deal made in hell to placate our upset and grieving Saudi allies?
"Many people involved in the secretive world of special ops were surprised that such a major setback had not taken place before. After all, during 2010, highly trained operators are believed to have mounted between 3,000 and 4,000 raids, almost all of them at night, many against heavy resistance, in terrain than can be extremely dangerous to fly in.
During a recent interview the outgoing commander of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), General David Petraeus, sang the praises of such troops but also suggested that the special ops campaign might be getting too much press attention. But quite apart from the interest generated by the Bin Laden raid, it is evident that these operations play an important part in Nato's drawdown strategy - one could even say a central part."
Some in Congress can now ask... how can we think of leaving Afghanistan, now, like this?
I am often asked when discussing the President Kennedy Assassination, why after all these years isn't there more proof...
Proof like maybe the government knew more than it was saying, or that the government was covering something up?
So here is proof that the F.B.I. and Richard Nixon knew Ruby and that Ruby was an informant... in the employ of Richard Nixon at one time...
Vanity Fair: The Kingdom and The Towers
"Was there a foreign government behind the 9/11 attacks? A decade later, Americans still haven’t been given the whole story, while a key 28-page section of Congress’s Joint Inquiry report remains censored. Gathering years of leaks and leads, in an adaptation from their new book, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan examine the connections between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers (15 of whom were Saudi), the Bush White House’s decision to ignore or bury evidence, and the frustration of lead investigators—including 9/11-commission staffers, counterterrorism officials, and senators on both sides of the aisle."
The secret grand jury testimony given by former US President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal is set to be released after more than 36 years, following an order by a federal judge.
I don't think most Americans know that Richard Nixon gave grand jury testimony.
Why could we not read what was said?
How bad could it be?
Does he tell us he was in the room when the decisions to shoot JFK and then RFK were given?
“The Republican plan for dealing with the exploding cost of health care is to phase out Medicare and replace it with a system of subsidized private insurance for elderly Americans, starting when people currently 55 and under reach retirement age.
"The rest of us have got ample time to try and plan our lives so that we can adjust to reality here when you look at the numbers," Cantor said. "Again the math doesn't lie." Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Numbers may not lie, Congressman, but you sure do.
