GUEST COMMENTARY: Elian Gonzalez and Bill Clinton

 

By  Jim Kouri

A little Cuban boy named Elian, who in 1999 was scooped up by a federal SWAT team in Miami and shipped back to Cuba, is in the news again for the get well card he and his family sent to communist dictator Fidel Castro.

The youngster addressed the 79-year-old as my “Dear Grandfather” and wished Castro a happy 80th birthday.

For those not familiar with this child’s story or for those who’ve forgotten, Elian Gonzalez was the center of one of the biggest news stories during the Clinton Administration. Not as big as Monica, but close.

While escaping the communist paradise with his mother, Elian was shipwrecked and then rescued off the Florida coast in 1999, but his mother wasn’t as lucky. Relatives of the 5-year old wanted him to stay with them in Miami. However, the boy’s father, a loyalist to Castro wanted him back and suddenly Elian was the in the midst of a heated tug-of-war.

The Clinton Administration decided that Elian would be better off with his alleged biological father in Castro’s Proletariat kingdom. The only problem was Elian’s Miami relatives, who had escaped from the de facto Cuban prison themselves, wanted Elian to grow up in the United States and enjoy the benefits of living in a free, capitalist nation.

Bill Clinton and the rest of his liberal cronies wanted the boy turned over to the federal authorities and shipped back to Cuba. When Elian’s relatives refused to comply, that paragon of justice, Attorney General Janet Reno, sent a squad of officers dressed for combat — helmets, body armor, black BDUs — carrying fully automatic weapons to grab the child away from his unarmed kin.

The sight of this on television should have outraged every American, not just conservatives. Had only the Clinton Administration been so zealous with the millions of illegal aliens within the U.S.

One Cuban-American police officer from New Jersey said to me, as we watched this ridiculous display of Reno’s abuse of power unfold on television, “Ronald Reagan would never do this. Ronald Reagan wouldn’t allow this.”

All I could reply was, “Clinton is no Ronald Reagan. Clinton is simpatico with Marxist dictators.” Over the top, you say? Wasn’t that an old photo I saw of Clinton protesting the Vietnam War under a Viet Cong flag?

Thanks to the popular President Bill Clinton, the biggest flimflam man ever to sit in the oval office, Elian Gonzalez, now 12, has probably been indoctrinated by the Stalinist system in Cuba.

And Janet Reno? Well, she’s is still popular among liberals in the US, despite the Elian incident; and despite Waco, another crowning moment for the Clinton Administration, in which Reno sent stormtroopers to kill men, women and children because her and her boss didn’t particularly like their religion or their ideas about gun ownership.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. Kouri has appeared as on-air commentator for more than 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.U.S.

                

 

   

GUEST COMMENTARY: BAYHAM ON POLITICS: Under the Bus with Joe Lieberman

By Mike Bayham

South Louisiana   – Things were very different for Joe Lieberman six years ago.

 Back then, the charisma-challenged Connecticut pol was hailed as the savior of his party’s presidential election hopes by energizing Al Gore’s then flagging bid for the White House.   A few months later, he came within a few hundred votes in Florida from becoming Vice-President.

 As the legend goes, a supposedly “confusing” ballot designed by local Democrats tricked a number of elderly Democrats into voting for the Reform Party tandem and thus cost the Democratic ticket the election.  

 It’s been downhill for Mr. Excitement ever since, though his latest setbacks had nothing to do with Palm Beach County Jewish Buchanan voters.

The fresh sets of tire tread marks on his suit come courtesy of his own party.

Lieberman led in the early polls for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, yet he failed to take advantage of the favorable numbers by holding off on assembling together a campaign out of deference to Gore, who dillydallied on another presidential campaign until the last minute.

The ex-Vice-President repaid Lieberman’s show of respect by throwing him under Howard Dean’s VW van.  

 Gore’s perfidy combined with Lieberman’s unwise decision to sit out the Iowa caucuses resulted in an embarrassing fifth-place finish in the New Hampshire primary with 8.5%, effectively ending his presidential campaign and marking the beginning of the end of his status as a major party figure.

 Fast-forward to Aug. 8, 2006, an evening that should have been a routine renomination celebration en route to an easy re-election in November that turned out to be his last day as a regular Democratic politician.

 Despite fighting the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and being a reliable pro-abortion vote in the U.S. Senate, Lieberman was targeted for his steadfast support for Israel and refusal offer blanket condemnations of President Bush’s Iraq policies, ultimately falling victim to a wing of his own party that is not just becoming more radical with every passing year, but more dominant in Democratic politics.

 By a margin of four points, the Michael Moore-faction of the Democratic Party bagged their biggest political trophy yet taking down Lieberman through their proxy, cable television executive Ned Lamont, sending a signal to other national Democrats who have shunned dipping their glasses in their bowl of anti-Iraq War Kool-Aid that they could be next.

But the consequences of this historic intra-party fight could go even further.

Just as centrist Democratic congressmen might be revisiting their positions on the Bush Doctrine after Lieberman’s defeat, many longtime Democratic voters are reevaluating their place in the party.

Lieberman is the nation’s most prominent Jewish politician and his humiliation at the hands of the MoveOn.org crowd won’t play well in many corners of a community that traditionally gives over 80% of their support to the Democratic Party. 

Further turning off Jewish voters is the anti-Semitic tone of a number of Lamont backers, which went without reprimand from their champion, as indexed by Bill Clinton’s lawyer and Lieberman friend Lanny Davis in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that ran the day of the US Senate primary.  

 Lieberman was not oblivious to the new reality in his party’s political landscape and began the process of collecting signatures to petition his way on to the general election ballot as an independent in advance of an increasingly competitive primary.  

Some in Democratic circles claimed this preemptive move was going to cost him votes, and it may very well have been the margin in the contest.  But then again, Lamont should have never polled anywhere close to Lieberman.

 

Not long after conceding defeat, Lieberman declared his intentions to follow through with an independent candidacy to keep his US Senate seat this November, which will no doubt impact the other tight congressional races in Connecticut.  

After the slew of indignities Lieberman has been subjected to by Democratic politicians and allied interest groups, the DNC should not hold their breath that he will quietly depart from the political stage in deference to the nominee.  Joe’s been down the Al Gore expressway already.

 Ironically, Lieberman’s re-election prospects will be heavily influenced by whether Republican voters do to their long shot nominee, Alan Schlesinger, what the Democrats have been doing to hawkish US Senator since 2004, that is, throwing their own man under the bus.

 

Mike Bayham is a political consultant in south Louisiana and can be contacted at MikeBayham@yahoo.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GUEST COMMENTARY: Exit Strategy for Iraq

By Tom Proebsting

What should we do in Iraq? Think of it as a bad marriage-when there is no hope of getting along or of reconciling, the man and woman usually opt for divorce. The term ‘irreconcilable differences’, which is a common reason for divorce, says it all. Why prolong the agony any longer? Split up and get it over.

Our pre-emptive strike in Iraq was a bad mistake from the beginning – like some marriages. Last Thursday, the American officer in charge of Iraq, General John Abizaid, told a Senate Committee what many of us have suspected: Iraq is in danger of sliding into a civil war. The level-headed thinkers realize that it’s time to get out.

For those who do not believe in the military option of pre-emptive strikes, the invasion of Iraq was looked on as a nightmare. The administration used many hackneyed excuses to go into Iraq: regime change, the presence of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and/or collusion with the perpetrators of 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s ties with al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of former president George H. W. Bush, Iraq’s breaking of 17 United Nations resolutions, and the spreading of democracy, among other fabrications.

Most of these reasons have turned out to be plain bunk. The president sent in our able-bodied troops, they overthrew Mr. Hussein’s dictatorship, and then the Iraqi army melted into the general population. Afterwards, the president and the secretary of defense stood by helplessly as Iraq’s insurgency grew. The leaders in charge did not have a plan on what to do next, so they did nothing. Today, the sectarian violence is threatening to turn into a civil war.

Will increased might and power stop the violence? Not likely. The insurgents and other terrorists are fed by the controlled mindset of a radicalized religion and strong nationalism, with a sprinkling of socialism. The Middle East region is rich with oil and natural gas, but is teaming with poverty and corruption. The have-nots, through extremist tactics, see a way out of their private Hell. Not even a nuclear explosion would stop the hate and killing among the radicals.

Will splitting Iraq three ways stem the fighting? No. The Kurds have access to oil in their region as do the Shiites. The Sunnis will be left out of the natural resources game and because of this, will instigate a civil war which could spread into a regional war.

Will sitting down with representatives from the different factions come to an honorable conclusion — even if the United Nations or NATO leaders are present? Probably not. The three warring factions in Iraq have hated each other since the death of Mohammed almost 1500 years ago. They have nothing to talk about, nothing in common, and no use for one another.

Will our leaving halt the killing? Doubtful, but it will stop the senseless murders and injuries of coalition force members and other innocents. If the Iraqis cannot or will not work harder for peace, leave them alone and let them sort it out. Vietnam went into a civil war and chaos after President Nixon withdrew our troops. Communism collapsed years later and today Vietnam is learning to trade with the Big Boys.

Will foreign invasion and subsequent alien occupation force democracy on Iraq? Please. Don’t make me laugh. A few ‘free’ elections does not a democracy make. Especially when there is very little, if any, infrastructure present in Iraq. Democracy, which is desperately needed in the Middle East, is not going to sprout and grow through pre-emptive strikes and violence. It will happen by free choice and desire. Neither is present in Iraq.

Our option is clear. Get out now and cut our losses. America has created a huge Muslim insurgency by invading Iraq, much like the Soviet Union created an Islamic insurgency when they invaded Afghanistan during the 1970’s and 80’s. During this conflict, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were born. Imagine what Frankenstein monsters America is spawning with their invasion of Iraq. Imagine what terror this may produce in future years.

If we get out, the insurgency against foreign occupiers will stop and is not likely to leave the borders of the little nation. Rather, Iraq will busy itself with a civil war. If this occurs, oil may subsequently rise to over $100 a barrel. However this scenario is a lot more pleasant than our men and women in uniform being killed or maimed.

* * *

Tom Proebsting is a writer and blogger in Missouri. Tom Proebsting, 823 N. Ault St. Moberly, MO 65270

e-mail: truthprobe777@yahoo.com

Proebsting invites comments. Reply to: http://truthprobe.blogspot.com

BOOK REVIEW: ‘Solidarity for Sale’ Debunks Few Rotten Apples Theory of Union Corruption; Unions Were Rotten to the Core from Their Inception; Author Robert Fitch is a Liberal and a Union Man; Publisher is Solidly Liberal

Reviewed By David M. Kinchen
Huntington News Network Book Critic

Hinton, WV   – In the scale of crimes committed down through the ages by American organized labor leaders, the $5 million looting by Barbara A. Bullock of the Washington Teachers’ Union about three years ago isn’t in a league with the murders committed by members of more violent unions like the Laborers or the Teamsters. Still, it grabbed my attention when I read “Solidarity for Sale” by Robert Fitch (PublicAffairs, 432, $28.50, index, notes, bibliography).

Bullock, a 68-year-old (in 2003) former teacher, ended up getting sued by the parent American Federation of Teachers union. According to Fitch, a former union organizer, writer and college teacher who is still a union member, Bullock spent $35,000 on handbags, plus filling her closets with designer clothes. Her $90,000 a year chauffeur was in charge of laundering the embezzled money.

What is it with women and designer purses, I asked rhetorically. (I even asked my wife, who threw back at me the question “What is it with guys and expensive wrist watches and power tools?” Touche’!)

I can understand whacking rival business agents or contenders for the presidencies of locals, since I agree with Fitch’s thesis that American labor unions have been corrupt from the very beginning. (Full disclosure, I’ve been a member of Retail Clerks, the Newspaper Guild and Steelworkers unions). They’ve not only been corrupt – especially compared with unions in France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere – they’ve managed to defeat attempts at universal health care such as that enjoyed by virtually every industrialized country in the world, Fitch points out.

It was the AFL’s legendary leader Samuel Gompers, in league with insurance companies, about a century ago that did this dastardly deed to protect their own union plans. Believe it or not, in 1912, the Progressive Party came out for national health insurance “and even the American Medical Association and the National Association of Manufacturers were cautious early supporters,” Fitch writes. Yes, that’s the same AMA that opposed national health insurance as “socialized medicine” in the late 1940s, when President Harry Truman proposed it. Think of how much better off General Motors would be if they weren’t saddled with horrendous health-care expenses!

What intrigued me about the mild-mannered AFT is that the pattern of corruption in many unions follows the pattern described by Fitch – briefly – and the Washington Post – at great length – about the looting of the Washington local. Here is an excerpt from a January 2003 Washington Post story on Mrs. Bullock and her band of merry looters:

“The massive misappropriation of union funds and the betrayal of the members that are outlined in our audit are reprehensible and sickening,” the president of the national union, Sandra Feldman, said in a statement. “The individuals responsible must be held accountable, and the AFT will do everything in its power to see that these funds are returned to the WTU and its members.”

In an affidavit filed last month in a criminal investigation, the FBI said that more than $2 million in union money was misspent, much of it on luxury items such as furs, art, jewelry, silver and custom-made clothes.

The AFT’s audit and lawsuit mention such purchases but also provide far more details of the alleged scheme. Forensic auditors said they uncovered a long trail of altered checks, evidence of forged signatures and an operation geared to converting checks to cash. The documents also provided a breakdown of how much each participant in the alleged fraud received.

Bullock, who was elected union president in 1994, made unauthorized and personal charges of at least $1.8 million to the union’s corporate American Express cards and used an additional $381,000 for her personal benefit by writing checks to herself or others, the lawsuit said. “

If all politics is local, virtually all union corruption is Local, as in the local branches of a big union, Fitch emphasizes. In this respect, American unions are separate and distinct from European ones, where the big union, say the CGT in France, is what counts and the local officials are paid in the range of $2,500 a month – chickenfeed for heads of U.S. locals, hardly covering their expense accounts.

Fitch, whose first encounter with labor unions was as a 15-year-old who joined Laborer’s Union, Local 5 in Chicago Heights, Illinois, says the fatal flaw of American unions – one of them, at least – is “the fiefdom nature of the system – the localness, the complexity of the ties between leaders and members – that makes it almost impossible to build a broad base across the whole membership or keep from being co-opted by the demands of loyalty.”

I noticed this on a recent trip to Chicago, where I met a number of construction workers on condominium projects on the lakefront. One of them is a 39-year-old member of the Sheet Metal Workers union, a foreman, who makes $105,000 a year. (I never made even close to that kind of money as a reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper). His loyalty clearly was to his Local, as indicated by his T-shirt, for one thing.

Fitch notes that some labor unions acknowledge the widespread corruption of organized labor, excusing this on the – two-wrongs-make-a right-basis – that “sure labor is corrupt, but so are employers.” Look at Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, etc., they say. Fitch does look at Global Crossing, where CEO Gary Winnick sold off $734 million in stock, at the same time urging his employees to buy more.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who made the reference to Global Crossing, which collapsed in 2002, wiping out those who had invested in it, while leaving Winnick with plenty of money and a $92 million house in Bel Air, CA, is hardly one to point fingers. The AFL-CIO’s insurance company, Ullico, founded in 1925, was one of the investors in non-union Global Crossing’s 1997 initial public offering, receiving GC shares then worth $7 million, “which turned into shares worth an incredible $2 billion before Global Crossing collapsed five years later, nearly taking Ullico with it.”

The Ullico debacle is only one of dozens of examples cited by Fitch in his rambling, somewhat disheveled book. The book reminded me somewhat of the movie “Stripes,” which is really two movies in one. This comment is fair because throughout the book, Fitch brings in literary and cultural references, including movies like “On the Waterfront.”

Don’t let the piled-high-with-newspapers nature of the book – a reference to the typical reporter’s desk at most of the newspapers I’ve worked on – turn you off from exploring “Solidarity for Sale.” The book’s virtues far outweigh its faults.

While there were attempts at corruption-free unions with the early IWW and the Knights of Labor, corruption was at the heart of the movement from the 1881 founding of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters to the organized crime-back looting of the Mason Tenders pension fund in the 1990s, Fitch demonstrates in almost excruciating detail.

Pension funds – the “piggy-banks” of mob dominated unions like the Teamsters – are big business with organized labor, but there are many flies in this particular jar of ointment.

American labor leaders manage more than $350 billion in pension funds. Unfortunately, he points out, obligations exceed assets by more than $150 billion: “Officials explain that the market’s been down and they talk about actuarial problems. But simple corruption and the fragmented character of the unions perhaps explains a great deal too,” he notes, adding that one reason is that there are too many plans: “Why does the AFL-CIO need to have 2,100 separate pension plans for its 13 million members? That’s a plan for 6,200 members. Social Security has one plan for 280 million [probably over 300 million now] Americans. Social Security’s administrative costs run about $11 per year per person” while Fitch points to one Teamsters local on Long Island where administrative costs run to $420 each year for about 2,700 member participants.

And so on, and so on.

Reform movements, such as the widely publicized attempt to portray Ron Carey of the Teamsters as a “reform” candidate, have come to virtually nothing, Fitch demonstrates in great detail. He also notes that liberal or “progressive” publications like The New Republic and The Nation, not to mention the Pravda-like labor-owned publications, generally have a hands-off policy on covering labor corruption.

The credibility of “Solidarity for Sale” is certainly enhanced by the credentials of both the author and PublicAffairs, a solidly liberal, “progressive” publisher that ranks among the best in the world. I recommend Fitch’s often exasperating-to-read book for its insights in American labor and the peculiar American exceptionalism that seems to make us unable to take advantage of good ideas that originate elsewhere.

Publisher’s web site: www.publicaffairsbooks.com