Navy Reads

Civility ‘By George’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 01:37:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

In his first Easter address today Pope Leo XIV said this, in part: “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue! Not with the desire to dominate others, but to encounter them!”

In one of President Trump's messages issued on Easter Sunday, after threatening to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age,” Trump said: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”*

George Washington would not have approved of Trump’s message.

First Commander in Chief George Washington lived by a code of manners, habits, and values. His 110 rules may seem quaint by today’s standards, but many of his words of wisdom –– which originally came from a French Jesuit book of etiquette –– resonate powerfully hundreds of years later, especially when we compare his code of conduct with that of the current CINC.

Washington’s rules are examined in “By George!: Mr. Washington’s Guide to Civility Today” by Steven Michael Selzer (Andrews McMeer Publishing 2000).

Selzer wrote this small book more than 20 years before Trump dared to compare himself as a better president than Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.

Selzer observed cracks in society at the turn of the millennium with plenty of symptoms of incivility, hate speech, and meanness. He writes:

“Rudeness. Crudeness. Thoughtlessness. Uncivilized behavior is everywhere. From the boss who publicly chews out her assistant, to the driver who barrels dangerously down the highway, to the sports fan who yells obscenities at the ball game, there is little doubt that we live in an increasingly barbaric world. And it's just as clear that many of us would like to see things change.

Polls indicate that a great many Americans long for greater civility because the way we treat one another has a powerful impact on our daily life. Civility in this context goes beyond good manners. It means behaving honorably and ethically in all aspects of our lives.

The problem is we just don't know how to behave anymore. On the one hand we're taught to be forthright and assertive in our interactions, while on the other hand there is an expectation that we will be extremely polite — even passive –– when faced with a problem or conflict. The mixed messages are confusing and misleading. What Americans need is a model of civility, one we can look to for insight and inspiration.”

Washington copied the 110 rules down at age fourteen and kept them as his model for good and honorable behavior.

Many of the rules apply to a different time in history –– an 18th century era of castes, chauvinism, and codes for dress, table manners, and body language. For example, Rule 2 says, basically, “watch where you scratch;” Rule 9 admonishes, loosely, “don’t spit in the fire;” Rule 13 advises, literally, “Kill no vermin, as fleas, lice, ticks, etc., in the sight of others;” and Rule 100 tells diners, “Cleanse not your teeth with the tablecloth, napkin, fork, or knife.”

Washington's wording sometimes comes across as old-fashioned and stilted, but Selzer helps translate and contextualize the insights along the way.

Many of the 110 rules stand out as golden rule common sense advice, which is especially relevant 250 years after the birth of the United States. There is some redundancy and a scolding tone, but there are also some gems that reach across the years:

Rule 1: “Every action done in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those that are present.” Show some respect, including to the legislature, judiciary, and media!

Rule 6: “Sleep not when others speak, sit not when others stand, speak not when you should hold your peace.” Wake up even if you’re not “woke.”

Rule 21: “Reproach none for the infirmities of nature, not delight them that have have them in mind.” Don’t make fun of disabilities.

Rule 22: “Shew not yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy.” Speak only good things about those who pass away –– or say nothing at all.

Rule 25: “Superfluous compliments and all affectation of ceremony are to be avoided.” Be careful about commenting on the appearance of others or in wrapping yourself in the flag.

Rule 26: “Remove your hat to persons of distinction … make a reverence…” Especially during dignified transfers of the remains of service members who die in wars you start. It’s common sense.

In a speech to the citizens of Baltimore on April 17, 1789, Washington said, “It appears to me that little more than common sense and common honesty, in the transaction of the community at large, would be necessary to make us a great and happy nation.”

Rule 35: “Let your discourse with men of business be short and comprehensive.” Selzer expounds: “Be short and comprehensive in speech. It is inconsiderate to waste the time of others.” Ramble not.

Rule 36: (Translates to) Remain humble and treat everyone equally. “…Treat them with affability and courtesy, without arrogancy.”

Rule 47: “Mock not nor jest at anything of importance, break no jests that are sharp and biting..” Imagine George’s and the other founders’ horror at some of the AI generated memes and vitriolic social media texts by the current White House.

Rule 49: “Use no reproachful language against anyone, neither curse nor revile.” [*For example, Trump’s Easter post to Iran.]

Selzer notes, “Profanity demeans us, not those against whom we use it. And it usually backfires.”

Rule 50: “Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any.” Ignore gossip and rumors –– and conspiracies such as Big Lies and distorted statistics.

Rule 56: “Associate yourself with men of good quality …” Consider Trump’s second administration, which included Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi and still includes (for now) Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and Pete Hegseth. His first choice for Attorney General was Matt Gaetz.

Rule 58: “Let your conversation be without malice or envy as a sign of a commendable nature.”

Rule 59: “Never express anything unbecoming nor act against the moral rules…”

Rule 61: “Utter not base and frivolous things among grave and learned men…”

Rule 63: “A man ought not to value himself of his achievements or rare qualities of wit, much less of his riches, virtue, or kindred.” How many presidents railed publicly about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize or bragged about their wealth and self-proclaimed virtues?

Rule 76: “While you are talking, point not with your finger at him of whom you discourse, nor approach too near to him to whom you talk, especially to his face.” Including members of the press.

Rule 82: “Undertake not what you cannot perform but be careful to keep your promise.” If you promise to lower prices, release all the Epstein files, and not start a war it’s important to keep your promises.

Selzer adds, “A promise is to keep. Trust is based on performing on your promises. You should always be there when it counts. People rely on you, and you should be willing to make a personal sacrifice to meet your commitments.”

Public office should not be a means for self-enrichment and profiteering. Selzer notes that during the eight years General Washington fought the Revolutionary War, he spent only three days of respite at his Mount Vernon home. “To keep a promise, George Washington believed in sacrifice –– he lost half his net worth during the Revolutionary War.”

Rule 88: “Be not tedious in discourse, make not many digressions, nor repeat often the same manner of discourse.” Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Rule 89: “Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust.” Selzer adds, “Fairness is basic to our entire social system.” And, “If ever there was a golden opportunity to exercise the golden rule, this is it.”

Rule 110: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.” If you have a conscience.

Washington’s final rule focuses on conscience as the ultimate guide toward civility. He frowned on hubris, self-importance, and dishonest behavior. Instead, he sought to follow his conscience toward humility, kindness, respect, tolerance, restraint and empathy. Civility

George Washington lived core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

One of his namesakes, USS George Washington (CVN 73), is part of the Forward-Deployed Naval Forces and calls Yokosuka, Japan, its current home.

Hegseth’s Holy War

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 17:16:00 +0000

By Bill Doughty

On March 25 at the Pentagon “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth prayed “in the name of Jesus” for God to help break the teeth of his enemies in Iran.

His prayer, written in part by a military chaplain, calls up ghosts of the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, and Old Testament brutality as well as an interpretation of the New Testament that is violent and unforgiving.

Hegseth called on the Christian God to give “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

“Almighty God, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle. You, who stirred the nations of the north against Babylon of old, making her land a desolation where none dwell. [“Nations of the North against Babylon of old” = Crusades]

“Behold now, the wicked who rise against Your justice and the peace of the righteous. Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans, and break the teeth of the ungodly.

By the blast of Your anger, let the evil perish. Let their bulls go down to slaughter, for their day has come…

"Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things, and blow them away like chaff before the wind. Grant this task force clear and righteous targets for violence. Surround them as a shield. Protect the innocent and blameless in their midst. Make their arrows like those of a skilled warrior who returned empty-handed. Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.”

[“Riighteousness…great nation = Manifest destiny]

“Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy. Preserve their lives, sharpen their resolve, and let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse, that evil may be driven back and wicked souls be delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them. For the wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”

[Overwhelming violence…without remorse…eternal damnation = Old Testament.

“We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ, king over all kings.”

Hegseth’s apocalyptic vision frames the war with Iran as a struggle against "religious fanatics" seeking a "religious Armageddon.”

As George W. Bush did in his war with Iraq, Hegseth also characterizes Operation Epic Fury as a "crusade" and a "holy war.” Theocracy is embraced on a path toward "end times."

Framing Jesus Christ as “king over all kings” seems to place Christianity above the Constitution, with “under God” supplanting “e pluribus unum.” It is a turn away from secular democracy and toward dominion domination.

Considering the pattern of discrimination against secular humanism and diversity, equity and Inclusion –– such as raising the profile of Christian military chaplains and preventing the promotion of blacks and women in senior officer ranks –– Hegseth’s prayer and war strategy seem to align with white Christian supremacy.

During his Pentagon prayer service, he welcomed another member of the Trump cabinet, Veterans Administration head Doug Collins, an Air Force reserve chaplain. “It’s such a blessing to be a part of a cabinet filled with faith-filled members who pray together, who share scripture together on a regular basis, who meet together and pray together,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson, spoke and prayed at a previous Pentagon service. Wilson opposes gay marriage, supports women not voting, and promotes past slavery as good for black people.

Regarding slavery, Wilson says that the Bible does not explicitly forbid slavery and permits owning other people if slaves are treated well. He co-authored “Southern Slavery as it Was,” which claimed that American slavery preserved families and introduced black families to Christianity.

Hundreds of Christian leaders, joined by other religious and nonreligious groups, have condemned white Christian nationalism and supremacy and Hegseth’s view of patriarchy and dominionism. Many express their opposition in ongoing “No Kings” rallies and protests.

After Hegseth’s prayer for violence, Pope Leo addressed Catholic worshippers during a Palm Sunday mass in St Peter’s Square. Leo said the conflict between Iran, Israel and the US was “atrocious” and that Jesus could not be used to justify war.

“This is our God: Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” he said to tens of thousands of followers. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

Quoting a Bible passage, Leo added: “‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.’”

War on Credibility –– an ‘Orwellian’ 2026

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 18:20:00 +0000

by Bill Doughty––

Are we being bombarded with mis- or disinformation: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”?

As examples: Is the administration tearing down the Department of Education in order to keep citizens strong or ignorant? Was war with Iran really necessary during peaceful negotiations? Will freedom from information about actual slavery enslave us toward further ignorance and endless war?

Speaking of slavery …

After the Trump administration tore down factual information at the Philadelphia President’s House about America’s history of slavery, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe used an Orwell reference from “1984” in her order this month to reinstate the information:

“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts," Rufe ruled. "It does not.”

Later in her ruling, Judge Rufe writes, “And yet, in its argument, the government claims it alone has the power to erase, alter, remove and hide historical accounts on taxpayer and local government-funded monuments within its control. Its claims in this regard echo Big Brother’s domain in Orwell’s 1984…”

Her 40-page ruling begins with an Orwell quote about rewriting history and also contains a 1984 excerpt about book banning:

“The largest section of the [government’s] Records Department . . . consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction. A number of the Times [a newspaper] which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophesies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even the written instructions [for workers in the Records Department] ... never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed; always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.”

In the midst of current heavy-handed totalitarian tendencies Orwell’s ghost hovers over other aspects of the Trump administration and its war on truth, a war that further erodes the stature and credibility of the United States.

Moments after President Trump removed Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, Noem spoke at a conference and misquoted Orwell.

"It reminded me of the quote that is often attribute to George Orwell that states, 'People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf,’” Noem said. Orwell did not say or write that phrase.

While Orwell would certainly have agreed with the sentiment, he would have been appalled at the attack on a girls elementary school in Iran (that killed scores of children and more than a dozen teachers).

Trump and “Secretary of War” Hegseth dragged their heels and obfuscated information about the bombing of the Shajarah Tayyebeh girls school in Minab, Iran. Now a Pentagon investigation into the Feb. 28 strike concluded that the United States military was responsible for the attack due to faulty intelligence.

Further investigations should look into the connection between the bombing of the school and Hegseth’s earlier gutting of the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence by approximately 90 percent. The office, also known as the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) initiative, was established to limit risks to civilians during military operations by providing "no-strike" lists and verifying target coordinates.

Hegseth told senior military leaders several months ago he wanted “Maximum Lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct.” Before his recent banning of press photographers who took unflattering photos of him, he restructured the Pentagon press pool to only include pro-Trump and pro-republican reporters willing to promote propaganda.

After the first U.S. casualties were announced and the media focused on honoring the service members killed, Hegseth chastised reporters: “I get it; the press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality.”

At a later press conference White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said “It’s the position of this administration that the press in this room and the press across the country should accurately report on the success of Operation Epic Fury and the damage it is doing to the rogue Iranian regime.”

Orwellian Hypocrisy

Orwell would be sickened by the propaganda, warmongering, hubris, and hypocrisy of Trump and his appointed followers.

When Vice President J.D. Vance first endorsed Trump, he wrote a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Trump’s Best Foreign Policy? Not Starting Any Wars.” Vance said, “He has my support in 2024 because I know he won’t recklessly send Americans to fight overseas.”

Trump himself promised he would not start wars. As part of his vow of "America First" he said he would prioritize rebuilding the U.S. at home instead of spending resources on nation-building in foreign nations. And he argued that U.S. interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere had failed, creating instability and leaving behind chaos.

But after threatening Canada and Greenland, Trump attacked Venezuela, then started a war with Iran, and now promises Cuba will be next on the hit list. All without congressional approval or making a clear case to the American public.

Trump, Vance and current Director of National intelligence Tulsi Gabbard each repeatedly criticized Biden for the tragic deaths of 13 service members during the Trump-arranged withdrawal from Afghanistan. Sadly, as of March 13, there have been 13 service members killed in the war started by the Trump administration (along with Netanyahu's Israel).

Meanwhile, Gabbard, who frequently criticized America’s "military-industrial complex,” once warned that policies under Trump (such as those regarding Iran) were costly, dangerous, and risked starting new wars. At one time she reportedly sold T-shirts emblazoned with “No War with Iran.”

As of now, Gabbard is still supporting Trump’s policies. In fact, she is also knee-deep in “big-lie” election conspiracy theories and wading into voting interference.

Over the years, Gabbard has defended Russian interests by blaming the U.S. and NATO for provoking the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, arguing the West ignored Russia's "legitimate security concerns.” She, along with other members of Trump’s administration, has echoed Kremlin talking points and propaganda.

Until Trump’s war on Iran, the world has witnessed the biggest war since Orwell’s time. For the past four years Putin’s totalitarian regime has continued to attack the democratic republic of Ukraine, targeting Ukrainian civilians and the nation’s energy infrastructure in its aggression.

Putin offered “unwavering support” to Iran’s new Ayatollah and said, “I am confident that you will continue your father's work with honour and consolidate the Iranian people in the face of harsh ordeals.”

Shockingly, Russia has reportedly assisted Iran in targeting U.S. Navy facilities and personnel along with other American military and intelligence assets.

President Zelensky, on the other hand, is offering the United States assistance in defending against Iranian drones –– the same type of drones Iran provides to Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Instead of punishing Russia for assisting Iran in targeting Americans, Trump is waiving sanctions against Russia to allow them to profit from oil sales.

Orwellian ‘Excursion’

President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and other administration officials have given nearly a dozen conflicting reasons for starting the conflict with Iran even though the United States was in the middle of peaceful negotiations and no evidence of an imminent threat.

White House officials also contradict themselves on what to call the “Operation Epic Fury” war. After a 7th U.S. service member died, Trump proclaimed during a House Republican retreat at his golf resort in Doral, Florida on March 9 that the war was “a little excursion.”

“We took a little excursion because we felt we had to do that to get rid of some evil...,” Trump said. “And I think you’ll see it’s [going to] be a short-term excursion.” (We are reminded of Trump’s efforts to downplay threats and severity in the beginning weeks of the Covid pandemic.)

Calling the war “a little excursion” brings to mind a similar gaffe by former President Joe Biden on the eve of Russia’s war with Ukraine, on Jan. 19, 2022, warning of a possible “minor incursion.”

Orwell, who preached accuracy and clarity of language, would remind us that “incursion” means a hostile invasion or attack, while “excursion” is defined as a brief trip or outing taken for pleasure.

Is it propaganda when Trump claims of conducting an “excursion” (while causing massive destruction); ending wars (while starting one); curbing high prices (while causing prices to rise); or promising voting security (while creating instability and curbing voting rights)?

Like Biden before him, Trump proclaims the economy is great even as inflation increases and working class families pay the costs. At his March 11 rally in Kentucky Trump said “Prices are coming down very substantially” as prices rise.

During WWII, Orwell wrote about propaganda in his essay “Propaganda and Demotic Speech” published in Persuasion Summer Quarter 1944:

“At present propaganda only seems to succeed when it coincides with what people are inclined to do in any case. During the present war, for instance, the Government has done extraordinarily little to preserve morale: it has merely drawn on the existing reserves of good-will. And all political parties alike have failed to interest the public in vitally important questions … But some day we may have a genuinely democratic government, a government which will want to tell people what is happening, and what must be done next, and what sacrifices are necessary, and why.”

Yesterday, Trump again called the war an “excursion” and proclaimed the operation was “over.” During his rally in Kentucky on March 11, Trump told supporters, "We won.” He asserted that the war was "over in the first hour.” But at the same rally that the U.S. is "not finished yet” and must "finish the job.”

Orwell would recognize the doublethink and doublespeak –– what we now call gaslighting.

Orwellian Memes/Videos

Orwell’s ghost seems to whisper that in a true democracy the people must be kept informed with facts and truth.

But instead of clear and thoughtful communication about the reasons, ramifications, and duration of the war with Iran (and plans for other “incursions” or “excursions”) Trump and Hegseth are putting out boastful memes and videos of war and destruction using images from movies, games, and cartoons such as SpongeBob Squarepants. [Sadly they use ACDC’s “Thunderstruck” and Metallica’s “Enter Sandman” and other unlicensed music and images.]

The videos are not endorsed by original content creators. In fact, actor and director Ben Stiller demanded the White House stop using images from his movie “Tropic Thunder” to promote Epic Fury.

Steve Downes, the actor who voices Master Chief in the game Halo, spoke out about using his work. “I demand that the producers of this disgusting and juvenile war porn remove my voice immediately,” Downes posted on social media.

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company rebuked the White House for using imagery from a "Pokémon" game in a video montage.

After seeing his image in one of the propaganda war videos NFL Hall of Fame legend Ed Reed, one of football’s greatest safeties, said “I do not approve this message.”

Another former star, safety and ESPN NFL analyst Ryan Clark, spoke out against the White House war videos on The Pivot podcast: “We’ve lost all decorum, we’ve lost all integrity, we’ve lost all character. And I believe that the latest White House post or the White House post involving myself and other NFL players is absolutely disgusting and despicable,” Clark said.

The Catholic Church and other religious and nonreligious leaders and critics condemn the mixing of real combat deaths with entertainment media, which trivializes war and turns it into a "digital spectacle."

One of the White House’s videos is titled “Justice the American Way.”

In 2026 is this now the American way: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”?

Rather than present information for frontal cortex critical thinking to promote trust, Trump and Hegseth instead spew images for the amygdala and id that reinforce ignorance and erase credibility. “Ignorance is Strength.”

I hear Orwell’s voice channeled today in the words and deeds of Daryl Davis. Davis is an American blues and R&B singer and activist who succeeds in promoting unity and healing divisions. He writes: “The cure for ignorance is education. You fix the ignorance, there’s nothing to fear. If there’s nothing to hate. If there’s nothing or no one to hate, there’s nothing to destroy.” As for ignorance, it starts with not ignoring –– but finding –– truth.”

On the Joe Rogan Experience podcast of Jan. 30, 2020, Davis told Rogan, “The most important thing that you have in any endeavor is your credibility.”

Orwell on ICE III: War, Truth, Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:30:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty––

Sons from poor families go to war; sons from rich families go to the bank. Some working class kids lie about their age to enlist, while some wealthy kids lie about their health to get out of military service.

Although George Orwell writes passionately about the horrors of war, he does not shrink from its necessity at times, despite society’s inequities, especially in the face of direct threats and tyranny. So, when does an undeclared war need to be declared? What constitutes a direct imminent threat?

In his essay “My Country Right or Left” Orwell shows both clear thinking and true patriotism in confronting reality when war becomes a necessity.

“I grew up in an atmosphere tinged with militarism, and afterwards I spent five boring years within the sound of bugles. To this day it gives me a faint feeling of sacrilege not to stand to attention during ‘God save the King.’ That is childish, of course, but I would sooner have had that kind of upbringing than be like the left-wing intellectuals who are so ‘enlightened’ that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions. It is exactly the people whose hearts have never leapt at the sight of a Union Jack who will finch from revolution when the moment comes.”

He wrote “My Country Right or Left” in the autumn of 1940, near the end of the Battle of Britain, an early victory against Hitler’s Nazis. The Royal Navy fiercely defended the English Channel. While the navy protected coastal shipping the Royal Air Force successfully repelled air attacks against Germany’s failed Operation Sea Lion invasion of the British Isles.

At that time there was a clear imminent need to wage war in order to defend against an attacking force.

Two years later, still in the midst of the Second World War, Orwell wrote a devastating account of war in “Looking Back on the Spanish War.” It begins with this fragment sentence, “First of all the physical memories, the sounds, the smells and the surfaces of things.”

Truth on War

Orwell's memories leave little to the imagination. “One of the essential experiences of war is never to be able to escape from disgusting smells of human origin.”

“The essential horror of army life (whoever has been a soldier will know what I mean by the essential horror of army life) is barely affected by the nature of the war you happen to be fighting in. Discipline, for instance, is ultimately the same in all armies. Orders have to be obeyed and enforced by punishment if necessary, the relationship of officer and man has to be the relationship of superior and inferior. The picture of war set forth in books like All Quiet on the Western Front is substantially true. Bullets hurt, corpses stink, men under fire are often so frightened that they wet their trousers. It is true that the social background from which an army springs will colour its training, tactics and general efficiency, and also that the consciousness of being in the right can bolster up morale, though this affects the civilian population more than the troops. (People forget that a soldier anywhere near the front line is usually too hungry, or frightened, or cold, or, above all, too tired to bother about the political origins of the war.) But the laws of nature are not suspended for a ‘red' army any more than for a ‘white’ one. A louse is a louse and a bomb is a bomb, even though the cause you are fighting for happens to be just.”

Orwell concludes, “We have become too civilised to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil. Those who take the sword perish by the sword, and those who don't take the sword perish by smelly diseases.”

“One has to remember this to see the Spanish War in its true perspective. When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of war — and in this particular case of the intrigues, the persecutions, the lies and the misunderstandings — there is always the temptation to say: ‘One side is as bad as the other. I am neutral.’ In practice, however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins.

Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction. The hatred which the Spanish Republic excited in millionaires, dukes, cardinals, playboys, Blimps and what not would in itself be enough to show one how the land lay. In essence it was a class war. If it had been won, the cause of the common people everywhere would have been strengthened. It was lost, and the dividend-drawers all over the world rubbed their hands. That was the real issue; all else was froth on its surface.”

[“Blimps,” by the way, is a term Orwell employs to describe stereotyped puffed-up, overfed, self-important bureaucrats, and slick-haired military leaders who often profit from war and ignored war crimes.]

An F/A-18F Super Hornet launches from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 1, 2026. (U.S. Navy)

War on Truth

Orwell writes this about atrocities in war when rules of law, international treaties, or the laws of war are ignored:

“I have little direct evidence about the atrocities in the Spanish Civil War. I know that some were committed by the Republicans, and far more (they are still continuing) by the Fascists. But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.”

In war, each side justifies its own miscalculations, civilian deaths, and outright war crimes.

In Orwell’s “War-time Diary,” written from the end of May through the end of December of 1940, we see clearly the cliché, “the first casualty in war is the truth.” Reports of enemy casualties are inflated while Allies’ setbacks and mistakes are covered over.

On July 3, 1940 Orwell writes: “Everywhere a feeling of something near despair among thinking people because of the failure of the government to act and the continuance of dead minds and pro-Fascists in positions of command.”

Fast forward 86 years…

U.S. Sailors load an F/A-18E Super Hornet with ammunition aboard USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), for Operation Epic Fury, Feb. 28. (U.S. Navy)

War on Iran

On Feb. 28, 2026 the United States military, under orders from Commander in Chief Donald Trump, chose to start a war –– together with Netanyahu’s Israel –– against the Islamic Republic of Iran, assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei and other leaders.

People can celebrate the removal of an undemocratic theocracy while simultaneously be alarmed at the potential for escalating into another “forever war.” Americans can be exceptionally proud of the power and tactical skill of its military while also feel concern about a possible ill-conceived strategy of going to war without authorization or justification.

Unfortunately there have already been a number of U.S. service members killed or seriously wounded, and many Americans throughout the world have now become even bigger targets of Iran and its surrogates.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Iranians have been killed or wounded in the first few days of bombings. News outlets report the deaths of more than 150 Iranians, including children, after the destruction of Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school. In response, Iran is firing missiles at gulf states and Israel, hitting a synagogue and bomb shelter in Beit Shemesh, killing nine people.

Was this undeclared war of choice constitutional? Did Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States? Why did we start a war during peace negotiations shepherded by Oman?

According to Trump, he launched Operation Epic Fury to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, destroy its missile arsenal, and neutralize proxy terrorist forces. In a taped message from his resort at Mar-a-Lago, while wearing a white "USA" baseball cap, he also called for regime change.

Trump barely spoke about Iran in his recent State of the Union speech. In other words, prior to launching he war, he did not make his case to the American People, to Congress, or to the United Nations.

In his State of the Union address filled with heart-wrenching stories of violent crimes and killings, Trump did not mention the violence by Department of Homeland Security agents, including the shooting deaths of Silverio Villegas González in Chicago or Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Nor did he speak of the women who as girls were victims of the nation’s scandal that has become bigger than Watergate: the Epstein pedophile debacle, which is in effect an ongoing war on the truth, transparency, and tragic victims of child-rape.

Most of Jeffrey Epstein's and Ghislaine Maxwell's victims reportedly came from poor and/or troubled families or from the working class.

Is war with Iran an attempt to distract from news coverage of Epstein/Maxwell or domestic failures and scandals (for both Trump and Netanyahu)? Is Operation Epic Fury a means to foment jingoism and influence mid-term voting in order to support the ruling class?

In 1984, Orwell wrote: “The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.”

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984 proclaimed “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”

As we wage war in Iran, is it being presented as a way toward peace?

Orwell on ICE II: Parasites

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 19:11:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty––

In his typically salty way, Orwell describes his beloved England in one of his essays written 85 years ago this month as a nation whose rulers are “parasites.”

Orwell speaks to us from across “the pond” and beyond the grave with observations still timely, relevant, and enlightening in "England Your England."

He has much to say about inequality within society.

“England is the most class-ridden country under the sun. It is a land of snobbery and privilege, ruled largely by the old and silly,” he writes.

Yet, the people of England showed supreme “emotional unity” during the crisis of the Second World War, when authoritarian forces threatened freedom and England’s very existence as a democratic constitutional monarchy.

Orwell calls his country “a family with the wrong members in charge.” Young people must “kowtow” to the rich and powerful and not question the upper classes’ source of wealth.

“It is a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts.”

Orwell recounts the evolution of Britain from an empire with a feudal power system to a modern technological society. The people in country estates and castles became “owners” with no direct contribution to the economy, the so-called “idol rich.” Some are celebrities who get power and wealth by being famous for being famous.

'American Millionaires ... Privileges ... Bribery ... Tear Gas'

Referring to the ultra rich and privileged class: “They were simply parasites,” Orwell writes, “less useful to society than his fleas are to a dog.”

“By 1920 there were many people who were aware of all this.

By 1930 millions were aware of it. But the British ruling class obviously could not admit to themselves that their usefulness was at an end. Had they done that they would have had to abdicate. For it was not possible for them to turn themselves into mere bandits, like the American millionaires, consciously clinging to unjust privileges and beating down opposition by bribery and tear-gas bombs. After all, they belonged to a class with a certain tradition, they had been to public schools where the duty of dying for your country, if necessary, is laid down as the first and greatest of the Commandments. They had to feel themselves true patriots, even while they plundered their countrymen. Clearly there was only one escape for them— into stupidity. They could keep society in its existing shape only by being unable to grasp that any improvement was possible. Difficult though this was, they achieved it, largely by fixing their eyes on the past and refusing to notice the changes that were going on round them.

There is much in England that this explains. It explains the decay of country life, due to the keeping-up of a sham feudalism which drives the more spirited workers off the land. It explains the immobility of the public schools, which have barely altered since the eighties of the last century. It explains the military incompetence which has again and again startled the world. Since the 'fifties every war in which England has engaged has started off with a series of disasters, after which the situation has been saved by people comparatively low in the social scale. The higher commanders, drawn from the aristocracy, could never prepare for modern war, because in order to do so they would have had to admit to themselves that the world was changing. They have always clung to obsolete methods and weapons, because they inevitably saw each war as a repetition of the last. Before the Boer War they prepared for the Zulu War, before 1914 for the Boer War, and before the present war for 1914. Even at this moment hundreds of thousands of men in England are being trained with the bayonet, a weapon entirely useless except for opening tins. It is worth noticing that the navy and, latterly, the Air Force, have always been more efficient than the regular army. But the navy is only partially, and the Air Force hardly at all, within the ruling-class orbit.”

That wasn’t the first or last time Orwell exempted the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force from the rampant incompetence of a caste system of leadership based on rich versus poor.

At least, he notes, the country’s rulers had not attempted to establish an authoritarian dictatorship or agitated for a civil war –– with a paramilitary force on the streets of London.

“It must be admitted that so long as things were peaceful the methods of the British ruling class served them well enough. Their own people manifestly tolerated them. However unjustly England might be organized, it was at any rate not torn by class warfare or haunted by secret police.”

Orwell saw a direct line to the Gestapo, Nazism, and spread of fascism as an outcome of the Spanish War of 1939 between Nationalists and Republicans. Although he had fought for the Spanish Republic against Franco’s fascists he later became disillusioned by the Republicans’ ties to Soviet Russia. His disillusionment would inspire his masterwork “1984” against totalitarianism.

While he lauds the fact that there were no secret police roaming London’s streets, he acknowledges, “Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.”

“Everyone believes in his heart that the law can be, ought to be, and, on the whole, will be impartially administered,” Orwell writes. “The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root.”

The same thing could be said about nearly all of the first 250 years of the United States’s history.

Fascist Diversity

In his essay “Looking Back on the Spanish War” Orwell says “When one thinks of all the people who support or have supported Fascism, one stands amazed at their diversity. What a crew!”

He mentions a varied array of powerful men including Germany’s Führer/Chancellor Adolf Hitler, Vichy France’s Philippe Pétain, Croatian fascist leader Ante Pavelic, American media tycoon William Randolph Hearst, American expatriate and Mussolini supporter Ezra Pound, Palestinian Arab nationalism and Nazi collaborator Mufti of Jerusalem, Canadian-American Christian Supremacist and America First isolationist Father Charles Coughlin, among others.

“They are all people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings,” Orwell writes.

[Interestingly, in another essay he decries his country’s discrimination against hiring immigrants to work in coal mines. Although he acknowledges the “wasteful, dirty and inefficient” nature of coal fires, he celebrates the idea of families of any “class” gathered around a fireplace.]

The ultra wealthy privileged caste, many of whom would be considered part of the “Epstein Class” today, tend to show disdain for immigrants, poor people, and workers. And what do working people ask for?

“All that the workingman demands is what these others would consider the indispensable minimum without which human life cannot be lived at all. Enough to eat, freedom from the haunting terror of unemployment, the knowledge that your children will get a fair chance, a bath once a day, clean linen reasonably often, a roof that doesn't leak, and short enough working hours to leave you with a little energy when the day is done. Not one of those who preach against ‘materialism’ would consider life livable without these things. And how easily that minimum could be attained if we chose to set our minds to it for only twenty years! To raise the standard of living of the whole world to that of Britain would not be a greater undertaking than this war we are now fighting … The major problem of our time is the decay of the belief in personal immortality, and it cannot be dealt with while the average human being is either drudging like an ox or shivering in fear of the secret police.”

Orwell staunchly believed in the rule of law and protection of voting rights within a culture of income inequality.

Regarding the English electoral system: “In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class” but “not completely corrupt,” Orwell contends. “You do not arrive at the polling booth to find men with revolvers telling you which way to vote, nor are the votes miscounted nor is there any direct bribery.”

But income inequality can lead to corruption, autocracy, voter suppression, and war –– both on foreign and domestic soil.

More about that in our next Navy Reads post.

By the way…

Today we saw another gift from across the pond from musical artists whose roots are from the "working class" and lower-middle classes:

The islands that gave us The Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin just delivered the Irish band U2’s “Days of Ash” EP with the lead song “American Obituary,” recounting ICE’s killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis with these powerful lyrics: “What you can’t kill can’t die, America will rise against the people of the lie;” “I love you more than hate loves war;” and “the power of the people is so much stronger than the people in power.” U2’s timely and exceptionally good set of songs complement to America's Bruce Springsteen’s recent tribute to Renee Good and Alex Pretti, “The Streets of Minneapolis.”

Orwell on ICE: ’Facing Unpleasant Facts’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:22:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

“There is no such thing as a naval dictatorship.”

Those are the words of George Orwell in his essay “England Your England,” written February 19, 1941, shortly after the United States entered the Second World War along with its Allies against Fascism and totalitarianism.

No naval power, he contended, could survive as an authoritarian dictatorship.

Orwell’s words are within the context of England as the world’s imperial superpower of its time, as well as his observations about his countrymen. Orwell addresses the English people’s ambivalence toward waging war, with many actively against serving in the military.

“After all, the English have absorbed a quarter of the earth and held on to it by means of a huge navy,” he writes. “How dare they then turn round and say that war is wicked?”

“It is quite true that the English are hypocritical about their Empire. In the working class this hypocrisy takes the form of not knowing that the Empire exists. But their dislike of standing armies is a perfectly sound instinct. A navy employs comparatively few people, and it is an external weapon which cannot affect home politics directly. Military dictatorships exist everywhere, but there is no such thing as a naval dictatorship. What English people of nearly all classes loathe from the bottom of their hearts is the swaggering officer type, the jingle of spurs and the crash of boots.”

One can imagine what Orwell would say about masked paramilitary agents acting as a “standing army” asking for citizens for identification, separating families, terrorizing children, beating people in the streets, and worse.

He was clear about his disdain for thuggish bullying behavior in the name of law and order, especially ostentatious shows of force, including goose-stepping parades.

“Decades before Hitler was ever heard of, the word 'Prussian' had much the same significance in England as 'Nazi' has today. So deep does this feeling go that for a hundred years past the officers of the British army, in peace-time, have always worn civilian clothes when off duty.

One rapid but fairly sure guide to the social atmosphere of a country is the parade-step of its army. A military parade is really a kind of ritual dance, something like a ballet, expressing a certain philosophy of life. The goose-step, for instance, is one of the most horrible sights in the world, far more terrifying than a dive-bomber. It is simply an affirmation of naked power; contained in it, quite consciously and intentionally, is the vision of a boot crashing down on a face. Its ugliness is part of its essence, for what it is saying is 'Yes, I am ugly, and you daren't laugh at me,' like the bully who makes faces at his victim. Why is the goose-step not used in England? There are, heaven knows, plenty of army officers Who would be only too glad to introduce some such thing. It is not used because the people in the street would laugh. Beyond a certain point, military display is only possible in countries where the common people dare not laugh at the army.”

Dictators and would-be dictators hate to be laughed at.

Common traits of autocrats include attacking critics, rewriting history, subverting the judiciary, worshipping themselves, interfering in elections, and accumulating wealth through corruption.

Dictators also embrace the power of patriotism and promote nationalist “patriots” with misplaced loyalty to the Leader. Witness the attempted coup of January 6, 2021 at the United States Capitol and pardoned participants, including violent extremists who brutalized law enforcement personnel.

Absolution from Evil

Orwell’s “England Your England” essay opens with a powerful image as German bombers attacked Great Britain:

“As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.

They do not feel any enmity against me as [an] individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’ as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any the worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil.

One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not.”

Orwell would say the right kind of patriotism relies on truth, justice, accountability, and respect for the law and the people of a nation.

He questioned authority but wore a variety of uniforms to defend freedom and liberty. As a military officer, he demonstrated his commitment to serve with humility, kindness, and compassion –– characteristics of the best members of the military or in law enforcement.

Orwell’s gift for self-reflection is clear in two other essays, “A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant.” In A Hanging, Orwell witnesses in stunning detail the hanging of a prisoner and considers the reality of purposefully ending another human’s life. In Shooting an Elephant, he reflects on his time as a police officer serving in then-Burma, where the local population, even the Buddhist priests, openly rejected his presence.

“In Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people –– the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me,” he writes. He was openly jeered, mocked, and disrespected, much like ICE and Border Patrol agents are treated today in American cities.

Baited and Hated

“As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so,” Orwell writes.

“All this was perplexing and upsetting. For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically –– and secretly, of course –– I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters.

The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos—all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt. But I could get nothing into perspective. I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East. I did not even know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it.

All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.”

Orwell opposed the monarchy but later came to respect figurehead leaders as a control –– denying power from runaway politicians who would subvert the people’s will in a democracy. He would most certainly applaud calls for accountability and justice as relates to the "Epstein Class."

What would he say about the arrest today of Britain’s former Prince Andrew?

Andrew, who is accused of passing confidential information to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, is a Royal Navy veteran who served in the Falklands. (He is brother to King Charles III and the youngest son of a Royal Navy hero, Prince Phillip, who fought in World War II and was present for Japan’s surrender in Tokyo Bay aboard USS Missouri (BB-63).)

Although Orwell did not serve in the Royal Navy, he saw firsthand the differences between the army and the sea services. Hence, his comment that there are no naval powers with dictatorships –– true at least during the middle of the last century.

Orwell lived in a time of great disparity between the haves and have-nots, with poor people drawn into the lower ranks of military service. His warnings about over-militarized autocracy as well as the effects of income inequality resonate with us today, nearly a century later. [More about that in the next review.]

The essays cited here are found in “George Orwell: Facing Unpleasant Facts –– Narrative Essays,” compiled with an introduction by George Packer (Harcourt Books, 2008).

Voices

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 01 Feb 2026 18:47:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

Art is often created in pain.

During and after the U.S. military’s incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry in World War II, many of the prisoners created literature. Editors Frank Abe and Floyd Cheung collected some of the creations in “The Literature of Japanese American Incarceration” (Penguin Books, 2024).

Historians Abe and Cheung write:

“The literature in this volume presents the collective voice of a people defined by a specific moment in time: the four years of World War II during which the United States government expelled resident aliens and its own citizens from their homes, farms, and businesses, and incarcerated more than 125,000 of them in American concentration camps, based solely upon the race they shared with a wartime enemy…

By its own latter-day admission, the government had no military need for the mass exclusion –– acknowledging that it was driven by a mixture of race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership –– rendering the three-year incarceration that followed just as unnecessary as it was wrong.”

This valuable book brings together “many voices telling a shared story,” according to Abe and Cheung, a “struggle to retain personal integrity in the face of increasing dehumanization.”

“It’s the story of the struggle to retain personal integrity in the face of increasing dehumanization,” they write. The literature includes fiction and nonfiction; stories, narratives, and observations; a few drawings and comic strips; and various forms of poetry, some of which we include in this Navy Reads post.

Some of the poems are written in the Japanese style of haiku or tanka; some poems rhyme while others are freestyle. Some were written after detention and imprisonment; others were written in the post-traumatic months and years after the camps.

Voices from the Camps

From Portland Senryū Poets

“Resolution and Readiness, Confusion and Doubt”

Translated by Shelley Baker-Gard, Michael Freiling, and Satsuki Takikawa

By Jōnan:

for these current times

all 100,000 of us

made ready

By Mokugyo:

whatever is next ––

father has already written

his final wishes

By Jōnan:

our mother too

awaits the baby's first cry

all on edge

By Goichi:

decided now

my new destination ––

our breakup is near

By Jōnan:

at the train station

my self-control departs

and tears arrive

By Roshyou:

stay forever or return home

the decision never made ––

just too much to bear

By Sen Taro:

they never asked

suspicious or not—

just put us away

From Fort Sill Incarceration Camp

By Otokichi (Muin) Ozaki

Translated by Jiro Nakano and Kay Nakano:

I bid farewell

To the faces of my sleeping children

As I am taken prisoner

Into the cold night rain.

Sailing on the same ship—

The son, A U.S. soldier;

His father,

A prisoner of war.

A wretching anguish rises

As the number "III"

Is painted

On my naked chest

In red.

From Sand Island and Santa Fe Incarceration Camps

By Yasutaro (Keiho) Soga

Translated by Jiro Nakano and Kay Nakano:

Like a dog

I am commanded At a bayonet point.

My heart is inflamed

With burning anguish.

A fellow prisoner

Takes his life with poison.

In the evening darkness, Streaks of black blood

Stain the camp road.

The barren wasteland

Raged by sand storm,

I weep for my friend

Who sleeps there alone,

Eternally.

Voices After the Camps

“Topaz, Utah”

By Toyo Suyemoto:

The desert must have claimed its own

Now that the wayfarers are gone,

And silence has replaced voices

Except for intermittent noises,

Like windy footsteps through the dust,

Or gliding of a snake that must

Escape the sun, or sage rustling.

Or soft brush of a quickened wing

Against the air. — Stillness is change

For this abandoned place, where strange

And foreign tongues had routed peace

Until the refugees release

Restored calm to the wilderness,

And prairie dogs no longer fear

When shadows shift and disappear.

The crows fly straight through settling dusk,

The desert like an empty husk,

Holding the small swift sounds that run

To cover when the day is done.

“Returning Home”

By Shizue Iwatsuki

Translated by Stephen W. Kohl:

I. Going home,

Gripping my daughter's hand,

Feeling cheated,

I tell her we're leaving

Without emotion.

2. Through the car window

A glimpse of pines.

Oregon mountains.

My heart beats faster,

Returning home.

3. Four years have passed,
Returning home
Though I have no flowers to offer,

First I visit my child's grave.

4. Evening twilight,
Mother cow chews her cud.
Beneath her
The calf dozes.

5. Home at last
At the dinner table

My husband calls my name, But lapses into silence.

His heart, too, is full.

6. He was kind to us before,

But now—the shopkeeper

Nervously refuses to serve us.

7. Hard at work
Rebuilding our life,

To help my husband

Today I go

To buy farm tools.

8. Glancing up,
At red-tinged mountains
My heart is softened.
A day in deep autumn.

9. Pointing out the trail to the summit
He says it's steep,

But we agree to try.

10. War and change,

My native land

Once so hard to leave,

Is behind me now forever.

11. With determination

I sign the naturalization papers.

In my hand

The pen trembles slightly.

12. A naturalized citizen now

I have the right to vote.

So today I climb

The steps of this building.

The art in this volume of literature is painted in various voices, many painful, some plaintive, all powerful. Each voice is relevant to what is happening in the United States in 2026.

Abe and Cheung write, “Many of the voices in this volume are those of protest against incarceration. Some are those of accommodation. All are authentic. Together they form an epic narrative with a singular vision of America's past, one with disturbing resonances with the American present.”

‘Seen and Unseen’ Ties to 1942

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:15:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

This award-winning book about the federal government’s incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II has remarkable ties to what is happening today in the United States:

“Seen and Unseen: What Dorothea Lange, Toyo Miyatake, and Ansel Adams’s Photographs Reveal About the Japanese American Incarceration” by Elizabeth Partridge and Lauren Tamaki (Chronicle Books, 2022).

After Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and other military sites in Hawaii, FDR called for the incarceration of Japanese immigrants and Japanese American citizens, including children.

The government’s Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration ordered evacuation of whole areas and required disposal of property, including family farms. Families were assigned a number and were no longer known by their proper name.

Author Elizabeth Partridge shows how prisoners were shamed and ostracized.

When first arrested, detained, and forced on trains and buses to the camps, families, including American citizens, had been treated like prisoners of war, allowed to keep only what they could carry.

Upon first reporting to at least one of the camps, they had been forced to fill bags with hay and sleep in horse stables that smelled of horse manure and urine.

“Seen and Unseen” is filled with distinctive art by Lauren Tamaki augmenting the photos.

Partridge is the goddaughter of Dorothea Lange. Her dad was a Navy veteran who served in World War II and later became a photographer and assistant to Lange after the war.

With the help of Lauren Tamaki’s distinctive and provocative art, Partridge introduces readers to the work of three photographers. Most of the photography is from within the Manzanar concentration camp in eastern California near the border of Nevada.

The first photographer featured is Lange (above), who became famous for her iconic photography during the Great Depression. The U.S. government hired her to take propaganda photos of what they called “internment” of Americans of Japanese ancestry and Japanese immigrants.

Lange tried to show everyday life of her subjects who were forced to leave their homes and travel in secrecy to faraway camps under armed guard.

Many of Lange’s photographs were impounded because they were deemed to show captivity in a negative light. She was forbidden from taking photos of barbed wire, machine guns, searchlight towers, or crowded conditions with little or no privacy.

“Dorothea wanted to show how hard the Japanese and Japanese Americans wanted to make their situation bearable,” Partridge writes. Resilient captives created furniture from scraps of wood. They cleared sagebrush to start vegetable gardens. And they continued to conduct school studies despite no desks and limited supplies.

One of her most powerful photos was of farmer Torazo Sakawye with grandson Walter (below).

Ten months after the photo was taken, Torazo died in the camp.

“All Dorothea could do was hope her photographs carried a strong message. ‘This is what we did,’ she said. ‘ How did it happen? How could we?’”

Next, Partridge introduces readers to Toyo Miyatake, a professional photographer whose family was incarcerated at Manzanar through the entire war.

At first, Miyatake surreptitiously took photos using an ingenious box camera disguised as a lunchbox. Eventually he was allowed to take photos but at first was told only caucasian helpers were allowed to push the shutter button.

The third photographer whose work Partridge showcases is Ansel Adams, who was attracted to the stark beauty of the desert and mountain terrain surrounding Manzanar. Adams focused on the “hardworking, cheerful, and resilient people.”

According to Partridge, “Ansel believed the faces of earnest, young Japanese Americans would convince other Americans how trustworthy and patriotic they were.”

Most of Adams's photos show smiling faces of young people.

"Everything in a picture is not necessarily true."

– Taira Fukushima, Manzanar, Block 5

Adams was on hand to capture some departures from Manzanar in 1945. Prisoners were given a change ticket and $25. A generation later those who had been incarcerated –– and were still alive –– were awarded reparations of $20,000 each under the Civil Liberties Act.

“The money was a small fraction of what they had lost,” Partridge observes.

“At least the federal government acknowledged that the incarceration had been a profound injustice, but it could not erase the heavy emotional and physical cost to the prisoners of what had been done.”

Readers might wish for more of the photographers’ work. Fortunately many of their photos are easily found online. And the National Archives has many incarceration photographs available –– at least for now –– including previously “impounded” images.

Those who are inspired to learn more won’t be disappointed if they read this book cover to cover. Among the treasures are the back pages of essays, commentary, notes, footnotes, photo credits, and biographies of each photographer, and more. This book is rich with primary sources, critical thinking, and documentation of censorship and history.

One of the essays in the back is titled “Civil Liberties and the Constitution.” The essay addresses one of the four cases brought by Japanese Americans that went before the Supreme Court: Korematsu v United States. In 1944 the Court ruled in favor of the government, but a generation later a federal court overturned that ruling when new evidence was uncovered that the military had lied about the need for incarceration,

“However, In 2018, several Supreme Court justices wrote about the Korematsu case in what are called ‘dicta’ –– statements made in written court opinions that do not affect the outcome of the case being heard. In a ruling restricting travel and immigration to the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘The forcible relocation of US citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful. ... Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and to be clear has no place in law under the Constitution. (He referred back to Justice Robert H. Jackson's dissent in the 1944 Korematsu Supreme Court case and quoted Jackson's words.)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor went one step further than Justice Roberts. ‘Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu,’ she wrote, denouncing it as 'gravely wrong the day it was decided.’

Despite the dicta, Korematsu v. United States still stands, a painful symbol of our country's racial prejudice. And how can we be sure it will never be looked upon favorably in the future and used to violate the rights of another group of American citizens?”

Another essay/commentary is “Keeping Our Democracy Strong.” The keyword is “our.”

“As important as our leaders and our institutions are in our democracy, it depends on all of us to keep it safe. Even in the United States, built on strong democratic ideals, deliberate violations of people's civil rights can and do occur. No matter what kinds of inaccurate words are used to hide these violations, we can name them for what they are, and speak out against them, loud and clear. We can bear witness to old injustices, learn from them, and do our best to ensure they never happen again.

In the 194os, taking photographs was complicated.

Cameras could be cumbersome, film expensive, and developing and printing photographs a complex process. Today, we can use our cell phone cameras to capture injustice when we see it, and quickly let others know. These images cannot be marked

‘impounded’ and left hidden in a filing cabinet.

We each have in our pocket a tool for social justice that earlier generations never could have dreamed of.”

Photo by Toyo Mayatake

Cameras –– bulky and rare then, handy and pervasive now –– are one of the remarkable ties to history. Images, and now video, are compelling evidence of the crimes of violence against people who are targets or who practice their First Amendment rights to protest. Witness the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti this month in Minneapolis.

Among other ties to history:

Then (and now), migrants and immigrant families were targeted by race.
U.S. citizens were also arrested, detained, or worse.
Officials used (and use) propaganda to lie about processes, procedures, and outcomes of a massive operation.
People were required to show their “papers.”
Uniformed law enforcement used chemical agents against protesters.
Fear was a weapon.
Those who protested often faced beatings, arrests, and even shootings.
Families were often separated and given no information about the whereabouts of their loved ones.
Fort Sill, used for past incarcerations of Native Americans and then Japanese Americans is now used again by the Trump Administration to incarcerate immigrants from Central America.
Other sites, such as Fort Bliss and Terminal Center, once used as concentration camps for Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans, are now used to incarcerate hispanic immigrants.
White supremacists and Christian nationalists supported “law and order” despite violations of the rule of law, Constitution, morality, and civil liberties.
Some military service members and law enforcement personnel followed illegal orders.
There was no accountability or justice for victims for decades.
The negative impact on families lasted for generations.
Then as now, officials covered up facts and prevented investigations.

"My question is always, why was I, a child, put into a

concentration camp? I was a citizen.

That's against the Constitution."

– Joyce Yuki Nakamura Okazaki

This book and others came onto Navy Reads reading list after listening to Rachel Maddow’s podcast production “Burn Order,” a story about how some leaders in the military justified racist persecution of people of Japanese ancestry in the United States during World War II, while others, including a Navy intelligence officer told the truth. Maddow documents heroic efforts by a woman and a lawyer to uncover the true reason for the illegal incarceration.

A key takeaway from then and now: Each person has the opportunity to make a difference.

Villains & Heroes – Places in History

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 18:22:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

In her books and other productions, Rachel Maddow presents strong profiles of people who find their places in history as either villains or heroes. In past works she compares felon Spiro Agnew with principled Elliott Richardson (“Bag Man”); oil tycoons with environmentalists (“Blow Out”); and America First fascists with supporters of democracy (“Ultra/Prequel”).

In her latest work, “Burn Order,” Maddow examines the incarceration of Japanese people and Americans of Japanese ancestry in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor that began America’s participation in the Second World War. Once again, she cuts through both-sides-ism and whitewashing to reveal who are the bad guys and the good people in historic eras.

Maddow’s revelations start with the heroic efforts of Navy intelligence officer then-Lt. Cmdr. Kenneth Ringle. Ringle determined and reported that people of Japanese ancestry living in the United States presented no threat to the war effort against Imperial Japan

History proved him right.

During the war, U.S. Navy Captain Ringle (pictured above) commanding the USS Wasatch (AGC-9) in the South Pacific in 1945 during World War II. He was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral upon his retirement. His path before, during, and after the war is a brilliant example of patriotism.

On the other side of the ledger, Maddow’s “Burn Order” continues with the misguided work of Army officers Lt. Gen. John DeWitt and Maj. Robin Bendetsen, who ignored Ringle’s report and carried out cruel and harmful incarceration of families at various concentration camps mostly in western states.

Bendetsen is revealed as the brains behind DeWitt’s “jittery” strategy and tactics that bordered on paranoid fantasies and fear of sabotage. DeWitt harbored and promoted bizarre conspiracy theories publicly and within his chain of command.

DeWitt (above) testified to members of Congress in April 1943, warning no Japanese Americans could be trusted because “a Jap’s a Jap.” He told San Francisco officials he thought it might be a good thing if San Francisco got bombed by Japan, in order to “awaken this city.”

Both DeWitt and his Stephen Miller-like advisor Bendetsen earned their places in history even though both escaped personal accountability.

Some white Americans protected the property of their Japanese neighbors who were incarcerated. Sadly, other white Americans were not as heroic and greedily took over belongings, businesses, and farmland.

As evidence, Maddow provides numerous newspaper clips, letters, and photographs on the MS NOW site for “Burn Order.”

An inspirational heart of Maddow’s story is the dedicated efforts of one individual, in particular: Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga.

Aiko (above) spent countless hours at the National Archives researching records of the government’s incarceration. She eventually discovered documents that revealed the Army based their actions on racism while ignoring evidence contrary to their scheme and then trying to cover up their crimes against the Constitution.

In 1981, Lawyer and researcher Peter Irons uncovered key U.S. government memos revealing the suppression of evidence and destruction of documents related to the 1940s policy of mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. He partnered with Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga to bring about justice for people unlawfully rounded up and put in concentration camps.

When President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to acknowledge federal wrongdoing, it was an official apology for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in the 1940s. Reagan described the incarceration as a “grave wrong” against the Constitution.

Listening to the “Burn Order” podcast prompted further exploration of the heroes, villains, and victims of this era in American history and their own places in history.

New on our Navy Reads to-read list now are books such as “The Literature of Japanese American Incarceration,” edited by Frank Abe and Floyd Cheung (Penguin Classics, 2024),“Seen and Unseen: What Dorothea Lange, Toyo Miyatake, and Ansel Adams’s Photographs Reveal About the Japanese American Incarceration” by Elizabeth Partridge and Lauren Tamaki (Chronicle Books, 2022), and “Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases” by Peter Irons (Oxford University Press, 1983).

Speaking of places in history ... Yesterday, Maddow headed a two-hour special about public testimony by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith regarding the January 6, 2021 insurrection attempt by Donald Trump and his supporters. Clear in his testimony: Capitol Police and other uniformed personnel, along with those on the side of law, order, and accountability are on the right side of the ledger.

'Americas' First?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 06 Jan 2026 22:39:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

In the days following Trump’s military attack on Venezuela, he threatened Colombia and its president, described Cuba as “ready to fall,” and saber-rattled about our southernmost neighbor: “You have to do something with Mexico,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to do something." He also restated his desire to take control of Greenland. Canada is still on his wish-list, as well.

Has "America First" become The Americas first?

The current commander-in-chief who promised an “America First” non-interventionist foreign policy started in Venezuela what he calls the biggest military intervention since the Second World War:

On Jan. 3, 2026, at a Mar-a-Lago press conference, Trump said, “This is big stuff. We appreciate you being here. Late last night and early today, at my direction, the United States Armed Forces conducted an extraordinary military operation in the capital of Venezuela. Overwhelming American military power, air, land, and sea was used to launch a spectacular assault, and it was an assault like people have not seen since World War II.”

In less than one full year in office Trump has bombed Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. And he has deployed the military into U.S. cities, something the founders and framers of the Constitution, not to mention historians, would call an abuse of power.

Trump’s military action against Venezuela wipes away attention and scrutiny of some big issues. Among them: the Tariff economy, J6 five-year anniversary (today), the Jack Smith testimony, ICE violence, failure to achieve peace in Ukraine, healthcare costs, lowest presidential poll numbers, crypto-corruption, and Epstein-gate.

Heady with what seems like an easy win against Venezuela thanks to the skill of the military, Trump sees his power only growing, especially his power over the armed forces.

“Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power” by Rachel Maddow (Crown Random House, 2012) examines a history of military interventions including in Vietnam, Central and South America, and the Middle East. Maddow outlines the views of founders who foresaw the misuse and abuse of the military by power-hungry or misguided leaders.

For example, the book opens with an excerpt by James Madison, who warned against war because it leads to more debts, taxes, “inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud,” and “degeneracy.”

This is from Madison’s “Political Observations” of April 20, 1795:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Those truths are well established. They are read in every page which records the progression from a less arbitrary to a more arbitrary government, or the transition from a popular government to an aristocracy or a monarchy."

Maddow presents the views of various framers of the Constitution as well as the words of seminal American leaders such as President Lincoln. Maddow writes:

“The framers had been voluble in their rationale for and in their defense of Article 1, Section 8. ‘The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates,’ wrote James Madison, ‘that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.' Even that suspected monarchist Alexander Hamilton saw the wisdom of keeping the power to declare war out of the hands of a single executive. Madison, Hamilton, and their fellow framers were building structural barriers against what they saw as the darker aspects of human nature. The lures to war –– personal hatreds, political glory, material spoils, and the simple atavistic enthusiasm for violence –– might be too enticing for one man to resist, and might be too easy to promote ‘by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory,’ as a later congressman, Abraham Lincoln, put it, ‘that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood –– that serpent's eye that charms to destroy.’”

“Drift” spotlights the Executive branch’s circumvention of the Constitution and Congress by Presidents Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1 and Bush 2, among others. This never-more-relevant book includes the history of the murky “unified executive theory,” which ostensibly gives the president unfettered power –– the theory Reagan employed in his arms-for-hostages scheme in the Iran-Contra scandal.

We read about misadventures in Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan and circumstances where military service members are put in positions of carrying out unlawful orders or otherwise violating international rules of law and rules of war.

Maddow wrote the book three years before Trump first declared his candidacy for the presidency, so there is no mention of the 45th and 47th commander in chief.

U.S. Marine Barracks, Beirut

There is, however, a prescient quote about Reagan by then-Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, who pushed Congress to invoke the War Powers Act that forced the troops to leave Grenada after 60 days without congressional approval.

O’Neill recognized that Reagan went to war in Grenada as a stain-remover in the post-Vietnam era and in the wake of the October 23, 1983, suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon (which killed 241 service members, mostly Marines and Navy Corpsmen).

O’Neill decried Reagan’s invasion of Grenada. “You can’t justify any government, whether it’s Russia or the United States, trampling on another nation,” he said to New York Times reporter Scotty Reston. “I’m worried about the effects of this.”

Maddow then captures more of what Tip O’Neill told Reston about Reagan:

“And that was just on policy; then O'Neill got personal: ‘He only works three and a half hours a day. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't read his briefing papers. It's sinful that this man is President of the United States. He lacks the knowledge that he should have, on every sphere, whether it's the domestic or whether it's the international sphere.’ It was time for Reagan to pack it in and take Nancy back home where she could be the ‘Queen of Beverly Hills,’ he told Reston. Damn.”

O’Neill was angry that Reagan acted unilaterally and against the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution compels the president to consult Congress and “secure specific statutory authority for the war” unless there is a “national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Wyoming Representative at the time, Dick Cheney, former chief of staff to President Gerald Ford and future future VP to President George W. Bush, defended Reagan’s use of executive power (including in Lebanon), as did other republicans –– just as republicans in Congress publicly defend most of Trump’s actions and criticize the Biden Administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan and loss of 13 U.S. service members.

Rachel Maddow interviews International Security Assistance Force Command Sgt. Maj. Michael T. Hall on "The Rachel Maddow Show," July 8, 2010. (DVIDS)

Trump ridiculed the Bush administration’s decision to not claim Iraq’s oil reserves after the administration removed Saddam Hussein from power. He did the same after Obama attacked Libya and deposed Gaddafi. Now, Trump claims Venezuela’s oil and says he, himself, runs the South American country and will support rebuilding the oil infrastructure there for American oil corporations.

Maddow’s epilogue in “Drift” is titled “You Build It, You Own It,” a variant of the Powell Doctrine and Pottery Barn adage, “you break it, you buy it.’”

In the epilogue Maddow presents 8 points as recommendations, such as recognizing the cost of war, ensuring Congress is made aware of military actions, deploying the military for military operations only, and shrinking the nuclear infrastructure to fit a realistic nuclear mission.

But the key point is saved for last:

“And finally, there's the Gordian knot of executive power. It needs a sword something fierce. The glory of war success will always attach itself to the president, so presidents are always going to be prey to the temptation to make war. That's a generic truth of power, and all the more reason to take decision making about war out of the hands of the executive. It is not one man's responsibility. The ‘imperial presidency’ malarkey that was invented to save Ronald Reagan's neck in Iran-Contra, and that played as high art throughout the career of Richard Cheney, is a radical departure from previous views of presidential power, and it should be taught and understood that way. This isn't a partisan thing –– constitutionalists left and right have equal reason to worry over the lost constraint on the executive. Republicans and Democrats alike have options to vote people into Congress who are determined to stop with the chickenshittery and assert the legislature’s constitutional prerogatives on war and peace. It would make a difference and help reel us back toward balance and normalcy.”

Maddow writes, “None of this is impossible. This isn't bigger than us. Decisions about national security are ours to make.”

She concludes, “We just need to revive that old idea of America as a deliberately peaceable nation. That's not simply our inheritance, it's our responsibility.” We have a right and need and freedom to speak –– and then vote. It’s literally in the Constitution as the preeminent amendment.

Americans’ "First."

Hangin’ with War Department

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 04:14:00 +0000

by Bill Doughty

United States Senators and Representatives plan to conduct hearings to investigate an attack of Sept. 2 on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean as a potential war crime or murder.

Adm. Bradley

Navy’s SEAL Team 6 reportedly conducted an initial strike and then a re-striike attack allegedly as ordered by “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth. Witnesses claim Hegseth said, “Kill them all,” but that was denied by leaders.

Hegseth initially said the report was “fabricated,” but then the White House acknowledged there was indeed a second strike on the boat even though there were survivors clinging to the shipwreck.

This week Hegseth admitted there was a second strike but denied giving the order, instead attributing the decision to Admiral “Mitch” Bradley.

More about that in a moment…

Unconstitutional Behavior

Last month some members of Congress, including Sen. Mark Kelly, issued a video aimed at uniformed military personnel. reminding them of their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. They urged service members to not follow illegal and unconstitutional orders.

In response, President Trump said that Kelly and the other Democratic lawmakers in the video “should be in jail right now.” He called the senators’ statement “seditious behavior at the highest level” and for an example to be set. “Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! punishable by DEATH!”

It wasn’t the first time that the commander in chief called for violence against his adversaries. He proclaimed to a crowd years ago, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?”

On a presidential debate stage in 2016 Trump told moderator FOX News’s Bret Baier that he could get away with issuing orders to torture people. Baier replied that several high-ranking military and intelligence officials believed that rank-and-file service members would refuse to commit war crimes as illegal orders; Trump replied, "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me.”

After Trump's comments about Senator Kelly and the other members of Congress, the senators and representatives and their families have received numerous death threats.

In at least one press conference and many media interviews, Kelly has been outspoken in defending his position: reminding service members of their duty to follow only legal orders.

‘Follow the Law’

One of Kelly's earliest interviews was with MS NOW political talkshow host Rachel Maddow on Monday, Nov. 24.

“I said something that was pretty simple and non-controversial,” Kelly told Maddow, “that members of the military should follow the law. And in response to that, Donald Trump said I should be executed, I should be hanged, I should be prosecuted, even said something like, ‘Go get them.’”

“I think it says more about him than it does about me. He doesn’t want accountability, but Rachel I’m not going to be silenced. I’m not going to be intimidated,” he added.

Kelly cited Trump’s pronouncement at the 2016 debate that the military “won’t refuse” even his illegal orders. Kelly also noted Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act and send more troops into American cities as training against U.S. citizens. And, Kelly mentioned Trump’s desire to have the military fire upon protesters in Washington D.C. in 2020.

Kelly said, “I spent 25 years in the United States Navy. I flew 39 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait. Let me start by saying I never questioned any order, and you’re required to follow all legal orders. You’re also required not to follow illegal ones.”

“I don’t think there’s anything more patriotic than to stand up for the Constitution, and right here, right now, the President clearly is not doing that,” Kelly added.

“The whole thing’s almost comical," Kelly said. "We basically recited the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, and they’re (Trump and Hegseth) saying that’s in violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. It’s absurd.”

Maddow inquired, “I have to ask you at a human level, Senator, you and your family have dealt with more than your fair share of sacrifice for this country and trial and tribulation … Even though I hear you when you say you’re not intimidated … It’s tough to ask what kind of impact is this having on you and your family?”

“Rachel, I’ve had a missile blow up next to my airplane,” Kelly replied. “I’ve been … nearly shot down multiple times. I’ve flown a rocket ship into space four times built by the lowest bidder. And my wife, Gabby Giffords, meeting with her constituents, shot in the head. Six people killed around her. A horrific thing. She spent six months in the hospital. We know what political violence is. And we know what causes it, too. Y’know, The statements that Donald Trump made… incites other people. He’s got millions of supporters. People listen to what he says more so than any other person in the country. And he should be careful with his words,” Kelly said.

“But I’m not going to be silenced here.”

Kelly added: “If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

‘Not a Serious Person’

Hegseth

U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, argues that the senators' and representatives' video at the center of the controversy was “despicable, reckless, and false.”

Kelly and the others, Hegseth claims, is “Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline.’”

Hegseth claims Kelly has committed a potentially unlawful act. He threatens to recall the retired Navy captain to active duty so he can hold him accountable. He also mocked his uniform and rows of ribbons for medals Kelly earned.

Kelly meantime has continued to speak out after revelation of the re-strike controversy. He has spoken out in support of Admiral Bradley. And he berated Hegseth for not taking responsibility for his actions in the potential warcrime of Sept. 2.

In the wake of outrage over the Washington Post story, Hegseth posted or reposted a meme on social media picturing Franklin the Turtle hanging from a military helicopter and firing rocket-propelled grenades at drug-running boats. The Canadian children’s book publisher of Franklin the Turtle, Kids Can Press, denounced the unauthorized use of their peace-loving character that "stands for kindness, empathy, and inclusivity."

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) reacted to Hegseth’s Franklin the Turtle meme this way: ”He’s in the national command authority for nuclear weapons, and last night he's putting out on the internet turtles with rocket-propelled grenades killing people. I mean, have you seen this? This is the Secretary of Defense. This is not a serious person.”

Hegseth, himself, consistently says he doesn’t take military legal advice seriously.

From an earlier Navy Reads review of Pete Hegseth’s quasi-memoir: Hegseth “fired numerous JAG officers, IGs (Inspectors General), and advisors who don’t have his beliefs or who don’t give him the advice he wants.” Hegseth writes, “Aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?” He questioned following the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties and agreements.

In Hegseth’s book, he recalls telling his platoon in Iraq. to ignore the guidance of JAG officers, who he referred to as “jag-offs.”

Legal guidance had warned about not firing upon non-threatening potential adversaries, but Hegseth wrote, “After this briefing, I pulled my platoon together… ‘Men, if you see an enemy who you believe is a threat, you engage and destroy the threat. That’s a bullshit rule that’s going to get people killed. And I will have your back –– just like our commander.’”

Adm. Holsey

Several weeks after the Sept. 2 killing of the drug runners, Hegseth ordered the military’s most senior officers and enlisted personnel to report before him at Quantico where he told them they would no longer be constrained by legal advice of the JAGs “We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement,” Hegseth said.

“We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.”

Notably, Admiral Alvin Holsey, then-commander of U.S. Southern Command, did not attend.

Two weeks later, Hegseth announced Holsey would retire early, just one year into his three-year tour. The New York Times reported that Holsey opposed attacking drug-running boats in the Caribbean.

Hegseth promised, “We let our leaders fight their formations and then we have their back.”

Will he actually “have their back”?

This week Hegseth and the White House claimed that Adm. Bradley gave the order for the second strike on Sept. 2.

What’s Being Signaled?

So far the Defense Secretary has faced no accountability for “Signalgate,” in which he texted active attack plans against Yemen to a reporter and separately to family members.

This week, in fact, the Pentagon's watchdog found that Hegseth put U.S. personnel and mission in danger when he communicated the “Secret” attack plans on a personal phone via an encrypted but nonsecure Signal chat group, according to reports.

Democrats and independents in Congress are calling for hearings. Even some republican lawmakers are publicly declaring they are no longer hanging with Hegseth.

If congressional hearings determine culpability for the unconstitutional killings in the Caribbean, will Hegseth and/or Trump face accountability for what experts call either murder or a warcrime –– or both?

Or will Hegseth and Trump literally “have the backs” of military leaders as they push them toward symbolic gallows?

Perhaps Congress will recalibrate the Pentagon, prevent a potential war with Venezuela, turn away from kinetic tactics against civilians, and return to supporting Coast Guard at-sea actions against drug runners.

Then, drug traffickers will be held legally accountable as well.

U.S. Navy crew members from USS Curts offload 12 tons of cocaine in Key West, FL Nov. 5 2004, from the largest drug bust in United States Coast Guard history. (USCG photo by PA3 Stacy Burns)

Race, U.S. Military & Insurrection Act

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 22 Nov 2025 19:08:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

The history of the United States Insurrection Act is mirrored in black and white.

Congress created the Act to deal with threat of slave rebellions. Then, President Ulysses S. Grant used the act to quell the KKK and other attacks on freed blacks during Reconstruction.

In 1856 President Franklin Pierce used the Insurrection Act to disperse lawbreakers in Kansas at the request of territorial governor Andrew Reeder. Violent agitators from Missouri crossed state lines to intimidate Kansas residents into voting for slavery to be authorized within the state, afraid they would lose their “property” to a neighbor free state.

LBJ called up the Act to defend black Americans during the civil rights movement against white supremacists and segregationists. A generation later, George H. W. Bush invoked the Act when some African Americans protested and rioted in the wake of the police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1992.

Yet, the Insurrection Act was not invoked against white anti-democratic rioters during an actual insurrection attempt at the very heart of government.

As lawyer and author Hawa Allan shows in “Insurrection: rebellion, civil rights, and the paradoxical state of Black citizenship” (W.W. Norton, 2022) President Trump chose to not call for invocation of the Act on January 6, 2021 when his supporters attacked the Capitol in an attempted coup.

Instead of naming J6 rioters “insurrectionists,” including those who violently attacked police and security officers, Trump pardoned, praised as patriots, and even paid some of them with taxpayer money.

Allen writes, “after a mostly white mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and threatened to disrupt the Electoral College certification of the presidential election, beating a Capitol Police officer in its midst, some Republican spokesmen were loath to call its participants 'insurrectionists.' Donald Trump himself characterized the Capitol rioters as posing 'zero threat, right from the start,' and went on to state that 'some of them went in, and they are hugging and kissing the police and the guards,' and that they were waved in and out of the Capitol by said police.”

“So, what's in a name? An ‘insurrectionist,’ by definition, is someone who has engaged in an act or instance of revolting against a civil authority or an established government. However, many of those participating in the riots on that fateful January 6 considered themselves to be ‘patriots,’ by definition vigorously supporting their country and prepared to defend it against enemies and detractors. Among such rioters, as indicated by the subsequent indictments, were members of the Oath Keepers; some of them reportedly directed fellow Capitol infiltrators toward the Senate wing in order to stop the certification of the presidential election.”

Allen explains:

“It's true that the Insurrection Act does not need to be invoked by the president in order to authorize federal military intervention in the District of Columbia, which lacks statehood. However, as commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard, the president and his administration could have directed that this be done once riots were sparked at the Capitol. Although local commanders of the National Guard are invested with the limited authority to take immediate military action in certain emergency situations where there is not sufficient time to obtain the requisite approvals, in the case of the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally the Pentagon had restricted the authority of the D.C. National Guard commander before the riot, requiring higher-level sign-off in order to take such immediate action.”

Deviating Military Power

Race was again in the forefront when President Trump wanted to use the Insurrection Act during his first term, even asking then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley and Defense Secretary Esper to consider having the military fire upon protesters.

“Trump's threatened invocation of the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests incited an uproar among numerous commentators who decried the federal government's use of military power against its ‘own people.’ The use of federal troops as a civilian police force, according to many commentators at the time, is an unwarranted trespass on the rights and freedoms of American citizens and contravenes the values upon which the United States was founded.”

Trump continues to threaten to call up the Insurrection Act and activate the military against U.S. civilians who oppose him and protest against his policies. In 2025 he has deployed armed forces in American cities as he moves closer to what historians warn would authoritarian rule, away from states’ rights federalism and toward autocracy.

This week U.S. senators and representatives implored the military: “Don’t give up the ship” and to follow their oath to the Constitution in upholding the rule of law. They called for military service members to follow only legal orders, not illegal ones. In a social media post, Trump texted “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also re-posted comments calling for the veterans to be punished with death, including hanging. Later he attempted to downplay his actions.

Senator Mark Kelly, Navy Captain (ret.)

It is said to be the first time, at least in modern times, that a president explicitly incited violence against members of Congress. In the days following Trump’s text, veterans such as Senator Mark Kelly announced they have received death threats from Trump supporters.

Trump’s words against the senators and representatives recalled explicit and implicit threats to deploy the military against the president’s opponents and U.S. citizens in general, including as conceived in the “Navy SEAL Team 6 assassination theory” presented in the Supreme Court ––as well as via the Insurrection Act.

“It is true that the military power set forth in the Insurrection Act is an extraordinary exception from the normal state of federal affairs,” Allen writes.

“The power, among other things, upends the conventions of federalism, in line with which domestic deployments of the ‘militia' — or the modern-day National Guard –– are authorized by the state governor. This power also represents a significant departure from the constitutional aversion to standing armies, which some framers feared would result in the arbitrary use of force against civilians and thereby re-create the same sort of authoritarian menace, in the form of the British Army, that American revolutionaries had just sought to free themselves from. The Insurrection Act, then, is both an exception and a rule—it represents a radical deviation from the principles of federalism and aversion to using military forces to police civilians, while authorizing a purportedly necessary use of federal military power to restore ‘law and order’ amid a domestic crisis.”

Words in a Mirror

Allen contends that the term “insurrection” is ill-defined, leaving the power of interpretation to the president, who may see protests and crises through a racial lens or “mirror.”

“An insurrection, under the Act, is a definitional vacuum waiting to be filled by the executive. The incidents taken to warrant domestic federal military intervention betray just as much, if not more, about the predilections of those wielding power as they do about the threatening nature of such events. From Nat Turner's rebellion to violent clashes over slavery in ‘Bleeding Kansas’ to white paramilitary resistance during Radical Reconstruction to the desegregation of public schools in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi to the Los Angeles ‘riots’ in 1992, the events across history that have been interpreted to warrant the domestic deployment of federal troops under the Insurrection Act reveal a pattern: the prevailing invocation of the Act, on the one hand, to suppress revolts against the slave system and so-called race riots, and, on the other, to enforce the civil rights of African Americans. So, although what constitutes an insurrection is technically undefined in the text of the Act itself, the term has been defined in practice through its historical application. What has been interpreted to constitute an insurrection is a mirror reflecting the ongoing and often bloody battle to fully incorporate black Americans into the citizenry of the United States —a struggle that, in this light, appears more like an open-ended civil war than a history of ‘progress.’”

Again, race plays a role in how and when the Act is invoked –– and by who is in office.

“An ‘insurrection,’ however, is also defined by omission. Where the Trump administration, for example, threatened to invoke the Act in response to nationwide demonstrations against police brutality, the same inclination was nonexistent in response to, say, deadly protests in Charlottesville, North Carolina, by white nationalists, or to the storming of the Michigan state capitol by armed mostly white men protesting ongoing COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Although the Insurrection Act does not need to be invoked for the president to deploy the D.C.

National Guard or federal troops within the District of Columbia, the absence of any military presence during the riots –– or, as commentators called it, the ‘insurrection’ —at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was certainly glaring. As commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard, it is clear that Trump and his administration could have authorized its deployment-that is, if they actually interpreted the riot to be a threat to law and order.”

R.E. Lee monument

Allen notes the “scant use of force” used by police in incidents brought on by armed and mostly white demonstrators not only on J6, but also in Lansing, MI and Charlottesville, VA, compared with excessive use of force against unarmed protesters who are not white.

“One obvious parallel involves the 2017 rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia, to oppose the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, which drew counterprotesters who gathered to oppose the many white nationalists and neo-Nazis parading on that day. Refusing to denounce the white nationalist contingent at the rally, Trump remarked that there were "very fine people on both sides." Of course, it was at this rally that a white nationalist drove his car into a group of counterprotesters, killing a young activist named Heather Heyer. The violent nature of the rally attendees, however, was not limited to this deadly attack.”

The mirror of unequal treatment via the Insurrection Act shines a light on other signs of growing white supremacy in and out of the military: renaming bases after actual seditionists of the Confederacy, reinstalling monuments to Confederates, downplaying the history of slavery, and removing blacks and women from top leadership positions in the military. These are just some of the obvious examples.

Andrew Young ‘An Easy Burden’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:29:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

He was a lieutenant to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, he was by his side not only in life but also at King’s death at the hands of an assassin.

Andrew Young, now in his 90s, has had many titles in his lifetime: UN Ambassador, Mayor of Atlanta, Congressional Representative, Co-chair of Olympic Games, Executive Director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and ordained minister of the United Church of Christ. His other titles include: civil rights leader, peacemaker, family man, and author.

Young’s “An Easy Burden: The Civil Rights Movement and the Transformation of America” (HarperCollins, 1996) is as relevant today as it was when written nearly 30 years ago.

Need a jolt of hope? This is a good book filled with optimism in the face of pessimism, love in a time of hate, and unity despite efforts at creating division and inequality.

Andrew Young shows how the American civil rights movement arose largely as a result of World War II and the resultant Marshall Plan. The military provided proof and a blueprint for the success of diversity, inclusion, meritocracy, and equality.

Young’s perspective is rooted in a post-colonial world and his religious faith and commitment to nonviolence.

“There were many who made the American civil rights movement possible: men and women, preachers and laypeople, students and workers, young and old. But in the 1960s, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the organization I was involved with during the civil rights movement, was largely made up of thirtyish, Southern-born, Negro preachers. We were children of the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We spent our adolescence enjoying the rise of the United States as a defender of liberty and democracy in World War I. Our high school and university life was defined and colored by the social responsibility of the Marshall Plan, a sense of world community signaled by the founding of the United Nations and, yes, the successful liberation of India from British colonialism— without violence.”

Despite growing up in a segregated and racist South, Young and his compatriots committed themselves to finding the “better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln called for.

Young writes, “The former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass described the effort to end slavery as a struggle to save "black men's bodies and white men's souls." It was in this tradition that the preachers who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference decided its mission was "to redeem the soul of America."

“That soul we saw less in America's actions than in its ideals: freedom, equality, justice. While we endured segregation, we knew that America had shed the blood of hundreds of thousands of its sons and daughters in a war that ended slavery. We knew that America had risen up out of the depths of a Great Depression to defeat fascism. We had cheered the exploits of Dorie Miller and the Tuskegee Airmen and other colored soldiers who refused to let racial segregation prevent them from offering their lives for freedom and for America, and we were inspired by their example. Dorie Miller was told he could only be a cook's helper, but he dared to believe he could shoot down enemy aircraft [at Pearl Harbor]. The Tuskegee Airmen dared to believe black men could fly.

We were thought to be naive, but in truth we were visionary. We dared to believe that America could be healed of the gangrene of racism. We saw America as we could become, not just as we were.

We believed that people could change, because we were constantly aware of how far we had come, personally. But most of all, we believed that a free society was constantly changing and that we could influence those changes to accommodate the needs and aspirations of all of our citizens, and that race, creed, gender, and national origin could be strengths rather than problems.

We began with the limited goal of ending racial segregation. But we came to understand segregation as just one aspect of the barrier confronting black Americans in American society.

The March on Washington became a march for jobs and freedom, because in a nation based on free enterprise, access to jobs and money are an essential component of freedom. We came to see the war in Vietnam as a symbol of the destructive role America was playing in suppressing the cause of freedom for people of color not just at home, but around the world.

As America made the world safe for democracy, we had to make America's democracy safe for the world.

Racism, war, and poverty were anchors dragging on our society, preventing us from reaching our full potential, as if anchors from a nineteenth-century sailing ship had been attached to the space shuttle. We accepted the challenges of detaching those anchors.

We knew it was a burden, but we believed it was an easy burden in a country as great as ours. We believed that God didn't give anyone more burden than he or she had the strength to bear. Our faith made our burdens light, because we never carried them alone. Our understanding and clarity of vision was a blessing, and I was taught that God requires us to use the gifts that we have been given. Racism, war, and poverty were heavy burdens, to challenge injustice was an easy burden.

We possessed a fundamental faith in democracy and free enterprise. We learned to address the nation through a free press; we made our claims on the economy by word and deed. We believed in our American heritage-a great people in a great nation that was ready to lead humankind in a new way of thinking and working. We believed in a future that we would help to create from our faith in spite of very real fears. Martin expressed it for all of us when he constantly reminded us that ‘the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’"

In protests and marches for freedom, against poverty, and “against fear,” Young lived and preached a code of nonviolence as learned from MLK who learned it from Ghandi.

Young’s view is one with a wide-aperture –– focused on the whole world and also into the future. And his love for America as well as his hope and optimism are at the center.

“America is so important to the world at this moment in history as we seek a new vision for our world. As I travel around the globe, I am reminded that the heads of state and people of nearly every country look to America for leadership. Yet, the poverty in our midst undermines our will and ability to respond to the call to global leadership and to meet the challenge of global poverty and environmental degradation—a far greater threat to future generations than even the Cold War. When I served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, I became aware of the intense appreciation that the Japanese delegation had for the U.S. role in rebuilding Japan after World War II. That experience led many Japanese businessmen to advocate a global fund for strategic infrastructure projects that would improve the environment, facilitate sustainable development, and generate jobs. They identified fifty such strategic projects, including the English Channel Tunnel (which the British built themselves), a natural gas pipeline across Africa from the Nigerian oil fields to the Mediterranean, and a sea level canal through Nicaragua. Without enthusiastic backing from the United States, a new global infrastructure fund could not move past the visioning stage, yet no nation would benefit more from such projects than the United States. For example, the practical benefits of a canal across Nicaragua to accommodate modern supertankers are at least twofold: given the cost and dangers associated with the long voyage around South America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the canal would pay for itself in short order. Moreover, a canal under international governance would provide the basis for long-term economic growth and resulting political stability for U.S. neighbors and trading partners in Central America.

Investing in development in Central America would produce far better results in reversing the immigration flow than the punitive measures presently finding political favor.

This is the kind of forward thinking that is required from American leadership today: investing in the future to solve problems and prevent problems. How much better to build a canal than to build a wall. How much more effective to support the creation of jobs in their own regions for workers who presently risk life and limb in pursuit of a better life in the United States, rather than to put forward yet another plan for making illegal immigrants' lives only more miserable once they're here. Our nation's prosperity rests on the vision of leaders who invested in and built bridges, roads, canals, communication networks, and national parks. These are the things that make for peace.

In an expanding economy people are too busy making money and accumulating material goods to fight over ancient prejudices.

Had there been growth rather than recession in Europe when Bosnia and Serbia became independent of the former Yugoslavia, I doubt we would have seen the kind of bitter carnage that we have witnessed in that region of the world. The frustration that erupted in riots in South Central Los Angeles were rooted as much in the steady withdrawal of jobs and resources from that community as in the tragic beating of Rodney King.

Our own budget deficit has become the new excuse for ignoring growing problems in our midst and shirking our global responsibilities. But America does not have the luxury of attempting to shrink its way out of deficits; we only enlarge our problems when we withdraw resources from cities, schools, rural communities, infrastructure, parks, health care, and environmental protection. We undermine the integrity and vitality of our communities and we trigger dangerous recessions that breed conflict and violence. Surely responsible and dedicated Americans of all races can, based on the dictates of our minds as well as our hearts, pull together to meet the present challenge of poverty in all its complex manifestations both at home and

I am considerably older than I was in 1961, and I hope I'm wiser and certainly much more experienced after having moved through the Congress, the United Nations, the city of Atlanta, and the private sector. I have yet to find a reason to question or doubt the faith that we had in America then. Everything I know now convinces me that the struggle to eliminate racism, war, and poverty is a burden, but in America, with all the freedom and opportunity afforded us under our Constitution, in the most productive society in human history, it is an easy burden if we undertake it together.”

For much more about Andrew Young, readers may want to watch Rachel Maddow’s new film: “Dirty Work.” From the MSNBC website: “This gripping documentary reveals the untold story of Andrew Young — a behind-the-scenes force of the Civil Rights Movement and a quiet giant of international diplomacy. A master negotiator, strategist, and bridge-builder, Young was the man who did the essential, often thankless ‘dirty work’ that changed history, operating in the shadows while others stood in the spotlight.” Young considers the “dirty work” he did as “an easy burden.

Andrew Young celebrates black history with First Army, Fort Gillem, Georgia, in 2009 (Gayle Johnson, First Army Public Affairs Office)

SECWAR Hegseth’s Beliefs

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 14 Oct 2025 18:50:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

In his powerful and influential book “The War on Warriors” (Fox News Books, 2024), former Army National Guard major Pete Hegseth devotes a full chapter claiming he was persecuted for his tattoos while in the Guard, turned down from participating in President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2020. He believes he was singled out as an “extremist” particularly because of his chest tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross (an image that of the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries).

Hegseth is proud of his symbolic Christian and nationalist tattoos.

His tattoos include a sword and the words “Deus Vult” (“God wills it” –– believed to be a Crusader battle cry), “Chi-Rho” (Greek letters indicating Jesus), the word “Yeshua” (Hebrew for Jesus), and an AR-15 military assault rifle below a stylized American flag. Another is of a cross with a sword (referencing Gospel of Matthew verse of Jesus: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”)

Experts see his tattoos and other messaging as a call for a return to pre-Enlightenment Christianity based on militancy and religious violence –– a call for “revival,” revolution and retribution. A call for theocracy.

Throughout “War on Warriors” Hegseth proclaims his devotion to Jesus Christ and belief in a Christian God –– not the peace-loving, kind, tolerant, and compassionate version, but rather the vengeful, violent, and patriarchal image reflected in the Old Testament and in some stories in the New Testament.

Gideon leads an attack on nonbelievers.

Hegseth recounts the story of farmer-turned-reluctant-warrior Gideon in the book of Judges (Chapters 6-8), who believed God wanted him to attack the non-believing Midianites –– the enemy from within.

“The story of Gideon reminds us that we are not only fighting a battle against foreign enemies. Sometimes the fight must begin with a struggle against domestic enemies. Those who would violate the Covenant that binds us as a community of faith and that grants us blessing,” Hegseth proclaims, “But the story of Gideon is a good reminder that readiness means nothing without God.”

Hegseth’s pastor is Doug Wilson, founder of Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches and the Calvinist leader of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and now in Washington D.C. Hegseth has communicated Wilson’s motto and call for theocracy in some of his social media communication: “All of Christ for All of Life” –– including in government.

Wilson calls for making gay marriage illegal, banning abortion, and practicing a male-dominated form of Christianity. Among his followers are many who advocate for repeal of the 19th Amendment (ensuring women's right to vote) and against women serving in traditionally male roles.

In “War on Warriors,” subtitled “Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” Hegseth writes about one woman soldier he admires –– SSG Leigh Ann Hester, “the first female in the military since World War II to be awarded the Silver Star.” But then he writes at length about two other American women service members: Lynndie England, who tortured Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, and Jessica Lynch, who was captured and had to be rescued. Anecdotes become generalizations.

Hegseth argues extensively throughout the book that “men are stronger than women.”

He often communicates with cynicism, condescension, and ridicule: “Maybe the power of positive thinking will increase women’s muscle mass.” “We are led by small generals and feeble officers without the courage…” “Not only is Milley an idiot, he is an arrogant ass.” “If only Eisenhower had an out-of-shape transgender officer,” he says sarcastically, “we would have ended World War II before 1944.”

Regarding military women who receive medically indicated abortions, Hegseth believes, “Our DOD and VA help them be baby life takers.” “Thank you for serving your country –– now we will help you kill your unborn child.”

He proclaims, ironically, “Morally bankrupt minds are just doing what they always do: Preaching, reality be damned.” And, "The Left's audacity and hubris allow them to ignore the laws they don't like and then prosecute the people they don't like."

Chapter 5 of this book is titled “The (Deadly) Obsession with Women Warriors.” Written a year before President Trump named him as Secretary of Defense, Hegseth expresses his belief about a woman’s “place” in the military –– in “support roles”:

“Intelligence gathering, chow lines, equipment maintenance, fuel, and medical support are all an essential part of the war effort. They are the difference between bitter defeat and victory. Women have nobly assisted the war effort in dangerous support roles for generations. We know they can do this, but the issue surrounding women in the infantry –– women in combat on purpose –– is another story.

The gender integration of these traditionally male spheres, coupled with our loss of a Christian ethos for God’s creation, means we’ve started to think of men and women as essentially the same animal with different levels of body strength. That’s particularly dangerous when it comes to combat because the differences aren’t just physical.”

Hegseth stereotypes: “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.” (Emphasis his.)

There is no mention of the principle reason women in uniform were granted greater equality: to level the playing field in promotion opportunities for the most capable leaders.

The book’s epilogue is Hegseth’s “letter to my sons” (without including his two daughters).

He writes to his sons, “I hope you joint he ranks of American fighting men … a “brotherhood.”

"You are all individuals,” he writes. “Each a child of God –– and soon, I pray, men of God. You grew up in a covenant Christian home, which Is the most important part of who you –– and we –– are. Our eternal home is in Christ’s Kingdom, and we strive to love Him with all our heart, and soul, and mind. While we have breath, we are also charged with advancing His Kingdom here on earth.”

Throughout “War on Warriors,” Hegseth calls for more “manly men” from “farms” and “small towns” to join the military while he rails against those who champion diversity, equity, and inclusion, efforts to ensure the military reflects America’s demographics.

Since becoming Trump's leader of the military, Hegseth has systematically removed senior military and DOD civilian leaders who he sees as "diversity hires" or who oppose his purge of women and minorities.

Senior leaders removed from service by Secretary of Defense Hegseth.

Hegseth blames previous civilian and military leaders of the military (especially former CJCS Milley and former SECNAV Mabus) as well as current flag officers, calling them “cowardly generals caving to beta-male politicians.” He calls it an “unholy alliance between political ideologies and Pentagon pussies,” who he calls “whores to wokesters.” (His emphasis.)

“For the past three years, the Pentagon –– across all branches –– has embraced the social justice messages of gender equity, racial diversity, climate stupidity, vaccine worship, and the LGBTQA+ alphabet soup in their recruiting pushes. Only one problem: there aren’t enough trannies from Brooklyn or lesbians from San Francisco who want to join the 82nd Airborne. Not only do the trannies and lesbians not join, but those very same ads turn off the young patriotic Christian men who have traditionally filled our ranks.”

Some experts see Hegseth’s attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion –– especially his removal of leaders such as CNO Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan, CJCS Gen. C.Q. Brown, NATO representative Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, and others –– as signs of patriarchy and white Christian supremacy.

The same can be said for his honoring of the Confederacy –– reinstating names at military installations and resurrecting monuments of Robert E. Lee and other traitors. Hegseth plays up what he sees as a threat from groups like Antifa, “the Left,” and Black Lives Matter while downplaying the attempted insurrection and violent riot at the Capitol of January 6, 2001.

He says only "a few active-duty service members at the Capitol" participated in what was an attempted coup. He writes, "Turns out the military is less racist and less extreme than the U.S. population." For now.

His recently announced restriction on beards can be seen as a way to keep black men out of the military due to a painful skin condition many black men suffer called pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), which requires a medical exemption that Hegseth wants to discontinue. He says the military is no place for “beardos.”

Hegseth recounts some of his time as an the Army National Guard officer, serving on multiple deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. His writing is raw, emotive, and paints a realistic and believable portrayal of life in a combat zone. He describes the sights, sounds, and smells as well as the emotions in the field.

“I was walking on air. Exhilaration that we would be doing something meaningful and kinetic,” he writes.

Cast of Friends.

But that feeling was followed quickly with deep disappointment when his unit was assigned to guard duty “in ramshackle guard towers, wasting away in the heat and dust. Aimlessly spitting tobacco juice and sunflower seeds in Halliburton Tesco barriers on the front gate playing ‘fuck, marry, kill’ with the cast of Friends.”

His view of the future of humanity seems hopeless and nihilistic. No chance for a peaceful world. “We are flawed. We are sinful. Men will always fight other men.” Therefore, he concludes, we are justified to fight without consideration of rules of engagement, norms, or other constraints, including international laws and even the U.S. Constitution.

“Aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?”

“Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: If you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.”

It’s notable that in less than a year Hegseth has fired numerous JAG officers, IGs (Inspectors General), and advisors who don’t have his beliefs or who don’t give him the advice he wants. Ultimately, without controls on the executive branch by the legislature, the nation relies on the judiciary to enforce treaties and laws, such as the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement.

Hegseth says of progressives, “We are awake to their woke; and our battle begins anew, here at home.”

Smaller than his Crusades-related tattoos are Hegseth’s inks of nationalist symbols and words include the U.S. Constitution’s famous opening phrase “We the People,” “1775” in Roman numerals (for the American War of Independence), and a “Join, or Die” snake from the American Revolution. He also displays tattoos of a pair of crossed muskets, a circle of stars and a patch of his regiment, the 187th Infantry.

The cover of his book features an image of an upside down American flag patch.

Hegseth expresses his feelings of persecution and grievance after concluding his Christian cross tattoos kept him from being selected for inauguration duty: “Maybe it was too many crosses? Would just one cross be okay? Or does the Army think that all white Christians are white nationalists? Is it all Christians? All whites? All Trump supporters?”

Just as not all republicans are white nationalists or MAGA followers, not all Christians or other god-fearing Americans are in favor of a theocratic government.

In his landmark book “The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy,” Ernst Cassirer observed this about mainstream believers of the New Testament: “True Christianity does not require that the opponents of the faith be destroyed but that they be convinced through reason, converted through instruction, or be peacefully tolerated.”

Writing about his Jerusalem Cross tattoo, Hegseth asks, “But was this really about a cross? Was this really about one Christian man?”

He concludes with a veiled threat, “What can one Christian man do to dismantle their agenda? Maybe a lot... I guess we'll find out after this book.”

=================================================

The Trump administration, with help from Hegseth, is:

purging ethical leaders and advisors;
embracing the Confederacy;
deploying troops to U.S. cities;
rejecting women in uniform;
promoting anti-vaccination conspiracies;
failing to protect the environment;
accelerating corruption and grift at home and overseas;
restricting the media;
banning books and censoring museums and schools;
attacking the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments;
declaring nonexistent emergencies and insurgencies;
fomenting division, disparity and inequality;
politicizing the military;
threatening to exert plenary (unrestricted) powers; and
renaming DOD to Department of War.

All of these tectonic changes seem especially poignant as the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army commemorate 250 year anniversaries in 2025.

Are Trump and Hegseth preparing to combine military branches as other autocrats do?

Will they continue to promote anti-democracy movements in Europe while half-heartedly supporting Ukraine and kowtowing to Putin?

Will they order the military to invade Greenland and/or Canada, as Trump has threatened?

Will they start a war in Central America or the Caribbean and continue blowing up speed boats from Venezuela and Colombia?

Will they shut down freedom of the press, public education, and voting rights?

[And by the way, will they ever release the Epstein files and hold Ghislaine Maxwell accountable?]

Bottom line: Will they continue to try to lead the United States toward an authoritarian theocracy?

‘Enemy from Within’ & ‘Move Out and Draw Fire’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 19:19:00 +0000

By Bill Doughty

Must-reads for anyone in the military –– or who cares about the military –– are transcripts of speeches by Commander in Chief Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth of Sept. 30, 2025, presented at Marine Corps Base Quantico. (Videos of the speeches can be found online, and transcripts are available and linked below.)

Both Trump and Hegseth commended the senior uniformed leaders for their service and sacrifice, and then provided in-person guidance and direction outlining their vision of the military’s role.

In his speech, President Trump touted, among many other topics, his deployment of the military to U.S. cities.

You know, the Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape … What they've done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they're very unsafe places and we're going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within."

Trump reflected positively on his deployment of the military in Washington D.C. and announced plans to send troops into Oregon.

“Portland, Oregon, where it looks like a war zone. And I get a call from the liberal governor, ‘Sir, please don't come in, we don't need you.’ I said, ‘Well, unless they're playing false tapes, this looked like World War II. Your place is burning down. I mean, you must be kidding.’ ‘Sir, we have it under control.’ I said, ‘You don't have it under control, governor, but I'll check it and I'll call you back. I called him back, I said, ‘you -- this place is a nightmare.’”

Trump told military leaders they would be directed to “quell civil disturbances” by the enemy from within” in American cities.

“Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it's the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it gets out of control. It won't get out of control, once you're involved, at all.”

Trump did not mention the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits federal military personnel from acting as domestic law enforcement, except when authorized by Congress.

Earlier, SECDEF Hegseth proclaimed “liberation day” for the military in his speech. He said he was removing many of the legal constraints and ethical rules of engagement that have traditionally guided the Department of Defense, now called the Department of War by Trump and Hegseth.

“We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters."

He said, “Well, today is another liberation day, the liberation of America's warriors, in name, in deed and in authorities. You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don't necessarily belong always in polite society.”

Near the end of his remarks Hegeth said, “Lethality is our calling card, and victory our only acceptable end state.”

He also called for military leaders to consider Christian reflection.

“In closing, a few weeks ago, at our monthly Pentagon Christian prayer service, I recited a commander’s prayer. It’s a simple yet meaningful prayer for wisdom for commanders and leaders. I encourage you to look it up if you’ve never seen it, but the prayer, it ends like this: ‘And most of all, Lord, please keep my Soldiers safe, lead them, guide them, protect them, watch over them, and as you gave all of yourself for me, help me give all of myself for them. Amen.’”

His final words were “Move out and draw fire, because we are the War Department. Godspeed.”

Last May, Hegseth began convening monthly Christian prayer services at the Pentagon.

"This is precisely where I need to be," Hegseth told service members and civilians. "And, I think, precisely where we need to be as a nation at this moment: in prayer, on bended knee, recognizing the providence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

He said, “Knowing that there is an author in heaven overseeing all of this, who has underwritten all of it for us on the cross, gives me the strength to proceed.”

J6: Don’t Call it ‘Christian Nationalism’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Aug 2025 01:29:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

It’s one of the best books explaining many of the roots of the violent attack on the Capitol of January 6, 2021. Matthew D. Taylor’s “The Violent Take It by Force” (Broadleaf Books 2024) digs deep to reveal the tendrils that led to the riot and insurrection attempt of J6.

Through extensive research, interviews, and forensics, Taylor identifies the influential religious leaders who motivated so many MAGA Trump-supporters to come to Washington D.C., attend prayer vigils, and then march on the halls of Congress –– attacking police and threatening to kill the vice president and lawmakers.

The subtitle of Taylor’s book is “The Christian Movement that is Threatening Our Democracy.” But Taylor, who is a Christian himself, says “Christians are the best people to defang extremist Christianity.” And he champions the true meaning of “religious freedom” as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

“Free speech and freedom of religious expression are core values of American democracy,” he writes. Taylor calls for “a civic reckoning that we need to have within American Christianity and in American society.”

“The mobilization for the Capitol Riot was conducted –– and the ongoing pageant of spiritual warfare in American politics is still being directed –– by Christian ministers and Christian politicians. They are using Christian theology, Christian Bible citations, Christian worship, and Christian symbols; therefore, this story pertains to all Christians. Whether we are Independent Charismatics or not, NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) fans or not, we are our ‘brother's [and sister's] keeper’ (Gen. 4); we all share in the same baptism and worship the same Lord in Jesus Christ (Eph. 4); we are part of the same body (Rom.12). So if, as a Christian, you object to the activities and theologies I have outlined, it is your obligation to speak up. We will be complicit if we allow such things to be done in our name.

It is my opinion, informed by history, that Christianity in America has not been this divided-theologically, socially, regionally, or epistemically— since the eve of the Civil War [when, as Frederick Douglass informed a nation, chattel slavery was justified by white slavers as ordained in the Bible]. We desperately need intra-Christian and ecumenical conversations— perhaps some quite heated and contentious-that speak to these differences and bridge these divides. The best people to defang extremist Christianity are Christians.”

Extremist Christianity –– Christian nationalism –– is proudly proclaimed, promoted, and displayed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; Speaker of the House Mike Johnson; Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis; Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Jim Jordan; as well as dozens of advisors and influencers in the Trump administration.

Influential true-believers also include B-listers like Project 2025’s Russell Vought, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (who is recruiting a “Christian Army”), activist Charlie Kirk, televangelists like Kenneth Copeland (of “COVID-19 Wind of God” YouTube fame), and (to a lesser degree now) former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Not every Republican is a Christian extremist, by the way, but every Christian extremist is likely a Republican.

Taylor recognizes that the goal of most of the one-party extremists is not just a Christian nation, but also a Christian world. In other words. They preach not only embracing nationalism but also promoting dominion theology and global supremacism. Moreover, they desire spiritual warfare and a crusade for their other “savior,” Donald Trump.

Though they are a minority among all Christians or other people who believe in God, these Christian supremacists were indispensable in motivating rioters on Jan. 6, 2021.

Taylor’s book introduces many influential women and men in the Christian Supremacy movement who see themselves as prophets, apostles, or otherwise ordained leaders and motivators. Among them are:

Paula White, who helped elect Donald Trump and now serves in the White House as his spiritual advisor. Trump is just one of many celebrities who gravitated to White (or vice versa); others whom she ministered to include Michael Jackson (after allegations of child molestation), Deion Sanders, Darryl Strawberry, Kid Rock, and Tyra Banks. White conducted an officially sanctioned prayer service on the morning of January 6, 2021 calling for the presidential election to be “overturned right now in the name of Jesus.”
Cindy Jacobs, celestial-charismatic Pentecostal Christian prophet who believes in actual demons. Her 2025 prophecies include themes of “overcome,” "global reset," and increased “spiritual authority” and "disruptive glory.” Jacobs participated in a prayer tour in the White House on January 5, 2021. She spoke at a Jericho March on Dec. 12, 2020, a forerunner to the rally one year later that led to the Capitol riot.
Lance Wallnau, who at that same 2020 rally said: ”You are the privileged generation that is called to endure the contradiction along with Donald Trump and see America restored," he told the crowd. "This is not a weak movement. This is the beginning of a Christian populist uprising! There is a backlash coming. We are going to continue to build this as a groundswell from now till 2022. You will be on the news; they will not be able to ignore you… There is a Great Awakening coming! This is the spark that is starting it right now!” He is the champion of the Seven Mountains Mandate –– a blueprint for Christian dominion takeover of seven spheres of society: government (including the military), education, media, arts/entertainment, business, family, and religion. Wallnau defended Trump after the Access Hollywood tape after the presidential candidate bragged about assaulting women; Wallnau said it was the “Devil’s fault.” His YouTube “Flashpoint” show galvanized believers across the country. Taylor writes: “If we are looking for the key mobilizers that got Christians enraged and activated enough to drive or fly, sometimes cross-country, to the US Capitol on January 6, we have to look at Lance Wallnau and his NAR Flash Point platform, two of the most important and influential conduits of that mobilization.” Wallnau hosted then-VP-candidate J.D. Vance at a NAR town hall in 2024 leading up to the election. Taylor calls Wallnau “chief propagandist of the MAGA movement” and someone to watch carefully in the months and years ahead.
Sean Feucht (“foyt”) says “worship is a weapon.” He ties his worship music to politics and sees himself as David against Goliath, naming his row house in Washington, D.C. “Camp Elah,” after the stream where David gathered stones for his sling. Trump hosted Feucht at Mara Lago and signed Feucht’s guitar. Feucht played, prayed and preached at his Let Us Worship services in 175 cities in 2023. He recently said, “We’re living in a spiritual war …The Bible says, when you encounter wicked deeds of darkness, expose them. Don’t tolerate them. It’s like David: David didn’t go try to tolerate the giant. He came into a nation full of apathy and said, ‘The giant needs to fall down.’” Taylor says Feucht “plays heavily on a persecution neurosis among American evangelicals.” Taylor concludes, “Sean Feucht did not have a direct hand in the Capitol Riot, but we should not underestimate the impact that his city-by-city crusade had in fostering the psyche and ethos of January 6.”
Ché Ahn spoke at a prayer rally in D.C. on Jan. 5, and said: “I believe this week we are going to throw Jezebel out and Jehu is going to rise up, and were going to rule and reign through President Trump and under the lordship of Jesus Christ, because I'm telling you the consequences are severe if Biden [or] Harris becomes president… We are here to change history. I believe we are going to shift this nation and this election that's been stolen from Donald Trump and from the United States of America. This is why it's so important that we gather tomorrow and pray and show up and just take the stand to show the world that this is the most egregious fraud — the most scandalous [thing] –– that has happened in U.S. history….”
Lou Engle is NAR partner with Ahn. The two Independent Charismatic leaders gained fame with their followers a quarter of a century ago at a mass event: The Call DC, held September 2, 2000. Engle said he received a prophecy to organize the rally, which in hindsight was a precursor to J6, considering what was said at the event. “In fact,” according to Taylor, “one of the prayers offered from the stage during The Call DC was, ‘Lord, we turn our hearts to the Capitol building. ... Lord, would your fire just flood through the Capitol, your fire of revival just flood through the Capitol building.’ After the event, Engle opined, ‘I believe The Call DC was part of a shift in the heavens and that God has thrown a window open... We have entered a season of time in a massive spiritual war: It's Pearl Harbor. It's Nazirites [the biblical sect of ascetic adherents to strict Judaism that included John the Baptist] or Nazism. We are in a war, and if we don't win, we lose everything.’” Note that this was said 25 years ago and two decades before J6.
Dutch Sheets may be the foremost promoter of the Christian nationalist flag known as An Appeal to Heaven, which looks more (ironically) like an environmental icon with it’s distinctive green fir tree on a white background. Sheets showed the flag to President Trump, who attended one of Sheets’s NAR rallies. Sheets believes, based on his interpretation of the Bible, that Jesus should be at the center of government and have dominion over everything. Taylor says this is counter to what most Christians believe, interpreting Jesus’s own words, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Sheets is one of the most radical extremists, calling former President Barack Obama a Muslim, calling for God to “cleanse our government,” and organizing a militia “using the authority of Christ’s name.” Taylor shows how the White House coordinated with Sheets in 2020 and the lead-up to January 6. Evidence of Dutch Sheets’s influence at J6 is found in the sheer number of Christian nationalist flagpoles carried and in some cases, as with other flagpoles, used as weapons to attack police and guards.
C. Peter Wagner was the father of New Apostolic Reformation and the mentor/godfather of the apostles, prophets, and leaders mentioned above. Though he died on October 21, 2016, he had already done his part to help elect President Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton less than three weeks after his death. And, his legacy continues thanks to the garden of followers he grew.

“Claiming that Peter Wagner ‘radicalized’ all these people would be a stretch because many of them were radical long before they crossed paths with him. But he knit them together, mentored them, raised their celebrity profiles, and boosted their epistemic confidence that they were the vanguard of the end times, meant to vanquish God's demonic enemies on the earth. I think a more accurate rendering of events would be to say that they all radicalized each other.

It was their shared theology and their Seven Mountains ideology that made these apostles and prophets gravitate toward politics and right-wing Christian activism. It wasn't a conspiracy that drew them to Donald Trump; it was an opportunity—an unprecedented chance to see their visions of revival and reformation with a top-down takeover of society accomplished.”

Taylor is clear that not everyone who participated in the J6 riot was motivated by their religion. Among the rioters were also outright racists, anarchists, and autocracy supporters with various grievances against the government. But the evidence of a Christian supremacist presence –– in raised crucifixes, bibles, and “An Appeal to Heaven” flags –– was obvious and powerful.

Dutch Sheets and Trump

While the history of the An Appeal to Heaven flag goes back to the American Revolution, some argue that the flag has been co-opted to promote a Christian nation and justification for violence in order to create a theocracy, and to hell with the Constitution.

“At the end of the day, this book is not about the physical violence that occurred on January 6. It is about the theologies of violence, the ideation of violence, and the romanticization of spiritual violence that have grown up in charismatic evangelicalism. It is about the culture of violent rhetoric that has spread from there into broader American Christianity and into American politics.

My objection to the NAR leaders is not that they believe in demons or practice spiritual warfare, which is fairly common across many forms of Christian belief and practice. My complaint is that they are spiritual war-mongers, constantly expanding the arena of spiritual warfare, mapping it onto geographical territory and divisive politics in a deeply destabilizing and antidemocratic manner. Buttressed by latent American Christian entitlement and indignation, that impulse to violence is the iceberg from which the outcropping of violence on January 6 protrudes. And that iceberg still sits just under the surface of the waters of American Christianity.”

In a Politico article on Christian nationalism Taylor warns about the growing roots cracking the foundation of democracy, “There’s been a tectonic shift in how the leadership of the religious right operates. These folks aren’t as interested in democracy or working through democratic systems as in the old religious right because their theology is one of Christian warfare.”

The antidote to a violent NAR revival and reformation movement trying to topple the government is a coalition of peace-loving Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious people –– along with free-thinking and independent nonbelievers –– who will take peaceful action in spite of intimidation, suppression, and retribution. Otherwise, as Taylor asks in his conclusion, “what will become of our pluralistic democracy?”

Matthew Taylor, who grew up in an evangelical family, is a scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies. (J6 images are from U.S. Congress public domain.)

Offshore Vampires of the ‘Broligarchy’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 30 Jun 2025 04:35:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

In the previous Navy Reads review of the novel Punk’s Force, the key villain is a man named Wolfe. He’s a character with virtually no character –– willing to obliterate an aircraft carrier, destroy the U.S. Navy, and end world peace in order to profit personally and hide his treasures of gold and crypto offshore. And he had a powerful assistant to help him.

Punk Force’s Wolfe is a fictional caricature of some of the very real ultra-rich people who stash their wealth in offshore financial institutions. They hide their riches primarily to evade paying taxes and avoid other laws. And they have plenty of quiet professionals to assist them.

The ultra-rich who employ such tactics are sometimes business leaders, drug dealers, power movers in governments, or heads of state themselves. They then control the small nations or states, including the local military, to protect their assets. The blood-sucking result: local poverty, a spread of corruption and crime, and gross inequality that spreads like a contagion. Vampires creating vampires –– with more haves and have-nots and less democracy.

Brooke Harrington sticks her neck out to investigate the secretive world of offshore finance in her fascinating exposé “Offshore: Stealth Wealth and the New Colonialism” (W.W. Norton & Co. 2024). Harrington describes how she gets close to the wealth managers who help the ultra-rich hide their money and gets them to share stories and techniques.

Immersing herself in their world, she discovers this secret (and achilles heel) of the ultra-wealthy: “Their dependence on hired help at all levels.” Harrington embedded herself in the hidden underworld of the professionals who facilitate the transfer and security of offshore funds: “the trustees, private bankers, tax advisers, and other members of the wealth management team that virtually all of the very rich employ.”

Rather than coming across like a boring financial treatise, her book is accessible, insightful, and even suspenseful. It’s no surprise that some offshore financial drama has been featured in movies and documentaries portraying real-life massive scandals.

For example, offshore dark money is implicated “in 2016 electoral politics on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.” Ten years ago, “11.5 million documents from the Panama City wealth management firm Mossack Fonseca came tumbling out” in what became known as the Panama Papers, followed by two other offshore leaks –– the Paradise Papers of 2017 and Pandora Papers of 2021. What might have hidden in the dark recesses of a conspiracy theory came to light to reveal big names involved, including (from the Panama Papers alone) stars such as Jackie Chan, Emma Watson, Lionel Messi, and Simon Cowell and an astounding list of leaders and influencers.

At least 140 politicians were charged in tax evasion schemes; Lionel Messi, by the way, avoided prison by paying a large fine, according to Harrington.

In Offshore, Harrington presents a provocative history of how tax-evasion schemes evolved from the time of Pliny and ancient Rome through the Ottoman Empire and into feudal and colonial times and now in the era of cryptocurrency, kleptocracy, and massive pockets of wealth inequality.

In fact, widespread offshore financing can be directly traced to imperialism of earlier centuries. Most nests of hidden funds are located in previous British colonies. What drives some very rich people to hide their wealth is the same motive that drove rich nations to use military force to take what wasn’t theirs, often in the name of religion (Crusades) or racism (slavery). Their actions were and are antithetical to both democracy and capitalism. It’s anticapitalist because it “hides from true market fluctuations and investment risks of a free market.”

Today, many tax evaders “see themselves as deserving exemption from the rules that bind the rest of us as members of society,” Harrington writes. She cites Nobel laureate and libertarian Friedrich von Hayek, who “argued that capitalism could survive only in an environment where honesty, fairness, and respect for private property were enforced by social norms and laws. In contrast, the value proposition of offshore finance depends on unfairness and dishonesty.”

In a discussion with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Harrington discusses what she calls the “broligarchy” and how some patriarchal billionaires pay for access to those in power, including all three branches of government in order to get more tax breaks for themselves, less regulations on their actions, and more accumulation of money and power.

The result is concentrations of dynastic wealth that leads to stagnation rather than dynamism and a lust for even more power and influence over politics and politicians, according to Harrington.

She notes that Elon Musk accumulated much of his wealth from “massive taxpayer-funded subsidies,” including “at least $6.7 billion in federal cash infusions and regulatory credits to support his businesses, which were on the verge of bankruptcy.”

“Yet, true to form, Musk used aggressive wealth management techniques in order to pay little or no tax for years, while vehemently opposing any legislation that might require billionaires to pay their fair share,” Harrington says. “For many elites like him, freedom mostly means the liberty to not be taxed.”

“This isn't just an American phenomenon. Worldwide, these elites— including dozens of current and former heads of state, as well as business leaders-are united by their contempt for and brazen defiance of democratic governance. The offshore financial system connects them in a shared project to escape constraints on their economic and political power. Moreover, the scores of presidents, monarchs, and ministers named in the Panama, Paradise, and Pandora Papers have abandoned the notion of national interest: by placing billions in unpaid taxes, stolen foreign aid, and the proceeds of crime into secret offshore structures, they enriched themselves at the expense of their countries. This includes not just anti-corruption campaigners, like Czechia's Andrej Babis and Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta, but trusted figureheads like the late Queen Elizabeth II of England. Though elites like these may not know one another personally, their uses of offshore position them in a shared space of opposition to legal, political, and economic equity. They create a political problem in democratic societies, where governance depends on legitimacy and the consent of the governed. Such political systems can't function when impunity becomes the ultimate status symbol. Elite lawlessness is a premodern privilege, incompatible with the principle of equality before the law.

“Thus, government and corporate leaders who appear in the offshore leaks should be understood not just as corrupt people who got caught: they are elites in revolt, engaged in a political project of refusing obligation to the societies that allowed them to become wealthy and powerful. Elite exceptionalism has always been the animating principle of the offshore world, but until recently, overt proclamations of impunity were rare. The price of social and political prominence onshore included an obligation to simulate respect for ideals such as the common good and equality before the law. Offshore secrecy changed that, permitting an ethos of radical impunity to flourish and justify itself through its own surging wealth and power. Elites now openly refuse any obligation to the societies that allowed them to become wealthy and powerful: instead, they express radically anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian positions, without fear of sanction. For example, in a 2009 autobiographical essay titled 'The Education of a Libertarian,' Thiel wrote that American women getting the vote ruined democracy and capitalism alike.”

Other oligarchs are aligned not only with misogyny but also with white supremacy, Christian nationalism, and various forms of racialized oppression and violence. In general, they are environment exploiters not protectors. They are friendly with autocracy and against those freedoms in the Constitution they find inconvenient.

So forget about the First Amendment and other constitutional protections. Harrington notes that a common theme among authoritarian tax evaders is also “persecution of journalists who ask uncomfortable questions.”

But asking questions, uncovering facts, and demanding transparency is not a problem; instead, that’s the solution. Incentivizing and rewarding wealth managers to be honest –– and holding the aides and assistants accountable –– is the way to curtail the hiding of dirty money.

As an example, the original agreement with Iran to limit its nuclear program under the Obama administration led to “restricting the ruling regime’s access to legal-financial experts, so that the country’s leadership ‘could not access its foreign exchange assets held abroad,’ according to a Congressional Research Service report.” That resulted in Iranian leaders returning to diplomatic negotiations.

Setting up rules for financial managers has also proven successful in the recent past. After Putin’s Russian invasion of democratic Ukraine, the world’s leading offshore financial centers and many wealth managers showed solidarity in shutting down Russian oligarchs and enforcing related sanctions and legal initiatives.

“Legal change is necessary but experience shows that it won’t suffice as the sole or primary response to the offshore crisis,” Harrington writes. “Rather, I put my hope in changing social norms. Attitudes about right and wrong shift much more quickly than laws.” In other words, ethics, morals, and core values of honor, courage and commitment of “We the People.”

Could public sentiment shift to stigmatize the vampiric ‘broligarchy’ and their use of offshore finance? “If there’s any chance of that, the first step is crating awareness of the problem: That’s one reason I wrote this book.” Her bet is on the side of good versus evil. Stigmatizing the enterprises and going after the go-betweens is the way to success.

But…

As discussed in the previous Navy Reads review, the authors of Punk’s Force created a tireless personal aide to the villain Wolfe. The assistant was available 24/7, almost always had the precise information to help Wolfe carry out his evil schemes, and seemed immune to incentives to do right or punishment if it did wrong.

Wolfe’s assistant was artificial Intelligence.

Escape in Avoiding WWIII

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 24 Jun 2025 16:40:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

Armed missiles incoming. Artificial Intelligence at the controls. USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is the target. A hit…

Punk’s Force, a novel by Ward Carroll and Tony Peak (Naval Institute Press, 2025) hits hard from the very start and builds to a nail-biting climax. This book will especially appeal to tail-hook warfighters and the military’s test-and-evaluation community.

But, in the tradition of Tom Clancy and Stephen Coontz, Punk’s Force is also accessible and rewarding to civilian readers, especially anyone interested in international espionage and contemporary issues facing the United States in general and U.S. Navy in particular. It’s a jolt of a thrill ride.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, USN (Ret.), agrees:

“Punk’s Force is a tour de force of international intrigue and edge-of-your-seat flying action,” says Mullen. “It also accurately captures the high-stakes challenges facing the U.S. Navy today. I couldn’t put it down.”

Among the novel’s topical issues and themes: drones, hypersonic missiles and counter technology, cryptocurrency, and use of kompromat to corrupt leaders.

Some key lines that stick:

Avoid “the cardinal sin of underestimating rivals,”
AI abuse means “Dr. Frankenstein has lost control of his monsters,” and
Bad guys profit even though “war, climate change, and injustice would destroy the planet if allowed to continue unchecked.”

The authors present believable characters with complicated psychological challenges and 3D family dynamics. Readers will enjoy the fun call signs, strong women characters, and realistic portrayal of life aboard an aircraft carrier: “That smell –– a combination of fuels, metal, and humanity.” Smells evoke other senses for any reader who has been aboard a CV or CVN –– the sounds of heavy metal punctuated by the 1MC; the sight of clean bulkheads and dirty hands; the feel of ladder rails and non-skid surfaces.

Realistic rivalries are also themes, including Navy vs. Air Force and brown shoe officers (aviators) vs. black show officers (surface warriors). Pecking orders within the military and between individual services are not only rank-based.

But true leadership is shown when there is universal respect and selfless support. The admiral participates in a FOD (foreign object debris) walk-down on the flight deck; he dines with junior enlisted Sailors and Chief Petty Officers; and he volunteers as a patient in a medevac drill.

The authors work in a reference to “the COVID Cruise” with details (but no names mentioned) of the heroic self-sacrifice of Capt. Brett Crozier, CO of USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), and how he took care of his Sailors in the early weeks of the pandemic. Such leadership is heralded in the writings of Stavridis, McRaven, and McChrystal.

Character counts in large amounts.

Ultimately, this book is a yin-yang of good vs. evil, service vs. greed, and devotion vs. betrayal. All the while, it builds with action and intrigue in a shadow of avoiding WWIII and the sinking of America’s lynchpin aircraft carrier. This is a good summer read and a proper escape from current chaos.

A blurb by former Director of Air Warfare Rear Adm. Mike “Nasty” Manzanir, USN (Ret.) reads, “From the throat-catching first chapter through the twists and turns, loops and breaks you’ve become used to flying with Punk, Punk’s Force is a constant full-grunt catsuit. Whether you’ve read all the books in the series or just pick this one up for your flight, you won’t put it down.”

In the authors' Acknowledgements, Ward Carroll, creator of the Punk series, thanks his wingman, Tony Peak, a gifted science fiction writer. Peak, in turn, thanks both Carroll and USNI: The Naval Institute's pedigree is impeccable, and I feel privileged to become a part of it."

Top photo: Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Aircraft Handling) 1st Class Sam Smith, assigned to air department aboard the world's largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), directs an E/A-18G Growler, attached to the "Grey Wolves" of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 142, on the flight deck, April 14, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class (Photo by MC3 Tajh Payne)

Second photo: An F/A-18E Super Hornet, attached to the "Tomcatters" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 31, launches from the flight deck of the world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), April 14, 2025. (Photo by MC2 Maxwell Orlosky)

Upside Down World of AI / Surveillance

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

The invention and deployment of the steam engine accelerated the antislavery movement two centuries ago; the wide use of the telegraph brought about the women’s movement and women’s right to vote 120 years ago; and the intercontinental railroad and telephone helped fire up the Progressive Era while television stoked the civil rights movement.

How technology fuels social movements is one of the insights revealed in “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance” by Ray Brescia (New York University Press, 2025).

“As each net technology emerged on the scene, a new social movement embraced it.” And the country moved forward.

“But the history of all of these technologies and their incorporation into social movement advocacy also had another component to them,” Brescia writes. “Each advance in the ability to communicate brought with it a new threat of surveillance and manipulation.”

So what happens to an easily manipulated society when the tsunami of all technology –– AI –– washes over us?

“Today, new technologies like generative artificial intelligence and quantum computing stand poised to supercharge all aspects of communications technologies in ways that are beneficial to humankind but, in others, that will likely prove destructive, completely shredding all semblance of digital privacy along the way and undermining the freedom to advance change,” Brescia observes.

“As we enter a world dominated by generative artificial intelligence, the institutional order is likely to change, and not necessarily for the better. In such a future, the ability to seek out, leverage, manipulate, and inundate individuals with information that will try to sway their actions, chill their speech, incite them to engage in harmful ways, or cause them to disengage such that their inaction is actually against their interests is nearly limitless.”

Brescia’s book is scholarly and sometimes dense, and is filled with both warnings and prescriptions for anyone concerned with preserving democracy in the face of a rising tide of authoritarianism.

“Democracy requires a high degree of protection for individual identity and political privacy, regardless of the the source of the threat to that privacy,” he writes.

“Early in the digital age, before smartphones became personal appendages, techno-futurist Ray Kurzweil envisioned a new type of consciousness ––“the singularity” — that would emerge as a product of the fusion of computers and human intellect.' While this prediction has not yet come to pass, in many ways the melding of the personal and the digital is well underway. Since the early 1990s, an array of new technologies has transformed the ways we live and the power of individuals to influence society and change the world. With the rise of the internet, mobile technologies, social media, and artificial intelligence, the ability of individuals, groups, movements, and political parties to effectuate change has never been greater…

“What is more, soon we are likely to see the widespread adoption of driverless cars; the proliferation of the Internet of Things, a global network of products connected to the internet and to each other; and the encroachment of generative artificial intelligence across all aspects of life. Records of our bodily functions will be digitized and medical treatment revolutionized. Computer servers throughout the world will contain a vast amount of biometric data about us. Our movements will be monitored, just as our steps are being tracked today. Strangers will know and artificial intelligence will track our heart rate, breathing, glucose levels, body temperature, and other biometric data in real time. Our state of being itself-our opinions, our moods, our fears—will fall within this digital system, a shadow, parallel world, like the "Upside Down" from the Netflix retro sci-fi thriller Stranger Things. It is in this world where blurry, spectral versions of us will take shape; yet the characteristics of our avatars may be a more accurate reflection of us than the image we project of ourselves in the real world.”

In fact, corporations create “digital voodoo dolls” as avatars of their customers based on information they collect and store.

Algorithms control what people see and hear, allowing foreign trolls and home-grown miscreants to chip away at unity to create chasms of division. This happens despite how we humans evolved toward altruism, cooperation, and reliance on community. Brescia quotes historian Yuval Noah Harari: “Change through cooperation with others is what may truly make us human and differentiates us from other species.”

In George Orwell’s 1984, a disembodied Big Brother spews, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” In an upside-down world of fiction as fact, an unsuspecting public can be manipulated by big lies, repetition, celebrity, and surveillance by a would-be autocrat.

“George Orwell’s Big Brother had nothing on the surveillance state that now exists,” according to Brescia, who studies institutional theory, perspective, and convergence in order to protect integrity of individual and collective privacy.

“Given the critical role that the integrity of identity plays in the achievement of personal self-realization, as well as individual and collective self-determination, our institutions, laws, and norms must offer robust protections for our private actions and engagements, even our thoughts, as they are manifest in the digital and analog worlds. A recognition of the severe threats to political privacy that lurk in the digital Upside Down is necessary to understand that preserving the integrity of identity is an essential feature of a functioning democracy. This work is an attempt to explore the ways that our laws, institutions, and norms can catch up to new technologies, with all of their capacities as well as the threats that lurk within them, to ensure that we can preserve the integrity of identity in the digital age and advance and enrich the pursuit of democracy, meaningful social change, and, ultimately, human flourishing.”

Brescia says our goal in America should be strengthening the legal infrastructure to protect privacy. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a framework to protect individual freedoms, including freedom of speech and assembly without interference from the government.

But what happens when leaders no longer respect or defend the Constitution?

Free and independent thinkers ask questions such as these: How and why can the military be used to confront protesters in cities of political opponents? How can the government use Orwellian tactics to skew the truth about issues such as immigration arrests, assaults on elected officials, attacks on education institutions, realities of an insurrection attempt on the U.S. Capitol, attempts at foreign intervention without congressional approval, and overall disrespect for the judiciary and rule of law?

What if an administration is so corrupt if chooses personal profit and power over the welfare of people and personal privacy?

“Whether democracies can continue to function in the age of Surveillance Capitalism, artificial intelligence, misinformation, and manipulation remains to be seen. The threats to democracy across the world are significant. In the United States, the world's oldest democracy, authoritarianism and threats to the rule of law are real and increasing in force. Today's technology-fueled media environment, because of disintermediation, social media, and artificial intelligence, poses significant threats to the preservation of the American form of democracy, one in which a delicate balance of institutions –– public, private, civic, communicative ––operates to help citizens achieve individual and collective self-determination. In turn, these institutions are reflections of the popular will. I have shown in previous chapters and in past work the symbiotic relationship between institutional change, the ability to communicate, and social movements. What is more, that relationship is constantly changing, as the technology that enables and shapes communication, as well as society and the citizen, is also changing. When that technology is placed within democratic societies, the connections run even deeper, but so does the possibility that such technologies can be used not just to advance democracy but also to undermine it. For these reasons, the need has never been greater to ensure that the communications tools of today and tomorrow are not weapons that can strike at the heart of democracy but rather tools to help realize it.”

Among Brescia’s suggested remedies: using those tools to set up and enforce simple and mandatory disclosures (not obtuse fine-print agreements), instituting “search” protections, ensuring transparency by tech companies of what data is gathered and stored, disclosing the sale of personal data, disclosing uses of algorithms, enforcing clear remedies for breaches of cyber privacy, and embracing an overall shift to an information fiduciary relationship by corporations.

Ultimately, the remedy requires an informed public willing to speak out and stand up for freedom.

Political scientist Erica Chenoweth studies antiauthoritarianism. In her findings about quantitative outcomes, she concludes that 3.5 percent of a population is “required to mount a successful campaign of civil resistance.”

Carrying out civil resistance requires influencing five key pillars: military, business elites, civil servants, state media, and police. The key strategy: nonviolence even in the face of violence. The key proof of success: when public backing of the regime goes away.

Change can be made with “institutional convergence.” For example, Brown vs. Board of Education came about when the interests of civil rights advocates converged with white elites and public pressure at a time when Cold War Soviets criticized the hypocrisy of Jim Crow South’s treatment of African Americans. A coalition of opposition does not have to be homogenous.

A final question: In this century, can the power of AI be harnessed to create a positive social movement to preserve democracy or will everything be turned upside down in an American autocracy or theocracy?

After publication of Brescia’s book, which calls for a framework and methodology to “preserve political privacy in private law contexts,” Americans witnessed an unprecedented invasion of privacy by the Trump Administration in coordination with a technology giant who reportedly paid $350M to help elect a president. Brescia penned an op-ed condemning the Trump administration’s invasion of privacy after Elon Musk and his band of privateers raided the Social Security Administration –– via DOGE.

Brescia wrote, in part:

“…unvetted individuals working for a 'department' that doesn’t officially exist have gained access to the private financial information of hundreds of millions of American taxpayers and businesses. Veterans, retirees, taxpayers, you name it, had such rights swept away by DOGE mercenaries in an instant, with no court review, with no justification, without any consideration for due process rights. And we don’t know the full extent of the release of this information, who has access to it, what their designs on it are and whether they intend to sell it to other companies or even foreign countries, even when it appears some of this information may have been fed into a computer program, driven by artificial intelligence, to help DOGE identify potential cuts.”

The op-ed was written last February, and Brescia urged immediate action by Congress to curtail DOGE’s invasion of privacy. “This is necessary to protect the American people and businesses from this seemingly lawless abuse of privacy and due process and to understand the damage already done.” Sadly, so far his warnings have gone unheeded.

Ho’oponopono – Remembering Judge King

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 16:50:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

He’s been gone for 15 years, but the remarkable legacy of Federal Judge Samuel P. King, a Navy veteran and Republican icon from Hawaii, lives on.

And, considering the chaos of today, his philosopher’s voice needs to be heard for its common sense, clarity, and relevance.

King was born in China in 2016 to a U.S. Naval officer father (who later became governor of Hawaii). His dad captained USS Samar (PG-41) as a river pilot navigating on the Yangtze.

Sam, himself, joined the Navy as an intelligence officer show spoke French and Japanese. He served during World War II, including aboard the minelayer USS Adams (DM-27).

King was one of the first Americans to visit and see the destruction of Hiroshima in 1945.

His autobiography, “Judge Sam King: A Memoir” (Watermark 2013), published posthumously, was written with the help of newspaper reporters Jerry Burris and Ken Kobayashi.

The book’s foreword is penned by another WWII veteran, Hawaii’s late Senator Daniel K. Inouye, who commends King for helping to navigate Hawaii from territory to statehood.

Hiroshima Memorial

One of the highlights in “Memoir” is in an appendix with King’s keynote address to the Japan-Hawaii Lawyers’ Association in Hiroshima, Japan, in April 1985, a speech given 40 years ago –– and delivered 40 years after WWII ended. Speaking to fellow lawyers, he said, in part:

“That August 1945 explosion over this city was a terrible event in the history of mankind, and one which mankind must prevent from ever happening again. The attainment of world peace is the most important duty of our leaders, yet we all have a responsibility to exert our best efforts to the same end. Lest we lose our sense of urgency in this struggle, Hiroshima exists as a reminder that our goal has not been achieved until the chance of nuclear war has been rendered impossible.

“We lawyers and judges and law professors may not be able to guarantee peace in our world, but we can and do make substantial contributions to peace. After all, our training centers around dispute resolution. It is our function in society to identify the points of conflict between individuals, develop the facts, apply accepted principles and reach just conclusions.

Within a single country, our activities may well be limited to disputes and conflicts that relate to internal harmony. What we do at home in handling divorce cases, breach of contract suits, civil rights actions, etcetera has little bearing on world peace. But when we cross over our national boundaries and concern ourselves with disputes and conflicts that arise between persons in different countries, we build bonds of understanding and friendship that ease the way to dispute resolution in international transactions.

I do not mean to claim too much for this modest beginning. We are not here to fashion solutions to disputes between nations. I do maintain that in relations between peoples of different countries, every increase in understanding, and every expansion of friendship, and every consensus on a procedure for resolving disputes, makes international harmony— and therefore world peace-more likely.”

Another appendix is King’s remarks in 1969 to the Pearl Harbor Commissioned Officers’ Mess for Law Day USA. Titled, “Justice and Equality Depend Upon Law –– and YOU,” King spoke about each individual’s responsibility to embrace the rule of law, including accepting personal accountability.

“Our system of criminal justice depends very largely upon the acquiescence and even support of those charged with crimes,” he said.

In the same remarks to those naval officers, delivered during the height of the Vietnam War, King spoke of the importance of mutual understanding and love in the pursuit of justice:

“If we love one another, justice becomes a byproduct of our humanity. Where there is unrestricted freedom, there is unleashed equality.” And he said, “A little mutual respect will go a long way toward bridging the apparent chasm in understanding.”

King’s father, Samuel Wilder King, entered politics as a Republican member of the Honolulu Board of Supervisors, and was later elected as a Hawaii Territory delegate to U.S. Congress. As a libertarian, the elder King strongly opposed the military’s imposition of martial law on civilians in the aftermath of the infamous Massie case (see previous related Navy Reads post from 2019).

“Partly in response to the Massie case, my father was a very strong champion for statehood and introduced a bill for statehood in 1935.” He would go on to write a draft constitution for Hawaii and serve as chairman of the Statehood Commission.

“Dad served three terms in Congress but withdrew right after Pearl Harbor to return to the Navy as a commander, and later became captain. My father's second round of Navy service took him to Saipan, American Samoa and eventually aboard a ship assigned to Japan to repatriate American prisoners of war. After the war, he returned to Hawaii, where he busied himself with politics and the pursuit of statehood.

Dad felt strongly about the need for statehood. He was one-eighth Hawaiian and very proud of it. He resented that we were only a territory and had no political representation, whereas all the states had two senators and more power to control their own destinies. Congress could do anything it pleased to a territory –– declare martial law, for instance –– and it wouldn't have any say in the matter. He had a very low opinion of most of the congressmen, especially the ones from the South. Back in those days, you got off the airplane in Atlanta and everywhere you looked, it said whites only, blacks only.

He didn't want people who came from that mentality making decisions for Hawaii.

After the war, he returned to Hawaii where he busied himself with politics and the pursuit of statehood.”

Samuel Wilder King went on to become governor of the territory before retiring from public service. He passed away in 1959 just two weeks after Hawaii became the 50th state.

After his own service in the Navy, younger King honored his father’s long career of service by becoming a judge. His proudest achievement, he said, was creating Hawaii’s family court. He conducted thousands of marriages and signed many divorce decrees, including the divorce papers for the parents of President Barack Obama.

He believed in accountability, integrity, and truth and was strongly in favor of “justice tempered with mercy.” His watchwords were “aloha,” “pono” (respect), and “ho’oponopono” ("doing something the right way, the just way").

As a Federal Judge, he oversaw cases involving organized crime, including tax evasion, murder (including the Palmyra Murders Case), treason, and other criminal issues.

He also championed environmental issues, abortion rights, nuclear disarmament, and anti Death Penalty initiatives. He believed strongly in defending the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. For example, he sided with the media after Mayor Frank Fast banned some reporters from news conferences, calling Fast’s act “unconstitutional.”

Understandably, folks wondered whether Sam King was really a Republican, and King admitted he was “not like the right-wing conservatives we have today.” He said, “I’m a strong believer in the ‘three party’ system: Republicans, Democrats, and Incumbents. And the Incumbents almost always win.”

King is author with Randall Roth of “Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement & Political Manipulation at America’s Largest Charitable Trust,” published in 2006, a landmark book in Hawaii credited with cleaning up corruption by the rich and powerful –– ensuring accountability and ho'oponopono.

On ‘Erasing History’ –– Why?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 20:27:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

Why –– throughout history –– do fascists and authoritarians attack schools, ban books, and try to whitewash or erase history?

Deep thinker Jason Stanley explains the phenomenon and answers “the Why” in an easy-to-read and yet comprehensive examination, “Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future” (One Signal Publishers / Atria; Simon & Schuster, 2024)

From the preface:

“One lesson the past century has taught us is that authoritarian regimes often find history profoundly threatening. At every opportunity, these regimes find ways of erasing or concealing history in order to consolidate their power. Why is this? What does history do that is so disruptive of authoritarian goals? Perhaps most importantly, it provides multiple perspectives on the past. Authoritarianism's great rival, democracy, requires the recognition of a shared reality that consists of multiple perspectives. Through exposure to multiple perspectives, citizens learn to regard one another as equal contributors to a national narrative. And they learn, we learn, to accept that this narrative is open to continued collective reflection and re-imagination, constantly taking into account new ideas, new evidence, new perspectives and theoretical framings. History in a democracy is not static, not mythic, but dynamic and critical.

Erasing history helps authoritarians because doing so allows them to misrepresent it as a single story, a single perspective. But it is impossible to erase a perspective entirely. When authoritarians attempt to erase history, they do so through education, by purging certain narratives from the curricula taught in schools, and perhaps by forbidding their telling at home. However, authoritarians cannot erase people's lived experiences, and their legacies written into the bones of generations. In this simple fact lies always the possibility of reclaiming lost perspectives.

All of this is true of authoritarianism generally, but it is especially true of one specific kind of authoritarian ideology: fascism, which seeks to divide populations into ‘us’ and ‘them’ by appealing to ethnic, racial, or religious differences.”

Stanley’s “Erasing History” examines the history of fascism and presents some illuminating insights: a link between U.S. colonization in Hawaii and education of freed slaves in the antebellum South, the Soviet Union’s erasure of the history of the Holocaust, and Putin’s lies and manipulation used as justification for the violent invasion and ongoing attacks in Ukraine.

Stanley outlines what he calls “supremacist nationalism” where exceptionalism and patriotism can become toxic and often cruel, usually with a religious or racial component galvanizing an effort to separate and “otherize” and ostracize. These fascists lead efforts to control what people can read.

On May 10, 1933, the Nazis conducted a massive book burning in their campaign to create a nation of ideologues devoted to racial purity and antisemitism. Nazi educational policy called for a separation of gender roles, glorifying motherhood for girls (including offering medals for multiple babies), and promoting straight white male domination. Also,“The Nazis regarded (Aryan) abortion as murder, and hence were staunchly ‘pro-life’ in current terminology.”

Countless contemporary examples throughout this book shine a light on how, today, politicians and national leaders are attacking institutions of Higher Education, concepts of the Enlightenment, and the principles of Diversity, Equity [better: Equality], and Inclusion, replacing liberating ideals with a “culture of hierarchy.”

From the epilogue:

“Cultures of hierarchy— such as colonialism, nationalism, or fascism— involve practices that place one group above others. And as is the case with all other cultures, or forms of life, these practices are in large part shaped and reinforced by schools.

Every education system involves erasure — one simply cannot teach everything. There are, however, certain kinds of erasures that are constitutive of authoritarian systems. For example, erasures of social movements for democracy, such as the Chinese government's erasure of the Tiananmen Square protest and massacre of 1989, or the state of Florida's erasure of the 2020 Black Lives Matter uprisings from a social studies curriculum. By removing the history of uprisings against the current status quo from the curriculum (or never allowing that history to be taught in the first place), authoritarians leave students with the impression that the status quo has never been—and cannot be challenged.”

Fascists wish to foment division in the population and create myths about a nostalgic past where minorities and women as “outgroups” were “relegated to second-class citizenship, at best.”

And they attack education, in general, and schools in particular.

“Schools and universities allow for critical inquiry into these myths,” Stanley writes, “and so attacks on them are always the canaries in the coal mine of authoritarianism.” He adds, “There is a reason there are no American-style liberal arts colleges in authoritarian countries.”

Ultra-nationalists also want to discard the rule of law, destroy the balance of power in democracies, deploy the military as homeland police, disrespect the judiciary, and prevent free and fair elections.

So, what can be done to counter attempts to erase history, ban books, demean a free press, and attack norms?

The answer, Stanley says, is “civic compassion” and people power.

“Social protest movements have traditionally been an engine by which the people try to make those in power see reality. Participating in these movements is an exercise of democracy. Cracking down on them is an exercise of authoritarianism.” In other words we must defend freedoms of assembly, expression, and the press.

People must be able to exercise critical thinking, even in a new age of AI, to discern truth from lies. “The protection of democracy requires measures that will ensure people’s continued ability to distinguish between true and false.”

As we consider “why” fascism is rising, it’s remarkable to note that among the hundreds of books removed from the U.S. Naval Academy this year, Mein Kampf was not on the list of purged books. But the following books were among several anti-fascism titles removed: “America, Amerikkka: Elect Nation and Imperial Violence” by Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Hate on the Net: Extremist Sites, Neo-Fascism On-line, Electronic Jihad” by Antonio Roversi and Lawrence Smith, and “The second coming of the KKK: the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition” by Linda Gordon.

Why?

‘Origins of Totalitarianism’ in Context

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 15:41:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

Seventy-five years ago, in her preface to the first edition of “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt warned of the rise of authoritarianism. She decried the complacency of people in accepting and even supporting antisemitism, imperialism and totalitarianism.

Her preface to her first edition, written in 1950, describes dark clouds of pessimism just five years after World War II and in the heart of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The dark clouds in these excerpts (from the preface) sound familiar today:

“Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest - forces that look like sheer insanity…”

“Desperate hope and desperate fear often seem closer to the center … than balanced judgment and measured insight.”

“To yield to the mere process of disintegration has become an irresistible temptation…”

“The totalitarian attempt at global conquest and total domination has been the destructive way out of all impasses. Its victory may coincide with the destruction of humanity; wherever it has ruled, it has begun to destroy the essence of man.”

“And if it is true that in the final stages of totalitarianism an absolute evil appears (absolute because it can no longer be deduced from humanly comprehensible motives)…”

We have reviewed Hannah Arendt’s remarkable book several times over the years. In this review, we are focusing on Arendt’s preface to the first edition as well as a compelling introduction by historian Anne Applebaum in the recently reprinted Mariner Classics HarperCollins paperback (2024).

Applebaum puts Arendt’s warnings against autocracy and authoritarians in context, including those who lie, grift, and threaten to invade neighboring nations as well as promote inequality in society.

The world has experienced an increase in inequality, xenophobia and extremism in recent years. That combination has led to a rise in autocracies, kleptocracies, and oligarchies over free-thinking, people-powered, and liberal democracies.

According to Applebaum, the rule of power and force wants to overtake public order and rule of law. Even the antisemitism and imperialism Arendt writes about, along with totalitarianism, is on the rise. Unfortunately, complacency, submission, and blind obedience have allowed those anti-freedom (what Arendt calls “evil”) forces to take hold. Applebaum writes:

“And yet the questions Arendt asks remain absolutely relevant today. She was fascinated by the passivity of so many people in the face of dictatorship, by the widespread willingness, even eagerness, to believe lies and propaganda— just consider the majority of Russian people today, unaware that there is even a war going on next door and prevented by law from calling it such. In the totalitarian world, trust has dissolved. The masses ‘believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. To explain this phenomenon, Arendt zeroes in on human psychology, especially the intersection between terror and loneliness. By destroying civic institutions, whether sports clubs or small businesses, totalitarian regimes kept people away from one another and prevented them from sharing creative or productive projects. By blanketing the public sphere with propaganda, they made people afraid to speak with one another. And when each person felt himself isolated from the rest, resistance became impossible. Politics in the broadest sense became impossible too: ‘Terror can rule absolutely only over men who are isolated against each other.. Isolation may be the beginning of terror; it certainly is its most fertile ground; it always is its result.’

Reading that account now, it is impossible not to wonder whether the nature of modern work and information, the shift from ‘real life’ to virtual life and the domination of public debate by algorithms that increase emotion, anger, and division, hasn't created some of the same results. In a world where everyone is supposedly ‘connected,’ loneliness and isolation once again are smothering activism, optimism, and the desire to participate in public life. In a world where ‘globalization' has supposedly made us all similar, a narcissistic dictator can still launch an unprovoked war on his neighbors. The twentieth. century totalitarian model has not been banished; it can be brought back, at any place and at any time.”

Military leaders have long studied the wisdom of Hannah Arendt and other thinkers. Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism” is on the DOD Overdrive Professional Reading List. It was listed on the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings site as a recommended book in 2008. In 2013, retired U.S. Army General, Stanley McChrystal, discussed his book, "My Share of the Task: A Memoir,” at the Hannah Arendt Center.

‘On Freedom’ Found Haiku, Finding Wisdom

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:48:00 +0000

Review by Bill Doughty

Timothy Snyder dedicates “On Freedom” (Crown New York, 2024) “to those who wish to be free.” He attempts to define “freedom” –– positive freedom –– as not destruction and absence of things, but creation and presence of values, including the right kind of moral and political values.

“Virtue,” he writes, “is an inseparable part of freedom.”

So, too, is accountability, honesty, humility, and rule of law.

His book begins on a train in Ukraine, one of three trips to the democratic country he writes about after Putin’s Russia invaded its neighbor.

Snyder takes us along as he travels to and through Ukraine and contemplates the birth of the idea of freedom and democracy in ancient Greece. His writing is beautiful, poignant, and painful –– especially in light of the current state of affairs in the United States and the world where storm clouds seem to be gathering.

He condemns the rise of autocracy, oligarchy, inequality, and what he calls “sadopopulism.” And he offers prescriptions for standing up to greed, grift, and the abuse of power.

“As the future crashes in, we can panic and blame others. Those predictable reactions make us part of the mob and the catastrophe. Or we can, as free people, take responsibility, look deep into Earth’s past, and save the world.”

Freedom must be fought for. It is not a birthright, and it is not preordained. “The moment you believe that freedom is given, it is gone,” he warns.

A recurring theme in “On Freedom” is the need to confront racism in a free country. The military, up till now, has made a concerted effort to increase diversity and reject racism.

World War II was a watershed event: defeating fascism and creating democracies in Japan and Germany while also confronting bigotry, prejudice and discrimination on the home front. Snyder cites examples of veterans of the Second World War who returned to face hate and segregation. He discusses the Freedom Fighters of 1961 and the role of Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis in the peaceful fight for freedom, equality, and voting rights.

We must engage, he asserts, writing on a train ride within Ukraine.

Snyder

And we must reject complacency, supplication to authority, leaders' hypocrisy, and our own lazy thinking, including confirmation bias (treating information as evidence only when it confirms what we already believe).

It is also important to recognize “the false tragedy of choice” presented by social media algorithms — between entrepreneurship and social justice, for example.

“On Freedom” includes an appendix that compares positive and negative freedom. The positive view: Government must be made for freedom; the negative view: Government must be dismantled for freedom. Science is either (positive) how we engage with the world or (negative) “one opinion among others.” Racism is either a historical fact requiring reflection or strictly “personal, irrelevant to freedom.”

Extrapolating from the appendix, security and prosperity are achieved through rule of law and accountability (positive freedom) or strictly imposed through strong-arm policing (negative).

We cannot sacrifice liberty for safety, Snyder advises.

“We believe that we can trade freedom for security. This is a fatal mistake.” A government of, by, and for the people should not be shunned or belittled.

Snyder writes, “We enable freedom not by rejecting government, but by affirming freedom as the guide to good government. Reasoning forward from the right definition of freedom, I believe, will get us to the right sort of government.”

He describes “five forms of freedom” as the “logical, moral, and political links between common action and the formation of free individuals.”

“The five forms are sovereignty, or the learned capacity to make choices; unpredictability, the power to adapt physical regularities to personal purposes; mobility, the capacity to move through space and time following values; factuality, the grip on the world that allows us to change it; and solidarity, the recognition that freedom is for everyone.”

Sometimes the best way to see oneself is through the eyes of others. That applies to people specifically and nations generally. Snyder says his book is for the United States, but, as a historian, he draws comparisons with western Europe, eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.

Synder relies on other Western historians, philosophers, and critical thinkers: Frantz Fanon, Václav Havel, Leszek Kolakowski, Edith Stein, and Simone Weil. And he calls on more familiar names such as Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, George Orwell, and Ray Bradbury to help illustrate his point.

This vital book answers some of the questions brought up in Snyder’s “On Tyranny.”

In this follow-up, he shows how to fight oligarchy (reject disinformation) and confront climate change (embrace to search for fusion power).

He champions actual infrastructure initiatives, real freedom of speech, and a commitment to civil rights.

We discover hidden unintentional “found haiku” in Snyder’s writing. Seventeen syllables, 5-7-5, displayed in three lines, that capture and focus an insight or truth like a laser. Here are a few:

Freedom is not just

an absence of evil but

A presence of good

Empathy is a

precondition for certain

knowledge of the world

Overconfidence

makes us vulnerable to

the propaganda (of tyrants)

A free person sees

the world in color, as through

a kaleidoscope

Synder’s prose travels effortlessly through countries, eras, and moods, both light and stormy. One moment he writes of oppression in the former Soviet Union and hope in Cold War-era Czechoslovakia; the next moment he expounds on the roots of rock and roll, the Velvet Underground, Louie Louie, and Frank Zappa’s Mothers of Invention. “On Freedom” is a fun, enlightened, but ultimately serious ride on Snyder’s train of thought.

(Top photo of Ukraine's Carpathian Mountains courtesy of Pixabay)

CINC Disqualifiers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:43:00 +0000

By Bill Doughty

If a presidential candidate does any (or all) of the following, should they be disqualified from becoming Commander in Chief?

Call political opponents “the enemy from within” and pledge to get the National Guard and military to fight against opponents, including an elected congressman.*
Threaten to court-martial his former CJCS for treason and consider punishing him with death.
Invoke wartime powers and order the United States military to round up residents who are undocumented immigrants, including some who are parents of U.S. citizens, set up internment camps, and conduct mass deportations, separating families –– again.
Call for “termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Summon, incite, and send supporters to the Capitol in an insurrection attempt, fail to intervene for hours as his supporters attack law enforcement personnel, and then promise to pardon them, saying they are “hostages” and “patriots” –– calling J6 a “day of love” and “a love fest.”
Attempt to interfere in states’ election processes and continually lie about election results.
Ask the military to shoot American citizen protesters.
Ask the military to consider shooting missiles into Mexico against drug cartels.
Consider using nuclear weapons against hurricanes.
Exploit natural disasters and lie for political gain despite harm to victims.
Denigrate military service and sacrifice, castigate wounded warriors, and then exploit Arlington Cemetery for political gain.
Befriend autocrats and enemies and alienate allies, including NATO; demonstrate a willingness to appease Putin’s Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, saying Zelensky is at fault for starting the war and calling Putin “genius” and “savvy.”
Remove, hide, and refuse to return classified documents, including Top Secret and compartmented information of the highest sensitivity.
Threaten to punish women who get abortions, proudly take credit for ending Roe vs. Wade, and then see women from some states suffer.
Refuse to release tax records as every modern presidential candidate has done, and brag about evading taxes, paying virtually no taxes for several years, with purported negative income.
Refuse to release medical records as every modern presidential candidate has done, despite being 82 years old in office if elected.
Refuse to debate his opponent again (even on a network biased for him) after being soundly defeated in a first debate, then refusing to be interviewed by independent media.
Threaten retribution and shutting down media organizations who do not agree with him.
Use or allow to be used AI-generated mis- and disinformation in a presidential campaign.
Lie, gaslight, and grift continuously.
Foment fear and hate by dividing and “otherizing” instead of uniting people.
Call the United States of America a destroyed hellscape.
Castigate political opponents for not fixing a broken immigration policy, then intervening to stop Congress from passing a bipartisan immigration bill.

The above list does not include juvenile name-calling, promises of up-to 2,000 percent tariffs, multiple sexual misconduct allegations and hush-money scandals, other criminal indictments and convictions, two impeachments and multiple referrals, bribes to big-oil CEOs, denying the reality of climate change, requesting and accepting foreign assistance from Russia in his election, opposing gun safety regulations, and a bizarre 39-minute extended swaying to music at a purported town hall instead of discussing plans and policy.

A qualified and good CINC needs character, integrity, honesty, and judgment. In short: honor, courage and commitment.

* Some supporters of ex-President Trump attempt to downplay the promise to mobilize the military against American citizens, citing Posse Comitatus laws, guard rails, and core values of the military. Service members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution; leaders know they can refuse to follow unlawful orders even from their commander in chief. However, the Supreme Court, with a majority of Trump-supporting justices, have empowered the chief executive with immunity powers; Project 2025 calls for loyalty tests and a purge of top military officers who don’t support the president; and there would be no guard rails against a rogue president. No Pence, Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, Bolton, Tillerson, Esper and Milley; instead: Vance, Patel, Miller, Paxton, Bannon, Navarro, Greene, Ramaswamy, and Flynn.

The true "enemies from within" are fear, hate, arrogance, and dishonesty.

Who Could Be Against Trump?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:14:00 +0000

By Bill Doughty

Hundreds of former national security leaders –– from both Republican and Democratic administrations –– signed a stark warning letter to the nation last month, citing about ex-President Trump, “He has shown no remorse for trying to overturn the 2020 election on January 6th, promises to pardon the convicted perpetrators, and has made clear he will not respect the results of the 2024 election should he lose again. That alone proves Mr. Trump is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.”

Project 2025 was the must-read of the summer, and now this letter is a must-read for autumn, just a few weeks before the election. The lead signature is from Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith, USN (Ret), President of National Security Leaders for America.

Signatories include former SECDEFs Chuck Hagel, William Cohen, Leon Panetta, and William Perry as well as seven Senate-confirmed military service secretaries. The officials and senior officers called former President Donald J. Trump "impulsive," "ill-informed" and “unfit” to serve again as commander in chief.

They condemn his promise to “terminate” parts of the Constitution, his constant lying, and his role in the January 6, 2021 attempt to overturn the previous election and his “promises to pardon the convicted perpetrators.”

The letter includes signatures from three former acting service secretaries, former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Among the more than 740 Americans who signed the letter are service members, civilians, and military spouse representatives. There are at least 63 Navy and 18 Marine Corps retirees who endorse Harris over Trump

Many Republicans have denounced Trump, with most pledging support to Kamala Harris for President. Notably, former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Representative Liz Cheney announced their endorsement of Harris. Liz Cheney is former House GOP conference chair and was the #3 Republican in the House of Representatives until she turned against Trump and helped lead a congressional investigation into the January 6, 2001 (J6) insurrection, consequently becoming a victim of MAGA retaliation.

Now Liz Cheney joins former Trump White House aides Alyssa Farah Griffin, Cassidy Hutchinson and Sarah Matthews today in Pennsylvania to campaign against Trump, noting, according to reports, his threat to democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Former Trump White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci has issued similar warnings about another Trump presidency, and is actively supporting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

Recently, retired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president, writing in a New York Times OpEd, “Ms. Harris has the strength, the temperament and, importantly, the values to serve as commander in chief.” He added, “I have cast my vote for character, and that vote is for Vice President Kamala Harris.”

In 2020, Admiral William McRaven, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, warned the nation about a second Trump administration and what it would mean for the future of the country: “When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”

In another editorial about Trump, McRaven addressed him directly and wrote, "Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.” Both McRaven and Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, condemn Trump for his lack of character, his failure to uphold his oath to the Constitution, his affection for dictators and autocrats, and his antagonism of Allies and alliances.

Late Senator John McCain’s family have joined former members of Trump’s own administration –– including VP Pence, SECDEF Gen. Mattis, SECDEF Esper, CoS Gen. Kelly, NSA John Bolton, and CJCS Gen. Milley –– in condemning Trump for his role in the J6 insurrection coup attempt, threat to national security, and lack of stability. For his part, Trump threatens to retaliate against his critics both in government and in the media.

Next week, Bob Woodward’s new book, “War,” will hit book shelves, reporting on Trump’s “romance” with Russia’s Putin expanding on allegations of Russia’s help in Trump’s 2016 election when Trump, “Russia if you’re listening…” and publicly siding with Putin over his own Intelligence officers. Woodward reports that Trump secretly sent Covid-19 testing equipment directly to Putin in the early weeks of the 2020 pandemic, even though there was a shortage and need for testing in the United States. Trump denied the report, but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said yesterday that the tests had been sent to Putin. It seems Woodward has written another must-read for this year.