Time for both parties to compromise

Soon after President Obama won his first term, the Republican party leadership announced that their number one goal would be to make Obama a one-term president. Now that they have failed in that goal, they must make their number one goal what it should have been all along: to solve the economic problems of this country. I urge all loyal Republican citizens who are Americans first and Republicans second to contact their Republican leadership to inform them that it is time to start working with the Democrats and Obama to solve our economic problems. Solutions can only be found through compromise, not through scorched-earth politics.

JFK assassination, "probable conspiracy"

As the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy arrives, the debates resume about "whether the Warren Commission got it right." But what most people do not realize is the United States Congress already decided, many years ago, that the Warren Commission did not get it right. In the late 1970's, the Congress formed the House Select Committee on Associations (HSCA) to investigate the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. The HSCA had access to much more information than was available to the Warren Commissions and spent two years researching and reviewing the relevant issues. Its final conclusion regarding President Kennedy was that the President's assassination was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

In effect, the HSCA determined that the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald "acted alone" was incorrect. But equally important was the HSCA's explanation of why the Warren Commission was incorrect. The HSCA emphatically stated that the CIA and the FBI had not provided complete and accurate information to the Warren Commission. The HSCA summarized the CIA's performance by stating that "the Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination." With respect to the FBI, the HSCA stated that it "failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy in key areas, and it was deficient in its sharing of information with the Warren Commission." To be fair to the Warren Commission, its conclusion recognized its dependency on the investigative agencies, as the final report stated "[o]n the basis of the evidence before the Commission, it concludes that Oswald acted alone."

Another issue of great importance in the HSCA report was its discussion of Oswald's association in New Orleans with the right-wing anti-communist community. Oswald was found to have had well-substantiated contacts with Guy Banister, an ex-FBI agent, and David Ferrie, both of whom were extreme right-wingers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans in their effort to overthrow the Castro regime. The HSCA expressed puzzlement about why Oswald, the alleged disaffected Marxist who defected to the Soviet Union, would be associating with the anti-Castro community. In all likelihood, the HSCA was aware of an obvious explanation for Oswald's confusing behavior, but, as a committee of the House of Representative, it could not state everything it knew for political reasons.

The obvious explanation is that Oswald was not a disaffected Marxist, but was really an intelligence operative working in that role in New Orleans. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, several U.S. citizens defected to the Soviet Union, then changed their minds and returned home. These individuals are now believed by many to have been part of a false defector project that was intended to get CIA operatives into the Soviet Union. Assassination researchers have long noted the ease in which Oswald received an early dismissal from the Marines, the lack of an explanation or how he was able to find his way into the Soviet Union, and the ease in which he was able to return to the U.S. Clearly, Oswald has assistance from some organization in getting into and out of the Soviet Union. His activities in New Orleans were undoubtedly part of another intelligence operation. Then, in the fall of 1963, Oswald abruptly left New Orleans and made a strange visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. After leaving Mexico City, he did not return to New Orleans, but instead went to Dallas, where he became involved with the Kennedy assassination. It is still not clear whether he was a willing participant or merely a patsy, as he claimed.

All of the above information is well-know to assassination researchers. It can easily be found by reading the HSCA reports or by reading any of a number of books on the assassination. So why do many government officials and members of the news media continue to focus on the Warren Commission, ignoring the more recent HSCA findings? Is it because people are reluctant to admit that one of our intelligence operatives somehow got mixed up in the assassination of President Kennedy? Anyone who performs a through and unbiased review of the available information, will clearly see Oswald's involvement with what appear to be various covert operations. Isn't it time for the intelligence community and the media to admit the Kennedy assassination was not the work of one "lone nut"?

Libya and the UN

In the aftermath of World War II, the nations of the world viewed the carnage and said something along the lines of "never again!". As a result, the nations of the world agreed to work together to prevent any aggressive nations of the future from jeopardizing world peace. The forum for making these agreements was an organization named the United Nations. Unfortunately, the end of the WWII hot war was followed by a new "cold war" between the eastern bloc of nations and the western bloc. Those nations who were supposed to unite to preserve the peace could not agree themselves. The Soviet Union, as a permanent member of the U.N.'s Security Council, tended to veto the western bloc's proposals and the western nations tended to veto Soviet Union proposals. The United Nations was therefore seen to be ineffective and, in time, became almost irrelevant.

Then, in the early 1990's, the Soviet Union collapsed, the eastern bloc disintegrated and the cold war ended. Although the eastern nations in the Security Council, China and Russia, don't always see eye-to-eye with the western nations, the extreme hostilities of the cold war are no longer present. As a result, the U.N. may now be able to serve the purpose for which it was intended, but the major nations of the world must want to use it for that purpose. This requires the leadership of the United States to take the position that we are only one of many nations of the world and will work as a team with the others.

For the past several years, the United States has been dominated by the right-wing neo-con philosophy: that we are the sole remaining super power of the world and can shape the world as we see fit. The disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the role of the world's lone super power acting as the world's policeman, is a very expensive one, and a role that the U.S. taxpayer should not have to finance. Today, the Obama administration is very reluctant to take unilateral action in Libya, as well it should be. This time, a nation in turmoil should be addressed by the U.N. as a whole and any military expenses be shared by all the nations of the world: Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, the Arab nations, and everyone else that is a member of the United Nations. Is this the moment in time that the "vision" of a world united to ensure peace comes true?

Egyptian Democracy: Is It Coming?

In the current unrest in Egypt, the Obama administration is walking a tight rope, urging Mubakak to provide greater democratic rights to the people of Egypt, but not asking our long-term ally to step down. Some take the logical position that an individual who has been in power for 30 years and is grooming his son to take his place, cannot possibly be the person to implement a true democracy in his country. But the opposition to Mubarak seems to be a spontaneous uprising with no clearly defined leadership. Mohamed ElBaradei claims to be the Mubarak opposition leader, but the people in the streets don't seem to be protesting on his behalf. Nor are the protesting on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most influential opposition party. The United States is taking a hands off approach as well it should: the United States should not attempt to be the world's policeman.

So, where will a democratic government come from? Can what seems to be a leaderless mass of people form a stable government? Or is it perhaps a little more likely that the oppositon leaders can join together to establish a stable governent leading to honest elections? Or will the military install a new government in Egypt?

WikiLeaks and MLK

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Martin Luther King, Jr. was willing to deliberately violate segregation laws and go to prison if need be, as an act of civil disobedience. Similarly, Rosa Parks refuse to change her sear on a bus to follow a law she thought was unfair. King and Parks and other civil rights leaders were later vindicated, as the old Jim Crow segregation laws gradually disappeared. Civil disobedience to support civil rights was later praised as a virtue.

Today, Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization are publishing classified documents on the Internet. By so doing, they may be either breaking the law or aiding and abetting other law-breakers. It appears that Assange is not doing this for personal gain, but rather to expose unethical behavior in government and industry. In a sense, by publishing classified information WikiLeaks is also opposing excessive classification of documents that it believes the public should be able to see.

Some prominent government and business leaders have praised Assange, others have denounced him as a “terrorist.” What he is doing is, in essence, deliberating publishing documents that he thinks should be available to the public, but which other powerful forces think should be withheld. Is this not a form of civil disobedience, much like Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement of the 1960’s? And should not those people that support Assange join to create an organization that will formally work to oppose excessive government secrecy, just as groups like the NAACP worked to overturn the Jim Crow laws many years ago?

What Matters in Iraq: Votes or Troops ?

According to a report from the Associated Press, the influence of the United States in Iraq is dwindling along with the decrease in United States troops. Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the United States, that is, the Bush Administration, set up an occupying organization, the Coalition Provisional Authority, to manage Iraq affairs. Iraqis were then urged to develop a new constitution and ultimately a new form of government. There is little doubt that any new constitution would have to meet with the approval of the occupiers, and that the new government, if not exactly a puppet government, would at least be responsive to the wishes of the United States. Now, the AP report is telling us, that the responsiveness of the Iraqi government is decreasing, along with the decrease of American troops in Iraq.

More specifically, the AP is telling us that Iraqi is now more interested in forming relationships with its neighboring countries, including Iran, than in relying on the U.S. for guidance. The A.P. also tells us that the anti-American cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, is poised to play a major role in the coalition government that is slowly, very slowly, being formed. You may recall that the Coalition Provisional Authority sought the arrest of al-Sadr due to alleged illegal activities by his followers. That arrest never happened, due largely to the fact that al-Sadr's followers included a militia organization, known as the Mahdi Army. In Iraq, as in many parts of the world, it seems that the political process is influenced heavily by the size of the military forces involved. The future government of Iraq may turn out to be based on who has the biggest military force, not who gets the most votes.

At this time, the Obama administration is sticking to its planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I do not expect that to change. I believe that the American public wants a withdrawal from our entanglement in Iraq affairs, as does President Obama himself, as do I. But, at the risk of being an unfair cynic, I question whether the Bush administration ever intended to withdraw from Iraq. That administration had no exit plan, but rather intended to stay until the "job was done" although what that job entailed was never spelled out. I suspect that the Bush knew that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would eventually lead to a new government in Iraq, undoubtedly one that was not particularly responsive to the wishes of the U.S. government or the U.S. corporations.

Class Warfare, When Did the War Start?

In recent months, amid threats of tax increases, certain power centers have begun warning of the dangers of “class warfare.” My first reaction to that was annoyance. Where did these “classes” come from? The United States is a class-less society. The answer to that is that this is all about economics. Certainly, we have a middle class, and upper-income and lower-income people. So we do have economic classes, and we certainly don’t them involved in wars. Okay, I’ll accept the argument that we have economic classes and move on. But my first point is to warn everyone to be suspicious when people start talking about “classes” and “class warfare.”

If you look at the economics of the so-called “classes,” you’ll see that the wealthy "classes," whether feudal lords, nineteenth century slave-owners, or wealthy industrialists of the modern era, have always tried to maximize their income. Nothing wrong with that. And one way to maximize your income is to pay your workers as little as possible. I guess that’s all right also, as long as one's religion will allow one to do that. And, it follows, of course, that it’s okay for the workers to unionize to get a bigger share of the pie for themselves. But, is getting a union to bargain for you class warfare? If class warfare really exists, then union battles are certainly a part of it. But the industrialist also tried to get a bigger share of the pie by paying low wages. That’s class warfare also. If the concept of class warfare is valid, then it has always existed and probably always will exist.

Note that when things were going good for big business, no one talked of class warfare. However, when a new administration is elected that might tax the well-to-do at at a higher rate, then suddenly we have class warfare. No, either we’ve always had class warfare or we’ve never had it. I believe the use of the word “warfare” is an intentional attempt to manipulate the public. We should acknowledge that there is, and always will be, a struggle by every individual to get as big a piece of the pie for himself as possible.

But as part of that struggle for economic success, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to decide what is a fair distribution of the wealth and what isn’t. The United States will never be a nation that allows people to literally starve to death. The United States proved in the 1930’s that it is not a nation that allows large segments of the population to have no jobs and live in poverty. The United States of today has to decide what needs to be done to keep our once-huge middle class from slipping away.