Le site Bellaciao: coloré, multiple, ou le meilleur cotoie fort heureusement le pire, mélangé, bizarre, picabien et dadaîste, explorant toutes sortes de registres et de régimes rhétoriques, drole et polémiqueur, surréaliste: rencontre d'un parapluie et d'une machine à coudre sur une table de dissection, têtes de Lénine sur le clavier d'un piano Steinway ou Bosendorfer...
Senal en Vivo
with Bellaciao
Bellaciao hosted by
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !
Bellaciao  mobile version   |   Home  |   About us   |   Donation  |   Links  |   Contact  |   Search
Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush

by : Ron Reagan
Saturday July 31, 2004 - 02:39
> Edito

The son of the fortieth president of the United States takes a hard look at the son of the forty-first and does not like what he sees

By Ron Reagan

It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn’t hurt. Even the Enron audiotapes and their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. As a result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the ground shifting beneath your feet. Not unlike that scene in The Day After Tomorrow, then in theaters, in which the giant ice shelf splits asunder, this was more a paradigm shift than anything strictly tectonic. No cataclysmic ice age, admittedly, yet something was in the air, and people were inhaling deeply. I began to get calls from friends whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son’s misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon, accompanied by the sound of scales falling from people’s eyes. It felt something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

Oddly, even my father’s funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans’ eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush’s advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison-Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush-and it’s no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood-a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can’t be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees-Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn’t quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him-these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too-a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That’s so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

Politicians will stretch the truth. They’ll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country-nearly one third of us by some estimates-continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It’s one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the Bush presidency, because that’s not what this is. This is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy’s critique of George W. Bush.

THE MOST EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES OF distortion and misdirection-which the administration even now cannot bring itself to repudiate-involve our putative "War on Terror" and our subsequent foray into Iraq.

During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more "humble" foreign policy. "I would take the use of force very seriously," he said. "I would be guarded in my approach." Other countries would resent us "if we’re an arrogant nation." He sniffed at the notion of "nation building." "Our military is meant to fight and win wars. . . . And when it gets overextended, morale drops." International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration’s approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush’s remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.

But didn’t 9/11 reshuffle the deck, changing everything? Didn’t Mr. Bush, on September 12, 2001, awaken to the fresh realization that bad guys in charge of Islamic nations constitute an entirely new and grave threat to us and have to be ruthlessly confronted lest they threaten the American homeland again? Wasn’t Saddam Hussein rushed to the front of the line because he was complicit with the hijackers and in some measure responsible for the atrocities in Washington, D. C., and at the tip of Manhattan?

Well, no.

As Bush’s former Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, and his onetime "terror czar," Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one. "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out," O’Neill said. All they needed was an excuse. Clarke got the same impression from within the White House. Afghanistan had to be dealt with first; that’s where the actual perpetrators were, after all. But the Taliban was a mere appetizer; Saddam was the entrée. (Or who knows? The soup course?) It was simply a matter of convincing the American public (and our representatives) that war was justified.

The real-but elusive-prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner (a staff member at Fox News-the cable-TV outlet of the Bush White House-told me a year ago that mere mention of bin Laden’s name was forbidden within the company, lest we be reminded that the actual bad guy remained at large) while Saddam’s Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush’s words, "a threat of unique urgency" to the most powerful nation on earth.

Fanciful but terrifying scenarios were introduced: Unmanned aircraft, drones, had been built for missions targeting the U. S., Bush told the nation. "We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice deadpanned to CNN. And, Bush maintained, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." We "know" Iraq possesses such weapons, Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney assured us. We even "know" where they are hidden. After several months of this mumbo jumbo, 70 percent of Americans had embraced the fantasy that Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center.

ALL THESE ASSERTIONS have proved to be baseless and, we’ve since discovered, were regarded with skepticism by experts at the time they were made. But contrary opinions were derided, ignored, or covered up in the rush to war. Even as of this writing, Dick Cheney clings to his mad assertion that Saddam was somehow at the nexus of a worldwide terror network.

And then there was Abu Ghraib. Our "war president" may have been justified in his assumption that Americans are a warrior people. He pushed the envelope in thinking we’d be content as an occupying power, but he was sadly mistaken if he thought that ordinary Americans would tolerate an image of themselves as torturers. To be fair, the torture was meant to be secret. So were the memos justifying such treatment that had floated around the White House, Pentagon, and Justice Department for more than a year before the first photos came to light. The neocons no doubt appreciate that few of us have the stones to practice the New Warfare. Could you slip a pair of women’s panties over the head of a naked, cowering stranger while forcing him to masturbate? What would you say while sodomizing him with a toilet plunger? Is keeping someone awake till he hallucinates inhumane treatment or merely "sleep management"?

Most of us know the answers to these questions, so it was incumbent upon the administration to pretend that Abu Ghraib was an aberration, not policy. Investigations, we were assured, were already under way; relevant bureaucracies would offer unstinting cooperation; the handful of miscreants would be sternly disciplined. After all, they didn’t "represent the best of what America’s all about." As anyone who’d watched the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission could have predicted, what followed was the usual administration strategy of stonewalling, obstruction, and obfuscation. The appointment of investigators was stalled; documents were withheld, including the full report by Major General Antonio Taguba, who headed the Army’s primary investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. A favorite moment for many featured John McCain growing apoplectic as Donald Rumsfeld and an entire tableful of army brass proved unable to answer the simple question Who was in charge at Abu Ghraib?

The Bush administration no doubt had its real reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. They’ve simply chosen not to share them with the American public. They sought justification for ignoring the Geneva Convention and other statutes prohibiting torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners but were loath to acknowledge as much. They may have ideas worth discussing, but they don’t welcome the rest of us in the conversation. They don’t trust us because they don’t dare expose their true agendas to the light of day. There is a surreal quality to all this: Occupation is liberation; Iraq is sovereign, but we’re in control; Saddam is in Iraqi custody, but we’ve got him; we’ll get out as soon as an elected Iraqi government asks us, but we’ll be there for years to come. Which is what we counted on in the first place, only with rose petals and easy coochie.

This Möbius reality finds its domestic analogue in the perversely cynical "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" sloganeering at Bush’s EPA and in the administration’s irresponsible tax cutting and other fiscal shenanigans. But the Bush administration has always worn strangely tinted shades, and you wonder to what extent Mr. Bush himself lives in a world of his own imagining.

And chances are your America and George W. Bush’s America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job-where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits. He may find it difficult to relate personally to any of the nearly two million citizens who’ve lost their jobs under his administration, the first administration since Herbert Hoover’s to post a net loss of jobs. Mr. Bush has never had to worry that he couldn’t afford the best available health care for his children. For him, forty-three million people without health insurance may be no more than a politically inconvenient abstraction. When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy. His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bush’s economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. You’re the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you’ll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet.

ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don’t have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one’s long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.

Mr. Bush’s tendency to meander beyond the bounds of truth was evident during the 2000 campaign but was largely ignored by the mainstream media. His untruths simply didn’t fit the agreed-upon narrative. While generally acknowledged to be lacking in experience, depth, and other qualifications typically considered useful in a leader of the free world, Bush was portrayed as a decent fellow nonetheless, one whose straightforwardness was a given. None of that "what the meaning of is is" business for him. And, God knows, no furtive, taxpayer-funded fellatio sessions with the interns. Al Gore, on the other hand, was depicted as a dubious self-reinventor, stained like a certain blue dress by Bill Clinton’s prurient transgressions. He would spend valuable weeks explaining away statements-"I invented the Internet"-that he never made in the first place. All this left the coast pretty clear for Bush.

Scenario typical of the 2000 campaign: While debating Al Gore, Bush tells two obvious-if not exactly earth-shattering-lies and is not challenged. First, he claims to have supported a patient’s bill of rights while governor of Texas. This is untrue. He, in fact, vigorously resisted such a measure, only reluctantly bowing to political reality and allowing it to become law without his signature. Second, he announces that Gore has outspent him during the campaign. The opposite is true: Bush has outspent Gore. These misstatements are briefly acknowledged in major press outlets, which then quickly return to the more germane issues of Gore’s pancake makeup and whether a certain feminist author has counseled him to be more of an "alpha male."

Having gotten away with such witless falsities, perhaps Mr. Bush and his team felt somehow above day-to-day truth. In any case, once ensconced in the White House, they picked up where they left off.

IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH and confusion of 9/11, Bush, who on that day was in Sarasota, Florida, conducting an emergency reading of "The Pet Goat," was whisked off to Nebraska aboard Air Force One. While this may have been entirely sensible under the chaotic circumstances-for all anyone knew at the time, Washington might still have been under attack-the appearance was, shall we say, less than gallant. So a story was concocted: There had been a threat to Air Force One that necessitated the evasive maneuver. Bush’s chief political advisor, Karl Rove, cited "specific" and "credible" evidence to that effect. The story quickly unraveled. In truth, there was no such threat.

Then there was Bush’s now infamous photo-op landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and his subsequent speech in front of a large banner emblazoned MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The banner, which loomed in the background as Bush addressed the crew, became problematic as it grew clear that the mission in Iraq-whatever that may have been-was far from accomplished. "Major combat operations," as Bush put it, may have technically ended, but young Americans were still dying almost daily. So the White House dealt with the questionable banner in a manner befitting a president pledged to "responsibility and accountability": It blamed the sailors. No surprise, a bit of digging by journalists revealed the banner and its premature triumphalism to be the work of the White House communications office.

More serious by an order of magnitude was the administration’s dishonesty concerning pre-9/11 terror warnings. As questions first arose about the country’s lack of preparedness in the face of terrorist assault, Condoleezza Rice was dispatched to the pundit arenas to assure the nation that "no one could have imagined terrorists using aircraft as weapons." In fact, terrorism experts had warned repeatedly of just such a calamity. In June 2001, CIA director George Tenet sent Rice an intelligence report warning that "it is highly likely that a significant Al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Two intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 specifically connected Al Qaeda to the imminent danger of hijacked planes being used as weapons. According to The New York Times, after the second of these briefings, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States," was delivered to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in August, Bush "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing." This was the briefing Dr. Rice dismissed as "historical" in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

What’s odd is that none of these lies were worth the breath expended in the telling. If only for self-serving political reasons, honesty was the way to go. The flight of Air Force One could easily have been explained in terms of security precautions taken in the confusion of momentous events. As for the carrier landing, someone should have fallen on his or her sword at the first hint of trouble: We told the president he needed to do it; he likes that stuff and was gung-ho; we figured, What the hell?; it was a mistake. The banner? We thought the sailors would appreciate it. In retrospect, also a mistake. Yup, we sure feel dumb now. Owning up to the 9/11 warnings would have entailed more than simple embarrassment. But done forthrightly and immediately, an honest reckoning would have earned the Bush team some respect once the dust settled. Instead, by needlessly tap-dancing, Bush’s White House squandered vital credibility, turning even relatively minor gaffes into telling examples of its tendency to distort and evade the truth.

But image is everything in this White House, and the image of George Bush as a noble and infallible warrior in the service of his nation must be fanatically maintained, because behind the image lies . . . nothing? As Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has pointed out, Bush has "never fully inhabited" the presidency. Bush apologists can smilingly excuse his malopropisms and vagueness as the plainspokenness of a man of action, but watching Bush flounder when attempting to communicate extemporaneously, one is left with the impression that he is ineloquent not because he can’t speak but because he doesn’t bother to think.

GEORGE W. BUSH PROMISED to "change the tone in Washington" and ran for office as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative," in the focus-group-tested sloganeering of his campaign. Yet he has governed from the right wing of his already conservative party, assiduously tending a "base" that includes, along with the expected Fortune 500 fat cats, fiscal evangelicals who talk openly of doing away with Social Security and Medicare, of shrinking government to the size where they can, in tax radical Grover Norquist’s phrase, "drown it in the bathtub." That base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of them-"partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution. It’s not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview; indeed, it’s unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this president, who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders nonetheless in the interest of political gain. As John DiIulio, Bush’s former head of the Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, once told this magazine, "What you’ve got is everything-and I mean everything-being run by the political arm."

This was not what the American electorate opted for when, in 2000, by a slim but decisive margin of more than half a million votes, they chose . . . the other guy. Bush has never had a mandate. Surveys indicate broad public dissatisfaction with his domestic priorities. How many people would have voted for Mr. Bush in the first place had they understood his eagerness to pass on crushing debt to our children or seen his true colors regarding global warming and the environment? Even after 9/11, were people really looking to be dragged into an optional war under false pretenses?

If ever there was a time for uniting and not dividing, this is it. Instead, Mr. Bush governs as if by divine right, seeming to actually believe that a wise God wants him in the White House and that by constantly evoking the horrible memory of September 11, 2001, he can keep public anxiety stirred up enough to carry him to another term.

UNDERSTANDABLY, SOME SUPPORTERS of Mr. Bush’s will believe I harbor a personal vendetta against the man, some seething resentment. One conservative commentator, based on earlier remarks I’ve made, has already discerned "jealousy" on my part; after all, Bush, the son of a former president, now occupies that office himself, while I, most assuredly, will not. Truth be told, I have no personal feelings for Bush at all. I hardly know him, having met him only twice, briefly and uneventfully-once during my father’s presidency and once during my father’s funeral. I’ll acknowledge occasional annoyance at the pretense that he’s somehow a clone of my father, but far from threatening, I see this more as silly and pathetic. My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself. His Republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious Right and its kill-anything-that-moves attack instincts. Believe it or not, I don’t look in the mirror every morning and see my father looming over my shoulder. I write and speak as nothing more or less than an American citizen, one who is plenty angry about the direction our country is being dragged by the current administration. We have reached a critical juncture in our nation’s history, one ripe with both danger and possibility. We need leadership with the wisdom to prudently confront those dangers and the imagination to boldly grasp the possibilities. Beyond issues of fiscal irresponsibility and ill-advised militarism, there is a question of trust. George W. Bush and his allies don’t trust you and me. Why on earth, then, should we trust them?

Fortunately, we still live in a democratic republic. The Bush team cannot expect a cabal of right-wing justices to once again deliver the White House. Come November 2, we will have a choice: We can embrace a lie, or we can restore a measure of integrity to our government. We can choose, as a bumper sticker I spotted in Seattle put it, SOMEONE ELSE FOR PRESIDENT.


Leave a comment
Print this article

Commentaires de l'article

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Saturday July 31 - 13:57 - Posted by 0f1ec4acf82b84aa...

Excellent analysis on the Bush administration. Yes, it is imperative for the good of America and the World that the Bush regime be removed from power. Sad to have to wait until November for the vote and wait further until January 20, 2005 for transfer of power to the new president, but so be it; since impeachment proceedings would take at least that long anyway.

The real shame of all this is that our choice is not much choice at all. John Kerry is not a great candidate and, even with all that is in evidence against the Bush group, can muster no better than 50% of the vote it seems. Nevertheless, one must hold one’s nose tightly and go with Kerry this time for the sole reason that he is not Bush. This opportunity to oust the neocon influence can not be passed up. Besides, a Kerry administration will be kept on a short leash after all and perhaps the damage that has already been done can be somewhat mitigated during his 4 years. Maybe, just maybe, a real candidate to represent this potentially great nation will appear by 2008. We can only hope. In any event, it is very apparent that Bush has to go. He and Cheney along with their administration, from Ashcroft to Rice to Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz, must go far away from the ability to infect the policies of the U.S.

Thank you Ron Reagan for saying it better than most. Your comments should be required reading for the informed voter. Keep up the good work.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Saturday July 31 - 16:28 - Posted by da5a1fbf72041749...

Ron Reagan is just another misled liberal who has his facts wrong so as to bolster a tired old ideology. I would rather Ron Reagan espouse his ideology without distortion of the facts. But, of course, his ideology would fail and he needs to falsify the facts so as to make his ideology plausible. What is the most sad thing about this is that he realizes this but he has such disrespect for the world and tha American community that he sees nothing wrong in that. Perhaps, the liberals and their lack of credibility has finally gotten to him.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Saturday July 31 - 20:39 - Posted by 224d294c5a15f32d...

Got any specifics to back these charges up with? Ron Reagan Jr. certainly gives a lot of specifics in his arguments - can you refute even one of them?

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Wednesday December 9 - 11:15 - Posted by REV. michael COLLINS - dce0c0641608b1ad...

hi ron. I,m a southern grown man,and I’ll be the first to say,’Ya can’t fix STUPID! Some of us strongly believe W. did what he did, out of a delusional resentment about protecting his DADDY, that just worked, cleverly, with Cheney’ agenda to enterprise, subliminaly advancing riches.And we think Palin is"SHALLOW"! W’s attempts at business were ALL petty and uncompassionate,for his personal ego-trips, after he ran them in the ground just to inflate "confidence",for selfish profit. He’s well known in Texas for drilling dry holes, & backing out. The fact is, is that noone climbs the ladder without others "co-signing" their bad nature. I agree 100%, Ron, with your pursuit of "The Dip-stick President". God bless ya, man. Hoping your holiday season is filled with Love, Peace, Joy, and Happiness. Huggs for MOM!

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Saturday July 31 - 22:33 - Posted by 9cc1935f3794f004...

At the last State of the Union Speech Bush promised his administration would not pass on debt to future generations, and he would demand fiscal reponsibility from Congress. Can anyone tell me what spending bill this "president" has ever vetoed? He promised that the Social Security fund would be put in a lockbox. Some lockbox, we face an escalating deficit of $445 billion (actually much higher if social security surplus is not used to reduce the deficit) and best current estimates predict continuing huge deficits as far as the eye can see. Yet, does this administration take reponsibility, much less remedial action? No, we need more tax cuts (selectively chosen) for it’s plain to see that if tax cuts solve the awkward embarrassment of surpluses then they must surely be a cure to deficits!

Man, this is not a question of Republican or Democrat, it’s a question of sanity, it’s a question of safeguarding our children’s future and patrimony, it’s a question of preserving the Union!

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 04:55 - Posted by fc41d63b7a10ffaa...

Ron Reagan is not his father by any means. I’m sure his father is rolling over in his grave.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Monday August 2 - 22:45 - Posted by d81473ffc687c431...

You accuse Reagan of distortions but offer none, which is itself a distortion.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Wednesday August 4 - 07:29 - Posted by aa79ed06c8d5cdb8...

I think your wrong in your assessment on Kerry. The bush $ machine has made him look weak.
Then the R-wing talk radio hosts flood the airwaves and you have the troops oversees fed direct radio of
Rush Limbaugh’s show daily. This is all they hear all day and you wonder why the Democrats are doomed.. On military Bases all the TV news
channels are usually tuned to the Fox R-Wing news channel. The people have been fed lies just like the Germans were in Hitler’s Election from the Voelkischer Beobachter, 2 February 1932.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Wednesday August 4 - 07:34 - Posted by aa79ed06c8d5cdb8...

I think your wrong in your assessment on Kerry. The bush $ machine has made him look weak.
Then the R-wing talk radio hosts flood the airwaves and you have the troops oversees fed direct radio of
Rush Limbaugh’s show daily. This is all they hear all day and you wonder why the Democrats are doomed.. On military Bases all the TV news
channels are usually tuned to the Fox R-Wing news channel. The people have been fed lies just like the Germans were in Hitler’s Election from the Voelkischer Beobachter, 2 February 1932.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Tuesday September 7 - 05:11 - Posted by 7b0f824e076cd16f...

The informed voter is already ardently anti-Bush. How do we get Ron Reagan’s message to the uninformed voter?

Annie Gunn

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Saturday July 31 - 17:49 - Posted by bc30d62273514961...

I think you make a terrific case against George Bush. He frightens me. I believe he came into the White House to "finish the job" that his father could not. Saddam; his boyish ways messed everything up in the process.

Our state of the nation is in a shameful place. Years of misguided efforts have led to the degradation of our society. The US Government needs to stop policing the world and focus on rebuilding our own nation, family, education, health and security within.

I wish that the special interest groups and mega corporations would stop lining their over-inflated pockets and allow the "worker bees" (middle class America) to excel.

You have hit many good points in your article and the timing is excellent. Thank you Mr. Reagan for you candor and timeliness. God Bless America and God Bless You.

Gina Cisario 
Arlington, TX

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Saturday July 31 - 21:42 - Posted by 4b61d19b7e097e59...


As an American, I am so proud of Ron Reagan. I thought his article was one of the most well written examinations of the current Bush administration. It’s too bad that it probably won’t be published by the main stream media in this country, but maybe we’ll get lucky and this will happen. I hope that if Kerry gets elected that Ron will get tapped by Kerry to be an ambassador.

Shaw Zaidins
Palm Springs, CA

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 00:18 - Posted by d9cb6b5a6e49477d...

Beautifully said—thank you, Ron Reagan. I keep hoping someone will report on the Bush family ties to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who has surely influenced George W. Bush’s brand of "preemptive strike Christianity," so unlike Ronald Reagan’s genuinely deep faith.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 04:40 - Posted by b76a8e24062554cf...

Thank you Mr Reagan.

Why is our democratic republic so blind? Despite the bad publicity Bush has recieved in the last few months, it seems that most people do not know about or do not believe any of the terrible things he has done. He may well win this election because he and Cheney continue to lie and get away with it.
Almost worse is the fact that competent Republicans like Bill Weld and Rudolph Guiiani will publically support the President at the convention. Both men are exceptionally well educated, intelligent and experienced ex politicans. Neither has been born again. WHY do they support someone who has no regard for the law, the constitution or people besides his cronies?
Remember "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where aliens co opted human bodies to pursue their own destructive agenda. Have our governing officials been taken over by Pods? It sure has felt that way to me. I have never seen anything like it.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 05:03 - Posted by e9487be897b5eba0...

Thank you for stating the case so well. Incredible. And thank you for addressing the convention.

Just one issue regarding Alzheimer’s. Currently much data exists on the action of amino acids affecting brain chemistry. The latest drugs to treat Alzheimer’s are glutamate blockers. Unfortunately, Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of G.D. Searle - makers of aspartame, which when ingested breaks down and aspartic acid can be turned into glutamate in the body in one chemical step. The U.S. military is fed MSG in their MREs and was supplied diet sodas sweetened with aspartame - which breaks down in heat. Right now soldiers serving in the Gulf are coming down with higher incidences of A.L.S. - also affected by glutamic acid. We won’t get the answers to the potential cause of these diseases (Alzheimer’s and A.L.S.) while Donald Rumsfeld is in a position of power, either, since he supported and worked for the industries like Monsanto which make and sell the amino acid additives MSG and aspartame.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 05:54 - Posted by c9f97b5e1af8a0f8...

God bless you Ron. I’m even more impressed with your father. Obviously not just a fine statesman, a great role model and father.

Some of the comments above are offensive. Why do some people (in this case Republicans) have to tar everyone with some ridiculous labels because they voice opposing opinions.

Dear Republicans: is it so hard for you to understand a person that speaks with conviction AGAINST personal interest that you have to abandon all civility?

Shame on you. And really - is that the best you can do to rebut the many well-supported claims by a person who clearly is by pedigree and inclination in the republican camp?

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 05:59 - Posted by 7076493ea4de63ed...

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly THANK Ron Reagan for the service he has done in writing this insightful and well-researched article. Given the fact that he is the son of one of the genuine icons of American conservatism, it would have been easy for him to sit on the sidelines, making snide remarks about the futility of American liberalism. Certainly critics like Tucker Carlson and Fred Barnes have made a small fortune doing exactly that. But Ron Reagan put it on the line, severely criticizing George W. Bush, NOT for being a conservative but for being exactly what he is, a LIAR!! The issue isn’t ideology. The issue isn’t values, unless, of course, one values the truth. The issue isn’t an abiding trust in one’s Christian faith, one which still abhors bearing false witness as I seem to recall. The issue is pure, simple honesty.

I, naturally, have made my choice with respect to the Presidency of George W. Bush, as, I suspect, has Ron Reagan. MY choice, and I suspect Mr. Reagan’s, is NOT based on what Mr. Bush believes or feels, it is based essentially on what he is. If I had to choose between a sexually promiscuous President or one who has only a passing acquaintance with the truth, I shall pick sexual promiscuity every time!

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 19:08 - Posted by a5b0bfb304506aa2...

Mr. Reagan, thank you for such a marvelous, well-reasoned, argument. What is sad but by no means unexpected is how one of your points—Bush and his supporters favor self-serving appearances over any sort of evidence—is immediately demonstrated by two negative responses the essay received. They deride without explanation and inaccurately claim a lack of evidence while offering none of their own.

I’d like to see this essay in a broader forum, but I’ll forward the link to as many friends as I can. I recommend others do the same.


Austin, TX

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 20:21 - Posted by 8a274544514e1c5e...

This article was sent to us by friends in Canada and I started reading it because although I’m not familiar with Mr. Reagan’s over-all political position, I am a strong supporter of his position regarding stem cell research and I thought that was the subject of his article. I must tell you that after reading the article I’m sorry Mr. Reagan doesn’t have a "bent" toward political office.

I have not read anything that so well states the over-all "Case Against George W. Bush" and as a registered Democrat I certainly intend to circulate this article not only to "members of the choir" who will appreciate the quality and content of the writing, but to friends who consider themselves Republicans but who also consider themselves thinking people.

Thank you, Mr. Reagan. I’m sure your father would be very proud of you.

Mary Beth Ierulli in Eugene, Oregon

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday August 1 - 22:24 - Posted by ac90085ccf7f218e...

As with so many other opponents of the Bush administration, Ron Reagan attempts to show mistakes made during a time of war and instability, times that require flexibility and adaptation. The enemy is always adapting, as a worthwhile opponent will. Mistakes will obviously be made but that is not the measure of a capable organization, it is the ability to recognize the mistakes and improve upon them. Whoever is most successful at his task will be victorious. The first rule of leadership, always present a solution with the problem, implies that problems will inevitably arise. Tactics have changed both at home and abroad during this time of war as this administration has reacted to change. This has been obvious to most people. No one can fight a perfect war, no one ever has. So please Ron, the next time you write such a critical article of this administration, maybe an additional page stating your solutions would be your first step toward leadership in the Democratic Party.

Jay Whittaker

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Tuesday August 3 - 02:34 - Posted by 67f722e20f87a599...

I believe that he DID make a suggestion that this administration could, but will not, embrace, and which would be a huge improvement. To wit, stop telling lies. Big lies, tiny lies, and middle-sized lies. Lies of convenience, lies that slander opposing vioces, lies about motivations and lies to cover up involvement in horrendous actions. How many supporters would this administration have for their policies if they had told the truth to the American people?

Lexie Homewood
Cheshire, MA

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Wednesday August 4 - 20:25 - Posted by 69656f9b9ec8c827...

The most flexible and adaptable thing to do this November will be to vote for John Kerry. I know I will.


> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Monday August 2 - 01:07 - Posted by 4b61d19b7e097e59...

This article words well something that others have been screaming about for a long time. It is unfortunate that mainstream media chose to block out so much of the Democratic Convention. Perhaps more people would have a better picture of John Kerry, as those who know him personally were able to portray him in Boston. He really is not such a bad alternative.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Monday August 2 - 14:53 - Posted by ec9ae7a45ae5d1e1...

Dear Ron Reagan:
Thank you for writing this eloquent statement against George w.Bush. I hope American voters have chance to read his article before the election day. Thank you Ron.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Monday August 2 - 16:47 - Posted by 25b63a3b63791812...

After reading your article I will ve voting for the reelection of George W. May he win one for the GIPPER!

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Tuesday August 3 - 00:44 - Posted by ec9ae7a45ae5d1e1...

As a Republican, I found Ron Reagan’s review of the Bush Administration’s surreptitious, conniving, self-righteous, and fascist behavior to be precise and accurate but more tepid than it should have been, by all rights. The cloaking, in religious metaphor, behavior is truly antichrist as it succeeds in deceiving even the elect. This Administration is the most un-Christian, unspiritual, unGodly which we have seen since Nixon. The precedents of vindictive, savage, and predatory behavior engaged in by the Republican spinsters, Republican camp followers, and Republican elected officials has created a political environment like that created by Sen. Joseph Mcarthy in the 50s, one of fear, anger, hostility, retribution, and cynicism. This behavior is both un-American, as Mrs. Kerry correctly pointed out, and destructive. It is absolutely no wonder that America is now the focus of so much hatred from abroad...and we richly deserve it because of who we have allowed to continue in positions of important decision making, our politicians. These peddlers in war have snagged the American people, a generous, loving, forgiving, tolerant people...the most so of all people’s in the world...into a quagmire from which we will never be able to extricate ourselves gracefully with our former reputation intact.

The real problem is that the Republican Party, of which I once counted myself a member, has really become the Puritan Party. Puritans are forever sticking their noses into matters which should not concern them(people’s private lives), forever forcing others to live only according to their rules, forever stigmatizing those who won’t go along as perfidious traitors, forever seeking out the prophets and killing them (yes, Christ was killed by religious conservatives, ie., Puritans), and setting themselves up as the only judges of what is good and right. Another Republican victory this fall will be license for the Puritans to finish the job they started and America will be in the Dark Ages again. That is heaven, as far as Puritans are concerned.

Mr. Reagan is to be praised for his candor and constraint in his attempts to strip away the veneer of civility (what a joke) and the veil of Compassionate Conservativism that these "Serpents and Vipers" claim as they systematically eliminate everything great for which America has stood in the past.

And where, may I ask, has the "liberal" media been during all this? Maybe the media is now owned and operated by the Puritans? Maybe that is why they have been so silent during the last four years? The news media have failed in their responsibilities. They can no longer be trusted to act as advocates for the Truth. Shame on them!!!!!!!!!

Keith Hill,
Manchester, MI

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Wednesday August 4 - 07:36 - Posted by aa79ed06c8d5cdb8...

Why won’t my comment post? The bush $ machine has made him look weak.
Then the R-wing talk radio hosts and i floods the airwaves and you have the troops oversees fed direct radio of
Rush Limbaugh show daily. This is all they hear all day and you wonder why the Democrats are doomed.. On military Bases all the TV news
channels are usually tuned to the Fox R-Wing news channel. The people have been fed lies just like the Germans were in Hitler’s Election from the Voelkischer Beobachter, 2 February 1932.

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Tuesday September 7 - 04:40 - Posted by 7b0f824e076cd16f...

Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. (OED under "Treason")


The act of betraying; betrayal of the trust undertaken by or reposed in anyone; breach of faith..... (OED under "Treason")(And see below)

ASK the parents of children left behind. Ask the environmentalists. Ask the signatories to the World Health Organization. Ask the people on Medicare. Ask our former allies. Ask the signatories to the Anti-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Ask those out of work. Ask Ron Reagan.
To stand Mute in High-Treason is all one as to Confess the Fact. (Gibbon 1782) ibid.

ASK Robert Novak. Ask Joe Wilson. Ask General Taguba. Ask General Zinni. Ask Colin Powell.

..... treason seldom dwells with courage. (Scott 1825) ibid.

ASK Robert Reich. Ask Richard Clarke. Ask Cofer Black. Ask Bob Woodward.

One who betrays any person that trusts him, or any duty entrusted to him......... (OED under "Traitor")

One who is false to his allegiance to ...... the government of his country. ibid.

QUESTION: If Bush didn’t and doesn’t know what’s going on, how can you accuse him of treason?

ANSWER: Probably you can’t. It’s hard to argue, when someone elected by the people is not competent to be President, that he has betrayed the country. And we haven’t called the President himself a traitor, we’ve called his administration traitorous, and the only way to get rid of the actual traitors is to get rid of the President.

Annie Gunn

> Ron Reagan : the Case Against George W. Bush
Sunday March 19 - 01:28 - Posted by 5bfe60fae18c712b...

BRAVO! Very well spoken Mr. Reagan.

To those of you who disapprove, I recommend signing up for 11B —infantry, and you can go support Bush’s ideology and carry his torch right up front! Then, maybe your opinions could be taken seriously, otherwise, why don’t you just go stick your head back in the sand where you and your kind are comfortable.

And before any of you say, "Why don’t you do the same?" I did, and now I am speaking from experience. This war is a lie. This administration is a lie. Every bit of it. One day the truth will come out, but with the apathy existent in this country today, I wonder if it will even matter.

Public Apology to Women of the World from The American Republic (Hypatia of Alex
Monday 31 - 15:21
by Willam Morgan
Sunday 23 - 18:32
Hillary Clinton will be first female President 2017
Monday 10 - 17:21
by Willam Morgan
Police Shootings: Law, Policy, and Accountability
Thursday 6 - 14:22
by William John Cox
Thursday 29 - 18:02
Back to School for Fascist Dupont-Aignan
Thursday 15 - 11:32
by Nouveau Comité de Vigilance des Intellectuels Antifascistes
The Presidency: Character Matters
Friday 9 - 15:06
by William John Cox
Tuesday 30 - 18:08
Remake of Ben Hur in 2020 planned by new motion picture studio
Friday 26 - 15:50
by Wallace
Monday 22 - 19:32
Thursday 11 - 06:42
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Friday 5 - 00:47
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Friday 29 - 18:13
A message of your fellow striking workers from France
Tuesday 12 - 20:49
by Info’Com-CGT
The Right to Vote, Effectively
Friday 8 - 22:20
by William John Cox
Fourth of July Lies
Sunday 3 - 19:41
by June C. Terpstra
Who Should Make Political Policy, the People or the Politicians?
Friday 24 - 15:14
by William John Cox
Hollow Women of the Hegemon Part II: Atrocity Enabling Harpies
Tuesday 21 - 18:49
by Dr. June Terpstra
The American Republic Manifestum book is being made into a Movie
Saturday 11 - 15:54
by William Morgan
Write-in Voting and Political Protest
Wednesday 1 - 15:05
by William John Cox
Yves Bouvier art battle plays out in online and social media arena
Tuesday 31 - 21:12
by Dean Bagley
Damaged Candidate Clinton Can’t Call Out Trump
Friday 27 - 13:53
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Tuesday 24 - 21:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Thursday 19 - 00:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Monday 16 - 15:35
Monday 16 - 15:26
Oligarchs Won’t Let You Vote Their Wars Away
Wednesday 11 - 20:24
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Monday 9 - 20:40
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton support the American Republic Manifestum
Monday 9 - 16:37
by William Morgan
Transformation: A Student-Led Mass Political Movement
Monday 25 - 19:28
by William John Cox
Algerian Feminists react to ’Hijab Day’ in Paris 2016
Monday 25 - 01:13
Friday 22 - 18:45
US is real superpredator pretending to be victim
Monday 18 - 22:23
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Gaiacomm International has accidently created a fusion reaction/ignition.
Sunday 17 - 17:01
by William Morgan
Clinton’s Campaign Continues to Highlight Horrible Hillary
Saturday 9 - 00:57
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Armoiries racistes à Harvard : Plaidoyer pour la réflexion socio-historique
Thursday 7 - 18:56
by Samuel Beaudoin Guzzo
Wednesday 6 - 02:02
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
The PKK in Iraq: “We are ready to fight ISIS everywhere in the world”
Monday 4 - 14:33
by InfoAut
Clinton Crashes and Burns, Sanders Will Win (But hold off on the applause)
Friday 1 - 22:33
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Confirming Supreme Court Justices and Electing Presidents
Friday 1 - 20:59
by William John Cox

home | webmaster

Follow-up of the site's activity
RSS Bellaciao En

rss FR / rss IT / rss ES

Bellaciao hosted by DRI

Organize, agitate, educate, must be our war cry. Susan B. Anthony
Facebook Twitter Google+
I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name
Thursday 10 March
©Olivier Jobard/Myop I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM IS A RIGHT In the phrase « right to asylum », every word matters. Under the law, every person who is persecuted because of his or her political opinions or because of his or her identity, every person that is endangered by violence, war or misery has a RIGHT to seek asylum in another country The aim of this petition is to collect (...)
Neo-Nazis and far-right protesters in Ukraine 3 live-stream
Friday 24 January
The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region. When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok. This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)
Hugo Chavez is dead (video live)
Wednesday 6 March
by : Collective BELLACIAO
1 comment
President Hugo Chavez companeros venezueliano died after a long battle with cancer.
International initiative to stop the war in Syria Yes to democracy, no to foreign intervention!
Thursday 13 December
Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)
Monday 12 November
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)
Sunday 28 October
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town. Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART III If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities. I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART IV Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges. Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc. Unlike traditional (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART III PART IV Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.” Her words still echo in my mind. Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART II PART III PART IV When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education. This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)
Monday 30 July
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?” Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting. Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)
Thursday 28 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy? If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out. In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)
Tuesday 12 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network. On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)
Thursday 7 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker! At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)
Tuesday 13 March
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?” This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power. I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)