Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 6,539
Number of posts: 6,539
All of the fingerprints in the sniper's nest were identified except for one. The Warren Commission put an expedited request in to have all fingerprints in that area identified to eliminate the possibility of a second shooter. It almost succeeded but not quite. That one fingerprint remained unidentified for 35 years.
Then sometime during the late 90s it was identified as belonging to Mac Wallace, a man who was a lot of different things, but significantly a KKK sympathizer, a convicted murderer, and a long-time Johnson associate and a former marine. The fingerprint was identified by fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby, and that same fingerprint was independently identified by a French fingerprint expert who had simply been given the print, not the name of the suspect or the name of the case being investigated. The latter confirmation was obtained to support the findings of Darby.
This information is painstakingly outlined by one of Johnson's lawyer's, Barr McClellan, father of Scott McClellan, in the book Blood, Money and Power. This was also the source of the special on the History Channel that the Johnson family angrily contested and demanded time to contradict. The people on the panel who ultimately appeared to contradict these findings did not address any of those allegations.
There are a number of documents and exhibits in the last part of the book.
Posted by Samantha | Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:17 AM (2 replies)
Remember Dane, who I now call My Great Dane? He is a Mama's Boy...probably soon moving to NJ but promises not to ever vote for Chris Christie.
and here is the beautiful Monet, a feline work of art, but if you look closely, you can barely see the shy Elise hiding behind the couch!
But there she is, the beautiful Elise named after the lovely Beethoven piece
My golden tiger-stripped Sunny, also a Mama's Boy
and Bo, the little kitten with the big personality, the last picture I have before he left for his new home -- I will always love him.
Posted to say hello to DU'ers who read and participated in the Nikita threads and to say thank you for all of your help in getting us where we are today.
Edited to add this picture of Elise that I had difficulty posting earlier:
Posted by Samantha | Tue Nov 19, 2013, 11:50 PM (54 replies)
"Bullets and fingerprints aside, there are much larger questions to be answered: who planned the assassination, who organized the minutia of the detail, what principals participated, and why did they do it. It is an extremely healthy endeavor that we undertake in continuing to attempt to learn the answers to these questions in order to better protect our Presidents now and in the future, and additionally to hold accountable those who played a role who are today still living."
I believe the assassination was literally planned by Johnson's attorney in Texas named Edward Clark. Clark had represented Johnson since the inception of his political career, in other words for decades. Johnson had an incredible number of skeletons in his closet. While some of these skeletons have in the past made the public media, many today are just not talked about often, if ever, publicly.
Johnson was Clark's cash cow, and if and when he became President, the rewards would be astronomical for both. So Clark would protect Johnson at all costs.
Of course, Johnson was from the state of Texas and was no stranger to either the players of the military industrial complex and BIG OIL. Kennedy's failure to engage in a war against the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis, his failure to escalate the Vietnam war into a full fledged war, the rumors in Washington that he was planning to pull out 1,000 advisors by the end of 1963 infuriated many well-placed power brokers as well as wealthy businessmen. They saw Kennedy as weak on national security and an impediment to the profits of big business. He had to go.
During Kennedy's first term, while Johnson was sitting in the Vice President's Office, he was threatened by two personal scandals, either one of which could result in his being ejected from that seat. One of them was the Billy Sol Estes scandal who was facing Federal fraud charges and who gave a lot of money to Johnson's campaigns. He also received a lot of assistance with cotton allotments and Johnson "helped" him with that. Large amounts of money and other assistance was involved in the Johnson/Estes relationship, and when Estes came up for criminal charges, Johnson was panic-stricken. The other scandal facing Johnson was his relationship with Bobby Baker who provided women for "entertainment" purposes to members in Congress. The Republicans were doing all they could to stir up these scandals and the Senate was starting hearings. Johnson knew as Vice President he faced exposure and possible expulsion should he be charged in either scandal; however, as President neither could touch him.
Add to all of this mix, Johnson and Kennedy despised each other and you have the recipe for an assassination. This is part of the answer to the question Why.
I believe the "cook" for the recipe was Edward Clark, as suggested by Barr McClellan, another attorney who work with Clark and the author of the book, Blood, Power and Money. He suggests in his book Johnson was kept in the "wood-shed" from the details. In that way, he could react convincingly when the President was assassinated and he could never reveal the details of the planning if he did not know them.
But not only for Johnson, but also for the other interested parties mentioned above, Clark planned the assassination, put the pieces together and implemented the whole operation. Oswald, I believe, was involved, but I also believe Mac Wallace, a long-time Johnson associate and hit-man, was a second shooter. A fingerprint that remained unidentified for 35 years, one found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, was identified in the late 90s by an expert named A. Nathan Darby and independently confirmed by a French fingerprint expert, who was not supplied the name of the matter under investigation or the suspected identity of the person to whom the fingerprints belonged.
Considering the longstanding history Johnson and Clark had with Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, wealthy businessmen as well as expert hitmen and other nefarious people, a lot of the necessary players were easily gathered by them for participation and financing of an assassination of the President. Only the cover-up would be tricky but they also knew people who could assist with that....
Posted by Samantha | Mon Nov 18, 2013, 01:31 AM (0 replies)
When we observe a significant anniversary of the late President Kennedy's assassination, we see an accelerated appearance of more books, more specials and more articles on this very subject. Those overly protective of the United States' reputation, meaning those who work overtime to hide the truth in the interests of "national security", do not want the world to know the cause of the death of a beloved United States' president remains in question 50 years following that tragic event. The fact that the citizens of this Country are still questioning and still researching how this tragedy happened does not comport with the image the gatekeepers wish to project.
I have read many declaratory statements at this site these last few days that there is no evidence that a conspiracy existed to cause the death of the late President John F. Kennedy. I have written many posts on this subject but would simply ask this question at this time: has all of the literal evidence collected by the United States government and other key involved and/or interested parties on the Kennedy assassination been released to the public?
Posted by Samantha | Sun Nov 17, 2013, 11:47 PM (0 replies)
"You are old enough to know better?" Really? If you ever respond to another post of mine, you need to remain civil.
You also have a flaw in your reasoning process if you believe I said anything like a single smudged fingerprint outweighs the mounts of evidence that point to Oswald as the lone killer. I was 90 percent already there in my belief Johnson played a key role, an opinion I arrived at after decades of reading many published accounts, but the identification of that fingerprint (which had gone unidentified for 35 years) as belonging to Wallace cinched, read that word again, cinched my continuing opinion. Mac Wallace was a name I was already familiar with as a man who had been convicted of murder and was a known associate of Johnson for a long period of time.
Additionally, a majority of Americans do not believe in the Warren Commission report:
"By the beginning of the new century skepticism had turned to incredulity. Opinion polls now showed that around 90 percent of Americans believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent or, at most, he merely assisted in a conspiracy to kill the president." (emphasis added, quoted from the History News Network) http://hnn.us/article/8059
If that is not enough to convince you, you might like to read up on the United States House Select Committee's on Assassinations findings in 1976:
"The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. However, the Committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The Committee also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of these two groups acting together.
The HSCA suffered from being conducted mostly in secret, and then issued a public report with much of its evidence sealed for 50 years under Congressional rules. In 1992, Congress passed legislation to collect and open up all the evidence relating to Kennedy's death, and created the Assassination Records Review Board to further that goal." at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations.
Here are that committee's specific findings with regard to the Kennedy assassination:
" Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. (my emphasis added)*
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy.
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
My personal opinion is that Lee Harvey Oswald participated in the Kennedy assassination but there was more than one assassin. More than half of the witnesses personally interviewed about the death of our president said they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll. More than half. This fact was featured in a documentary I viewed over the weekend on Reelz, so I have no link. I do believe that Wallace was the second hitman, and that he fired from a position in front of the late President Kennedy's limousine. Because some believed Oswald was not a reliable player in his important role, and determined that President Kennedy would indeed lose his life that day, the organizers of the assassination took out an insurance policy by placing Wallace in position to fire from the front.
Bullets and fingerprints aside, there are much larger questions to be answered: who planned the assassination, who organized the minutia of the detail, what principals participated, and why did they do it. It is an extremely healthy endeavor that we undertake in continuing to attempt to learn the answers to these questions in order to better protect our Presidents now and in the future, and additionally to hold accountable those who played a role who are today still living.
Posted by Samantha | Sun Nov 17, 2013, 08:57 PM (1 replies)
That fingerprint match was a real turning point for me. A lot of Wallace's history is reported in the book, including his conviction for murder, but that unidentified fingerprint was left in suspense for 35 years. Unbelievable. When Darby made his case, that question as to whether or not Johnson had been involved in Kennedy's assassination was no longer a question to me. Johnson's history with Wallace is painstakingly reported in the book.
Another issue which was once pointed out but left unanswered for years revolved around the Secret Service Protection Plan. People who have discussed the assassination point to pictures along the route the entourage took and specifically pinpoint irregularities that should not have been -- things like completely open windows, windows without coverings, that type of thing. There is a procedure that is followed to protect the President, and all of the discrepancies people noted are in conflict with that plan. McClellan reports in the book that it was Johnson who handed over the Secret Service plan for protecting the President.
Got to go - it is late - I hope you pick up the book and read it for yourself.
Posted by Samantha | Sat Nov 16, 2013, 03:08 AM (0 replies)
Regarding the Attorney General election in Virginia, I have a question. Please keep in mind I do not live in Virginia and I know nothing about the rules outlined in the Commonwealth's Constitution.
It appears Fairfax County is applying a caveat to the authenticity of provisional ballots cast in that contest. One article I just read on this site refers to it as a "new" rule in which voters who did in fact cast provisional ballots must show up to authenticate the ballot if he or she wants it counted.
If Fairfax County applies this rule, and other counties in the Commonwealth did not, would that not be a violation of the Equal Protection Law? Did not in fact an attorney for George W. Bush* argue that it was "a violation of the Equal Protection Law if counties differed at all in how they interpreted the intent of a voter." That attorney was Barry Richards and this was reported by David Bois in his book "Courting Justice" at pages 423-424.
Additionally, in the Supreme Court, Bush's attorneys argued the Florida Supreme Court's decision violated 3 USC Section 5 "which gives conclusive effect to state court determinations only if those determinations are made 'pursuant to . . . laws enacted prior to' Election Day." (at page 440). And while the opinion of the majority did try to limit the application of this provision to that one decision when it ruled for George W. Bush*, we all remember Justice Stevens words in his dissent and realize that without complete certainty as to the identity of the winner, the "loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence ... of the rule of law." See page 450 of "Courting Justice."
NBC News has reported that this rule that voters who cast provisional ballots must personally contact their local Boards of Election in order to have their votes counted. Again, NBC News has also stated that:
"The attorney general is essentially the CEO of the state government law office, supervising more than 400 lawyers and support staff. The position also is historically a stepping stone to a run for governor." I am sure we all know who that Attorney General is.
There are just too many things that do not pass the smell test in this Absentee Ballot counting process. My hope is that the attorneys in Virginia and in the Department of Justice are carefully watching this process and that the people of Virginia STAND UP for the integrity of that process.
What do you think?
Posted by Samantha | Sat Nov 9, 2013, 08:43 PM (5 replies)
Starting with the recognition we are still at war in Afghanistan, one would think if an economic disaster loomed on the horizon in the United States, the President would have the authority to act to preserve both our economy and our national security. The question then becomes what authority could he use that did not require the Legislature's approval. Perhaps the answer lies with a Declaration of a State of Emergency.
A preliminary review of several sources suggests that is a very real option President Obama could exercise if the debt ceiling is not lifted and the threat of default is a very real danger to the Country. Perhaps you might consider this possibility and comment.
What is the National Emergencies Act?
"The National Emergencies Act (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601-1651) is a United States national law passed to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. It imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers.
The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency (or public danger).
Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 ("TWEA"), starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, presidents had the power to declare emergencies without limiting their scope or duration, without citing the relevant statutes, and without congressional oversight. The Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer limited what a president could do in such an emergency, but did not limit the emergency declaration power itself. A 1973 Senate investigation found (in Senate Report 93-549) that four declared emergencies remained in effect: the 1933 banking crisis with respect to the hoarding of gold, a 1950 emergency with respect to the Korean War, a 1970 emergency regarding a postal workers strike, and a 1971 emergency in response to inflation. Title V, Section 502 of P.L. 94-412 specifically exempts the statutorily authority cited in the Proclamations of these four declared states of national emergency from termination. It then passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to restore the emergency power in a limited, overseeable form."
Take a look at Reference #1 at the same link:
" H. Rep. No. 95-459, at 7 (1977) " has become essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review. These powers may be exercised so long as there is an unterminated declaration of national emergency on the books, whether or not the situation with respect to which the emergency was declared bears any relationship to the situation with respect to which the President is using the authorities"
So I took a look to see if there are any unterminated declarations of national emergency in effect. As you can see from the above paragraph (b) quote, the declaration a President is making does not necessarily have to "bear any relationship to the situation with respect to which the President is using the authorities."
THERE ARE MANY CURRENT DECLARATIONS OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN EFFECT.
"In the past year, President Obama has signed continuations of National Emergency declarations for Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya, Ivory Coast, the Middle East Peace Process, Sudan, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations, the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor, the Western Balkans, the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Iran (2); nineteen in all. Nineteen concurrent "national emergencies." Most Americans, and perhaps most politicians, would be hard pressed to explain the circumstances surrounding one-third of these emergencies, let alone all nineteen. The mere existence of some of these declarations would doubtless be a surprise to many."
What are the requirements for declaring a national emergency?
"The National Emergencies Act requires the president to specify the provisions in the law upon which his actions under each declaration are authorized.
* * *
Last year, President Obama extended the National Emergency with respect to terrorism that President Bush signed after the devastating attacks on America by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001." (see link above).
Finally, as I was writing this thread, I found an article published by Brookings entitled "President Obama Should Issue an Executive Order to Raise the Debt Ceiling":
"It is the right of any president to declare a state of emergency and to take action necessary to protect the nation. America has a long-standing history of granting or tacitly accepting expanded presidential powers in times of crisis. As the sole figure elected by the entire nation, he is the politician to whom we turn when faced with a national emergency, and in so doing, we often allow him leeway to act in ways that protect the nation even if we would not imbue those powers upon him in calmer times."
* * *
Once a state of emergency is declared, the President would have multiple mechanisms through which to raise the debt ceiling – via an executive order, memorandum, or proclamation, to name a few. The exact mechanism chosen, though, is of less importance than the action itself. The ultimate arbitrator of the constitutionality of the President’s actions will be the Supreme Court (notably, not Congress). Since the Constitution does not clearly state that the President cannot raise the debt ceiling in times of crisis – see the 14th Amendment argument – and the public is eager for any solution to the debt ceiling impasse, it seems likely that the courts would look favorably on presidential action to prevent an economic emergency of this magnitude.
Thus, the solution to the debt ceiling crisis lies in President Obama’s hands. He needs to recognize this as the national emergency that it is, and issue an executive order to solve the problem. Congress will get in line if he does. It’s a game of chicken, but in this game, the president holds the trump card."
It does appear there is an emergency exit from the economic default. Obviously, I am not an expert on this subject so you might know of conflicting factors.
In my opinion, I believe it is entirely possible this is a political trap for our President. If he does nothing, the House might possibly use his inaction as grounds for impeachment. He failed to prevent an economic collapse in the Country. Can't you hear the Tea Party warming up? If he does act, the possibility exists that the Republicans will accuse him of a power grab and try to impeach him for whatever actions he takes. Politically, he could be in a no-win situation.
Beyond that, if the decision to act ends up in the Supreme Court, one cannot assume that particular Court would not stoop to a political as opposed to a legal opinion. Think Bush v. Gore. The Republican party's motto in 2000 while competing in the Presidential race was "win at all costs." Assuming that is still the operative imperative, the question now becomes what will President Obama do about it? What do you think is the answer?
Posted by Samantha | Tue Oct 15, 2013, 10:41 PM (41 replies)
repealing the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, sometimes referred to as the statutory debt limit.
Here is a short history of this legislation:
"Before the debt ceiling was created, the President had free reign on the country's finances. In 1917, the debt ceiling was created during World War I to hold the President fiscally responsible. Over time, the debt ceiling has been raised whenever the United States comes close to hitting the limit. By hitting the limit and missing an interest payment to bondholders, the United States would be in default, lowering its credit rating and increasing the cost of its debt."
As we can clearly see now, the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, can sometimes for unusual, unexpected circumstances conflict with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which requires:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
A substantial portion of the debt was accumulated as a result of our retaliation for the attack launched on our Country on September 11, 2001. This Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states the validity of the public debt ... incurred for payment of ... bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned. I think it is safe to assume that the validity of the debt for responding to this Country being attacked would be within the intended scope of what the amendment states is unquestionably valid debt which should not be questioned. True, that is not what constitutes all of the debt but without that expense, our debt would not be as large.
But here is another important point. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 is a Federal law. The 14th Amendment is a part of our Constitution, the highest law in the land. When there is a conflict in executing the intent of the 14th Amendment and adhering to the debt ceiling Federal Law, the Constitution I believe would have to prevail.
In order to eradicate the inevitable occasional conflict between these two referenced laws, it appears to me the solution to that problem is to repeal the debt ceiling legislation.
Importantly, the debt ceiling law was passed to keep the President of the United States "fiscally responsible" during wartime. Inasmuch as George W. Bush* kept 10.5 trillion dollars in debt off the general ledger and out of public sight during his two terms, he single-handedly proved by this action that this law is ineffective for the purpose for which it was intended! Repeal it now.
Another added benefit to doing so would be to eliminate the potential of the debt ceiling legislation being hijacked for nefarious political reasons which might possibly have the capability of producing great harm to our system of government.
This is my suggestion for reaching a middle ground of compromise between the House Republicans and the President of the United States on the two pending crises which threaten our government now. I do not see how any self-respecting politician could expect to publicly vote against a bill of this nature and still maintain any credibility but that is probably a naive expectation. However, repealing the debt ceiling is a compromise that would save face on both sides of the aisle, and that might be a welcomed opportunity by politicians of all political persuasions at this point.
Posted by Samantha | Wed Oct 9, 2013, 12:34 AM (16 replies)
Our political system is the venue under which their goals are camouflaged and that is the brilliance of it.
Breaking the economy of the United States was a stated goal of Osama Bin Laden. No one will argue that he was anything but a terrorist. But when a government official or officials surreptitiously develop a plan with private citizens to do the same thing, it is just politics. In other words, when a foreign enemy of the United States states this is his goal, he is a terrorist. When a citizen states this is his goal, he is a politician. That does not truly compute because in both instances the government suffers tremendous harm and folds.
I don't think this is mere politics. I believe the originators of the plan want to remake this Country into the image they would like, not necessary what the Constitution requires. Simply look at the fact that the Koch Brothers' father, for instance, helped co-found The John Birch Society. The last time I checked, about a year or so ago, David Koch's name was right there on the membership list. Most thinking people will agree The John Birch Society is an ultra right-wing organization:
"The organization identifies with Christian principles, seeks to limit governmental powers, and opposes wealth redistribution, and economic interventionism. It opposes collectivism, totalitarianism, and communism. It opposes socialism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating US governmental administration. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed president, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right.
The society opposed aspects of the 1960s civil rights movement and claimed the movement had communists in important positions. In the latter half of 1965, the JBS produced a flyer entitled "What's Wrong With Civil Rights?", which was used as a newspaper advertisement. In the piece, one of the answers was: "For the civil rights movement in the United States, with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps towards the appearance of a civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than forty years." The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states' rights to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society opposes "one world government", and it has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue the U.S. Constitution has been devalued in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this alleged trend is not accidental. It cited the existence of the former Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union. Stuart A. Wright has said that their political racism, however, was not inconsistent with the views of either Republican or Democratic mainstream politicians at the time."
Just a clean reading of these two paragraphs reflect a lot of what Tea Party Republicans believe. It is my personal opinion that elements of The John Birch Society are intertwined with the shut-down currently in effect. It is also my personal opinion that this is not a coincidence but a realization of a long-term goal materializing by some who are pulling the strings of the Tea Party puppets.
Just think about it. How many times have we heard certain elements of the social safety net condemned in derogatory words as if to shame the participants: unemployment benefits, food stamps, medicaid, social security, the Affordable Care Act, just to name a few. These programs are sneered at by people who are opposed to socialism and/or a sharing of the wealth. Can't you still hear Michele Bachmann's words that Obamacare is socialism ringing in your ears?
And while some here are repulsed at the idea of calling what has happened here as anything but mere politics, I believe the proper course is to carefully re-think that conclusion. There are just too many things that suggest it simply is not.
Posted by Samantha | Tue Oct 8, 2013, 03:20 AM (2 replies)