Tomorow an article from Fred Grant on the beginning of the modern civil rights movement in the United States to December 1, 1955. That was the day when an unknown seamstress in Montgomery, Alabama refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger. This brave woman, Rosa Parks, was arrested and fined for violating a city ordinance, but her lonely act of defiance began a movement that ended legal segregation in America, and made her an inspiration to freedom-loving people everywhere.

YESTERDAY, NOVEMBER 26 IN 1963 SET THE STAGE FOR THE SENATE CONFIRMATION OF GERALD FORD FOR VICE PRESIDENT

Today, November 27, as we just pointed out was a big day in the future of Gerald Ford and Richard Milhouse Nixon.  It Was the day that Ford was ratified by the US Senate by a vote of 92-3.  There had been no hurry in the Senate to name Ford who had been nominated by Nixon.  Several other people like Nelson Rockefeller had been discussed by the Senate---people who in the mind of certain Senators would make a better president if Nixon was forced out of office.  The only power the Senate had was to fail to ratify Ford, but it couldn’t force Nixon to bring up some other name.  So, things were at a stalemate as both sides tried to put together a group of mediators who could talk to each other and try to work out the problems.  Suspicious Senators feared that Ford had promised to pardon Nixon for crimes committed and which would be committed.

But a major event of November 26 produced the spark that lead to the overwhelming ratification of Ford the very next day.

Nixon’s personal secretary Rose Mary Wood was the witness at the Watergate hearings.  She admitted that while she was transcribing a critical tape of a discussion between Nixon and his Counsel, she accidentally erased an 18 minute segment.  Her demonstration of how she would have had to contort her body to accidentally erase the tape became the joke of Washington.  The impossibility of the physical moves which would have been required made the very elegant and loyal worker the humiliated butt of jokes for the next two or three months.  The 18 segment was the recording of the discussion between Nixon and one of his key staff at about the time decisions for obstruction of justice decisions were being made.

The Senate, afraid now that if they didn’t move fast on Ford, the President might step down to avoid what was now obvious, or the President might withdraw Ford and name someone like John Mitchell who would defend Nixon to the very end.  So, they quickly moved to the ratification vote on the 27^th, one day after testimony about the missing 18 minutes of tape.

 

ONE OF THE BIGGEST POLITICAL DEALS IN HISTORY OCCURRED ON THIS DATE IN 1973

     November 27, 1973------by Fred Kelly Grant

 On this day in history, in 1973, Gerald Ford was confirmed by a Senate vote of 92-3 to be the new Vice President of the United States.  Spiro Agnew, former governor of Maryland, hand picked by Nixon with help from Pat Buchanan to be the vice president to bring along the southern anti-civil rights, anti-black votes, had resigned in light of his indictment by a federal grand jury  in Baltimore for bribery.

The Water Gate committee was closing in on Nixon, and accumulating circumstantial evidence by the bushel to show that Nixon was in fact obstructing justice and doing it knowingly.  Tapes of the White House conversations had been discovered.  In his effort to make his administration the best known of all history, he had commissioned a secret, high quality camera and recording system in the Oval Office.  A witness had disclosed the system and of course the tapes were called for by the committee.  Nixon resisted on the grounds of Sovereign Immunity.  The case went to the Supreme Court, and Nixon lost; the tapes were ordered to be turned over,  Now, as the tapes moved along, the investigators started getting closer and closer to a “smoking gun”, i.e., the piece of evidence that would put it all together.  Before getting that, the administration turned on Agnew and allowed him to be prosecuted in hopes it would calm the winds swirling around Nixon.  It didn’t work.  Glad to get A
gnew, the investigators returned immediately to Nixon.

So, Nixon met with Gerald Ford, perhaps the most unlikely candidate for the job.  Ford was not genuinely intelligent, not sophisticated, had no experience of any value in dealing with foreigners or heads of state, and had no distinguished record in the Senate.  He was a parochial senator from Michigan who pretty much did Michigan’s bidding and not a lot more.

Many, including this writer, believed that Ford promised to pardon Nixon if he were charged,  and even to pardon him even before being charged. We now know that a great deal of research had been done to determine whether the president could be pardoned even before he was charged.  Once it had been decided that such a pardon could be offered, the appointment of Ford took place.

When it became imminently clear that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict Nixon of impeachment charges, Nixon resigned and Ford became president. 

Ford was not in office long when he pardoned Nixon for any offenses he had committed, for any offenses he might yet commit, and for any offenses that he had not been charged with but might be charged with in the future----any other words any criminal charge that would ever come out of these terms in the white House he was pardoned.  This act, coming so quickly, confirmed in the general public’s minds that Ford and Nixon had made the deal in exchange for the Vice Presidency.

 

On the day Agnew announced he would resign, Doris Blough, an active democrat who at the time was the president of the Idaho Human Rights Commission asked if I were surprised by the resignation.  I said “no, the Baltimore US Attorney probably has a witness who paid off Agnew a bribe while Agnew was governor of Maryland.  They probably got one of his old friends on a tax charge serious enough that he would do prison time and the promised to get him out of prison for his testimony.  Even back when Agnew was in his first administration as governor we knew that he was taking bribes, but as prosecutors we could not get a case against one of the bribers to bring pressure on him to testify.”

Sure enough, when the word was out it was a tax case that brought down Agnew. Then, when Nixon named Ford instead of several higher level senators and secretaries that were widely mentioned and supported, I was asked here in Idaho whether it surprised me and I said no.  I figured that some of the much better known, higher qualified men had turned down Nixon on the grounds that they would not make a blind commitment to grant pardons without even knowing what the circumstances were going to show.  I figured that Ford made the deal because it was the only way he would ever become president of the United States.

 

In Justice My Ass, my book which is now ready for sale and delivery, I repeat a story that famed Baltimore columnist Michael Olesker told in one of his books:  Marvin Mandel, a Baltimore attorney who was involved with the gambling syndicate in Baltimore and with many of their related business dealings, became governor when Agnew left to become vice president.  When the trouble over Watergate started, Mandel asked Agnew how he would sit through the high water. Agnew assured him that Nixon and Mitchell (the attorney general) had both promised to grant him immunity or a pardon if someone came after him.

When Mandel found out that state police were working the case for the grand jury to indict Agnew, he called and told Agnew to clear his desk of work, he was coming over to see him. Agnew did, and Mandel in the privacy of the Vice President’s office told him that he was being double crossed and a case was being presented to the grand jury.  Mandel again said they both had promised to pardon him if not give him outright immunity; he seemed stunned that these jackals had turned on him.

Later, of course, Mandel would also be indicted and convicted of offenses committed while he served as governor, as the musical chairs of the state’s highest seat were tuned to prison music for several years.

In retrospect, Ford was a good choice to serve as a caretaker president. I’m sure that was not Nixon’s reason for the appointment; he had already shown that he was not interested in the good of the country if it conflicted with his own good.  But, it turned out well.  He immediately appointed Dr. Edward Levi, chancellor of the University of Chicago, former Dean of the University of Chicago School of Law, as Attorney General of the United States.  He  directed him to clean up the Department and to establish a set of ethical guidelines and performance expectations.  Levi succeeded in developing the most comprehensive set of ethics standards ever seen by a government agency----they included a warning that even a public perception of a conflict will be considered an actual conflict by the Department.

 Ford was much like Truman, he used good common sense to make decisions, and unlike Truman he stayed under the radar on major decisions that rocked the world.  His defeat in the general election was probably based on the fact that once he pardoned Nixon the voters believed that he had made the deal with Nixon and then lied to the people about it.

 

 

THE POLARIZATION OF AMERICANS LURKS EVEN IN COVERAGE OF POLICE ASSASSINATION IN SEATTLE

     November 24, 2009   by Fred Kelly Grant

On Halloween night, Seattle police officers Timothy Brenton, a nine year veteran, and Britt Sweeney, an officer-trainee, sat in a cruiser discussing a traffic stop they had just completed.

A car pulled up close beside the driver’s door. Sensing danger, the driver, Sweeney, yelled and ducked just before several shots were fired from a rifle. Officer Brenton was fatally shot.  Sweeney got out of the cruiser and fired at the fleeing car. She was injured in the shooting which killed Brenton.

The murder was immediately called an obvious “assassination” by Seattle’s assistant Chief.  The shooter shot the officers as soon as the car stopped next to the cruiser.

The police put out an alert for an older Datsun auto.  It now is known that Christopher Monfort’s prior employer called the police and gave them Monfort’s name and address because he recognized the description of the Datsun.

One of Monfort’s neighbors also reported his strange conduct after Halloween, including putting a tarp over an older Datsun which he drove.

Monfort’s DNA was found on a small American-flag-bandanna left on the ground at the site of the police shootings.  That DNA also was found on a small flag found in the city maintenance yard where four police vehicles were firebombed on October 22. A fire was started on that day in a mobile command post, and police believe that fire was started in order to draw officers to the lot.  The vehicles were blown up shortly after officers arrived in response to the initial fire call.  Several officers narrowly escaped injury or death as they arrived at the scene just as the vehicles exploded.

When detectives went to Monfort’s apartment on November 6 they spotted him outside.  As they approached him, he ran, turned, pointed a handgun at the officers and pulled the trigger.  The gun did not fire.  As the officers pursued him, he again pointed his handgun and was shot by the detectives.

Police found bombs and several weapons in his apartment.  Monfort, a 41 year old Seattle resident, had always shown an interest in law enforcement work, had worked with troubled youth, and had been very critical of the handling of police brutality cases.

Charged with first degree murder as well as several lesser charges, Monfort is in a Seattle hospital. His arraignment scheduled for November 24 has been postponed until December 1 because doctors say that he cannot leave the hospital. His family has reported that he is paralyzed from the waist down.

At this time, motive can only be speculative, but several people who know Monfort say that he has been critical of police, and has said that when civil rights are violated, the people have to take retribution into their own hands.

The King County prosecutor has said that he has not decided whether he will seek the death penalty.  If guilty of the murder charge, Monfort is subject to only two possible sentences:  life without possibility of parole or death.

If convicted and given death, Monfort will sit on death row for years, receiving medical treatment at taxpayer expense.  The tax costs for trial lawyers and appellate lawyers in a death case will be enormous.  From a taxpayer cost standpoint, the cost will be less for a life sentence.

But, some crimes call for the death penalty regardless of the cost, and the murder of a police officer is one of those.  I recall once when a Baltimore judge imposed the death penalty in a case I prosecuted, the judge said to me “Fred, we know that the governor will never let anyone be executed in this state again, but he [the defendant] doesn’t know that for sure. He can sit on death row and wonder.”

This murder did not even occur during a gunfight or violent encounter. It was pure and simply an assassination, probably at random.  If the death penalty is not called for upon conviction in this case, it should never be imposed in Washington again.

The police have DNA, they have ballistics evidence, they have a weapon found in the defendant’s apartment matching ballistically, so it seems that they have sufficient evidence for a conviction if the prosecutor doesn’t somehow blow the case.  The prosecutor should ask for conviction and the death penalty, and leave it in the hands of a King County jury.

The Seattle Times article in Monday’s paper reported the continuance of the arraignment.  The reader comments to the article are very interesting.  One reader commented that she believed that before the day was out someone would try to link the reporting of the murder with either Obama or Bush.

Sure enough, one reader commented that Monfort is a terrorist, just like Nidal Hasan who killed the military personnel at Fort Hood.  Then, the reader found himself forced to point out that President Obama had designated Hasan to serve on a Homeland Security Transition team.

The claim is simply a regurgitation of a series of emails which have been sent around the country reporting that Obama named Hasan to the Homeland Security team.

Why in the world would anyone feel it important to link a brutal killing of a dedicated Seattle officer to an alleged naming of Hasan to a transition team?  And, why in the world would anyone make such claim without checking accuracy of the claim?

Several reliable people forwarded to me the email claim that Hasan was on the presidential transition team, and the claim that George Washington University had reported the presence of Hasan on the team. I have great respect for the people who forwarded the message to me, but I wonder why they didn’t bother to check reliability of the claim.  When I receive an email with a report like that I immediately check several sources to see that the claim is legitimate before I send it on.

What anyone making the claim, or even forwarding the claim, would have found by checking on reliability is that Hasan INDEED WAS NOT NAMED BY THE PRESIDENT ON ANY TRANSITION TEAM.

The claim has been so widely reported that George Washington University has found it necessary to post this message on the link to its Report from the Homeland Security Policy Institute:

     “In his capacity as Disaster & Preventive Psychiatry Fellow at the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, Nadal Hasan registered to attend as an audience member in a number of Homeland Security Policy Institute events in the period June 2008 to February 2009. All of these events were open to the public.

      Our Presidential Transition Task Force Events are open to the public and invitations were shared with numerous government departments and agencies, including senior officials at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.  These senior fellows at USUHS in turn shared the invitation with those subordinates including Hasan.

     At no time has Nidal Hasan been affiliated with HSPI or the George Washington University.  He has never served as an HSPI Task Force Member, briefer, or featured speaker at an HSPI event.

     HSPI’s Presidential Transition Task Force is not and was not affiliated with any Administration and was created prior to the election.”

Ironically, the reader of the Seattle Times who made the Hasan comment actually cited the link which contains the above denial.

What is it that has caused Americans to become so polarized that they accept and forward baseless claims and reports----without bothering to even confirm the truth?

It has come to a new low when some mindless wonder will use the story of a murder of a police officer to falsely try to link a terrorist murderer to the President.  I suppose the good thing is that all readers but this one discussed the horror of a police officer being murdered by assassination.

I won’t hope that justice is done in the case,  because there are too many definitions of justice applicable to a case like this.  I will hope that the prosecutors do their job the right way.  If they indeed have DNA at the scene and ballistics evidence matching the gun to the murder, then they should secure a conviction.  From that standpoint, I am thankful that the case will be tried by an office other than the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office. 

WHAT DON’T THE POLITICIANS GET ABOUT DEPRESSION?

 

Idaho, like the nation is in the midst of a depression.  Economists can call it a recession if they want, but the general run of the mill working class citizen knows it is a depression.  Some of us lived through at least the last of the depression of the 30s and early 40s.  We know that this is a depression.

 

Every working mom and dad are cutting expenses.  They must in order to make ends meet.  Costs of food, costs of clothing, costs of school supplies, costs of fuel, costs of heating and cooling have not come down.  Salaries have not gone up to meet the costs, and in fact many have come down.

 

Those moms and dads who are out of jobs and not working are even worse off.  Unemployment payments do not begin to meet life’s needs, and unemployment payments are only temporary.

 

This past week the number of newly lost jobs was over half a million;  Idaho was not spared its share.

 

In the midst of our depression, out of the north comes the hare brained suggestion from a Moscow democrat representative in the Idaho legislature to RAISE TAXES.  What is it that elected officials don’t get about the people being financially strapped?  What is that they don’t get about people being ANGRY at government?  What is that they don’t get about people BEING FED UP with constant demands for more and more government spending?

 

Representative Shirley Ringo proposes a “modest 5% surcharge on state income tax for those with taxable income exceeding $50,000”, pointing out that the surcharge would cost a couple with two children only $162.00.

 

Most Idaho families with two children already have both parents working, so the $50,000 trigger covers a huge percent of working families.  And, most Idaho families don’t have $162 to spare FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

 

Ringo calls the surcharge a “temporary” tax.  Right!!!  When was the last time a “temporary” tax did not later become a permanent tax.  As I recall the sales tax was to be a “temporary” fix for the public schools system, and it has never been removed and never reduced-----and it doesn’t all go to fund the public school system.  Ringo’s reference to a “temporary”  fix brings to my mind the situation in Maryland when the toll was established for those traveling across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to the eastern shore of Maryland.  The story was that the toll would remain in place only until the bond for the construction of the Bridge was paid off.   Pay off came just a few years after the Bridge was opened, but the toll is still in place four decades later.

 

Ringo is joined by a Moscow economist in her call for yet more tax sacrifice by the people.  The two of them say “We believe temporary tax increase can be less harmful to families and less damaging to the state’s economy than the alternative: deep cuts in vital services.”  I suppose they mean “deep cuts” like those that the families with $50,000 income have had to make in their own expenses.

 

The interesting thing about this proposition is that while families have had to sit down and take a finely sharpened pencil to their budgets, the state legislature has refused to do the same.  Ringo and her economist friend point out that the Department of Corrections needs $20 million to “adequately protect the public.” 

 

What, pray tell, has the legislature done to reform and reorganize the Corrections system to make it more efficient?  The Department of Corrections has demanded more money than is available for decades.  When I was on the staffs of Governors Andrus and Evans three decades ago, Corrections screamed for more money.

 

Since that time has the legislature done anything to streamline the detention process?  Has it ever set aside money enough to fund the types of drug and alcohol treatment centers which could prevent thousands of crimes a year?  Has it ever analyzed and modified sentencing statutes so that non-violent criminals such as those locked up for drug possession can be maintained outside the costly prison detention system?  Has it ever mandated diversion of funds to force Corrections to use more work-out facilities so that working defendants can continue to earn an income while being punished?

 

Has it ever seriously debated repeal of the death sentence which would save MILLIONS OF DOLLARS now paid to appointed defense attorneys who delay the execution for a lifetime?   Thomas Creech was sentenced to die in  1976, THIRTY THREE YEARS AGO!  His sentence was later commuted because of constitutional problems with the sentencing process, and as he served his double life sentences he killed another inmate and was again sentenced to death in 1981, TWENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO!  He still sits on death row, costing the taxpayers for appeals and detention.  It costs the state $2 MILLION a year just for a state appellate office to focus on death penalty appeals.  Creech will never be executed; he will die in prison, having cost the taxpayers a fortune.  At this point, some federal judge will prevent an execution on the grounds that the state has delayed the execution too long to satisfy due process of law.  Does our legislature do anything to halt this ridiculous waste of money?  No.  Why not?  Well, for one reason Senator Denton Darrington of eastern Idaho won’t even let a repeal statute get through his committee.  He is not in favor of repealing the death penalty.  Okay, then why doesn’t he offer legislation that will speed up the process----Texas and Virginia don’t waste fortunes of taxpayer dollars on inmates sitting on death row for three decades.  Use it or get rid of it. 

 

Has the legislature ever crafted a mandatory restitution program under which a working defendant MUST PAY BACK THE COUNTIES FOR THE COST OF PUBLIC DEFENDERS?  (Many citizens do not know that rather than allow a case to be delayed several times while a defendant gets enough money together to hire a lawyer, the court will appoint the public defender at taxpayer cost to represent the defendant.  The case moves along at taxpayer expense, and more often than not the defendant never pays back the tax dollars that were spent on him.)

 

Has it ever required a competent assessment of court facilities in order to determine how to minimize the cost of the judicial system?  (Take a walk through the courthouse where the District Judges preside some mid-afternoon and see how many courtrooms are in use.)

 

Has the legislature ever reduced the budget by limiting the number of sets of the Idaho Code which are purchased for departments that never open the books?  I can hear the argument, “that is only a small part of the budget.” 
That is correct, but families have to cut out “small parts” of their budget in order to make them add up to big cuts.  Is it too much for the legislature to do the same?

 

Moving away from the criminal justice and judicial system, has the legislature ever reduced the budget by cutting out all travel to conferences, workshops and meetings?  The argument is always made that in order to stay up with new developments and to maintain valuable contacts it is important for legislators and agency personnel to travel.  Maybe that would be true in a time of plenty.  But, in times where there is a budget shortfall?  I  don’t think so.  With all the new computer and other electronic equipment in our state offices, the departments can get all the training and make all the contacts they need without spending thousands of dollars in travel, hotel, food and conference costs.  This suggestion was made by Governor Evans in his budget presentations to the legislature as long ago as 1976, and was ignored.

Families with incomes of $50,000 have to make do with the equipment they have on hand, they can’t afford new computers and state of the art advances in equipment each year.  But, does the legislature ever require the agencies to “make do”?  Not hardly.

 

Has the legislature ever even considered abolishing the state Department of Education, saving all the money allocated to administrative bureaucracy, and putting that money into the local school districts?   Has it seriously considered reorganizing the higher education system into a “one chancellor, one administration” university system?  The answer to both is a loud and resounding NO.  Why not?  Politics!!!

 

Has the legislature ever made a real, not political posturing, but real effort to make the Department of Health and Welfare more efficient, less top heavy with bureaucrats?  Representative Ringo and her economist cohort say that:

         “The enhanced federal matching rate for Medicaid is set to expire

 in January of 2011.  State leaders must get busy convincing    Congress  to extend the higher matching rate.  Otherwise, the state will be left holding the bag for some $94 million in 2011.”

Fine, let them “get busy” and do their duty, rather than lay another tax increase on the workers of Idaho.  It isn’t all that big a chore:  all “state leaders” have to do is meet with Senators Crapo and Risch and Representatives Minnick and Simpson.  There is no need to spend thousands of dollars for Republican state leaders to traipse off to DC to wine and dine other members of Congress and their staffs.  If Crapo, Risch, Minnick and Simpson can’t get the job done, the elected “state leaders” from Boise sure as the devil can’t.

 

Has the legislature acted to prohibit expenditure of tax dollars on legislative and executive “fact finding” and “trade promotion” trips?  Again, in this age of electronics it is a scam for elected officials and bureaucrats to travel around on tax dollars to do what they can do by teleconference.

 

The questions could go on and on and on.  They are all rhetorical.  We all know that the answers are NO.  Instead of  laying on an additional tax that would bring in $44 million of our hard earned dollars, this legislature should come to town in January with the commitment to cut $44 million in expenses----and not spread the cuts through all departments.  It should make the commitment to  put all the sales tax dollars into the public school system and finally honor the promise made when the first sales tax was imposed.  Then it should start cutting, and no budget should be spared---no budget line in any departmental budget.  This would require hard work and careful, creative thinking.  And, that might be too much to expect from a legislature which spends three months toying around and then rushes through its budget legislation at the eleventh hour. 

 

Lets watch them this year argue endlessly over whether to impose a tax surcharge or to reduce taxes outright---then do nothing, make no significant cuts to anything but the schools, and go home moaning about the burdens of government weighing heavy on their shoulders.

 

Those who have worked within the government can tell the legislature where to cut----and indicate thousands of cuts that could be made without damaging state services in any way.  But, the legislators already know where they can make those cuts.  So, why don’t they make them?  Politics, my friends, politics.

 

It is far easier to suggest a “temporary” tax “surcharge” which is a nice name for A TAX INCREASE, than it is to make the tough decisions as to how to cut the budgets.   Public polls continue to show that the people are angry with their government, don’t trust politicians, are more than angry about taxes.  What is it that the politicians like Rep. Ringo don’t get?  Better yet, what is it that the voters who continue to vote for incumbents don’t get?  What kind of sense does it make to return those who have created the budget mess, expecting that we will get any better service from them than we have gotten in the past?

JUSTICE HISTORICALLY TIED TO “FAIRNESS”----THERE CAN BE INJUSTICE IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE---THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, THE POLITICAL PROCESS, THE GOVERNMENT PROCESS, THE PERSONAL PROCESS OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG PEOPLE.

 

I am going to put aside for a moment what my psychologist said to me in the Mercy Care Unit twenty four years ago as I quit drinking, ”Fair is the carnival that comes through town in the summertime.”  His remark followed my whining that it didn’t seem “fair” that I was an alcoholic.

 

When one reads the historic and philosophical definitions of “justice” it becomes clear that from the time of Aristotle and Plato the concepts of justice and fairness are closely intertwined.

 

So, for today, in the name of a radio show for kids popular when I was a kid, “Let’s Pretend” that justice equates to fairness.

 

There is a great injustice going on right now that involves politics, the governing process, the criminal process and the personal interrelationship process implemented by email and internet.

 

   Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, long members of Congress

 

First, the politics

 

         It is now clear that Maxine Waters (representative from the east  Los Angeles area) and Barney Frank (rep from Massachusetts) have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar containing the surplus funds of tax dollars dedicated to the bail out of banks.

 

        Waters personally made two calls to get the National Bankers Association personal appointments with President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to discuss money woes of member banks, including OneUnited Bank.  The officials who visited with Paulson to discuss $50 MILLION in bail out funds were the CEO and a lesser official of OneUnited.  After the second Waters call, OneUnited appeared alone and asked for $12 MILLION dollars for its own bail-out.

 

       Waters is a representative from Los Angeles and the bank is in Boston, but she justifies the calls on the grounds that she is expected to help out minority owned banks.  But, Ms. Waters, even those where your husband serves on the board of directors and owned $250,000 of endangered stocks which were saved and shored up by the $12 MILLION infusion?  That’s what a House ethics committee is now investigating.

 

       Frank, chair of the Financial Services Committee in the House made calls to pull strings to help the bank get that $12 MILLION, even though it was then clear that the bank did not qualify for the money.  The bank suffered $54.3 MILLION loss from its outlandish holding of preferred stock in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.  That depleted its capital completely.  It is under a cease and desist order from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for unsound practices in lending and executive compensation (remember Ms. Waters’ husband was on board of directors).  The bank has been ordered to disengage from a California liability company that owns a beachfront home in Santa Monica, California worth 6.4 MILLION DOLLARS.  The president of the bank, Kevin Gohee, was driving a Porsche paid for by the bank.

 

     Frank justifies his personal intervention in favor of the bank’s bailout because it is the only Black owned bank in Massachusetts and he said it would have been a shame to let it fail.  “Let it fail?”   Didn’t it pretty well fail on its own two feet?  Shouldn’t the question have been “Why breathe life back into a failed bank with tax payer dollars when it failed by its own stupidity and greed?” rather than “Why let it fail?”

 

      Frank intervened to make sure that Black voters in Massachusetts knew that he came to the aid of Black bankers headed by a president who drove a Porsche.  He has never been one to let a political opportunity go to waste just because of ethics.

 

     Waters intervened to make sure the Black bank  did not fail because she is expected by her constituents in an area including the large Watts district to support Black businesses and Black officials regardless of what they are accused of doing.  She has spent hours defending her actions even before the ethics investigation begins----always pointing out that she was working to save a Black business, not mentioning that her husband was a director and a stockholder who had a quarter of a million dollars at risk if the bank went under.

 

Second, is the government process:

 

    The executive agent in charge of the surplus funds was George W’s secretary of treasury, Henry Paulson.  His job was not to protect Black businesses for the  political interests of Frank and Waters, or to help influence Black voters for republicans.   His job was to protect the integrity of the funds which he proposed come from tax dollars to “bail out” salvageable banks.  He either knew, or should have known about the bank’s shoddy performance and its abject failure as a fiduciary institution of lending.  The facts were there and they were known to the FDIC, so why not to the Secretary of the Treasury?

 

     How does Paulson justify sending $12 MILLION of tax payers’ money to this floundering business?  Well, he doesn’t.  He carefully has put fences of confusion around his interviews that defy singling out specific cases of abuse.  To hear him, and his mostly sympathetic interviewers, tell it, he couldn’t sleep because of worry so he was going through a daze. 

 

     And, where was President Bush during all this?  Doing as he always did----sitting at Cheney’s right hand for instructions for the day?  Coming away from those meetings with the singularly silly message that we were all right, that the bail out money would right the ship of state, i.e., Wall Street?

 

     Where was the Fed?  Technically it is not government, but its tentacles run so tightly through Treasury and through all government financial policies that it truly is a part of our government.  Where was it to sound the warning?   Hoping that we would get in deeper and deeper, thus narrowing the interest of some in investigating the Fed itself?

 

    Where was the SEC?   Well, we know from other cases of pyramid scams that the SEC was asleep at the wheel.

 

    So, the entire government oversight process failed.  Its only success was that it saved the day for a guy driving a Porsche and heading a bank that was inept and broke.

 

Third, the criminal process:

 

     Where is the United States attorney for the District of Columbia:  Why has he not taken these cases to the Grand Jury for inquiry into fraud against the taxpayers of the United States, into potential bribery charges involving the officials of OneUnited, Maxine Waters, and Barney Franks, into potential extortion by Waters and Franks, into malfeasance in office on the part of Paulson, Waters and Franks.

 

     Where is the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts in which Boston sits?  Why has he not taken to the Grand Jury for inquiry whether the officials of this bank committed fraud or mis-use of funds or bribery?   Why has he not taken to the Grand Jury for inquiry whether Waters and Franks committed offenses by telephone or wire that affiliated them with his district?

 

     The criminal process has capitulated, has punted away its responsibility in all these cases.  Either for political reasons or because they just don’t understand at all what went on, and aren’t courageous enough to admit that and start a Grand Jury inquiry that would let them learn what went on.  It would have been political reasons before January, because as Bush appointees they couldn’t very well go after people that would have linked Paulson to the entire  criminal scandal through malfeasance at the least.

But, what about now?  The crimes haven’t gone away.

 

      Care to take money on a bet that if any one of us drove a Porsche and solicited $12 MILLION from the government through intervention by a couple of congressmen that we would be home scot free?  We would be on the street with a tin cup collecting money to pay for our legal fees when the judge ordered us to repay the public defender that was assigned to us.

 

4.       Now, the interpersonal relationship and communication process:

 

  Today, there are emails going around talking about the Maxine Waters unethical, probably illegal, interference in the OneUnion mess.  It doesn’t mention Barney even though his culpability is as great as Waters except for the personal gain that she received through her husband’s saved investment.  But that’s not the basic  problem.

 

   The OneUnion bank bailout is lumped with a lot of other scandalous acts by government officials which I will take up one at a time through the week----lumped into a huge expenditure of tax-payer dollars which it says ‘Remember, this all happened in the first quarter of 2009”.

   The obvious intent is to convince people that the Obama administration has been on a spending binge that includes government corruption.  But, the tragic thing about the message is that readers will not go behind the email and look to see the “who, what, where, and when” of the stories.  None of the Waters-Franks-OneUnion Bank business occurred in 2009 except the discovery of their unethical and probably illegal conduct.

 

    All the Waters-Franks events occurred during the illustrious term of W and Paulson.

 

    The unfairness, or injustice, of the personal relationship is that there are too many people ready to attack the current administration, even with remainder fall-out from the Bush administration, almost as though Bush never existed.  Almost as though Henry  Paulson never existed.  To these  purveyors of  political bile, the eight years of Bush-Cheney and their ultimate failure with Paulson just vanished in January, 2009 and Obama did it all.

 

    Has President Obama done all he could to rectify the mistakes and unlawful conduct of the 8 years prior to his taking office?  Of course not.  He has held up on turning loose US District Attorneys to take down the lawbreakers.  Somehow he seems to think that we will be better off if we just move on with our lives and forget the unlawfulness.

 

   Maybe he is right, but that’s not the way the law treats us commoners is it?  I suppose there are millions of Americans who would like to be able to say, with change of a president-governor-or commissioner, “alley ox out in free” and have all unethical and unlawful incidents purged from our records.  Life for us doesn’t work that way.  So, how is it “fair” that Waters, Franks, Paulson, Bush all escape Grand Jury investigations for what went on with the OneUnion bank, but we commoners would be facing at least a grand jury investigation.  Well, it obviously isn’t fair.  So, in the historic and philosophical context of justice, it isn’t justice.

 

    How is it fair that internet writers continue to push off Bush-Cheney-Paulson failures as though they were failures of Obama’s?   Doesn’t he have enough of his own?  Such as not moving Guantanamo sooner?  Such as not making the horribly run wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the first priority?  Such as not putting the national disgrace of having one in eight children living in an auto instead of a house in top priority?  Such as not putting rectification of the housing scandal that has made banks richer and richer in top priority?  We are in basically the same situation today that we were in last January, the banks that got billions in tax dollars still are not lending to small businesses, so jobs are still being lost.  I had hoped that he would hold a White House summit of Bank examiners and US Attorneys and tell them to “get at the rats.”  I had hoped that he would take the same approach to the Fed and its secrecy as had John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  But, he hasn’t done these things.  Aren’t these enough to complain about, without trying to hump Bush failures on him too?

 

    All of you who read the email about the abuses by Waters, Franks, Senators Dodd and Feinstein, Representatives Mollohan and Obey, all attributed to the “first quarter of 2009” just keep in mind that all the incidents happened during the 8 years prior to 2009.  If you do that, and send around some corrections, or even just know it in your own mind and don’t spread it, you will be doing the only thing you can to bring fairness to the fourth failure in fairness and justice.

 

    If you will read the links that are cited in support of each of the claims, you will find the facts as I did.  I guess it all goes back to what I try to teach in the workshops which I give and which American Stewards of Liberty give:  “don’t take my word for it; don’t take any body’s word for it;  read the documents for yourself before passing judgment or passing on the information.”

 

    Want to bet that you don’t do that even once today as to something you read on the internet?

JUSTICE IS A CONCEPT APPLICABLE TO ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE---EVEN FOOTBALL!!!

 

I  have been on leave of absence for several days; finishing the book, traveling to Wisconsin, Kansas, California, and Colorado for personal consulting and for American Stewards of Liberty, and having cataract surgery to restore sight to my left eye.

 

As of yesterday, I was released to read and write again.  So, today, I start with an example of justice on the football field----and it occurred to my least favorite people in the National Football League,  Tom “pretty boy” Brady and Mike Belicheck of the New England Patriots.

 

If Justice is defined at least for this purpose as “fairness”, these two have managed to evade it for years.  Belecheck has been known for bending rules, even to the famous videoing of opponents’ practices.  But, for the most part, he gets his results from badgering and harassing officials.  I have often reported to the fantasy football owners with whom I play that all Belecheck has to do is breathe a fiery bile on the officials to bring them to their knees, call ridiculous penalties on opponents and offer ridiculous protection to his glamour boy quarterback.

 

As for the boy wonder who is no longer a boy---Tom Brady---he has graced the covers of so many glamour magazines that the officials seem to be determined that none of his lovely features will be marred in any way by the fierce defenders who maul every other quarter back in the league.

 

Undue protection of Brady elevated to new heights this year when a penalty call on an opponent for a defensive play was so ridiculously absurd that it brought down the wrath of fans and sports writers.   Broadcasters on the other games for that week and the next would laugh and comment that a defensive player just got away with a move that wouldn’t be permitted under the “Brady protection rule”.  The penalty call on the play that put Brady under no harm at all that would go uncalled against any other qb in the league.

 

The Brady syndrome among officials began prior to this year.  Last year, the Ravens would have defeated the Patriots but for an asinine call of roughing the passer----the passer of course being “Mr. Gentleman’s Quarterly” Tom Brady.  The prevalence of the Brady Rules halted many defensive attempts to bring him down.  Fortunately, in the Super Bowl, the Giants did what no other team had done----squared off on Brady and kept up the pressure, risking penalties that would have plagued any other team that had tried the pressure during the regular season.  Perhaps the scrutiny that officials are under in the Big Game was sufficient to cause them to call the defense tactics more objectively than the American Football Conference officials are allowed to call them.

I say “allowed” intentionally----whether or not the league office orders it, the officials are intimidated by morose, scowling, marauding Belicheck, often looking like a homeless derelict on the sidelines.  I have in fact often suggested that he does breathe vile fumes on to officials, causing them to recoil in fear and call the game they way he wants.

 

As for Brady, I don’t know whether Belicheck’s vile belches alone are sufficient to offer him the protection he needs.  It may be that the Commissioner has decided that the publicity that the league gets whenever Brady appears on the cover of Esquire or GQ is worth so much that the pretty boy cannot be hit.

 

Regardless of cause,  the unfair calls that have been heaped upon opponents of Brady and the Patriots have become the talk of the land----writers, broadcasters, bloggers outside of Boston, and football fans even at Boise State University games.

 

Well, finally, my friends, the scales of fairness tipped in favor of the unwashed---the great multitude of us who have waited to see whether Belicheck and Brady ever got subjected to proper calls.

 

Sunday night it happened.  The coach who wimpish announcers like to call the “guru” of football (objective announcers recognize him as one of the good coaches, but don’t elevate him to the level of “St. Bill”) and his prize beautiful quarterback finally made a stupid decision and suffered from a correct officials’ call.

 

In the fourth quarter, with just about 2 minutes to play, leading the Colts by 4 points, the Patriots faced a fourth down and about 2 yards to go on their 28.   It appeared that Brady called time out; he now claims that it was the coach that called it, but his hands in a “T” could clearly be seen.  At any rate, the two wonders conferred at the time out which was called as the punting team had started on to the field.  They decided to go for a first down instead of punting.  I say “they” because I cannot believe that Brady opposed the play.   He says the coach called it and Big Bill confirms that.  But, then after some hard questioning, Brady admitted that he would have made the same call.  Of course he would have.  He agreed with it during the time out.

 

The short pass that resulted was bobbled by the receiver who made it to the first down marker, but not with control of the ball.  He was hit by a tackler and when he went down with control of the ball he was short of the first down.  The Colts took over; they scored and won the game.

 

The reaction of Belicheck and Brady was one of shock---first that they didn’t get the first down, and second that the officials call went against them.  I have no doubt that they expected to intimidate the officials into allowing the forward progress of the receiver to the first down marker.  But it would have been the wrong call.

 

A player has to have control of the ball in order to meet a “forward progress” rule.  The Patriot receiver was bobbling the ball when he hit the first down marker, and wasn’t in control until he had been tackled short of that market.  So, he didn’t have control at the marker and hadn’t made forward progress to that marker.  An analogy would be that a runner makes it to the first down marker, fumbles, the ball rolls a yard short of the marker, and the runner recovers it short of the first down marker.  The call would be that his forward progress was to only the spot where he had control and he would not make the first down.

 

The fact that an official not only knew the rule but applied it shocked both Brady and Belicheck.  The look of shock and dismay brought joy to all those who have regretted that football officials had caved in to Belechick’s venom and Brady’s beauty.

 

Of course they couldn’t get the advantage of an instant review because they had used their last time out before the play.  A coach cannot get review if he doesn’t have a timeout left.  So, the fact that the two of them had messed up on signals and the punting team was coming on the field caused them to use up the last time out.  One wonders whether a booth official would have given in to the scowling Belicheck or the pouting Brady.  He could not have changed the call on the basis of the film, because the bobbling of the ball was shown clearly.

As the Colts and rarely complaining quarterback Peyton Manning scored, Belicheck rubbed his head and eyes and Tom stood looking as though Esquire had just told him that they wouldn’t need him as cover boy again.

 

I wonder what Belicheck’s defense is thinking this week-----a coach didn’t have enough confidence in them to allow a punt to place the Colts and Manning in position to make a 70 yard drive.  Belicheck, the supposed defensive genius, preferred to risk a fourth down that would give the Colts only 28 yards to move the ball.  Hopefully, the defense morale is hurt enough that they will cave in from here on out.  But, knowing the strength of Belicheck’s intimidation even of players, they will probably be afraid not to play well.  Otherwise the fire of the venom that usually is breathed upon officials would be turned to them.

 

If Justice equates to fairness, justice was finally done in a game involving the Patriots, Belicheck and Brady.

 

I have no doubt that the officiating team is at least partially paralyzed today.  My imagination runs rampant when I think of Wild Bill charging into their locker room and breathing the full fire of vile bile and venom over all of them, rendering them helpless at least temporarily.  Don’t ever expect the same team of officials to ever make a fair call against Bill and Tom again---one breathing attack by Bilicheck should be enough for any official.

 

For me, the moment will satisfy me until another defense decides to do what the Giants did------just tee off and take the consequences, just like every other team does against every other quarterback in the league.

]

FOX NEWS, THE ‘FAIR AND BALANCED NETWORK’ FEATURES RUSH LIMBAUGH IN HALF HOUR SESSION OF CHRIS WALLANCE’S SUNDAY SHOW

Throughout the past few weeks Fox News has been attacked by the White House as being a biased news network.  Fox and its supporters have always billed the network as “Fair and Balanced”.  Well, Fox now has a chance to prove whether it is “fair and balanced”.

This Sunday morning Chris Wallace served up a half hour of softball questions to Rush Limbaugh, the king of ego on spotlight Sunday news show.  Let’s see now whether the “balanced” portion of the claim comes forth.  Let’s see whether next week’s Chris Wallace show features someone left of Genghis Khan.  

I would rather wager that Boise State University would play Texas in the national championship football game than to bet that Fox will show its “balance”.  I would have a much better chance of winning.  Fox is not a “balanced” network; it has a pronounced anti-democrat, anti-liberal, anti-Obama atmosphere throughout its lineup of columnists.  I sometimes watch Fox, not for objective news but for entertainment.  I thoroughly enjoy watching the dissection of guests in the “no spin” zone.  It reminds me of my old days in the trial room during cross examination time.

Before anyone can even utter “how can you say Fox is biased and the other networks not”, let me add that neither is CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN “balanced”---they are for the most part liberal, democrat (or very moderate republican), Obama supportive.  In point of fact, there is no non-biased news network.  You just choose your poison and switch the channels.

What a farce this interview of the “big man” was.  Limbaugh who is unfortunately the real leader of the dismantled Republican leadership today, is the height of egocentric selfishness.  He justifies his $400 million dollar contract, on the basis that his “talent” is worth it.  Why?  Because, according to big Rush, a man is worth what people will pay him. Remarkable.  On the one hand he is highly critical of football, baseball and basketball players who sign extravagantly expensive contracts, but on the other justifies his high income on the ground that a man is worth what someone will pay for him.  Yet, that doesn’t apply to the Black athletes who he attacks on a fairly regular basis.   He was critical of the bonuses paid to Wall Street “experts”, yet, using his analysis, they were worth it because someone was willing to pay them the bonuses.  Typical of the circuitous reasoning of Limbaugh.

On today’s interview he criticized President Obama for having an “out of this world ego”; my, oh my, this criticism from a man who displays the most unbalanced ego since the heyday of Charles de Gaulle of France (and he probably deserved his ego). He deserves $400 million because of his “talent”, but he is critical of the President as having a huge ego.  Unbelievable from anyone but Limbaugh.

Perhaps the most ludicrous position taken by this “bigger than life ego” was his comment that President Obama does not care about the servicemen and women or their families, and does not care about the outcome of the Afghanistan war except as to how it affects his legacy.  The basis of this comment:  because Obama is taking undue time in studying with military and civilian leaders to determine the strategy should be in Afghanistan.

Limbaugh styles the discussions on Afghanistan “dwiddlinig” and would have Obama follow General McCrystal’s opinion without any further question.  Well, Rush, that’s why we have a civilian Commander in Chief---because the Founders, for whom you claim to have respect, would not put the determinations of war and military actions under a military arm of government.  Had Harry Truman not believed that, he would have let General MacArthur have his way of invading mainland China and we would have been in World War III with Russia and China in the 50s.

We had entirely too much blind, eyeless plunging into war during the Cheney days---even to entering into a war based on fraudulent claims by the administration.  To his credit,  President Obama is taking the time to try to do this right.  He is conferring with civilian and military leaders who share far different views of the possibility of success in Afghanistan and of the impact of our actions there on the rest of the middle and near-east. 

We cannot afford a knee-jerk reaction at this juncture in history.  The future of the western world is on the line, make no mistake about it.  A continuing war in Afghanistan without participation of any of the rest of the civilized western nations can have a never-ending adverse impact on freedom and security of the entire west.  A pre-mature withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving the people there at the mercy of the Taliban, can have a worse impact on the world than the tragic Viet Nam withdrawal which ended in a blood bath of revenge.

The fact that President Obama is taking his time, without yielding to a meaningless deadline of time, is encouraging.  Anything less than fully discussed and thought through policy would be treasonous.   Just as the lying of Bush and Cheney in getting us into Iraq on false premises was treasonous.

Limbaugh also criticized the President’s visit to Dover, Delaware to pay tribute to the return of some of our young people who gave their lives.  He said it was a political stunt and did everything but say specifically that Obama really had no care or concern for the fallen service people and their families.  What rot!! 

The President of the United States, no matter who he or she is or what party is represented, should be commended for bringing to the public’s attention the duty to pay respects to the young people who give their lives.  He should be commended for bringing to the public’s attention that young men and women are dying on those fields of battle in Afghanistan. The war is not just a political issue, it is an issue of human lives.  Anyone who could not share pride at the photos of the President saluting the returning caskets is completely out of tune with any kind of human feelings.

Thus is my assessment of Rush Limbaugh.

He even blames the President for the NFL’s refusal to allow him to be considered as a new owner.  Limbaugh was named as a part of the ownership group seeking to buy the Rams.  It took no time for Roger Goodell to point out that the racist statements by Limbaugh would make him unacceptable as an owner.

Goodell referred to Limbaugh’s long ago slights of Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Eagles.  But, he could just as well have referred to the much more recent incident when Limbaugh showed video of some Black youths beating up on a white student on a school bus.  Limbaugh, with arms waving wildly in the radio booth, was shouting “this is Obama’s America”.  How would anyone who is so openly racist expect that he would be welcomed into ownership of an NFL team when the league and the game are dominated by Black stars.  The League got rid of the last of the racists when Arthur Marshall of the old Redskins went his way.  Why would it take on a new one?

What Black player, given an alternative, would want to play on a team owned, even in part, by such a symbol of racism?  But, Limbaugh blames his rejection on the fact that a member of President Obama’s transition team speaks for the Player’s Association.  My goodness, it must be a hard life to think that the President is behind every bad thing that occurs to one.

His blaming a member of President Obama’s transition team for his rejection by the League is a handy way for him to avoid discussing the racist views he expressed in his McNabb comments, and in the tying of a school bus assault to what the President wants for the nation?  And, of course he was allowed to avoid the discussion by the “soft” approach of Wallace.

Did Limbaugh tie every assault, Black on White, or White on Black, to George Bush during the prior eight years?  It must be hard for this egocentric to know that so many football players, Black and White, stepped forward to say that they wouldn’t play for a man like him.  So, blame it on Obama and evade discussing your true view on race.

Limbaugh is a republican, not a conservative.  He is no more truly conservative in politics or way of life than Harry Reid is a moderate.  If a republican were in the White House right now, Limbaugh would be praising the time he or she was taking in studying the Afghan problem.

In short, my view of Limbaugh matches his of Joe Biden:  “pompous windbag.”

Well, Fox, I’m waiting to see the “balanced” act next Sunday.  But, if it doesn’t happen, as I think it will not, I will stick with This Week With George Stephanopoulos, paper newspapers and the Internet.