A Response to Robert Reich: An Open Letter to the Republican Establishment

As of March 14th 2013
As of March 14th 2013

March 19th, 2016 marks the 13th anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq.

I am not going to argue that Bush lied us into that invasion.

Instead I argue that enough evidence that he may have lied us into Iraq justifies a formal investigation.

The politically correct right-wing dismisses accusations that Bush lied as the brainchild of wild-eyed left-wing radicals.

This is the same politically correct right wing that seeks to nullify the Constitution of the United States by refusing to vet a replacement for Scalia as it spends millions of taxpayer dollars on politically motivated congressional and federal investigations to discredit democratic opposition.

Below is my response to ‘An Open Letter to the Republican Establishment’ by Robert Reich, former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton

He writes in An Open Letter to the Republican Establishment:

“Republican politicians in particular have descended into the muck of bigotry, hatefulness, and lies. They’re splitting America by race, ethnicity, and religion. The moral authority America once had in the world as a beacon of democracy and common sense is in jeopardy. And that’s not good for you, or your businesses.”

The letter if worth reading in whole.

You can read it here: The Huffington Post.

I agree with almost everything Reich says.

There is one point of disagreement and that concerns the idea that America’s moral authority is in jeopardy.

The United States has no moral authority to jeopardize.

Below is my reply to Robert Reich

Caution: the language below is not politically correct (by right-wing standards)

Mr. Reich,

I respect you as a voice of reason and principle but I disagree with the premise that the United States has the moral authority that it once had as a leader in democracy and the spread of human rights.

In fact, I don’t think the United States has any moral authority at all.

The United States lost its moral authority when it’s leaders refused to investigate the Bush Administration’s build up to the invasion of Iraq.

It doesn’t matter whether or not a crime was committed; what matters is that evidence suggests that a crime was committed.

This is not a political game of republican and democrats.

A great nation is big enough to hold its leaders accountable.

What civilized people will look to lawless hypocrites for leadership?

Donald Trump is in part the result of the lawlessness that took hold of the United States after 9/11.

He a perfect leader for a people who take without giving.

They want love and respect from those they insult and torture.

They want a government that works but they will not pay for it.

They think they can set a good example by treating a possible war criminal as a great man and elevating a racist narcissist to the office of President.

If we want moral authority we will demand leaders who respect the rule of law, a Senate that does its job by ensuring that our Judiciary is impartial and that empty seats are filled, and a President who places the needs of the people before the greed of his crony’s and who follows through on his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The single greatest issue of our time is whether we are willing to turn our attention to what may have been the biggest international crime of the 21st Century.

Can we return to the rule of law?

In the United States we have one law for one people regardless
of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and class.

If we want moral authority, we the people must get down to the business of real self-government which means using our government for the good of all the people.

You rightly point out in your open letter that a previous generation worked at
self-government and built a more prosperous nation.

A Nation with moral authority.

“You forgot the values of a former generation of Republican establishment that witnessed the devastations of the Great Depression and World War II, and who helped build the great post-war American middle class.

That generation did not act mainly out of generosity or social responsibility. They understood, correctly, that broad-based prosperity would be good for them and their businesses over the long-term.” An Open Letter to the Republican Establishment

It is time for the beneficiaries and descendants of that generation to lay down childish things and return to a more practical vision of the United States and
our government.

One that recognizes that the people are the government and have a right to use
their government to better their lives.

One that is courageous enough to find out if its president lied the people into a war for profit.

Robert Goldstein 2016

Note: I’ve made minor changes from the version I posted to Facebook.


Blood Libel

Blood Libel-2

This post was written in 2011 in response to the shootings in Arizona. This image and the post are signed by Mateo.

It’s still relevant as the violence has only increased since 2011.

Warning: There is a disturbing copy of a Duluth Lynching Postcard at the end of the post

Blood Libel: an accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays. Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

Altogether, there have been about 150 recorded cases of blood libel (not to mention thousands of rumors) that resulted in the arrest and killing of Jews throughout history, most of them in the Middle Ages. In almost every case, Jews were murdered, sometimes by a mob, sometimes following torture and a trial.

This is in response to yesterday’s shootings in Arizona. (January, 8, 2011)

The politically correct right-wing at Fox News are spinning this as the act of a ‘lone crazy’.

Even if that is true why do we deprive ‘crazies’ of access to treatment yet insist that they have ready access to semi-automatic weapons.

According to the New York Times:

“…an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained anti government ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigation to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture.” The New York Times


Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,…No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, “Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,” and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, “Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.” And you know, well, I’m not sure.

The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 17 May 2005


From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled. If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society. Radio show assertions, reported in “Rush Limbaugh: Here’s way to stop 100% of lies in society” at American Grand Jury (19 January 2011)

“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors,” Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; “when I said we should “execute” John Walker Lindh, I misspoke. What I meant to say was ‘We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV’. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred”

Ann Coulter, 2002

Liberal Hunting Liscense

If leaders can use words to stir people to positive action then logic tells us that leaders can use words to incite violence.

What follows is the news report as I would write it:

“A Neo Confederate terrorist opened fire on a Democratic Congresswoman with a semiautomatic weapon around 10 a.m. Saturday, January 8th, outside a busy Tucson supermarket. Fourteen people were injured and six people were killed, among them 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, who was born on 911 and featured in the book, Faces of Hope. This is the second such incident in less than two months. Fox news and other Neo Confederate propaganda outlets deny that their calls for extreme action had anything to do with provoking the incident, much as Rush Limbaugh did after the Oklahoma City Bombing.”

Part of the problem is that we in the United States sugarcoat the truth when we are not passively accepting lies. The Neo Confederate wing of the Republican Party use the tactics of intimidation that they refined and adapted to prevent the former slaves from voting. They maintained an army well after the Civil war was supposedly over.  The shooting in Arizona was an act of terrorism incited by a relentless propaganda outlet that demonize legitimate political opposition and incites its brainwashed audience to violence. Just as the Mullahs in Iraq and Iran do not personally strap bombs to their bodies and die on missions of terrorism, neither do Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck.

We want to pretend that we are civil even as the violence against honest citizens escalates.

I offer this quote from Frederick Douglass about Lincoln’s decisions to bring the confederates back into the Union as if nothing had happened because I think it’s still relevant:


“We are sometimes asked, in the name of patriotism, to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation’s life and those who struck to save it; those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice.

I am no minister of malice. I would not strike the fallen. I would not repel the repentant; but may my right hand forget her cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I forget the difference between the parties to that terrible, protracted and bloody conflict. If we ought to forget a war which has filled our land with widows and orphans; which has made stumps of men of the very flower of our youth; which has sent them on the journey of life armless, legless, maimed and mutilated; which has piled up a debt heavier than a mountain of gold, swept uncounted thousands of men into bloody graves and planted agony at a million hearthstones—I say, if this war is to be forgotten, I ask in the name of things sacred, what shall men remember?”

Frederick Douglass

“Slavery Was An Innocent Idea Until Gov’t Intervened” Glenn Beck, 2010