Interview: On POTUS Nixon with Mr. Geoff Shepard, Esq.

DeViney, Jonathan D.:First and foremost, Mr. Shepard, on behalf of the staff and readership of ModState, thank you for taking the time to discuss your pivotal work, “The Real Watergate Scandal” and the outrageous witch-hunt that dragged a lot of good people through the mud and sent numerous men to prison. Deserved or not, it’s clear the deck was stacked and justice, therefore, has not been served.

The American people need to know if we drove a patriot out of office unfairly

Shepard, Geoff (Esquire): It is true that the Watergate scandal remains the greatest political scandal in modern American history. It not only resulted in President Nixon’s resignation, but also in the conviction and imprisonment of over two dozen members of his administration. We now know, however, that other Presidents and their administrations both before and since President Nixon’s have committed far more egregious offenses that have gone unpunished. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight and to show how a unique set of circumstances resulted in the demise of the Nixon presidency.

Without telegraphing too much of our interview, the necessary elements are four: First, there must be a scandal of some sort – but history shows us that there’s almost always a scandal. It’s just that they don’t usually come to dominate the public’s attention. Second, both Houses of Congress must be dominated by the opposition, which is an extreme form of Divided Government. In Nixon’s case (largely as a result of the 1964 Goldwater debacle), Democrats controlled two-thirds of each House. Third, there has to be a highly politicized Special Prosecutor. The last Special Prosecutor before Watergate was in the 1920s during the Teapot Dome scandal. There have been many more since, but this “reform” is now seen as a perversion of our criminal justice system where prosecutorial discretion can be abused for partisan political purposes. Finally, there has to be a turncoat, a senior figure who dramatically changes sides and becomes a part of the opposition. In Nixon’s case, it was John Dean, his former lawyer. Dean had been, by his own admission, the “chief desk officer” of the cover-up. I know of no instance comparable to Dean’s treachery, unless it was that of Benedict Arnold during our Revolutionary War. In switching sides, mainly to avoid prosecution for his own criminal misdeeds, Dean became the principle conduit to President Nixon and his most senior aides (John Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman). Nixon’s many opponents had no interest in cross-checking Dean’s accusations, since that would only harm their efforts to “Get Nixon” at all cost.

DeViney: I know this question takes us very deep very quickly, but the point you make in “The Real Watergate Conspiracy” and in your statements this year at Harvard Law, the longstanding desire, the sickening collusion and lack of transparency that occurred, where does it go back to? Is it more than just the fact that he came from nothing and still beat “them?” Does it go back to Alger Hiss? I agree it’s “visceral” and “startling,” as you put it. Any thoughts on where it leads back to?

Shepard: you raise a good point. One of the other unique characteristics of Richard Nixon, that certainly contributed to his demise, is that he was an ultimate outsider. He not only came from nowhere: a small town in California, far from the Eastern liberal establishment that essentially ran the country at that time, he was not wealthy, he was not blessed with a handsome countenance, and he did not have the benefit of an Ivy League education. Perhaps worse, he came into national political fame as a freshman Congressman leading the investigation into whether Alger Hiss had been a Communist spy. Now, Hiss was Nixon’s opposite: A Harvard Law graduate, a protégé of Felix Frankfurter, and a senior official in the State Department under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. In short, Hiss was the epitome of the Eastern liberal establishment. And, Nixon’s dogged pursuit and taking down of Hiss, earned him their undying enmity.

So when Watergate troubles came, as they certainly did, the Eastern liberal media had an absolute field day. After all, Nixon had just won a landslide re-election – and this was their last clear chance to stop him and all that he represented as a very real threat to their continued dominance of American politics.

DeViney: John Dean, in recent years (2014, I believe) acknowledged the whole “Smoking Gun” bit misconstrued. On 24 July, 1974, the SCOTUS ruled 8-0 (with Rehnquist recusing himself) regarding executive privilege and the tapes. Senator Goldwater said he was on the fence (along with a handful of other senators regarding a potential trial) and the committees were stacked and Republicans turned on the man largely responsible for resurgent Republican success. Why, after the 77-0 vote (with many Republicans walking out on the vote) on the establishment of a committee (beyond Ervin) stacking the deck, why did they turn? Did no one want to see the obvious? Or is this more of a coordinated effort by the collective to save their own tail by distancing themselves from the President? It’s just…unbelievable how the chips fell there. Any thoughts, Sir?

Shepard: You’ve raised a lot of issues here. Let’s first explore them for the benefit of your readers – and then see where that takes us. It’s true that the Senate Select Committee to investigate the 1972 Presidential Election, which became known as the Ervin Committee after its chairman, Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, was established on a 77-0 vote. With Democrats holding over sixty seats, this means that the great majority of Republican Senators abstained from voting – and they clearly did so because of earlier party-line votes that precluded any investigation of previous presidential elections (which could expose Kennedy and Johnson wrongdoing) or other federal elections of 1972. The result was a sole focus on Nixon and his landslide victory over Senator George McGovern. The televised Ervin Committee hearings were highly politicized, but they dominated the news –Of the three Republican members, Lowell Weicker (R-MA) joined the committee for the express purpose of ruining Richard Nixon, Howard Baker (R-TN) harbored Presidential ambitions of his own and made the decision to go along with majority on most matters, which hide the highly politicized nature of the Committee’s operations, and Edward Gurney (R-FL), who couldn’t carry the burden of defending Nixon all on his own – particularly with the full-court bias of the liberal media. It is little wonder that most Americans, whose knowledge of Watergate stems from these televised hearings, concluded that the Nixon administration was guilty of heinous crimes and abuses of power. They only heard one side of the story.

FILE - In this April 29, 1974, file photo, President Richard M. Nixon points to the transcripts of the White House tapes after he announced during a nationally-televised speech that he would turn over the transcripts to House impeachment investigators, in Washington. The last 340 hours of tapes from Nixon's White House were released Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013, along with more than 140,000 pages of text materials. (AP Photo/File) — FILE – In this April 29, 1974, file photo, President Richard M. Nixon points to the transcripts of the White House tapes after he announced during a nationally-televised speech that he would turn over the transcripts to House impeachment investigators, in Washington. The last 340 hours of tapes from Nixon’s White House were released Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013, along with more than 140,000 pages of text materials. (AP Photo/File)

The hearings revealed that President Nixon had secretly taped Oval Office conversations, setting off understandable demands for their disclosure. The courts held that neither the Senate nor the House had a right to these tapes, due to the Separation of Powers construction of our Constitution, but the Special Prosecutor prevailed in an 8-0 decision, rendered on July 24, 1974. If you remember Judge Sirica’s original decision upholding the Special Prosecutor’s subpoena, that he would review the tapes in private and decide which were relevant to the criminal investigation (and therefore not protected by the President’s claim of Executive Privilege), it’s tough to see how the Supreme Court could have ruled any other way.

Nixon leaving The White House on "Marine One" for the final time — Nixon leaving The White House on “Marine One” for the final time

Regardless, what happened immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling is what totally undermined President Nixon’s Watergate defense and led directly to his resignation: His defense lawyers, for the first time, were directed to listen to one particular tape, the tape of June 23, 1972 – occurring but six days following the original Watergate burglary arrests). In that tape, President Nixon is heard concurring with his staff’s suggestion that they prevent FBI interviews of two people by getting the CIA to ask the FBI to back off. This tape became known as “the Smoking Gun” and its public release on August 5^th ended all support for President Nixon and led directly to the announcement of his resignation three days later.

Here’s why the Smoking Gun was to devastating: Until its release, the Special Prosecutor’s investigation and the Nixon defense had focused on what the President had done after his March 21, 1973 meeting with John Dean – where Dean testified he had first informed the President of specifics of the ongoing Watergate cover-up. Yet, the Smoking Gun tape seemed clearly to indicate Nixon’s own knowledge and involvement dated from eight months earlier—beginning as little as six days after the break-in arrests.

What is so fascinating about the Smoking Gun tape is that it was (and has been) totally misunderstood. In spite of its apparent confirmation of Nixon’s involvement, it develops that the sole purpose of getting the FBI to back off interviewing two witnesses was to prevent disclosure of substantial campaign contributions by two prominent Democrats (who were secretly contributing to Nixon’s re-election campaign to hedge their bets and show support of the one they felt certain to win the upcoming election). What is so interesting about the Smoking Gun tape is that all of the involved parties – H. R. Haldeman, John Mitchell, Maury Stans, Patrick Gray and even the President’s principal accuser (John Dean) agree with this revised interpretation of the tape. As Dean said in his most recent book, if the tape had been properly understood at the time, Nixon might have survived to fight again another day.

I might add that I’m rather familiar with the Smoking Gun tape: I was the third person (after Nixon and his lead defense lawyer) to listen to it. I prepared the official transcript of that conversation which was ultimately released to the public, and I was the one who first termed it “the Smoking Gun” tape. Along with others, I was also totally wrong in my initial interpretation of its contents.

With all that as background, let’s go back to your original question: why did Republicans stand aside and let this happen to Nixon? You have to remember the times: (1) Nixon had been re-elected by a wide margin, but had no coattails. Republicans remained substantial minorities in both the House and the Senate. There was deep resentment on Capitol Hill that he hadn’t been more successful in helping other Republicans win seats. Perhaps worse, Nixon was now a lame duck and would never again run for office. His influence and ability to command loyalty was diminishing. (2) There were real crimes (and real criminals) involved in Watergate. The burglars had been caught red-handed – and they clearly worked for the President’s re-election campaign. And there was no doubt about a criminal cover-up. Yes, there were genuine questions as to just who had been involved, but this was a real can of worms. Why get involved in Nixon’s defense at all? (3) The liberal media and a highly politicized Special Prosecutor staff of over a hundred people were in full pursuit. Why stand in front of that freight train?

As the scandal unfolded, each Republican officer holder had to make the decision as to whether they still stood with Nixon. It was a question of self-preservation and they made an understandable choice. After all, Nixon and his staff were convicted in the court of public opinion long before the cover-up trial even began.

DeViney: The adage “actions speak louder than words” is pervasive and, though I haven’t analyzed this through the scientific method, likely believed by the majority of the country. The reason I mention this is because a lot of attention is given to the profanity and ethnic references and slurs, especially on the part of President Nixon, on the tapes. Conversely, as the leftists forget, Nixon fought harder for Civil Rights and was obstructed by Democrats until long after the passage of the CRA he peacefully desegregated Southern schools and instituted the Philadelphia Plan, of great benefit to the black community in a macroeconomic sense and, thusly, opening a vast amount of doors (such as interview quotas for government jobs) that had never been opened to blacks. Nevertheless, all of that gets ignored because he [allegedly] used “The N-Word” and, it seems at times, [allegedly] in a derogatory sense. I just wonder, if actions do speak louder than words, could his frustration have been directed at the Black Panthers and not the black community considering all the good he did in that regard? I’m not excusing the language, but isn’t that something of merit for consideration?

Shepard: You are correct with regard to Nixon’s long standing advocacy for civil rights, voting (as he did) in favor of every single civil rights act as a Member of Congress – and his administration compiled a most distinguished record on civil rights. As deputy to Nixon’s lead Watergate defense lawyer, I spent hundreds of hours listening to the White House tapes and polishing their transcripts – principally the ones the White House released to the public on April 30, 1974. It’s been forty years, but I cannot recall a single instance where President Nixon used the N word or spoke disparagingly of Blacks.

He certainly said some disparaging things about Jews, but virtually all of what he said was in the context of Jews as a voting bloc. He was frustrated at having done so much for Israel (particularly his saving actions during the Yom Kipper War), and yet having them vote consistently for Democrats. Here, too, Nixon’s actions speak louder than his words: he appointed more Jews to high position in his administration than any President before or since. On the White House level, these include Dr. Henry Kissinger, perhaps the most important Presidential appointment of all; Leonard Garment, with a broad portfolio that includes civil rights, arts and humanities, long term planning and much more; William Safire, the President’s chief speech writer; Edward David, Special Advisor for Science and Technology; and Jerome Jaffe, Special Consultant for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

In the Executive Office, were Herbert Stein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors; Ezra Solomon, member of the Council; Arnold Weber, Executive Director of the Cost-of-Living Council and Ronald Berman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. In addition, there was Arthur Burns, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and Jesse Steinfeld, Surgeon General of the US. At the sub-Cabinet level, Jews filled the posts of Undersecretary of Labor and Assistant Secretaries of Treasury; Defense; Health, Education and Welfare; Housing and Urban Development, and the Office of Management and Budget.

But what really shocked people about the tapes was Nixon’s swearing, conveniently omitted through the term “Expletive Deleted.” It made Nixon look like he swore like a fishmonger – but this too was largely untrue. I should know, since I was the one responsible for the removal of these words. In transcribing the tapes, I became the “Expletive Deleter” if you will. What is so fascinating is that – with but two or three exceptions – the term I inevitably was called upon to omit was “God damn”. Nixon used the term incessantly – and almost exclusively as an adjective: “the God damn paper” or “the God damn vote.” The trouble was that when we omitted it, it looked to most people that we had eliminated the F word, and not the more mundane actual term. Now, to Nixon (who insisted on the omissions) it could have been worse to use the Lord’s name in vain, but to me this was what I termed “the Baptist filter”: not of swear words, but words of religious impropriety.

The bottom line, however, is clear. Every President from Franklin Roosevelt to Nixon secretly taped at least some Oval Office conversations. But Nixon taped them all – and release of those transcripts showed him to be a petty, vindictive person; all too human and certainly not Presidential.

DeViney: Something of an aside, but do you feel, Sir, that had the Watergate debacle(s) not occurred that the GOP would likely be known as “The Party of Nixon” or “The Party of Lincoln, Nixon and Reagan” or some variant thereabouts?

Shepard: That’s easy: Watergate aside, Nixon would have gone down as one of America’s greatest Presidents. His triumphs in foreign affairs are legendary: The opening to China, détente with the Soviet Union, ending the Vietnam War with the Paris Peace Accords, and his handling of the Middle East (wooing Egypt from the Soviets and saving Israel during the Yom Kippur War) launched America’s golden age of diplomacy. His domestic initiatives are not as appreciated, but were tremendously creative and influential: Peacefully desegregating the southern schools, creating the Environmental Protection Agency (along with passage of the clean air and water acts), restoring rights to Native Americans, ending the draft, giving 18 year olds the vote, quadrupling the number of women appointed to high government positions, laying out basic concepts for welfare and healthcare reform (which ultimately passed decades later), restoring law and order and ending “legislating” by the Supreme Court though five distinguished appointments.

Nixon was well on his way to greatness — but Watergate did occur and he didn’t handle it properly. It’s one of the toughest calls any of us may be called upon to make: At what point do you realize that your own people have been lying to you? Nixon was concentrating on the many challenges of being President – and didn’t pay enough attention to the inclination of some of his people to cover up their own wrongdoing.

DeViney: For those of us belonging to an era of “young people” who (to put it kindly) have clearly lost their way (X, Y, “Millennials”), how does one even begin a discussion to be taken seriously about Nixon being more than about Watergate? As my father puts it, “Good luck getting the [un-liberal] liberals to read anything that doesn’t demonize Nixon.”

Shepard: It’s an interesting situation. Not only do the liberals have a vested interest in keeping Nixon alone at the top of the list of corrupt Presidents, but Republicans have long ago given up trying to defend him. You will note that inevitably any scandal of today is quickly given the suffix “-gate.” And any comparison to other scandals is certain to include Nixon and Watergate as the gold standard for political corruption, the only and ultimate worst.

Nixon [left] with Geoff Shepard [far right]

What is different with young people, however, is that they don’t have the anger, the visceral hatred of Nixon, that is evidenced by the Eastern liberal establishment of old. Nixon’s life-long sworn political enemies are dying off – and one can hope that future historians can look more objectively at his many accomplishments.

DeViney: On the Harvard Law page where you kid about the current crop buying your tremendous work (“The Real Watergate Conspiracy”) for their parents, there’s reference made to the possibility of litigation towards the end of correcting the historical record on behalf of Nixon. Amidst the ongoing onslaught of Nixon-smearing, to what end would you like to see said litigation go, if any (if it should happen?)

Shepard: What I have uncovered and forms the core of my recent book is widespread and substantial misconduct by judges and Watergate prosecutors or other interested parties. Most Americans would agree that, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter how disreputable the accused, they still deserve a fair trial. It’s clear in retrospect that the Watergate cover-up defendants did not get anything close to a fair trial. Since confirmation of this judicial and prosecutorial misconduct has only recently come to light, I would like to see their convictions challenged by a Writ of Coram Nobis. There is still time for this to occur, but it would be a long shot and would have to be brought in the next several months.

Entertainer Sammy Davis Jr., grabs President Nixon from behind and squeezes his arms while Nixon talks to about 8,000 of his youthful supporters in a youth rally August 22, 1972. Davis' spontaneous gesture came shortly after the President had been nominated for reelection by the Republican National Convention. (AP Photo/Jim Palmer) — Entertainer Sammy Davis Jr., grabs President Nixon from behind and squeezes his arms while Nixon talks to about 8,000 of his youthful supporters in a youth rally August 22, 1972. Davis’ spontaneous gesture came shortly after the President had been nominated for reelection by the Republican National Convention. (AP Photo/Jim Palmer)

That said, as one of my colleagues has pointed out, my book lays out such a strong case for the lack of due process, that no future historian, scholar or researcher can write about the Watergate trials without taking my disclosures into account.

DeViney: Last but certainly not least, Sir, and this comes from my perspective as an economics major and entrepreneur in the media and also it comes from my heart: what can we do, aside from promoting your book, to help foster the essential correction of so many records now? The Washington Post even declared on their website section devoted to these topics that it’s proceeding from history into mythos. Yet, as you and I both insist, this is fundamentally unjust, highly unethical and simply dangerous to be allowed to persist. So what can be done?

Shepard: I’ve sort of touched around the edges of this in my previous answers. Nixon’s record as President is hugely impressive, and that will have to be recognized by future scholars and historians. It’s also the most documented administration in our history, so there’s plenty of material to work from. As you may know, the permanent exhibits of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library have been totally redone and will reopen to the public later this month. You can see it in person in his hometown of Yorba Linda, California, or view it on line. It’s an impressive story of how this determined young man, without family wealth or influence, without Hollywood good looks, and without an Ivy League education, rose to the pinnacle of American politics – and there representing much more the common man and not the well-connected.

DeViney: Sir, thank you so very much for your time. You’ve won an admirer in me and my father, especially being grateful for your strenuous, passionate and surgical efforts to correct the record. On behalf of ModState, I not only again extend my thanks but would love to know what we can do, as a media outlet, to foster discussion of these matters and help advance a cause that is beyond just, verging on classical nobility (due to the level of dedication involved here). We’ll put a logo link to your wonderful work and your website on our network page, and please do keep us posted so that we may help increase awareness of this just crusade. Sir, it has been an honor, and I look forward to our meeting someday in Pennsylvania (where my father was born in the Pittsburgh area) or the next time you’re down here in New Orleans. Thanks again, Sir, and may God bless you in your efforts beyond your greatest expectations.

President Nixon speaking on arrival in Walla Walla, Washington

DeViney, Jack

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

“Bentley! Bentley. I suggest…I suggest that you do something different with your life right now.” This instruction was delivered by my boss (at the time) to his unruly Huskie, but it might as well have been given to my entire generation.

As always, the day had given way to night and my mind had wrestled with itself long enough. I needed sanctuary, strong drink and a blank expression with which to watch the news on screens behind the heads of the locals. With the mind of a fried pie I careened my car down a thoroughfare of an unincorporated town in West Virginia, roughly sixty miles from Washington D.C.

“Babylon,” I came to call D.C. as a Sailor stationed in Bethesda, which was appropriate enough that no one cares to question the nickname. It was by a sense of awe, despair, disgust and reverence that I came by it the hard way some years ago.

The Christmas lights around Arlington had shone brightly on my most sentimental evening, awash with history and the sort of romance that saw my Army counterpart’s cheek against mine, her words in my ear accompanied by my kiss on her neck.

Then, the other shoe dropped and zang! I’m departing the parking garage of Target near P.F. Chang’s, a sudden desperate attempt to keep a fellow servicemember alive and out of trouble, and barely having arrived in Rockville, Maryland, found myself in the company of a remarkable amount of police officers. While all was eventually sorted out (one way or another), I did discover that being handcuffed, face down on the pavement amidst a soft rain gave me an amazing opportunity to learn and reevaluate the nonsense I’d allowed a foothold in my life. “Teachable moments,” I’ve come to call such events with a wince oft confused for a smile, and rightfully so.

Let no good deed go unpunished.

“It was all downhill from there,” I uttered to my glass and coaster on the bar, awaiting another potent haul of ethanol. “Or is it, ‘down on the bed’ from there? Not nearly as catchy.” The general uproar that passed for ambience as karaoke loomed large made my private social commentaries a non-factor.

“Hell,” I continued, mulling over the equal parts glory and horror of yesteryear, “if I was a woman they’d’ve labeled me a slut.” This was most certainly true, as I had responded to the eventual collapse of the genuine, heartmelting romance that blossomed in Arlington by carousing. I went on to live up to the archetype of heathen in the Navy, only I hadn’t needed a new port. D.C. had an endless supply of trysts for me to temporarily bind the wound of heartbreak with. I had largely imploded things with she myself, but damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, aye?

“Aye, got it!” I said, louder than intended as my libation arrived. Few noticed, none cared. But I digress.

Every single horror of the corruption of public life crept its way into Walter Reed the two years I’d been there as the primary Army and Navy hospitals merged there in Maryland. It was a handful of miles from the epicenter of our Federal Republic, our Representative Democracy. Whatever label you prefer, the genuine, tender romance and the unnecessary legal crucible were equal parts of the same story.

So it was yesterday and is today and will be tomorrow. Wars and rumors of wars will abound along with the usual ugliness, while the bountiful opportunities, resplendence, and monuments sacred to America and Her Republic will ring hollow for any looking for that chapter. However, for those with a soul not set for self-destruct, there was the beauty and elegance and love that I discovered in Babylon. For my part, I vacillated between the cauldron of brutality and the essence of hallowed humanity.

Lucifer and a third of his fellow angels rebelled (at least in part) over the perception that God valued something fashioned from dirt over them; we hamstrung ourselves with our humanity during that time (2011-2013) in Bethesda, both our frailties and our strengths.

Did we make the case against humanity with our failures? I’m not so sure. The defeatism and Apocalypticism of the admittedly conflicted era that was the “new” Walter Reed circa 2011-2013 stands apart from now in several ways. Without the deflating drudgery of rattling them all off, at the very least one could look their friends and enemies in the eye. Betrayal and intrigue might be lurking around the next corner (per the modus operandi of Babylon and the government circuit as a whole) but those seeming eons ago politics was still the art of compromise. Then-POTUS Obama (D-IL) and then-House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) can hardly be soberly accused of engaging in the politics of blood sport we’ve now.

Now? Depending on their background, looking one’s enemies and/or friends in the eye might get you flagged on any number of social media platforms and could very well get you labeled with some sort of “-ism”, as one type of “-ist” or another. A whole decade ago Section 230 was applied within the spirit of its creation, lending the happenings online a sort of Wild West vibe when juxtaposed to the great cosmic gag-reel taking place now.

“What is Section 230?” one might ask. This, too, is a well-placed and unscripted question, but it makes little difference when Louis Farrakhan can spit his vile verbal excrement at hapless passerby on social media, but not Donald Trump. No, indeed. Hardly an avid defender of the former POTUS, I nonetheless present our Federal support and protections for our Silicon Valley overlords as Exhibit A for the how/why (either/and/or) the Federal Communications Commission has adequate pretext to cry foul. This is tantamount to “collateral censorship”, or censorship by proxy. That’s the biggest item George Orwell didn’t foresee in my favorite novel, “1984”: private enterprise conducting the censorship, and not the state itself.

Since I’ve likely lost anyone who hates The Donald for my defending his First Amendment rights, I might as well toss a grenade in this burgeoning dumpster fire. Wouldn’t Joe Manchin lead off that way?

“The wind only blows sometimes.” “He’s exactly right!”

While hardly the binary option both the Communists of the Far Left and the Fascists of the Far Right want all the Sheeple to give an “Amen!” and believe, the conflict between being a John Locke liberal in favor of largely laissez-faire capitalism (not the crony kind) with a strong, (but) limited Federal government and in wanting a respectable return on our investment in Section 230 protections granted Silicon Valley (and company), it is amusing on a perverse level.

“Afterall,” I told myself, “everyone hates a centrist, so you might as well enjoy it, Jack. The good news is, only White elitists are storming off after closing your column a few paragraphs back. They can kick rocks. There’s surely a Mother Jones article or athletic mutant defecating on the very flag that enables their miserable existence out there, somewhere, that they can flee to. Still miserable, but they showed me! No First Amendment for the people who make us think and shit.”

It was only at the end of this paragraph that I realized I wasn’t just thinking this as I tapped it into a note on my phone for later insertion into this very diatribe. I was muttering much of it out loud.

“Ignore the madness of a world that has made this swashbuckler appear normal. Ignore the celebutante-rejects aghast at those not absorbed in Chinese spyware ‘social’ apps available on any mainstream App Store.”

And why not? Afterall, the Communists now want the populace to swallow the latest swill their Thought Police have puked out, and nod slowly, basking in the wisdom of the notion that Black children being taught mathematics is racist. Conversely, the Fascists want the citizenry at-large to embrace their latest, unintelligible Reductio Ad Absurdum that beating cops to a pulp while shouting racist terms at the non-White officers is okay as long as they’re patriots. Thin Blue Line and all. “Thin Blue Line”, you ingrates? Put the straw down.

“Dear God Almighty,” I mumbled into my Long Island Iced Tea, nearly gone due to the urgent need to anesthetize myself. No reply, and not because He wants us to forget He exists, but because it’s the pizza we ordered, and it has arrived with all the trappings. Whose fault is that?

The lunacy in the former example is in those on the Far Left who by proxy think the Black intellect is so dormant, psyche so timid, that there need be no Black doctors, economists, engineers, et cetera, in the future. Mathematics is a rather integral part of the process of those career paths. Who’s holding who back with racist ideology again, exactly?

The madness in the latter example is at least as vivid and particularly poignant from people on the Far Right who think cops can do no wrong. You say The Filth went too far in Example X? “I say they didn’t go too far enough!” some neo-Successionist will bleat with the fervor of a patriot, by God. Just a patriot to another country, and not this one. But why quibble about it? Sure, seems reasonable enough to pass muster on “Squidbillies.”

Imitation being the highest form of flattery, the method to the unorthodoxy of this publication has never been less necessary. Both extremes in the sadly binary world of Castro and Mussolini neophytes demand the long-term vision, the sort of engaging in politics (again, “The Art of Compromise”) as a year-round endeavor that there is no app or “hack” for. The marathon, not the sprint, is what is at hand. I’d rather flatter the Edward Brooke III, the Alexander Hamilton, the Barbra Streisand, the Hunter S. Thompson and even the Master Shake with imitation than embrace the intellectual suicide of either Irredeemable America or Exceptional American Unilateralism.

Whichever clown car takes the stage from either extremist wing of discourse, they both will assure us that we’d feel so much better if only we’d embrace their brand of groupthink. Tsk, tsk, I know, but such is the rot of the putrescence we’ve inexplicably opted to wallow in.

What both teams of malcontents mean is we’ll feel much better carrying all of our favorite shows with us on all of our devices as they continue embezzling and funneling money to the duopoly in Babylon. The royalty on Capitol Hill will then reward our wholehearted faith with continued malignant governance and further insolvency on every level (social, fiscal, geopolitical, et al).

“Who knows?” I mumbled with a shrug. “With any luck, the dead will walk again and we’ll have an existential reason to disallow the Neanderthals in Congress from fucking the same coconut over and over while saying they’re carrying out the people’s business. All, naturally, with a straight face. And pursed lips. Can’t forget the ‘duck face.’ Gotta meet my fellow Millennials halfway.”

“You say something, Hun?”

The bartender had taken notice of my glass being devoid of strong drink, and grew concerned. Animals entering sexual congress with fruit, however, passed muster.

‘Of course it did,’ I thought, but could only reply with a low rasp as I exited my barstool.

“Yes, Ma’am. Check please.”

And on the 8th day, God made bears. Lots and lots of bears.

Does this era need introduction? Or, rather, may a suitable introduction be written? I report, you deride.

1: In any rational era, the sudden appearance of lurid photographs of well-known public figures tends to happen without the consent of those captured in the images. Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Anthony Weiner, et al. Notable exceptions to this are of the celebutante variety who sport last names such as Hilton and Kardashian, but then, their deliberate release of self-incriminating material isn’t indicative of a rational era.

That there’s a Stairway to Heaven but a Highway to Hell is indicative of expected traffic volume.

The great Jerry Falwell, Jr., well his undeniable greatness as an Evangelical Christian minister and university president is so ineffable, so vast, that he was no longer able to be confined by any notion of modern decency. If that’s still a thing, that is. Either way, the photograph posted containing the erstwhile head of Liberty University (and descendent of the late and decent Jerry Falwell) is disturbing on several counts. Let’s take a look:

Now, I’m not sure if it’s the ghastly attempt at humor (yeah, “black water”, haw haw haw!), the self-caricature of the gut and the unzipped pants combined with the awful rug on his counterpart (who is not his wife, for those keeping score at home), the fact that students of said Evangelical university get expelled for drinking and/or extra-marital sexual encounters, or that this wasn’t a leak at all that makes this such a disgrace. He could’ve just said it was a faux Black Dog in his glass and been done with it.

The man (so-called) “leaked” it via his own social media aperture, and then delivered a truly abysmal mockery of an apology on-air, and I quote: “I’ve promised my kids I’m going to try to be…I’m gonna try to be a good boy from here on out.” Rock and Roll, Jerry!

Oh and Mrs. Falwell, when your marriage does end, remember: you [expletive deleted] your rebound, and that’s it. You don’t permanently abscond from reality and keep [expletive deleted] them long-term and/or marry them. Especially, I might add, if you plucked them from the extras of “The Walking Dead.”

Silly me. But seriously, though: booze and Evangelicals and social media shouldn’t mix.

2: At times, the headlines write themselves. In their own attempt to swing loose with reality, as it were, Iran has a fabricated aircraft carrier resembling one of those wielded by the United States Navy. “Why”, you ask? An entirely unscripted and well-placed question. For their own propaganda purposes that is, until the entire experiment blew up in their faces. Living out their own version of “delirium tremens”, Iran was so successful in this charade that their accidental destruction of a prop US Navy aircraft carrier poses a threat to a major thoroughfare in the oil trade. Posing an existential threat to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and things apparently unbeknownst to Iran such as tides can shift the wreckage, endangering oil tankers.

Give the Ayatollah our best. Speaking of “the best”, if you’re going to challenge the world’s preeminent naval power, you’d better come correct. The Battle of Evermore this is not.

3: Biden must face Trump in debate(s). Yes, it’s answering a “double dog dare” from the POTUS and no, you don’t want to give in to the whims of a bully. But if you don’t follow through then it looks like you’re hiding in a basement and afraid to face Donald J. Trump on the stage. What’s the worst that could happen? They then “triple dog dare” one another to a lindy hop dance-off to the “Misty Mountain Hop” or hand out four sticks (one to both members of each ticket) to swing with? Why would you be afraid of that if you’re in the Biden camp unless, per the Trump camp’s assertions, the former Vice President will be unable to remember whether he’s going to California, or another, “y’know, the thing” that the Founding Fathers said? The great equalizer is the human ego. They’ll debate.

This is an event waiting to go wrong. Don’t hang out with bears. [image credit to Daily Caller & Barstool Sports]

4: Meanwhile, the National Park Service has posted a warning urging American adventurers not to confront bears but, if they do, to not take advantage of their slower companions. And no, this is not made up. Nor is the response of a pack of humans, recently, to a bear arriving in their midst. They didn’t flee or otherwise attempt to discourage the bear; instead they took pictures of their merry band whilst feeding the bear. Good call, ‘Murica.

5: Bill Barr’s appearance was a disgrace for everyone except the Attorney General. For committee chairman Nadler, to open the hearing with that statement was an outrage; and Jordan, thanks for the monologue on things that happened before Barr was back on the job and for God’s sake put your damn coat on!

6: Stat of the Week: the POTUS’ campaign is knocking on 1 million doors a week; the former VPOTUS’ camp is knocking on 0. As in ZERO. Z-E-R-O. This sort of nonsense only seems like nonsenseuntil the time when the levee breaks. Underestimate the mad media genius of The Donald at your peril.

Y’know what? Let’s just cancel everything. If everything’s priority one, then nothing is priority one.

7 June 2020

Black Lives Matter: Let’s cut through the fat together, shall we? Yes or yes? Good. With that, we have a problem in America. Several, actually. We live in a police state, for one thing, and for another, paramount now, is said police state taking a particular interest in African Americans.

Let’s also consider the unbelievable, highly-classified powers of FISA courts to spy unopposed on our own people without their knowledge indefinitely, the ability of the Federal government to suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism via the Patriot Act and the inexplicable repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (which forbade the Federal Government from using propaganda on American soil). Are you drinking what I’m pouring?

With no malice in my heart toward the many fine police officers across the land (a few I’ve known personally), I say again: we live in a police state.

Over the past decade alone, we have seen increasing examples of the use of excessive force on a disproportionate number of black Americans. Data clearly shows that Whites compose 76.5% of America’s citizenry while Blacks make up 13.4% of it, the former were shot to death by police 370 times versus 235 for the latter.

For those who want to bring out FBI data displaying prevalence of crime amongst inner city black neighborhoods, recall the negligible difference in drug use between whites and blacks and the parity in gun culture between the two.

America glorifies violence, and that crosses ethnic lines. Don’t believe me? Look at what I call “Dollar Voting”, in essence, what we value and spend our money on. What does our art and culture reflect? If we’re being real, it ain’t peace. Does hip hop culture lend itself to violence? Listen to the top ten hits of the genre and get back to me; but before you get back to me, let me know what Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed and “The Dukes of Hazzard” were all about while you’re at it.

As for the movement itself, “Black Lives Matter” is driving home a simple point: yes, every house in the neighborhood matters but only one of them is on fire.

We hardly need a hashtag for Blue (Police) Lives Matter; they roam about largely unopposed, vested with a badge and lethal weaponry, and we provide a safety net (union, pension, et cetera) and, in general, blanket support to include the high probability that bad actors aren’t held accountable in court.

All Lives Matter? Do they? Maybe I’d be more decisive in answering these questions if every new episode of “Death By Cop” didn’t always star a black man.

– Jack DeViney

*************

New Orleans Police Department preps for ongoing confrontation and protest throughout downtown.

All Lives Matter(?): Two things can be true at once. In fact, very few things in our world are mutually exclusive of themselves. One can, for example, be in favor of the events in the George Floyd case never happening again and find the phrase “Black Lives Matters” offensive. They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. This depends on your definitions of words. Words matter. Words have meaning. Facts matter. Facts have meaning.

If by any definition, one is not a racist, but they will not stand shoulder to shoulder with Black Lives Matter signs, or they won’t kneel down in front of a mob of protestors, they become….what? Insensitive? Divisive?

To be true to this point, I believe “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” are equally asinine. We don’t protest on things we agree upon. We don’t stand outside and shout “the sky is blue”!

Are things worse now than the mid-1960’s? Or do we see public discord in 3D now? We report, you deride.

The assertion that a black man can not step from his home without fear of imminent death from a racist ‘Mericuh is as equally preposterous as the media’s “1619” narrative that America is as systemically racist as at any time in our history. Really? Where’s the poll of young, black men asking them if they’d rather live in 1865, 1965 or 2020? I must’ve missed that astute revelation.

Instead of regurgitated statistics that the left/media refuse to acknowledge anyway, how about we come at this from a novel approach. [So] what is your suggestion? I mean, with all of the statistics stating the exact opposite of your point, what are we doing wrong? Are our hiring standards too low? Is training being swept aside to fast-track officers onto beats? Do we provide immunity to officers that is unnecessary and counter-productive? Let’s get to the “nut cutting” as they say.

If we want to turn this into another narrative where the right just refuses to admit there is a substantial issue and is instead hiding behind years of conservative practices…show me! Where are the statistics that support any of this nonsense? That show America is systemically racist and prejudiced against black Americans? Where are the politicians that you are particularly citing as responsible for these aggressions? Or is it just “orange man bad”, with his “basket of deplorables”?

Once again, the left/media have overplayed their hands. We were told millions of Americans would die if we didn’t shut the world down indefinitely. Now if you have a small business and want to re-open smartly so that you don’t lose everything, you’re killing grandma! We were told that if we would just allow LGBT marriages, all examples of bigotry would be history. Now if you’re a Millennial male that won’t go out with a trans-woman (a man by all scientific facts and definitions), you’re a homophobe! And now, if you won’t march to the beat of this drum, well, you’re just a racist. Or worse, an “Uncle Tom.”

It’s tiring. It’s divisive. It’s unnecessary. This issue is one we must agree on, or we don’t have a country. You cannot have law and order if one group is being systematically hunted down and killed by those sworn to protect us.

Facts matter. Statistics matter. Two things can be true at once.

– Michael R. DeViney, Jr.

Interview: On POTUS Nixon with Mr. Geoff Shepard, Esq.

DeViney, Jack

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

Six Degrees of Knowin’ Nothin’: [Untitled]

Contrast: Black Lives Matter v. All Lives Matter (et al)