Executive Completion: American Scandal Primer Part One

President Trump’s and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s summit was a meeting between allies, with convergent interests and common goals, according to a Brookings Institution fellow.
Yuri Kadobnov/AFP/Getty Images

As I began research for this article, I couldn’t help but take a closer look at the last few scandals that rocked our nation. Watergate, Iran Contra and White Water immediately sprang to mind. Each of those inquiries employed a special investigation team that sought the truth. As my research continued, my mind drifted to philosophical thoughts about human nature. Human beings are fallible creatures, we are not perfect. As such, any societal and political structure that we create will also be imperfect. Such imperfections seem clear with one look at the corruption in our political system. Some would suggest that an imperfect system was inevitable. However, as the most powerful nation on the planet, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that our political system is above par. Unfortunately, due to human nature our political history is perforated with cries of betrayal. The current Russian probe isn’t the first time these cries have sang out into the skies of our nation. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be the last. Similarly, this isn’t the first time that an American President has been under investigation. It is not even the first time that a President has been called treasonous. Our very first President, George Washington, received a very negative reaction from Congress when he approved the Jay Treaty. Cries of treason certainly rang out of the mouths of the Jeffersonian Congress that day. The difference between former investigations and the current Russian probe is distinctive. Although there are aspects of each that are similar, the current probe seeks to uncover a threat to the American electoral system. An attack on democracy itself. Let’s look at a few of the most recent scandals.

The Watergate scandal is synonymous with intrigue, bribery and obstruction of justice. On Saturday, June 17th five men broke into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate complex. Although President Richard Nixon did not order the break in, in an effort to distance himself and his party from the scandal he helped to cover it up afterwards. Special prosecutor Archibald Cox Jr. and his team discovered a connection between the money found on the burglars and a fund used by the Committee for the reelection of the President. Nixon’s fate was sealed with tapes recorded in the white house proving that he took part in the coverup. It is interesting to note that two prominent journalists from the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, wrote some of the most prolific articles about the scandal as it unfolded.

The investigative journalistic team was able to gain key pieces of information from a secret informant known as deep throat, who was later identified as Mark Felt (FBI Associate Director). The focus of their work was following the money trail and connecting those who broke into the Watergate complex to the President. The Watergate scandal left a mark on America, affecting citizens deeply. It ended with Nixon stepping down, an unprecedented step that is the only of its kind in American history books. Decades later the scandal continues to resonate, teaching us that if the desire for power drives one to corrupt a moral obligation to the office of Presidency and the American people, mayhem will ensue. Power cannot be more important than your legal, moral and ethical obligations to your office and her citizens.

During the second administration of President Ronald Reagan America found out about the Iran–Contra scandal. With the hopes of supporting the contras (anti-Sandinista rebel fighters) and securing the release of seven American hostages officials facilitated selling arms to Iran despite an arms embargo. Although the President supported the Contra cause, the Boland Amendment made it clear that any further funding of the Contras was not permitted by congress. President Reagan ordered the National Security Council (NSC) to “keep the Contras together ‘body and soul.” He was also aware of a potential hostage transfer and the sale of missiles (Hawk and TOW) to moderates within the country. However, the proof gained in the investigating was insufficient. Basically, nobody could prove what the President knew or when he knew it. It is interesting to note that this scandal shows a failure of the checks and balances in place in our political system.

The Boland Amendments, five in total (from December 21, 1982 to October 17, 1986), prohibited any assistance from the United States government to the Contras in Nicaragua. The Reagan administration maintains that the Constitution allows the executive branch to conduct foreign policy and therefore any Presidential prerogative to overthrow the Nicaraguan government should not be blocked by such an amendment. Congress felt differently. As congress has control of the budget, they believed that they had every right to choose not to fund an attempt to overthrow a government. Checks and balances are in place to ensure that no one part of our government has more control than another. To prevent a monarchical situation that our Founding Fathers rebelled against from occurring again. This balance was wholly ineffective during the scandal when members of the Reagan administration ignored the amendments. Interestingly, just a month before the scandal broke, military aide to the contras went forward with a congressional blessing. 1,500 missiles for $30 million dollars had already been sold to Iran by the time the scandal was first revealed (1986) in Al-Shiraa, a Lebanese newspaper.

An investigation by Attorney General Edwin Meese found that of the $30 million that Iran paid for weapons, $18 million was unaccounted for. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North (poised to be the new leader of the NRA) then admitted that the missing funds had been diverted to support the contras. What did we learn from the Iran contra scandal? The balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branches of government can be tenuous in specific situations. We also learned something from President Reagan’s example. An excerpt from the final report is below. I have also included a link to the report. “The president cooperated with the investigation, he did not assert executive privilege, he instructed all relevant agencies to produce their documents and witnesses; and he made extracts available of his personal diaries.” A link to the final report from the Independent Counsel for Iran/CIn each of these scandals, at some point, the President had to answer questions. The investigation could not be wrapped up without answers from the commander in chief. Contra Matters information here.

From President Reagan’s example we learned that completing such an investigation happens significantly faster when cooperation occurs from the head of the executive branch.

The third political scandal that sprung to mind was Whitewater. This 1990’s scandal rocked the nation. It began as a small investigation into a failed real estate venture. President Bill Clinton and his wife (and later presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton came upon the radar after an investigator, Laura Jean Lewis, of the Resolution Trust Corporation looked into the dealings of Jim and Susan McDougal and the Whitewater Development Corporation. Lewis was already looking at the McDougal’s when The New York Times broke a story linking the Clintons to the failed endeavor. Three different inquiries concerning the Whitewater land deal failed to produce sufficient evidence linking the Clinton’s to any criminal conduct. When Kenneth Starr (lead investigator) was just about ready to close the investigation, Linda Tripp provided taped phone calls between herself and Monica Lewinsky detailing an affair with Clinton. An affair that the President denied under oath. What did we learn from the Whitewater scandal? The effort to remove President Clinton from office failed. Although the President was brought up on charges and the impeachment process began, he was ultimately acquitted by the senate.

President Bill Clinton in the Map Room of the White House on Aug. 17, 1998. Mr. Clinton made a statement to the American people about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky. Credit: Greg Gibson/Associated Press

In fact, with the exception of President Nixon who stepped down, each of these Presidents were not removed from their position as Commander in Chief. The consistencies that do seem to overlap in each scandal are as follows; special counsel was often demonized, sometimes by the President in office at the time, each President was acquitted and following the money led the special prosecutor to answers. Thus far in the examples presented here, we also know that to remove a President from office things need to occur simultaneously. The clear support of American citizens, charges sufficiently grave to warrant such a removal, enough congressional support and (historically speaking) low approval ratings. Impeachment requires what I call a perfect political storm. All the pieces in place at the exact moment that such a charge is decided. I find it heart chilling that breaking the law isn’t enough of a reason to replace a Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, history suggests it simply isn’t. In fact, The New Republic’s Jeet Heer put it best when he wrote that an “agenda of reining in presidential power will give more lasting victories than mere impeachment, which is unlikely to succeed and would only address a symptom, not the cause, of the cancer that’s ravaging American politics.” In fact, in each of these aforementioned scandals, each President walked away from them reasonably unscathed and the cancer Heer speaks of seems to have spread.

Nixon chose to step down and was later acquitted by President Ford. President Reagan was exonerated; therefore, no charges were brought against him. President Clinton was also acquitted, by the Senate. Each of these Presidents walked away from major controversies without a scratch which speaks volumes about the current and past political system that the United States has in place. A system that is ensconced in backroom deals and little to no transparency. Some of this is to be expected, after all we cannot know everything that is going on due to a need to protect the Nation. Especially on a foreign interest front. However, the steps and choices made for America as a whole do inevitably affect each and every American citizen. What did we learn from the Whitewater scandal? Ultimately, we learned that there are no real consequences. Which brings me to the current scandal plaguing the news ways this very day. The Russian Probe, a Robert Mueller run investigation into the connections between President Trump and Russia.

This scandal, known commonly as the Russian probe, was reported by senior intelligence officials to multiple news outlets in December of 2016. Officials stated that they were quite confident that Vladimir Putin himself directed interference operations in the US election in 2016. In order to untangle this web of deceit, we have to go back to the Spring in 2014. That’s when a company known as The Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin linked business, came up with a strategy to disrupt the election in 2016. The goal was to spread discord. The same company has been found to create false equivalencies on other hot button issues such as anti-v-pro vaccination beliefs. Thus far in the investigation, no evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia has been made public. Such evidence may or may not exist, until it is either publicly presented or a statement made that no such link exists we are left to wonder. I cannot help but believe that Americans being left in such a position mired in confusion and distrust is part of the intention of the Kremlin in the first place.

There are many questions that remain unanswered in this scandal. Rather than focusing on what we don’t know, let’s take a closer look at what we do know so far. In January of 2017 the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified version of a report which I have linked here.

This report was prepared jointly by the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency) and stated that “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency.” According to the report, “Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” The Russian Hackers penetrated the DNC, stealing data and retaining the infiltration for about a year. The report also states that, “The Russian leadership invests significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting what it views as consistent, self-reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and red lines, whether on Ukraine, Syria, or relations with the United States.”

The multi intelligence agency report also stated that the acts perpetrated by the Kremlin were “a longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users (trolls).” I found the most unnerving statement to be that, “Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.” This has happened before and will likely happen again. To date, a number of people and companies have been charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the possibility of collusion. They are listed below.

Michael Flynn

briefly served as National Security Advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Plead guilty of lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the Russian government during Trump’s presidential transition

Richard Gates III (longtime business associate of Paul Manafort)

Campaign and White house aide (political consultant and lobbyist)

Plead guilty to conspiracy against the United States and making false statements

Cooperating with Prosecutors. Additional charges were filed but withdrawn without prejudice due to plea bargain with Muller.

George Papadopoulos

Foreign policy advisory panel during 2016 presidential campaign

Plead guilty (plea bargain) to making false statements to the FBI

Cooperating with the Muller investigation

Alex Van See Zwaan

Belgian-born Dutch lawyer

Pleaded guilty of making false statements to investigators about his work with Richard Gates

30 days in jail, 20,000 fine, deported to the Netherlands

Richard Pinedo

Ran online service called Auction Essistance

pleaded guilty to identity fraud, and using the identity of other persons for “unlawful activity (selling dummy bank accounts to Russian agents)

accepted a plea agreement, agreed to cooperate with the investigation

faces up to fifteen years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000

Paul Manafort

Lobbyist, political consultant, lawyer and campaigns chairman from June 2016 to August 2016

Convicted on 5 counts of tax fraud, 2 counts of bank fraud, 1 count of failure to report foreign bank account

Michael Cohen

Presidents former lawyer, vice-president of the Trump Organization, served as co-president of Trump Entertainment and was a board member of the Eric Trump Foundation, deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee (2017 to 2018)

Plead guilty to 5 counts of tax evasion, 1 count of making false statements to a financial institution, 1 count of willfully causing an unlawful campaigns contribution, 1 count of making excessive campaigns contributions at the request of a candidate or campaigns

According to Cohen, he violated campaign finance laws “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office…for the principal purpose of influencing the election”

13 Russian nationals

Conspiracy to defraud the US

Conspiracy to commit fraud and bank fraud

Aggravated identity theft

12 Russian intelligence officers

11 are charged with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, 8 counts of aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to launder money

Another is charged with separate conspiracy to commit computer crimes

3 Russian companies

Internet research agency LLC

Concord Management and Consulting LLC

Concord catering

I have also included a link so that you are able to read the indictment.

Part two of this piece will explore further into the possible connections between President Trump’s team and Russia.

Leary, Teresa

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.

Executive Completion: American Scandal Primer Part One

Leary, Teresa

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

Six Degrees of Knowin’ Nothin’: [Untitled]

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