WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for the ‘Let’s call the whole thing off forum’ Category

CUBA: Our Imaginary Friend

In Let's call the whole thing off forum on May 26, 2015 at 11:05 pm


News item: PANAMA CITY (AP) —“Turning the page on a half-century of hostility, President Barack Obama signaled Thursday he will soon remove Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, boosting hopes for improved ties as he prepared for a historic encounter with Cuban President Raul Castro.”  Characteristically, the AP neglected to say precisely whose hopes were boosted. Presumably not those of the rioting protesters outside the halls of the hemispheric conference in Panama City.

“…don’t you agree?”

And in what may be our favorite Barack Obama quote since his discovery of the “intercontinental railway,” the First Marxist explained, “We don’t want to be imprisoned by the past.” Said on behalf of an administration that rarely seems even to be informed by the past, this epigrammatic dismissal of common sense made the perfect segue into still more international Dadaism. We refer to the announcement that the State Department has finished its review of Cuba’s inclusion on the list of states supporting terrorism, and guess what: State is recommending removing Cuba from the list. As Linda Blair once remarked while in the throes of demonic possession, “mirabile dictu, don’t you agree?”

Our sorriest president.

O-Bow-MaAnd even as President Obama groveled, oozed camaraderie and assured his lapdog media stateside that he was “escaping…the constraints of the past,” Raul Castro was ratcheting up his demands, insisting that America pay reparations for its cold war policies and immediately turn Guantanamo Bay over to the communists. It all started back in 2014 when Barack Obama was evidently, bethinking himself of more foreign leaders to whom he could apologize and decided to dial up Raul Castro.

“I apologized for taking such a long time,” Obama said. He proceeded to assign the blame for so prolonged a schism between Cuba and the United states to American intransigence. Castro appeared to concur, and responded with a thirty-minute stream of blistering reprimands to which America’s First Marxist listened with what we can only assume was comradely empathy,  following the cessation of which Obama informed the media, “I think there’s a real opportunity here, and we are going to continue to make – move–forward on it. Our hope is to be in a position where we can open an embassy there, that we can start having more regular contacts and consultations around a whole host of issues, some of which we have interests in common.” (Obviously the presidential teleprompter was having a down day.)

WOOF contends that this is yet another candid shot of President Obama bowing to a foreign potentate--except that Raul Castro is 5 foot 4 inches tall, so in fairness, there's virtually no other way to talk face-to-face with him.

Yet another candid shot of President Obama bowing to a foreign potentate–except that Raul Castro is 5 foot 4 inches tall, so in fairness, there’s virtually no other way to talk face-to-face with him.

“And all that that implies…”

Isn’t anyone, besides us, concerned about making kissy face with the Castro regime?  Perhaps not. We are, of course, prepared to take the minority view.  We have a Woofette among our numbers who as recently as 2008 blogged to the effect that communism remained this nation’s number one problem internationally and domestically, for which she was practically laughed off the web. Even her conservative allies in the blogosphere took pains to gently assure her that communism as a force to be reckoned with was as long gone as Nehru jackets and mood rings. This utter dismissal of the “Red Menace” as a factor of any significance in American domestic or international affairs seems all the more astonishing given Barack Hussein Obama’s subsequent inauguration as the country’s first blatantly Marxist chief executive—and, as that laughably paranoiac cartoon G-man in The Iron Giant liked to say, “all that that implies!”


“And all that that implies!” We were rooting for you, Agent Mansley!

The fall of the Soviet Union is, of course, largely responsible for the notion that communism no longer threatens the United States or her interests, abetted by the decades-long liberal initiative to persuade us that communism was never a particularly threatening phenomenon, all impressions to the contrary being the result of “McCarthyism,” that particularly venomous brand of psychosis, to hear the professors tell it, that whipped large segments of the American public into unprecedented paroxysms of paranoia. So effectively is this solecism promulgated by academe and the establishment media that nowadays few of us feel comfortable saying “cold war” without adjectivizing the term into a compound modifier of “paranoia.”

One of the best!

mendes twoIn 1998 our certainty that “cold-war paranoia” was an artifact of our irrational past was buttressed by a report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assuring us that: “Cuba no longer poses a military threat to the United States.” And the information was signed off on by the DIA’s most senior and trusted specialist on the Cuban situation—a 16-year veteran at the agency named Ana Belen Montes. In fact, when the FBI took Montez into custody in 2001, she was a senior analyst with a DIA rank equivalent to bird colonel. Throughout her entire career in American intelligence, beginning in 1984 with her recruitment by the communists and her subsequent training in Czechoslovakia as a communist spy, Montez was working directly for Fidel Castro.


CIA Director George Tenet bestowing an award for excellence on Comrade Mendes. Really.

In fact, associates remarked that she had long evinced an open admiration for Fidel, which aroused little suspicion because,apparently, it didn’t strike anyone at DIA as unusual. The fact that a background check revealed that Montez falsified her masters degree (ostensibly but not actually from Johns Hopkins) also bothered no one of significance. And since DIA did not administer pre-employment polygraphs in 1985, Montez was hired and promoted swiftly through the ranks, and invariably lauded by her superiors as “one of the best Cuba analysts anywhere in government.” They just got the part about whose government wrong. Oops.

And if the preternaturally sluggish reaction to Montez’s glaring pro-communism strikes you as perplexing, gentle readers, consider the case of Carlos and Elsa Alvarez, two hard working professors at Florida International University, both arrested for espionage and charged as Cuban spies. Both pled guilty, and both are now serving prison terms, which might inspire more confidence in the American counterintelligence effort were it not for the fact that the Alverezes were identified as communist agents during a congressional hearing in 1982, whereas they were arrested in 2006.



Indeed, within mere months of our above-mentioned Woofette’s  disparagement for suggesting that communism remained an issue of concern for Americans, the United States enthusiastically voted to install a government consisting of known communists, self-professing communists, admirers of communism and a president whose every influence during his formative years, apart from Islam, had been communist, and whose church had for 20 years preached liberation theology to him, a radical form of theological revisionism that is, in fact, communist. And why not, if communism is merely the preposterous preoccupation of a few doddering Birchers and McCarthyites?

As we’ve noted on previous occasions, the greatest coup that communism achieved in the United States was inculcating upon Americans the accepted wisdom that only nutjobs and rascals worry about communism. In this respect, the first rule of communist infiltration is that nobody talks about communist infiltration. To recycle a favorite scrap of pertinent wisdom from the cult film The Usual Suspects, “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist!” (Yes, we know, Baudelaire said it first, but he never made a movie.)

soze tooimages

By 2010 the most efficient and advanced healthcare system in the history of the planet had been slated for slow death by socialization under the control of the redistributionist IRS. The world’s largest economy had been sabotaged with the enthusiastic support of congress, the Middle East had been divested of any semblance of pro-Americanism or even neutrality, save for Jordan and Israel, and Israel treated with such disdain that its leadership despairs today of ever again relying on American support in times of crisis.


American Journalist

The fully suborned news media sufficed and continue to suffice as a propaganda arm of the new socialism with no less obsequiousness and considerably more alacrity than had  they been subjected to the jackboot. And this transformation of American journalists into disseminators of Anti-American disinformation occurred without a shot being fired. It was entirely voluntary.

Mao-ee Christmas, and Amilcar Cabral!

A White House Mao ornament--ho, ho, ho?

A White House Christmas Tree Mao ornament–or should we just  chant ho, ho, ho?

At Obama’s first presidential Christmas, the White House tree featured ornaments displaying the benignant smile of Mao Tse Tung, even as the president’s hand-picked aide Anita Dunn praised the butcher of 50,000,000 Chinese as one of her two favorite political philosophers. Obama’s czar Van Jones (who remains openly communist) agreed that “We find inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse Tung and Amilcar Cabral.” Whom did he mean by “we?” A complete roster would be prohibitively time-consuming and digressive even by our “liberal” standards, , but certainly top Obama advisors David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett entered the West Wing with pro-communist backgrounds. Mark Lloyd took over the FCC  gushing praise for Hugo Chavez’s communist revolution in Venezuela and denouncing the 1st amendment as “a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”  “Critical examination,” by the way, is phraseology straight out of Marx, e.g., his “critical examination” of Hegel, his “critical examination of the economic foundations of bourgeois society,” and so on. Interested readers may locate a thorough account of the subversive nature of Obama’s starting lineup by clicking here, but we shall resist the urge to indulge ourselves in elaboration, in order to devote our full  attention to the communist threat about which we currently intend to rant, namely “thaht imprishoned island of Cuber,” as JFK memorably called it. vote communist

Following Obama’s re-election 2012, Erwin Marquit, member in good standing of the CPUSA and chief of its International Department rose to address the14th International  Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, telling his comrades: “The Communist Party USA not only welcomes the reelection of President Barack Obama, but actively engaged in the electoral campaign for his reelection and for the election of many Democratic Party congressional candidates. We regarded the 2012 election as the most important in the United States since 1932, an election held in the midst of the Great Depression.”


We of WOOF find ourselves in ironical but complete agreement with Comrade Marquit. The 2012 election was indeed the most important election since 1932. Of course, in WOOF’s more enlightened view, both elections were disasters!

How it happened, or, the part you can skip if you already know this stuff:

Fidel was yukking it up with radical students from Berkeley as early as 1963.

Fidel was yukking it up with radical students from Berkeley as early as 1963.  

Sensitive devotees of outreach that we are, your humble authors know full well that generations have been reared without the slightest awareness of why Cuba should be in the doghouse of American foreign policy. For that matter, generations have been marched through the ranks of secondary, post-secondary, and University-level education without having the slightest awareness of who fought in the Civil War or whom we won our independence from, so knowing anything about Cuba would be asking a lot. In the late ‘60s, college radicals commonly made pilgrimages to that imprisoned island, helping Fidel harvest his cane crop. The idea, of course, was not that spoiled American college kids could harvest cane worth a damn, but rather that their radical bonafides were thereby solidified. Since those days, we have been given the general impression that Cuba is a tropical workers’ paradise blessed with charismatic leadership, and the world’s best healthcare system (an idiotism deriving mainly from Michael Moore’s preposterous but widely-attended movie, Sicko). It is also generally assumed that for reasons having something to do with (let’s say it together) ‘cold war paranoia,’ the U.S. is unbecomingly nasty to Cuba, and solely responsible for holding the island back economically, as though the most masochistically self-strangulated economy in the Western hemisphere would somehow surge ahead of Hong Kong and Indonesia if los Yanquis just bought its sugar.

When things were (almost as) rotten

Batista loved hats, hated concession speeches,. ?Maybe he should've stuck to fatigues.

Batista loved hats, and hated concession speeches,. Maybe he should’ve tried wearing fatigues.

Before the communist takeover of Cuba, the island was run by a crooked, tin-horned dictator named Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar—but everyone just called him Batista. Among  his many escapades, Batista ran for president of Cuba in 1952, but the election went poorly for him, so rather than come up with a concession speech, he led a military coup and took over by force of arms, promoting himself to colonel in the process, which reminds us: why do almost all military dictators become colonels rather than generals? Is it a Zen thing? Suffice it that Batista was a rum bloke, hammering out alliances with the wealthy gentry, plantation owners and the American Mafia on the backs of the island’s poor. Nobody, therefore, liked him, except the plantation owners, land holders, and the American Mafia—and the U.S. government, which supported him because he was not communist–our chief criteria for approval during the cold war—(liberals may wish to add “paranoia” here, so please consider it implicit).

1101590126_400Castro’s rebellion against so loathsome a despot as Batista was understandably alluring to America’s leftist intelligentsia and assorted media stars given its veneer of egalitarianism. When Batista’s forces were decisively routed at the Battle of Santa Clara on New Year’s Day, 1959, proving inadequate even to the task of repulsing forces led by the tactically obtuse, psychopathically disorganized Che Guevara, the American Left waxed ecstatic…as though Robin of Loxley had finally cleaned King John’s clock.

Uh-oh. Robin Hood’s a Commie!

Another grateful Cuban citizen thanking a priest. Despite his atheism, Castro openmindedly permuited the last rites to be administered to everyone he had executed by firing squad during his clamp down.

Despite his atheism, Castro open-mindedly permitted the last rites to be administered to everyone he ordered executed by firing squad during his clamp down.

Perceiving Castro as a megalomaniacal communist was not terribly challenging beyond the fog-encumbered sanctuaries of  liberal journalism. Being present as events unfolded helped a sizable numbers of Cubans spot the tyrant beneath the fatigues—and many of them mounted counterrevolutionary efforts. A strong counterinsurgency took refuge in Cuba’s mountainous regions and staged spirited attacks on Castro’s forces and sources of supply. This led to Fidel declaring “War against the bandits” which lasted a good six years. Sadly, CIA involvement and financing of the “bandits” proved sporadic. thus Castro was able to contain the uprisings while reserving a free hand by which to implement the widespread imprisonment of dissenters who were shot or subjected to Red Chinese-style brainwashing combined with forced labor. Next came the systematic harassment of critical newspaper editors. By January of 1960, articles critical of the regime were required to end with corrective “clarifications” generously supplied by the printers union, which was entirely Castro-ite.

Fidel's men kept their marksmanship skills honed during lulls in the revolution by shooting their own troops--here a young Raul Castro blindfolds a rebel who offended the Castro brothers and got assigned target duty.

Fidel’s men kept their marksmanship skills honed during lulls in the revolution by shooting their own troops–here Che Guevara looks on as a young Raul Castro blindfolds a rebel who offended the Castro brothers and got assigned to target duty.

Stalinist show trials were staged for former officials and favorites of the Batista government. The first of these took place in Havana in a sports stadium with 17,000 Cubans in attendance. Even so, justice didn’t always prevail, at least in Castro’s view. When citizens accused of bombing a village were acquitted by the court, Castro ordered a retrial and made certain the same defendants were convicted and given life at hard labor. When Castro executed an American (former Castro sympathizer William Alexander Morgan–sorry, Alexander!) even some of his fellow travelers in America complained about the iniquitous juridical process, but Fidel maintained that his forensic vision was of a purer variety, explaining that “Revolutionary justice is not based on legal precepts, but on moral conviction.”  Who knew?

Say, isn't that the good stuff? Apparently even in the heat of a missile crisis, things go better with Coke!

Say, isn’t that the good stuff? Apparently even in the heat of a missile crisis, things go better with Coke!

Moral conviction also compelled Castro to do the usual amount of Communist nationalizing. When they failed to show sufficient interest in surrendering their management decisions and manufacturing policies to Castro’s staff of bearded economic planners, American oil companies saw their refineries expropriated in the name of the revolution. Sugar mills and banks were nationalized next, following which, in October of 1960, the Cuban National Institute for Agrarian Reform seized control of 383 privately-run businesses and over 160 company operations in Cuba including Coca Cola and Sears.  This, as is invariably the case in such matters, effectively ensured that no profitable business ventures remained in Cuba. Is it any wonder that liberals love this man? Moreover, the American government was sufficiently annoyed to ban the importation of Cuban sugar, cutting sharply into Fidel’s exports until enough Russian, African, Spanish and Latin American sweet tooths could be cultivated to partially offset the damage. Coca Cola was rebottled by the Castro regime, albeit with certain unhelpful adjustments to its formula, and when the supply of caramel coloring ran out, Coke in  Havana became see-through, making Castro Cola the de facto forerunner of Crystal Pepsi, although, come to think of it, nobody liked that stuff either.

If you’re going to take Vienna….

LIFEStudents (and survivors) of history will recall that as Castro’s communist totalitarianism allied itself outspokenly with Soviet totalitarianism, the Kennedy administration gave the green light to a half-hearted insurgency that fizzled at the Bay of Pigs when JFK pulled the air cover, denied the rebel forces naval support despite desperate pleas from American destroyer captains off the beach, and left “Brigade 2506” (the good guys) to exhaust their ammo and surrender beneath skies controlled entirely by Castro’s aircraft. The last forlorn message from the commander of the CIA-trained battalion was “I am going into the swamps, I have nothing left with which to fight.” Kennedy’s inopportune volte-face (perhaps best understood as symptomatic of a poorly supervised biphetamine regimen) created the impression of a weak American presidency and led directly to Nikita Khrushchev’s decision to place nuclear missiles in Cuba (with Castro’s enthusiastic approval) in October of 1962.  This is the sort of thing that happens when American leaders forget the sagacity of Napoleon’s old dictum: “If you’re going to take Vienna–take Vienna!”

“Hmmm…I guess Jack’s amphetamines must’ve kicked in!”

As his admirers in media repeatedly reminded us, until his radiance waned and they found new and lesser objects for their affections, President Kennedy comported himself courageously during the ensuing Cuban Missile Crisis, and while America came out the loser if the crisis is viewed as a zero-sum game (because we sacrificed our missiles in Turkey while Russia lost nothing but missiles it had not fully established in Cuba anyway), Russia looked very much the loser on the world stage, and Khrushchev, who clearly lost his nerve that time around, was ultimately deposed by the Red oligarchy in Moscow.

Terror’s Poster Child

Well...that's capitalism for you!

Well…that’s capitalism for you!

It is precisely here that Fidel began to export terror in the name of revolution, often under the command of every American college student’s favorite folk hero, Che Guevara.  Initially, Che functioned as Fidel’s post-revolutionary executioner, noteworthy for his alacritous organization of the bloodbaths inside the prisons at La Cabaña and Santa Clara, as well as myriad additional firing squads wherever convenient. Forthrightly admitting that he found killing people enjoyable, Che seemed happy in his work and devoted himself with equal enthusiasm to constructing and populating Cuba’s slave labor camps before the “Peter Principle” overtook him and he found himself president of the Cuban National Bank, which is one of several reasons the words “Cuban” and “economy” are rarely used in conjunction. Che also did a stint as Cuba’s chief atomic armaments strategist, lamenting in the wake of the missile crisis that “If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City…” which would have proved difficult because the Russian missiles wouldn’t reach New York City, but Che was never a detail guy.  This became all the more obvious in 1965 as he attempted to spread revolution throughout the Congo.

(In and) Out of Africa

che in africa

“Nice kid–too bad he’ll grow up to be an ‘indolent dreamer’ with an ‘affinity for avoiding bathing!'”

Convinced that Africa was ripe for communist conversion, Che sallied forth with twelve comrades under orders from Fidel to ignite the flames of Marxist revolution on the continent. He began by instructing the local Congolese Simba fighters in Marxist ideology as well as his own rather simplistic theories of guerilla warfare, but got nowhere. The few guerilla actions Che managed to mount were summarily defeated by CIA-led opposition forces so that after seven months of humiliation and frustration the folk hero hobbled out of the jungle stricken with dysentery and asthma. Only six of his twelve original stalwarts survived. Returning to Havana, Che blamed his failures on the incompetence of the Congolese combined with what he denounced as their racially inherent dimwittedness and lethargy—Che having it in common with Marx that his racism, though rarely highlighted, remained significant throughout his life. Given lessons learned, Che apprised Castro of his revised conclusion that Africa was not poised for Marxist revolution after all. Bolivia, however, was a different story.

Hands up, don’t shoot!

The guerilla warfare genius, captured; sorry. Che, they read your book!

The guerilla warfare genius, captured; Sorry. Che, they read your book!

Convinced that communism’s future now awaited his arrival in Bolivia, Che flew commercial to La Paz and set up camp in the southeasterly Ñancahuazú valley. His efforts to foment a guerilla insurgency in the vicinity went almost immediately sour. The radios Havana supplied didn’t work, in spite of which he divided his forces and became unable to locate his second element in the jungle. The dialect his team had  trained to speak turned out to be unknown in the area, and Guevara’s own authoritarian intransigence proved no better a recruiting asset in Latin America than it had in Africa. The local dissidents wouldn’t join him, the local inhabitants regularly informed the Bolivian government of his movements, and even the Bolivian Communist Party snubbed his advances. Worse, the Bolivian government asked American CIA and Special Forces teams for help. Green Beret-led units quickly outmaneuvered, wounded, and captured the guerilla warfare genius, who surrendered shouting, “Don’t shoot, I am Che Guevara and I am worth more to you alive than dead!”

“Hasta luego, Caiman!”

The Americans on the scene emphatically agreed with Guevara’s assessment, and begged the Boliivian leadership for permission to ship him elsewhere for a spirited interrogation, but nothing would satisfy Bolivian President Rene Barrientos except that Che be shot on the spot, and he was ultimately gunned down, and none too tidily, by a Bolivian sergeant with an M-1 Garand. Furious, his Special Forces captors and their CIA field liaison realized that an intelligence windfall had been cast aside, and a legend created: the legend of silk-screen Che– that enduring cultural icon symbolic of hip, cool, radical rebellion—otherwise identifiable as the mass murdering homophobic racist totalitarian chocolate soldier on your kids’ tee shirts.

che dead

They do “perp walks” a bit differently in Bolivia, but after all, Che was just dead after ten months in the jungle.

Operation “Coals to Newcastle?”

Today, according to recently declassified FBI reports, Cuba’s intelligence services are aggressively recruiting American academics and university professors as spies and agents of influence. WOOF will forgivereaders a cruel chuckle at this point, since it hardly merits remarking that almost all American academics and university professors are already serving as defacto agents of communist influence without the slightest effort by Havana being necessary—but this very truism suggests a ready-to-hand cadre of sympathizers who, much like the afore-mention Ana Montes, are likely to jump at the opportunity to be trained, organized, and instructed by the Cuban secret service. After all, how cool is that? And according to the FBI report, (viewable here) Cuba’s spies have also “perfected the work of… aggressively targeting U.S. universities under the assumption that a percentage of students will eventually move on to positions within the U.S. government that can provide access to information of use to [Cuban intelligence],” adding, to no one’s surprise, we assume, that mature academicians who are already “allied with communist or leftist ideology may assist the [Cuban intelligence service] because of [their] personal beliefs.” So, how cool is that? 

Pop artist Rihanna waves at fans as she leaves a building on the Malecon, after a photo shoot with photographer Annie Leibovitz, in Havana, Cuba, Friday, May 29, 2015. (AP Photo/Desmond Boylan)

Pop star Rihanna has already dashed over to Havana for a photo shoot with photog Annie Leibovitz–so how cool is that? Here she waves at a cluster of gawking Cubans– the ones taking cell phone photos are mostly with the government’s Rapid Response Brigades– sort of the Cuban equivalent of your local  Chamber of Commerce.

The FBI goes on to report that the Cuban effort to spread disinformation and create avenues of influence in the United States “is supported by all of the counterintelligence resources the government of Cuba can marshal on the island,” so surely President Obama has picked the perfect time to wipe Cuba’s name from the list of terroristic nations—after all, when the domestic reaction to these FBI revelations can best be described as supine, nobody is really being terrorized, right? (Yawn.)

Spies among us!

spiesCuban operatives have burrowed into our cultural and political infrastructures, knowing full well that anyone who publicly objects or even presumes to notice will be immediately branded a “McCarthyite” and dutifully excoriated by the usual assortment of media apparatchiks. Cuban intelligence services are also notorious brokerage firms, selling or bartering secrets to any and all nations looking for ways and means to inflict pain on the United States or befuddle its interests.  Montes, for instance, was apprehended days before she was to be made privy to the Pentagon’s battle plans for our troops in the middle east—information Castro would have gleefully transmitted to Al Qaida and other ne’er-do-wells in the region.

Free the Wasps?cuban 5 images

The average American has never heard of the Wasp Network. Quite possibly the majority of our readers have not heard of it, nor ever been exhorted personally to “free the Cuban Five!” This is perfectly understandable, so much of the media’s attention being focused on Scott Walker’s failure to attend university, the riveting sexual peccadillos of Dennis Hastert, global warming–which at any second may eradicate humankind, the shocking revelation by Bruce Jenner that he is a Republican (a disclosure from which Diane Sawyer is yet to fully recover), and the cosmic significance attached by nearly every media opinionist to the flaccidity of Tom Brady’s balls.  Not to worry, however, because America’s intellectual elites, e.g., the student bodies of U. Cal, Berkeley, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, DePaul University, Pomona University, and about a bajillion other institutions of higher learning are keenly aware of the Wasp Network and the importance of freeing the Cuban Five.

More good news: These bright young students and their courageous professors are joined in their ardor for social justice by such illustrious organizations as the US Women & Cuba Collaboration & National Committee to Free the Cuban Five-Seattle, (is there an acronym for that?), the Chicago Committee to Free the Cuban 5, the National Lawyers Guild (say, wasn’t Fred Fisher a member of that group?) the Wisconsin Committee to Normalize Relations with Cuba, the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the People Power Movement, and of course, the Communist Party USA, as the Beaver.


Another good reason to make it Chick-fil-A tonight!

See, what actually happened was, in 1998 thirteen Cuban spies were apprehended by the FBI and charged with committing acts of espionage including spying on U.S. military installations throughout the southeast. All but five of these individuals proved eager to roll over on the Castro regime and turn state’s evidence. All were known to be part of a Cuban spy ring code-named the Wasp Network. The bad news is that 32 members of the spy ring remain at large, and 5 of the captured spies proved uncooperative and are still doing time—thus the sociopolitical custodians of what Tom Wolfe calls “radical chic” dubbed these more obdurate Reds the “Cuban Five.” In fact, freeing the Cuban Five makes about as much sense as freeing Charlie Manson, which is, of course, why every leftist at every liberal university from here to Vancouver wants it accomplished. It is also why President Obama will undoubtedly effectuate their release before his term ends, (perhaps before this article ends!) either by pardoning them outright or arranging a trade.


TRUE FACT: Richard Simmons bears the same name as the well-known fitness guru– but , to date, nobody has confused them in person.

Foreign Policy Advisor and former Brigade Commander Lt. Colonel Richard  Simmons recently wrote that Cuba encourages the release of these 5 imprisoned infiltrators for one reason only—to keep the 5 prisoners keenly aware that Castro’s eye is on them; and this not to inspire élan so much as to send the message: “…do not betray the regime!” This makes sense, of course, but with all due respect to Colonel Simmons, there is another and much grander reason. A country so numb to geopolitical or historical realities that it giggled in delight and flocked to local franchises when Taco Bell recast its mascot Chihuahua as Che Guevara (complete with revolutionary beret and communist insignia), is a country so bamboozled by “radical chic” that Castro’s most effective recruiting tool remains the sophomoric appeal of his revolutionary panache and its conflation with the spirit of ‘60s radicalism from which the post-Vietnam Left has never disentangled itself. Thus, demanding freedom for the “Cuban 5” bestirs radical nostalgia for the Chicago Seven, the Hollywood Ten, the fictive Secaucus Seven and sundry additional numerically-designated groups of radical nincumpoops whom the Left prefers to dissemble as political prisoners railroaded by the reactionary ruling classes of fascist Amerika —even though most of these martyred victims now hold– or have retired in relative opulence from–tenured professorships.

The Chicago Seven--say, who had more fun in the '60s than the radical Left?!

The Chicago Seven–say, who had more fun in the ’60s than the radical Left?!

Hillary’s brainchild…

Although President Barack Obama is rumored to be leaving office in 2016 (at which point WOOF has promised to apologize for its previously-voiced qualms in this regard) it has undoubtedly occurred to sagacious readers (and we assume that’s all of you) that a country so bereft of its bearings as to re-elect Barack Obama in 2012 might well be sufficiently addlepated to elect Hillary Clinton to clean up Obama’s mess. Supporters of a free Cuba will be disappointed—though probably not particularly shocked—to learn that Hillary is the architect of most of Obama’s fair-play-for-Cuba policy.


Mrs. Clinton, seen here calling for a new direction in Cuba.

Thus, when Obama announced his full-fledged effort to rescue Cuba from the brutalities of American foreign policy and sweetened the pill by highlighting the release (from Castro’s dungeons) of Alan Gross, an American contractor accused by Havana of being a CIA spy, Hillary bustled to the foreground to shrilly demand her place in the limelight, bellowing  “As Secretary of State, I pushed for his release, stayed in touch with Alan’s wife Judy and their daughters, and called for a new direction in Cuba!”

hill Yes, gentle readers, when it comes to Fidel’s tropical purgatory, the Clintons are entirely sincere—they’ve got the raptures. For once, Mrs. Clinton’s not playing a game of convenience or of rank opportunism; she is quite genuinely gung ho. If you doubt us, go to a discount book display and grab a cut-rate copy of Hillary’s literary lead balloon, Hard Choices in which she discusses her eagerness to mend fences with Castro, chirruping, “we offered to begin talks with the Cuban government about restoring direct mail service and cooperation on immigration processes. In the run-up to this summit in Honduras, the Cubans accepted.” [WOOF pauses here to subdue the impulse to interject “oh goody!”]

In truth, last month’s “historic” handshake with–and apology to–Red totalitarianism, reversing decades of U.S. vigilance against “thaht imprishoned island,” is largely the handiwork of Hillary Clinton who, while Secretary of State, took time away from reducing the Middle East to chaos, crowing over the mutilation of the hapless Qadhafi (viewable here), abandoning her ambassadorial personnel in Benghazi to be slaughtered, imprisoning an amateur film maker for making a really bad movie, and lying to congress about it all, long enough to push hard and repeatedly for normalized relations with Cuba.  Indeed, the blueprint for embracing the communist dungeon masters of Havana was so much a Hillary initiative that her aides are lately showing signs of panic that “Her Magnificence” (to coin Tina Brown’s priceless flummery) may not receive ample credit for the regime’s abject capitulation to tyranny.  WOOF, however, ever mindful to give credit where it is due,  has striven here to assure Mrs. Clinton of her proper deserts.

Ob shaking

Photos reveal that President Obama typically reserves the “bro shake” for communist leaders. Here he administers it to Brazil’s communist President Luis Inacio Lula de Silva, and to Venezuela’s Pillsbury Despot, Hugo Chavez. By contrast, Obama’s handshake with Raul Castro seems stiffly formal…perhaps  Castro wished to preserve  some shred of dignity…?

elian mom

Elian Gonzalez and his mom, who died getting him to freedom.

WOOF rehashes that whole Elian thing, again—and again.

Bitter clingers with long memories will recall that the Clintons’ devotion to Castro’s brand of  socialist totalitarianism revealed itself in all its cravenness during Bill’s second term when an intrepid band of freedom-seeking Cubans launched themselves aboard a makeshift raft and set out across the treacherous Straits of Florida for American shores. As is so often the case with such desperate endeavors, waves and weather overwhelmed the tiny vessel, claiming the  lives of eleven on board. Among the lost was Elizabeth Gonzales, mother of 5-year-old Elian Gonzales. She perished because she transferred her life-preserver to her small son. It bears repeating that another survivor, Nivaldo Fernández Ferran, testified that “Elizabeth protected her son to the end,” which cannot, sadly, be said of the Clintons.  The small boy, Fernandez, and one other survivor floated in the turbulent ocean until two fishermen spotted them and plucked them from the brine. The INS placed González with maternal relatives in Miami, who fully expected to raise him in the United States. Thus a tragic tale might have ended in reasonable happiness, except that Fidel Castro got into the act, having sensed an opportunity to make the decadent Yanquis jump through hoops at his behest.


Miami mural references reports  by witnesses that Elian was protected by dolphins following his mother’s drowning and until he was plucked from the sea.

Initially, nobody had a problem with little Elian living with his adoring relatives in Miami. The U.S. State Department wisely recused itself from adjudicating custody, leaving the matter to the Florida courts. A Circuit Court granted emergency custody of the boy t0 Lazaro Gonzalez, his uncle in Miami, and apart from the saga of Elian’s survival at sea and his mother’s tragic drowning, the case was not widely deemed  newsworthy.

Enter Fidel…enter fidel

That changed dramatically, however, when Fidel Castro took an interest. Seizing upon the now-6-year-old boy’s escape as an opportunity to demagogue the Yanquis, Castro took to the airwaves bellowing that Elian’s return from Miami was required at once, declaring, “Little Elian will get back his country, his family, his school, his schoolmates, and his school desk!” Castro next convened Elian’s school mates in a theatrical celebration of Elian’s sixth birthday in absentia, and assured the assembled tykes that  “Elian is a boy hero!” even as thousands of communist school children and their parents were herded into the streets of Havana to protest Elian’s alleged captivity in America.

Attorney General Janet Reno--nothing perked her up like a good raid!

Attorney General Janet Reno–nothing perked her up like a good raid!

Suddenly, Elian was front page news, because Castro wanted him back, and at that point—and only at that point—it became an urgent priority for the Clinton administration to return Elian to the loving arms of Cuba’s communist dictator. No greater testimony could be adduced to the awe  in which the Clintons held the bearded maniac off our coast then the swiftness with which they clicked their heels and made certain that Castro’s wishes became American policy.

Reno's Raiders rip Elian from the arms of the very fisherman who pulled him from the sea--it was nasty business, but dammit, Fidel wanted the kid returned!

Reno’s Raiders rip Elian from the arms of the very fisherman who pulled him from the sea–it was nasty business, but dammit, Fidel wanted the kid  and he wanted him now!

Despite a circuit court ruling that Elian should remain stateside, Janet Reno, alert to the urgency of Fidel’s demands, persuaded a Florida family court judge to revoke Elian’s uncle’s custody and dispatched a force of federal agents in helmets, goggles and flak vests who swarmed into the modest Miami home of Elian’s peaceful relatives in the wee hours of April 22, seizing the terrified child at the point of an MP-5 submachine gun and rushing him, as he screamed in terror, into a waiting vehicle. In keeping with a secret deal worked out between Bill Clinton and Castro, Elian was removed to a tightly secured facility where he could be treated with drugs and “reconditioned” before being returned to Cuba in the custody of his biological father. Most Americans, sappily ignorant of the horrors of Castro’s police state, or that Elian’s father was probably demanding the boy’s repatriation under life-threatening duress–shrugged and agreed with the Liberal Establishment Media that all things considered it was great that the boy be “allowed” to return to his daddy. So TIME and Newsweek got to celebrate an ostensibly happy ending, and WOOF is making a big deal of this (once again) because a) we never tire of ranting about it, and b) because it shows the level of sniveling obsequiousness with which the Clinton’s willingly served as handmaidens to Castro’s whims. Can anyone seriously doubt that President Hillary will not prove equally reverential in any future dealings with the Castros?

street art

Miami street mural: Some pictures really are worth a thousand words.

What the FARC?

Make no mistake, Obama (although he came upon his radicalism in different venues and epochs and is therefore less proclived than Hillary to Pavlovian salivation at the mention of Castro’s name), is every bit as eager to normalize relations with the Castro Brothers. He is clearly unaffected by the stark evidence that Cuba is even now bolstering its commitment to perform widespread espionage against the United States and asserts that Cuba’s removal from the list of terrorist states should have nothing to do with “whether they engage in repressive or authoritarian activities in their own country.” Whether?  Rather, President Obama insists that Havana no longer exports terror to other regions of the globe, an argument that necessarily pretermits all evidence to the contrary, including such glaring incidents as the recent seizure by Panamanian authorities of a North Korean cargo ship, bound for the communist port of Wonsan, stuffed to the gunnels with Cuban arms and ammunition. Hilariously, the president praises what he refers to as Cuba’s current efforts to promote stability in the western hemisphere, unblushingly citing its recent willingness to take part in negotiations with Colombia’s left-wing FARC guerrillas as evidence of reform. This is simply jocund.  One might as well site Putin’s willingness to take possession of Syria’s chemical weapon supplies as proof of saintliness. Cuba has insinuated itself into the FARC talks to keep its comrades at FARC in the game, while establishing a reputation for diplomacy—a win/win for the Castro brothers, and for FARC, too, making it, in fact, a win/win…win.


This member of  FARC is clearly  contemplating an easier-going, more open minded future, now that Cuba has entered the negotiations. 

Indeed. since the Cubans began “negotiating” with FARC to the outspoken satisfaction of President Obama and many other liberals, FARC has developed close ties to Hezbollah in the Middle East, and begun to serve as a nexus for operational guidance, intelligence, and armaments reaching terrorist organizations throughout Latin America. With a bit of additional sweet talk from Fidel’s peace negotiators, FARC proved willing to establish relations with Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, and President Salvador Sanchez Ceren of El Salvador, all of whom seem anxious to support FARC’s peace initiative with funds and armaments.

The Russians are coming! (Back!)

russanradararray1To make matters even more interesting, Russia has returned to its old haunts, reactivating its long-inert electronic spying center in Cuba. The Lourdes base, shuttered 13 years ago, is now up and running once again, staffed by over one-thousand technical and operational workers, all Russian except for those that are Cuban representatives of the Dirección de Inteligencia, (Cuba’s own KGB-trained intelligence agency). Bear in mind that the original trade ban against Cuba, initiated by President Kennedy in 1962, emphasized the necessity for the embargo until such time as Cuba might demonstrate respect for human rights and liberty. The Castro government has never complied with any portion of the Kennedy mandate, nor has it promised to do so now.  Both Raul and Fidel continue to express uninterrupted antagonism toward the United States and outspoken support for oppressive communist dictatorships from Laos to Venezuela, and, most emphatically, at home.

“There wasn’t anyone else!”

jack and jackieAllow us to pause exactly here long enough to iterate that WOOF, qua WOOF, has no official position on the Kennedy assassination other than: we are certain it happened and we are against it.  Beyond these certainties, opinions differ in the WOOF cave, with some of us admitting a sentimental bias in favor of Lyndon Johnson’s culpability as described by E. Howard Hunt in his bizarre, near-death confession. (WOOF is not making this up. Click here for the video)  The rest of us tend to see Oswald as the probable shooter, while at least one of us suspects Bill O’Reilly. That being said, a powerful case has been made for decades (with very little coverage by American media) for a Cuban connection.


Huismann–the documentary filmmaker who fingered Fidel.

In Germany, a TV documentary by award-winning filmmaker Wilfried Huismann aired recently, the gravamen of which was—is there a good way to say this?—that Fidel Castro killed President Kennedy. According to the evidence presented in the documentary, Russia’s KGB controlled Oswald, but recommended him to the Cubans as the man to assassinate the American President. Havana wanted JFK dead in retaliation for a series of failed attempts to kill Castro, actually organized by the president’s brother, then-attorney general  Robert F. Kennedy. Former White House aide Joseph Califano, who assisted in the anti-Castro plotting, is quoted by historian Philip Shenon as saying that “Robert Kennedy experienced this unbelievable grief after his brother’s death because he believed it was linked to his—Bobby’s—efforts to kill Castro.” Liberal historian and longtime friend of the Kennedy family, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., admits that RFK voiced his beliefs in confidence that the president’s murder might well have been orchestrated by the Cubans.

In Huismann’s documentary, a number of aging but obviously sentient alumni of Castro’s intelligence service insist that Cuban agents contracted Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot Kennedy. And why pick a manifest loser like Oswald for such a task? “There wasn’t anyone else,” declares Oscar Marino, a former Cuban intelligence operative now disenchanted with communism and Castro. “You take what you can get …and Oswald volunteered to kill Kennedy.”

Lions and tigers and right-wing uprisings, oh my!

lions and tigersGeneral Alexander Haig is familiar to many as the Secretary of State who, when President Ronald Reagan was shot on March 30, 1981, took center stage at the White House and declared, “I’m in charge here!” The leftist media were not then as openly and unashamedly antagonistic to any principle or politician less liberal than, say, Phil Donahue, but they were learning fast. Thus, Haig’s exigent and well-timed statement was taken out of context and ridiculed by the nattering elites until every American school child was persuaded that Secretary of State Haig was a big dope who didn’t comprehend the Constitutional chain of succession. Heck, he probably thought potato had an “e” in it!

Customarily cool, Larry Speakes looked like a deer in the headlights following the attempt on Reagan's life.

Customarily cool, Larry Speakes looked like a deer in the headlights following the attempt on Reagan’s life.

In fact, Haig made the ill-fated statement in the immediate wake of an on-camera performance by a frazzled Larry Speakes, whose voice quavered and whose responses to questions from the press were so vague and equivocal that the distinct impression was given that that the nation was rudderless and that chaos reigned in the West Wing. Alert to the fact that Speakes’s shaky performance was being viewed by the Soviets, and that Speakes’s inability to articulate who was at the helm during Reagan’s incapacitation might well prove irresistibly provocative to Kremlin factions with itchy trigger fingers, Haig seized the moment to create the contrary impression in order to disembolden potential aggressors. For this action (or, in other words, for arguably discouraging a Russian first strike against the continental United States) he was repaid by the press with illimitable ridicule.

al haig

Would this man lie? General Haig has been called many things during the course of his career–but not, so far as we can recall, imaginative.

So what’s with our Al Haig reprise?  Well, it offers us an opportunity to wax prolix, as is our deviant nature, but more significantly it serves to remind readers of Haig’s significance to several administrations. We wish to reinforce this remembrance because Haig, who served as President Johnson’s military attaché during the Vietnam era and an adviser to Robert Kennedy before that, is on record declaring that “Bobby Kennedy is personally responsible for at least 8 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. Kennedy wanted to get rid of Castro, but Castro got him first.” Haig appears in Huismann’s documentary wherein he testifies that LBJ “was convinced Castro killed Kennedy, and he took it to his grave.” Why on earth, you may ask, would LBJ keep such an insight secret?  Haig tells Huismann in the film that he reviewed memos from Johnson in 1963 outlining Johnson’s fear that allowing the Castro connection to become public would be catastrophic.  Why? According to Alexander Haig, Johnson told him “We cannot allow the American people to believe that Castro … killed Kennedy,” because “there would be a right-wing uprising in America which would keep the Democratic Party out of power for two generations.”  Well, one man’s catastrophe….


Johnson (on right) may be off the hook for JFK’s assassination, but if he helped cover up Castro’s involvement, at least he’s still an accessory after the fact!

“I screwed up…”

Speaking of which, Lyndon Johnson was undoubtedly happier about being president than he was angry about Kennedy’s murder, since he craved executive power and detested the Kennedys in their entirety. FBI Agent Laurence Keenan, now 81, claims that he was personally assigned by J. Edgar Hoover to Mexico City in the aftermath of JFK’s death to investigate the Cuban connection, but after three days in Mexico, Keenan got new orders.  “I was a messenger,” he says in the film – newly instructed to assure Cuba via the Mexican government’s liaisons that Johnson would not push the investigation into Castro’s guilt. “It was clear I was being used. I felt ashamed,” Keenan tells Huismann. “We missed a historical chance.” Elsewhere Keenan has reported that just when all signs were pointing to Castro as the mastermind behind Dallas, he obeyed orders to drop the issue and to forget what he’d learned. “I had the chance to solve the case of our President’s murder,” Keenan said, “and I screwed up. I’m still ashamed of that to this day.”

Ramiro Valdez--sneaky looking, don't you think?

Ramiro Valdez–sneaky looking, don’t you think?

We know that Oswald left the Soviet Union in 1962 and returned to the USA—an extraordinary feat in and of itself, notwithstanding he was permitted to bring his attractive Russian wife. It is now generally acknowledged that in July of 1962 the KGB sent a telegram to Ramiro Valdés, chief of the Cuban secret services informing him of Oswald’s return to the USA and identifying Oswald as a sympathizer.


Dr. Bringuier says he’s found the smoking cigar!

Cuban exile Dr. Carlos Bringuier knew and even debated Oswald prior to the Kennedy assassination. He also testified before the Warren Commission, and is the author of Crime Without Punishment: How Castro Assassinated President Kennedy and Got Away with It. Bringuier has presented persuasive evidence that Cuban intelligence contacted Oswald in November of 1962 and assigned him a case officer, Major Rolando Cubela Secades. It is established fact (though not widely reported) that in April of 1963 Oswald attempted and failed to assassinate General Edwin Walker in Dallas Texas. According to Bringuier, this was “his first test as a ‘sleeper’ for the communists.” That Oswald traveled to Mexico City shortly before assassinating JFK and received final instructions to kill the American president along with money and additional guidance is a theme that surfaced in the 1970s in a courageously heterodox volume entitled Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald by Edward Jay Epstein, a Cornell trained scholar whose Ph.D. is from Harvard and who fingered Fidel Castro as the brains behind the Kennedy shooting when everyone else was chasing Texas Oil fat cats, David Ferrie and duplicate Oswalds with slightly different chins—remember that version?

matching oswalds

MORE THAN ONE OSWALD? The House Select Committee on Assassination’s panel of forensic anthropologists agreed years ago  that all extant photos of Lee Harvey Oswald are of the same individual, but we didn’t want to use any of them, so we went with a slightly different version of the “doubles” theory–same basic idea.  Sensitive readers will forgive us.

In summation, as we conceded at the outset of this portion of our screed, WOOF cannot pretend to ravel the Gordian knot of assassination hypotheses…nor can we say with surety how much insight is obtainable on these matters by American Presidents, whether Obama or his predecessors. What we can say with conviction is that sufficient evidence implicates Castro in the matter that any rush to embrace him, his dorky brother, or any other representative of Cuban communism is, to put it charitably, premature.

WOOF knows that Cuban espionage is even now spreading across North America with unprecedented rapaciousness. While our president apologizes for our sins, the Castros are directing bold operations aimed at the destruction of our Republic. Writing in the moderate U.S. News & World Report, senior policy adviser Daniel J, Gallington opines that we should “prepare ourselves for an onslaught of hundreds, perhaps thousands of Cuban spies” taking advantage of Obama’s open boarder policy, and Gallington adds “they are very, very good at it, probably the best in our hemisphere, including us, who look like amateurs compared to them, especially when it comes to the long-term penetration of high-value intelligence targets and getting critical information therefrom.”

“What’s a lie?”pg-2-obama-wink-get_300430s

It strikes us, in closing, that a final argument for Cuban involvement in the death of John Kennedy is that General Fabian Escalante, Cuba’s longtime state security honcho, denies it. But as if Escalante’s denial weren’t, in and of itself, sufficient to incline us toward suspecting Castro’s complicity, consider the tone of his demurral and its syntax, tailored perfectly to the age of Obama and his milquetoast media:  “There are smart people who doubt the Americans really landed on the moon,” Escalante smiles, eyes a-twinkle, “So what is true, and what’s a lie?” WOOF PRINT




BUNDY REVISITED–UNPACKING THE GREAT NEVADA RANGE WAR (Why it almost happened, and why it still might.)

In Let's call the whole thing off forum on May 8, 2014 at 10:28 am


The nations’ left-wing conglomerate is still sputtering at the lips, horrified that a band of seedy yahoos could shoulder a few rifles and exert sufficient power vis-a-vis the Obaman governmental juggernaut to discomfit the heavily-armed Bureau of Land Management and its assorted allies in a state that is more than 80% government owned.  It hardly seems conceivable to the Liberal News Establishment, let alone legal, that a passel of gun-toting throwbacks from fly-over country could team up with the Bundy ranch owlhoots and face down the fully arrayed forces of the Worldwide Totalitarian Socialist Conspiracy …. Surely they argue, such impudence cannot be permitted to stand!  By contrast, the blogospheric Right is in euphoric transports as the evil federal land (and cattle) grabbers put up their rifles and ride away dejectedly, departing the scene short of  provoking the next Waco. But funniest of all, and reliably funny in that inside-the-beltway, weltschmerz-smitten tone so endemic to its pages, the Washington Post has now officially lamented that such an unnewsworthy triviality as the Bundy imbroglio was accorded so much traction to begin with. Clearly, there were Georgetown soirees and Senatorial junkets to Belize more worthy of the ink, to say nothing of the newly denominated problem of global climate disruption, formerly known as climate change, formerly known as global warming. The Post was clearly of the view that the Bundy ranch embroilment should have been “spiked”–forgetting as the old media tend to forget, that spiking is no longer the guarantor of a “non-event” that it was when Cronkite’s name was still a hallowed memory and people actually took Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw seriously. But there was really no sense crying over spilt ink, with the story a headline grabber on every news broadcast in America. And anyway, what the Post really meant (although it didn’t exactly say so), was something more to the tune of, ‘stories like this are supposed to end with monumental  displays of strength, so the government’s objectives are realized, leaving we in media to cover up the abuses and the lies–that’s our job!’ The point is also to impress any gun-wielding hayseeds or sunshine patriots with the irresistible powers of Leviathan, but this one didn’t work out that way–at least not  so far. Why didn’t it? WOOF has theories (of course!) but first, a look at how things go when the government does its part more efficiently…which is to say more ruthlessly.

Janet Reno knew how to get this sort of thing done!

Clinton's Janet Reno--a lady who knew when enough was unacceptable!

Clinton’s Janet Reno–a lady who knew when enough was unacceptable!

It is tempting to forget,if you knew about it to begin with, that before there was the throbbing embarrassment of Eric Holder making a travesty of the DOJ, there was Janet Reno. Now, comparing Eric holder to Janet Reno would be like comparing Snidely Whiplash to  Ilse Klebb…like comparing a cartoon figure, in other words, to one of Ian Fleming’s most chilling Bond villainesses. Reno was a stone-cold pro. She not only settled a standoff at Waco Texas by storming the place (c0mplete with a tank) and precipitating the incineration of numerous women and children–she stood front and center during the heart-wrenching Elian Gonzales case in 2000. Remember that one?  It bears repeating! After all, it never quite got sorted out whether Reno’s forces actually lit the fatal fires at Waco where the zany religionists of the Branch Davidian church were holed up (and could easily have been waited out rather than massively assaulted); but her role in the stomach-churning return of little Elian Gonzales to the loving arms of Fidel Castro will live in the Black Book of Communism’s later editions. Horrible as it was, there was no fire in the Gonzales incident, hence no flambeed civilians, but because the seizure itself was particularly indefensible by any standard of decency, TV news doesn’t rerun the details very often. Not to worry, WOOF has them solidly in mind!

Elian versus Clinton, Reno, and Castro.

Elian during his brief flirtation with Americanism,

Elian during his brief flirtation with Americanism,

In November of 1999 Elian was packed aboard an aluminum skiff with his mother and 12 other Cubans who had wearied of Fidel Castro’s socialist paradise, and the intrepid band made way for Miami. Somewhere in the Straits of Florida , alas, 13-foot waves swamped the boat, it’s engine failed, and the majority of those aboard drowned, including Elian’s mother, but not before she placed Elian in an inner tube so that he could remain afloat.  The boy was plucked from the water the next day by fishermen, who turned him over to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service which in turn placed little Elian in the custody of his paternal great-uncle, Lázaro. The arrival was expected because Gonzales’s father, Juan Miguel Gonzales Quintana had phoned ahead, and cautioned the relatives to remain alert  for his son’s and wife’s arrival. Five-year-old Elian was released from the hospital in Miami into the custody of his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, and other doting relatives in Miami. Despite the anguish of losing his mother to the angry sea, Elian began, by all appearances, a happy, middle class existence with his loving relatives. And there it might well have ended, especially since Janet Reno’s department of justice initially recused itself from the event, leaving the Miami courts clear jurisdiction–and the Miami courts were amenable to retaining Elian in country with his American family, as his dying mother had wished. Suddenly, however, the Cubans demanded Elian’s return. To make matters plainer, Fidel Castro himself demanded Elian’s return, and the effect on the Clinton White House was electrifying.

So long, Miami–howdy Fidel!

INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, alert to Fidel's bidding!

Clinton-era INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, alert to Fidel’s bidding in 2000, now ensconced within the subversive Carnegie Endowment. Shocking, we know!

To fully grasp the impact of Castro’s insertion into the affair, one must recognize that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were (and remain) ardent devotees of the collegial “New Left” whose institutional awe of Fidel Castro outstrips even its endemic reverence for Mao Tse-Tung or such epochal luminaries as Angela Davis or, well, Bill Ayers! To have Castro enunciate his desire in the Gonzales affair had the same effect on Bill and Hillary that the average hippy would have experienced had Bob Dylan rung him up and asked for a solid. The man had spoken. But just as the current president prefers to affect a kind of dazed disengagement from the the villainies of his cabinet heads and “Czars,” so in those days the Clintons preferred that appointees, rather than the president, appear to enact policies that to American news viewers, unaware of the liberal Democrat fixation on the Marxist pantheon, might seem senseless, or even deplorable. First, after Castro’s wishes became known, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, (a standard globalist pinko with the Carnegie Endowment in her future) ruled that Elian’s father, back in Cuba, had legal custody. This was not agreeable to the Miami courts, however, where a circuit court judge granted emergency custody to Elian’s uncle Lazaro in Miami. This refreshingly salubrious performance by Florida’s courts lit a veritable fire under Janet Reno, who suddenly un-recused herself and demanded that the court ruling be swept aside so that Elian could be repatriated to Cuba.

Thus, the U.S. Government (that’s yours and ours, gentle readers), demanded that the courts dismiss the judgment granting emergency custody to Elian’s uncle, following which his return to Cuba was demanded. Fidel Castro sent Elian’s stay-behind daddy over with his new wife and their infant child to hit the American airwaves demanding Elian’s return.  Papa Juan was tightly handled by Cuban agents while on our shores, and while it would require a more sanguine view of Castroite tactics than WOOF is able to muster to suppose for a moment that the cute little baby accompanying Juan and his new wife was actually theirs (that actual baby being held in a safehouse in Havana pending the couple’s completion of their American assignment, we dast hypothesize) the American media fell for it like a ton of blockheads and the Cuban community in Miami wound up guarding Elian in the modest home of his American relatives with the fierce tenacity of those who knew exactly what awaited him 90 miles off our coast. Janet Reno was not interested in such cold war fanaticism, however–she “officially” met with Juan Miguel Gonzales and declared that Elian would be sent “home” to his father’s custody.  Things were looking desperate–but at the last moment rescue came from the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals. The court officially blocked Elian’s return to Cuba, reaffirming that custody rested with the boy’s American relatives. Three days later, on April 22, 2000, while the Cuban community was still celebrating the reprieve, Janet Reno, the hero of Waco, ordered an armed pre-dawn raid of Elian’s Miami residence where machine-pistol waving agents found a terrified Elian hiding with a relative in a bedroom closet, removed him at gunpoint, and made darn well sure he went home to Fidel Castro. (The legalities were all reformulated subsequent to the seizure–no biggie). We go into some detail about this to make the point that government tyranny didn’t begin with President Obama, and seemed equally devoid of rhyme or reason back in 2000;  “seemed” being in each instance the operative term.

this one

Don’t worry little boy, I’m from the government and I’m here to help!

But our main purpose in reviewing these incidents, (and one might, of course, mention Ruby Ridge and other similar federal fiascos here, as well…) is to demonstrate the changing nature of government running amok, even as the similarities remain obvious. In the past, egregious excesses of authority were undertaken to satisfy short-term tactical ends. Waco was simple mismanagement of an attempt to end an embarrassing situation– and the ATF and Janet Reno wound up, in their arrogance and ineptitude, looking like, at the very least, acessories to manslaughter–not that it mattered. President Clinton assured Americans that he had no part in the decision to assault the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, but he never even bit his lower lip over the outcome–a few less gun-storing, Bible thumping nut jobs to worry about. But there was no grand design being effectuated at Waco, just a bunch of pee-ohed governmental authorities getting ticked off at David Koresh and committing mass violence that more or less accidentally resulted in the deaths of  77 men, women, and children.  It showed potential cult leaders what happens to people who mess with the Feds– and because Koresh was a bonafide nutjob and his followers deserving of the epitaph “cultists,” the American public seemed content to remain ambivalent about the massacre–which occurred on April 19th, by the way–almost seven years exactly before the Gonzales seizure. Maybe April is the cruelest month…we were never sure what T.S. Eliot meant by that.  Janet Reno is rumored (by Dick Morris, for example) to have won reappointment to Justice after threatening to reveal Clinton’s role in the assault if he dropped her. WOOF cannot confirm this story, but prefers to believe it. No matter how these criminally wanton aggressions were planned and green-lighted within the Clinton administration, they were isolated instances of arrogant people in positions of authority meting out ham-fisted violence to powerless people who ran afoul of their sociopolitical fetishes. Elian Gonzales was repatriated to satisfy Castro’s ego and image, and Waco burned because the drawn out standoff was making the administration look impotent. In neither instance was a rehearsal for some larger strategic objective a factor. But that was then.

The Branch Davidian compound goes up in flames on national television.

The Branch Davidian compound goes up in flames on national television. President Clinton immediately pronounced himself surprised by the attack.

There was something very different in the air this April, however. If one were astrologically inclined –and we are not, especially in the wake of Dr. Gootensteiner Johannes Walters’s now woefully apparent misjudgement of Barack Obama’s presidential longevity [see intensely embarrassing story here]– one might assume that some planetary alignment aroused the universal impulse toward intimidation in a risk-riven season. Russian troops are poised to seize the Ukraine despite our president’s many brave twitters, Russian jets buzz our warships at sea, Russian spy planes encroach British airspace, Iran smirks at our pretenses of diplomacy and prepares to extirpate Israel, North Korea tosses artillery at South Korea lobs occasional ordinance toward Japan, and probably detonated an underwater nuke (witness the total absence of press coverage), and our beloved leader, weary of drawing lines in the sand that everybody ignores with impunity, advances a more domestic but equally ominous salient– one that allows him to exert naked force against the only adversaries his worldview authentically recognizes, namely Americans. You know Americans– a bunch of desperate clingers to guns and religion, reluctant to embrace socialism, stubbornly espousing individuality and freedom, callously refusing to join the wiser nations of the globe in renouncing liberty in the name of internationalism, security and uniformity…a bunch of pains in the presidential tokus. There is, in all the pushing and provocation from Washington the sense that a new level of internecine dysphoria is being encouraged– as though some dark, luciferian equivalent of the bridge at Concord is being goose-stepped towards by a the shock troops of our new anti-American oligarchy–  but if the shock troops we risk confronting in the nonce are by no means as professional as their 18th century British predecessors, they are more cunctative–more  inclined to probe and test than to march bravely forward.  It is the gravamen of this week’s screed that we have just experienced such a test, and as usual this will take some examination of past events to fully explain. If you bear with us, dear readers, we promise to be accurate, politically dextral, and hilarious, to compensate your time!  If you are willing to venture further, be warned, the first topic of significance is a bunch of turtles– are we still good?

Even this particularly energetic Desert Tortoise won’t really need 500,000 acres of land to frolic on.

How Desert Tortoises stopped worrying and learned to love the Bomb

To get the range war with the now nationally-famous Bundy family in firm perspective, it is of course vital to begin with the mind-numbingly ridiculous, because how else to introduce the role of the federal government in the lives of the peaceful, seventh generation ranchers? So return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, by which we mean 1989. Imagine the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sitting around with plenty of time on its hands,, flipping through the latest Sierra Club magazine, and concluding, based on the thinnest of evidence, that the venerable Desert Tortoise was verging on extinction in its native habitat, the Nevada desert, and that something really ought to be done to protect it. What was done to protect it, of course, is what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service typically does to protect animals about which it reaches such conclusions, which is merely to say, they declared the Desert Tortoise an “endangered species.” When nobody paid much attention to this, because, well, because it was fairly idiotic, they re-listed the tortoises as “threatened,” and the Washington Post (always reliable in such moments) went to press on the turtles’ behalves, demanding the Bureau of Land Management seize and preserve thousands of acres of tortoise country for “strict federal management purposes” (how the Posties love the sound of that kind of talk!) and further demanded the “elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use: in the vast, protected habitat.”

Almost a thousand nuclear detonations in Nevada have failed to put a dent in the Desert Tortoise population--can cows be any more effective?

Almost a thousand nuclear detonations in Nevada have failed to put a dent in the Desert Tortoise population–can cows be any more  threatening?

Up until this time, the tortoises had been fairly laid back denizens of the the American Southwest. Bear in mind that with their home in the Nevadan desert, they had already survived more atomic bomb attacks (well, tests, technically, but an A-bomb’s an A-bomb) than are currently hypothesized as necessary to depopulate Europe. The tortoises have no trouble in heat up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas their human protectors tend to begin dropping dead around 115 degrees. The turtles spend 98% of their time underground and can survive a year without access to water. They live in burrows of about 20 tortoises each, thrive on calcium they derive from the Nevadan soil, and have no trouble whatsoever procreating or hatching eggs. Although once in a while one gets run over by a vehicle, there are no confirmed reports of any Desert Tortoises succumbing to cow stomping or horse hoofing…and until 1993 when the major conservation efforts took effect and they suddenly found themselves land barons with sole claim to 500,000 acres of what had previously been other people’s land, the tortoises were a distinctly nonchalant, unassuming bunch.  Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the Bureau of Land Management or the histrionically disordered reportorial staff of the Washington Post. At approximately this juncture, the federal government crossed paths with Cliven Bundy, whose family first homesteaded the land in 1877.

When his family’s acreage was rather perfunctorily designated a tortoise preserve by the government, Bundy refused to accept the government’s gracious offer to hand him some cash for his grazing lands, and added insult to injury by refusing to pay the fines imposed upon him for continuing to use his ranch for ranching even after the Bureau of Land Management clearly explained that it was now a turtle habitat. It is a well established fact, acknowledged by all parties to the dispute, that since 1993 the Bureau of Land Management has repeatedly levied fines against Cliven Bundy for grazing his cattle on his own ranch in wanton disregard of the BLM’s insistence that his ranch is a tortoise preserve. Also undisputed is that Cliven has not paid a dime, since he persists in deeming the BLM’s machinations a land grab, and considers the acreage his birthright. Predictably, the Bureau of Land Management wearied of Bundy’s obduracy and revoked his ranching permit– and just as predictably, Bundy ignored the revocation and continued ranching. So did a number of other area ranchers including Norm Tom, a Paiute Indian whose tribal identity isn’t buying him any leniency from the Feds. Asked by reporters if he intended to resist with weapons, Tom replied in the affirmative and offered to show the horrified journalists his cache. He produced two copies of the United States Constitution.

9th Circuit Court of APpeals--WOOF file photo

 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–WOOF file photo

Bundy fought several court injunctions demanding that he remove his cattle from his ranch lands now that they were federal tortoise preserves. The 9th circuit court in San Francisco has repeatedly dismissed efforts by Bundy and other ranchers like Cliff Gardner to appeal on the basis of states rights, which can hardly shock the informed observer given the reputation of the 9th Circuit Court.  And all this long-standing rancor seemed to come to a sudden head over the past month, as even those of us who live in a cave know by now.  The BLM insisted that they were merely attempting to enforce a court order to seize 1000 head of cattle owned by Bundy as a down payment on what they claimed was a one-million dollar grazing debt run up  by the rancher since 1993.  In doing so, the normally bucolic Bureau of Land Management turned suddenly paramilitary, encircling the Bundy ranch with armed agents and sharpshooters, closing off access roads to and from the property with roadblocks manned by shotgun-brandishing agents, and filling the skies with armadas of black helicopters (John A. Keel please call your office). The helicopters were presumably needed to keep tabs on all those turtle-squishing bovi, although multiple witnesses insist that helicopters were occasionally seen shooting cattle–a report confirmed by Cliven Bundy’s son who insists that some of his cattle were found with as many as five bullet holes in their corpses.  Perhaps the order to seize the cattle read “dead or alive,” but for its part, the BLM insisted that the cattle were “euthanized,” in some instances because they “posed a significant threat to employees.” Exactly how one tippy-toes up to “euthanize” a cow that has been declared a threat so dangerous as to require euthanization was not explained– maybe shooting the cow five times constitutes euthanasia…we’re not technically certain.

snipe helo

At any rate, snipers who reportedly trained their rifles on tourists taking photos, BLM “workers” infiltrating his traditional property boundaries and making off with his cattle, plus a single day in which BLM agents managed to physically assault a cancer victim, sic a dog on a pregnant woman whom they later asserted had attacked the dog, and use a taser on Ammon Bundy when he protested a further encroachment on the family property, inspired Cliven Bundy to call upon Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie to arrest the Bureau of Land Management operatives for trespassing and rustling. Gillespie, understandably, was not keen on trying to stuff the BLM personnel into the back of his cruiser, especially considering the encompassing array of camouflage-clad snipers visible in aerial photos of the Bundy ranch, while the federal government seemed less inclined to circumspection, next arresting Dave Bundy for taking video footage of BLM agents rounding up his family’s cattle.

Inbred Bastards?

And this is just the Sheriff's new ride!

And this is just the Sheriff’s new ride!

Tensions intensified further as various area and out-state militia cadres swarmed to the defense of the Bundys and showed every indication of offering armed resistance should the government forces continue their aggressions. “Our mission here is to protect the protestors and the American citizens from the violence that the federal government is dishing out,” explained Jim Landy, a member of the West Mountain Rangers, who traveled from his home base in Montana to make common cause (excuse the expression) with the besieged Nevada ranchers. Landry was not the only militia stalwart to offer his views to the press, but perhaps he should have been. Richard Mack, an Arizona militiaman who came to the aid of the Bundys was pleased to announce, “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

But the opposition was not to be outdone in a contest of sheer asininity. Clark county Commissioner Tom Collins was pleased to inform Darin Bushman, his counterpart in Piute County, Utah, that any Utahns thinking of entering Nevada with the idea of supporting the Bundys “had better have funeral plans,” to which Collins thoughtfully appended his view that people from Utah were “inbred bastards.”  Adding an extra dash of stupid, the feds decided to set up “free speech zones” three miles from the location of the standoff where, by special permission, one assumed, protesters would be permitted to assemble and state their views.  Judge Andrew P. Napolitano neatly summarized this nonsense, pointing out that the constitution “will not condone free speech zones for the sake of government convenience. The entire United States of America is a free speech zone.” Duh!

The outspoken Tom Collins–so, where’s Billy Jack when we need him?

Flashpoint ?

As a made-to-order flashpoint serving the interest of an administration desperate to bolster the presidency as a power source and marginalize congress as a gaggle of neigh-saying sycophants, the Bundy crisis must have seemed initially ideal. If the militia and the ranchers saw it as a kind of second Concord where the second American Revolution could begin afresh, the president’s radical mentors and advisors must have glimpsed a second Reichstag–  the perfect flashpoint for a final push to authoritarian governance backed by a military stripped in advance of generals and admirals who might have opposed involvement in such a maneuver [as detailed previously].  While the hearts of the heartland might be mightily sympathetic to the Bundys and their militia allies, the air support and armor available to the government would have settled the issue ultimately, even as the armed resistance to the BLM would have provided the rationale for bringing such force to bear. The temptation to “pull the trigger” and roll into the Bundy ranch, ostensibly to collect an alleged million dollars in unpaid fines, must have been powerful indeed. Certainly the event served the administration well as a test case, enabling it to take careful note of how much force assembled to oppose it, what tactics those forces proposed to employ, and what level of support or condemnation the American people evinced for the resistors. All this, rest assured, has been duly noted by the appropriate czars and cabinet apparatchiks.  But why did the government suddenly curb its enthusiasm and fade into the night?  Was it simply the Obaman hesitancy to finalize a threat whenever blood and steel may be involved? Probably not. It is certainly not the case that the BLM suddenly perceived a threat to public safety–that threat was patent from the beginning of the showdown.


Enter “Sunshine” Harry Reid

Maybe Harry just loves turtles?

The plot thickened considerably when Harry Reid, Red China, and the ever-rambunctious Alex Jones entered the picture more or less simultaneously. Jones’s revelations are typically too extreme to catch fire nationally (which is hardly to say they can’t be accurate) but his breaking claim that Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was behind the ranch grabs–and his conjoined accusation that Reid was conniving to turn the lands over to Chinese solar energy firms as part of a secret deal with Beijing was cited in The Drudge Report and subsequently enjoyed 44,0000 Facebook shares and nearly as many Twitter mentions. While some analysts dismissed the notion as, well, notional, other sources began to run with it, including (mirabile dictu) Reuters. Close on the heels of Jones’s runaway revelations came the additional insight that (coincidentally enough) the new head of the Bureau of Land Management, Niel Kornze, prior to his approval by the Senate (which immediately preceded the crack down on the Bundy ranch), was Harry Reid’s top aide. In fact, Kornze had worked for Reid for the past eight years, and nobody could cite a legitimate reason for his appointment at the BLM except, of course, that the Senate Majority Leader (aka Harry Reid) seemed to want him there.


Remember him in “The Texan?”

WOOF knows that Reid’s son Rory was orchestrating a huge land deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Nevada, but the proposed site was 180 miles from Bunkerville, where the Bundys operate their 150-acre ranch. It is widely alleged that the deal collapsed months ago. Rumors to the contrary and rumors that adjacent lands including some of the Bundy acreage were to be utilized by the Chinese for additional purposes of “mitigation” are unconfirmed. One thing seems certain, and that is Harry Reid’s dark assertion that this isn’t over yet.  How and why it isn’t over are the remaining questions.

Concord postponed, Sumpter interrupted… 

Regardless of what our critics persist in believing, WOOF is not opposed to reasonable solutions to the Nevadan land dispute—we are only sensible of the fact that “reasonable” usually gets usurped by the media and the inside-the-beltway oligarchy to mean liberal. The other problem with reasonableness is that when it isn’t a euphemism for liberal, it runs immediately afoul of liberalism. Take the perfectly sensible suggestion from Gracy Olmstead, associate editor at The American Conservative, that because the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association contends that there is no scientific proof that cattle have ever harmed a Desert Tortoise, people on Bundy’s side of the issue should begin “researching this, amassing evidence, putting together a solid case.”  “If they can prove this,” writes Olmstead, “they could get greater access to the land.” Now Gracy Olmstead seems like a smart enough lady, but is she joking, or pathologically naïve? Anybody who thinks the progressive movement is amenable to scientific data contradictory to its politically correct codes of belief must have slept through the global warming circus and failed to note that death by overpopulation and the exhaustion of earth’s oil supply are conspicuous by their absence…does anybody truly believe the government will give up its fixation on the tortoise stomping cow? But the real agenda for the Left is not environmental–ever.  The real agenda is control. And the Bundys were the perfect dry run for a a confrontation planned to lead, ineluctably, to martial law and a permanentized president. 


Sisters of Cliven Bundy, Lillie Spencer(L) and Margaret Houston (R) walk with Bundy’s sons Ammon and Ryan

It may not have proceeded for several reasons. First, the sympathies in the region–and nationally–seemed disproportionately on the side of the Bundys…this dissipated a bit only after Cliven took it upon himself to make some spectacularly obtuse remarks comparing slavery to the current Black acquiescence in liberal politics and remarked that slaves may have been happier than Blacks living in torn families and government high rises courtesy of the Democratic Left.. an idiotism that, if devoid of any actual malevolence toward Blacks, seemed redolent enough of Jim Crow to pass easily for bigotry.  Amplified by the shrieking news media, Bundy’s comments served to brand him a redneck racist, but belatedly so, the government having backed off its war footing just prior to Cliven’s regrettable remarks.

Cliven explained why Blacks were happier as slaves than as Democrats, but

Cliven explained why Blacks were possibly happier as slaves than as Democrats, but his speech made almost nobody happier, except the mainstream media.  

Another possibility is that the asymmetry of the government’s response to the presumed threat, i.e., a rancher not paying his grazing fees, seemed absurd on the face of it, regardless of what may have been Bundy’s genuine legal obligations. After all, a good Reichstag-style flim flam demands high drama of a sort that will inflame the imaginations of the citizenry, not merely excuse heavy handed reprisals, and attacking the Bundy homestead was never an attractive casus belli from the federal standpoint. Their ideal scenario would be a bunch of fat-cat businessmen taking innocent minority women and children hostage and barricading themselves inside a Republican headquarters somewhere in Mississippi– but that sort of dream situation would be tough to orchestrate. One point is clear: whether the powers that be saw the Bundy escalation as a good way to kick off internecine violence intended to conduce toward a police state, or whether they were testing the scenario to gauge the number and quality of the opposition as well as the media reaction,  their intentions underwent a sea-change at the first mention of Harry Reid and Communist China, and suddenly, in place of all the rampant bellicosity, one heard the most conciliatory tones. Reid’s own hit man in place at the head of the BLM, the stunningly unqualified  Neil Kornze, abandoned his appetence for brinksmanship and found himself announcing that, “Due to escalating tensions, the cattle have been released from the enclosures in order to avoid violence and help restore order.”  (Actually, a good deal of them had just been released because militia members and Bundy supporters on horseback had ignored warnings they’d be fired upon, advanced on the cattle pens, and released the impounded stock.) Nevertheless, it was wonderful to perceive how swiftly the BLM turned its thoughts to the safety of the citizenry once Harry Reid’s connection was broached by Alex Jones and Reuters–surely the oddest couple of the year to date!

And so, as the angel of peace descends amid the snarls of contention…. 

angel of peaceWith the sudden volte face of the Bureau of Land Management followed almost immediately by the racially embarrassing ruminations of the senior Bundy, followed by Harry Reid’s insistence that the affair was far from settled, followed by revelations that the Reid family was manipulating the BLM toward whatever ill-starred ends, came a cascade of judgments regarding the events and non-events of the great Bundy standoff. Predictably, the Left was united. The Bundys were racist law-breaking renegades and the law should have been enforced– and by the way they were racist, law-breaking renegades and oh, by the way, they were Mormon, and yes, of course, this all proved the Tea Party was psycho. And just as predictably, the Right was scattered all over the philosophical landscape. The above-mentioned Alex Jones considered the cessation of bellicosity a tremendous victory, as did many Tea Party and militia groups. The reasons are obvious.  Sean Hannity made a more cautious point of remarking the lack of proportionality in the government response, telling his audience, “I stand for proportionality. What I do not stand for are 200 armed federal agents and snipers pointing their guns at the Bundy family and their supporters. I do not support members of the BLM pushing, shoving women, and cattle being euthanized and killed, and mass graves for cattle for no reason.”  On the other hand, the beautiful and talented Ann Coulter viewed Bundy’s support as a dextral version of Occupy Wall Street, telling CNN’s Bill Weir that “Republicans and conservatives ought to learn, be careful before you choose a mascot.”  And it would be lovely indeed to suppose the American Right to be educable in this regard–educable as a kind of sociopolitical entity suddenly alert to Coulter’s suggestion that better methods and better leadership can better focus and display the righteous anger of the nation’s free citizenry. But let’s not be naive, gentle readers.



Battles that begin wars never–okay, almost never– ramify from well chosen, carefully considered sociopolitical decisions. From those ancient days in which it is said the reign of King Arthur ended on Glastonbury plane because some guy drew a sword to smite a snake and set off a massive overreaction, all the way through to the Gulf of Tonkin, Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and the bizarre belief that American arms were needed to topple Qaddafi (this week’s spelling) in Libya, wars have been triggered by relatively picayune gestures. Consider the “shot heard round the world” for instance. Everybody heard it, but to this day nobody knows who fired it.  It might have been the town drunk. It was the result that took on grand proportion, and conduced toward the grandest of geopolitical manifestations: The United States of America.

So bickering about how qualified Cliven Bundy may or may not be to serve as the proximal cause of civil war, or merely as a catalyst of Conservative wrath, is to miss the more robust point; namely, how easily an internecine cataclysm may be ignited when it suits the purposes of the nation’s real troublemakers, most of whom hold cabinet rank or better, and all of whom prefer socialism to the product of our first revolution. Sun Tzu, the legendary military strategist of the late 6th century, B.C., warned in The Art of War against allowing one’s enemy to choose the place of battle. In the Bundy contretemps, both sides appeared welded by fate to the tortoise habitat at issue– but in fact the BLM and their higher-ups in DC had the option of giving or declining battle. Obviously, they decided to decline. Sun Tzu also said that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” and no matter how many ways one may fault the Bundys, they obtained that result– for now–and for this, at least, they deserve our unanimous praise. WOOF PRINT

Honest guys, I was just killing a snake...guys?

Honest guys, I was just killing a snake…guys?

See? You Could Have Spent the Whole Week Fighting Against Banning “Bossy”!

In Let's call the whole thing off forum on March 26, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Did anyone ever call Emma Peel “bossy?”

 “Damage for all our future”

Gentle readers, are you aware of the existence of Sheryl Sandberg? If you are, you are well ahead of WOOF, or rather well ahead of where we were before we became aware of her, perforce, approximately a week ago. It seems that Ms. (as we presume she would prefer to be prefixed) Sandberg is, among other things, the chief operating officer of Facebook, and a graduate of the Harvard School of Business, which in itself probably speaks volumes. Okay, so we thought Facebook was operated more or less exclusively by Mark Zuckerberg out of a solar powered yurt, or something like that, somewhere in White Plains, New York. Evidently we were mistaken. It may be that Facebook’s founder is distracted currently by his traumatic discovery that President Obama is using the National Security Agency to spy on Facebook users. Worse, even after Mr. Zuckerberg dispatched a letter to the president–which he manifestly wrote himself–urging the abandonment of the snooping campaign, and even after he followed up with a phone call to the Oval Office, Facebook’s founder evoked no reaction from his favorite president beyond congenial indifference.


“The dude hung up on me!”

“I‘ve called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future,” Zuckerberg told the press, adding, a bit crestfallen, that “Unfortunately, it seems like it will take a very long time for true full reform.”  WOOF shares Mr. Zuckerberg’s concern that “true full reform” may not be on the president’s schedule for this week, or for the remainder of his term for that matter, and posits that Mr. Zuckerberg’s dumbfoundedness at discovering this may constitute an example of the kinds of legitimate distractions that require Ms. Sandberg’s additional hand on the tiller at Facebook. Still, we might have remained blissfully unaware of Ms. Sandberg’s existence had she not recently given rise to an authentically annoying argument and in doing so intensified our belief that the country’s so-called intelligentsia is currently insane.

The Sandberg Initiative


Sheryl Sandberg–gainsaying “bossie” for the ages.

Yes, we know, Boeing 777s are going missing over the South China Sea, and Russian troops are flooding the Crimea, and Iran is preparing to nuke Israel while the EPA is busy fining farmers 75K per diem for building ponds on their own property—and you are probably wondering why in the midst of all this we are devoting our full attention to Ms. Sandberg’s seemingly moronic exertions, but bear with us—we are admittedly distracted, but it is precisely at times like these, with so many distractions offered from so many quarters, that one does well to refocus on the seemingly mundane…for therein may the Devil’s most cunning exertions oft be descried.

As you may or may not be aware, Sheryl Sandberg has mounted a massive media campaign in which she exhorts her fellow Americans, seemingly in all seriousness, to ban the word “bossy.” That’s right. Ban it. And if Sheryl Sandberg were alone in this bizarre manifestation of psychosis, it would probably be dismissible as just one more febrile eruption from the distaff wing of the Liberal Elite. But no, Ms. Sandberg has company. Her fellow petitioners form an odd assortment of like-minded luminaries, some as predictable as the wearisome Beyonce, or at least as unsurprising as Jennifer Warren (who battled reality for 5 seasons on Alias), but others as jarring as Condoleezza Rice—et tu, Condi?—and the Girl Scouts of America. Okay, to be honest, the Girl Scouts have been a leftwing instrument of subornment for decades now, but it’s still a bit saddening.

TV star Jennifer Garner is positively insistent--"bossy" must go!

TV “Alias”star Jennifer Garner seems positively insistent–“bossy” must go!

We realize that some of you are learning of Ms. Sandberg’s crusade (or is that a banned word?) for the first time here, and if you are not as nuts as she is, you may be wondering what would bestir a person to suddenly declare war on a simple, two-syllable, informal adjective. Even assuming that Ms. Sandberg has no life whatsoever and is utterly desperate for some means of passing her time (which is surely not the case), what could possibly possess her to launch a nationwide campaign to eradicate this simple, workaday colloquialism from our vernacular? What peculiar obsession drove her to establish a campaign website [viewable here] where visitors can “Pledge to Ban Bossy” and download scads of unimaginative, generic looking propaganda to further the cause?

In love with the spirit!

Victoria Coren Mitchell--in love with the spirit!

Victoria Coren Mitchell–in love with the spirit!

What collective slippage befell an American nation in which boundless enthusiasm is almost instantly forthcoming from numerous media outlets in support of a campaign the most striking features of which are inanity and fascism?  Do you remember when these were the basic ingredients of slapstick?  Chaplin combined inanity with fascism in “The Great Dictator” and audiences rolled in the aisle. Mel Brooks did it again in “The Producers” and achieved a similar result—but nowadays liberalism repeatedly conjoins these juxtapositionally-hilarious concepts, and nobody even titters—on the contrary, the news pundits nod reverently even as the blogosphere erupts with approval. Victoria Coren Mitchell of the Guardian acknowledged the irony of commanding people not to be bossy, but hastily added, “I’m in love with the spirit of the campaign!”


Christine Arreola: So, maybe we should tell bossy women to just not be so trail-blazey?

Rossalyn Warren at Upworthy gasped, “This word may seem harmless, but why are boys never called bossy?” And that’s the point here, in case you haven’t guessed. Women are the putative victims of this newly-discovered anti-female pejorative! And in that light, Judith Ireland of the Canberra Times has judged the banning of ‘bossy’ a beginning, but only a beginning, calling for the banning of such additional offenses against women as  “stubborn,” “pushy,” ”emotional,” ”sensitive” and ”shrill.” On a positive note, Christine Arreola of The New Abides, while saluting the ban, was good enough to suggest some allowable alternatives. Next time you are on the verge of calling someone bossy—assuming that someone is female—try saying “assertive, bold, [or] confident,” or, you may legitimately refer to the female in question as “a trailblazer.” “Just don’t call them bossy.”

Broad Themes

Ann Handly" "I almost wrote as a woman..."

Blogger Handly “I almost wrote as a woman…'”

Blogger/author/lecturer Ann Handley offered her view that a more nuanced discussion of leadership might prove more helpful than a simple word ban, but seemed to suffer afterthoughts, declaring, “It’s hard not to love the movement that Sheryl (and now the Girl Scouts) have ignited.” Really? Handley then added, “I almost wrote, ‘As a woman… it’s hard not to love…’ But you know what? It’s hard for any modern, thinking person not to get behind the broader themes of Sheryl’s mission.”  Perhaps this is so, but WOOF has no problem at all not getting behind those broader themes—perhaps because we have no ‘modern, thinking persons’ here in the WOOF cave; but just as probably because we have a much scarier interpretation of what the “broader themes” of Sheryl Sandberg’s mission really conduce toward. Like, for instance, the lobotomization of the American mind (and the effective prohibition of protest against the fascistic implications of liberal dominance.) Yes, gulp. WOOF smells bolshevism in the wind!

The Bloom Imperative


Dr. Edelstein: Class sensitive!

All right, we understand that  collectivist tyranny was never the announced intention of political correctness, which viewed from the poop deck of the good Ship Lollipop (domestic liberalism’s flagship) is still redolent of sweetness and light…and social justice, that most malignant of enticing euphemisms. And since one of the customary ports of call for the Good Ship Lollipop is Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, we thought we would borrow a few strands of pearlescent wisdom from one of that backwater dockyard’s most representative denizens and quote a considerable portion of what the estimable Marilyn Edelstein, Ph.D., has to say on the subject. “First,” Dr. Edelstein declares, “political correctness is used to describe the goals of those advocating a more pluralistic, multicultural, race-, gender-, and class-sensitive curriculum. Second, certain academicians are branded politically correct for insisting that intellectual inquiry reflects, to some degree, the values and interests of the inquirer and that aesthetic judgments are always intertwined with moral and political ones.”

closing-american-mind-allan-bloom-paperback-cover-art[WOOF interrupts here merely to point out that Dr. Edelstein errs, quite innocently we’re sure, in her penultimate example. In fact, such academicians as she describes are branded postmodernists, and postmodernism is a considerable distance down the tracks from political correctness for myriad reasons not immediately germane to this discussion] and “Third,” Dr. Edelstein concludes, “and most harshly, people are labeled politically correct for advocating university policies designed to minimize sexual and racial harassment on campuses. Fuller understanding of these three issues is critical if the widening public debate over political correctness is to become fruitful and illuminating rather than bitter and confused.”  It is stacking the deck, of course, to insist that any debate over political correctness (insofar as any such debate must perforce include critics of the topic, brandishing arguments they presumably deem as valid or more valid than Dr. Edelstein’s) cannot prove “fruitful or enlightening” unless Dr. Edelstein’s highly mootable points are conceded exordially. This is a classic example of how debate is framed on liberal campuses, of course, and we have already learned from Dr. Edelstein’s characterization that any participants not eager to accept her definitions as starting points are “bitter and confused,” and no thinking individual wants that!  This is the kind of cyclical paralogism that Allan Bloom used as fodder for his brilliant 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind.

To simplify Bloom’s point as it applies to the immediate situation, we have been told by this protectress of open scholarly enquiry what it is that one must espouse and rehearse in order to be open minded. We have then been told that views of a decidedly contrary nature to the ones exposited by Dr. Edelstein are…well…narrow minded. And because the champions of open discourse and freedom of thought (that would be Dr. Edelstein, her students and her colleagues on the faculty, in case you haven’t guessed) cannot permit their cherished venue of free and open discussion to be sullied by the narrow minded Neanderthals at the gates, spreading their “bitter and confused” rhetoric—they must be banished—banished in the name of academic liberty, no less–and thus, per Bloom, we witness the closing of the American mind in which heavy-handed censorship disports itself as the defense of free expression. Once you understand Bloom’s insight, you understand the fascistic nature of the modern American campus. Sadly, the professors aren’t any better aware of it, but at least you are.

Condi and the Pirates

As a matter of fact, we liked it when Condi looked bossy--we liked it a lot!

As a matter of fact, we liked it when Condi looked bossy–we liked it a lot!

One of the most enticing as well as saddest ironies of the phenomenon—this closing of the American mind on campuses around the nation, is the damage it metes out to even its would-be supporters so far as the word-banning business is concerned. For well over a decade, we here in the WOOF cave have been lambasted by many well intentioned readers and recipients of WOOFALERTS who deem our enthusiasm for Dr. Rice unwarranted. We have invariably shrugged this off, and as some of you know we unhesitatingly endorsed Dr. Rice for the Republican nomination in 2008, util she sensibly but irresponsibly insisted she preferred to watch football. We continue to believe that had Condi accepted the mantle of her party’s leadership and battled Barack Hussein Obama for the presidency, she would have beaten him, and served honorably and brightly as our nation’s first Black, and first female chief of state. Instead, sadly, Dr. Rice preferred to follow the NFL and play piano, and WOOF has said in previous postings that nobody bears more blame for the devastation wrought upon this Republic by the Marxist, Obama, and his communist confreres, than Condoleezza Rice—and yet we persist in adoring her. We were all the more shocked, we confess, to see her participating (at least to the point of doing a cameo and saying a line or two) in a ban-bossy commercial produced by Sheryl Sandberg’s demented Lean-in Foundation. Rather on a par, we thought, with Newt Gingrich’s shatterpated decision to sit on a sofa with Nancy Pelosi discussing the putative encroachments of global warming. McCain? Of course—or Dole? From them this sort of giddy bipartisanship is to be expected and dismissed with a groan—but Newt? Honestly, WOOF thought better of the man.

One of those moments that you can just never get back!

Nancy and Newt, awaiting the ocean’s rise: One of those moments you can just never take back!

But probably anyone can have a Newt moment, and perhaps Condi’s was her ill-considered willingness to join up with Sandberg and her merry band of lexical brownshirts. Sometimes, too, it must be acknowledged that a certain yearning to be deloused socially—to be treated cordially by the Post and the NY Times, to be toasted smilingly by the inside-the beltway society mavens, can get the best of even the stoutest among us. Certainly McCain and Lindsey Graham play ball for this reason, and because they are not intelligent men, they have never understood their rolls as patsies—useful idiots to be praised and televised while agreeing with the Democrat Left until, inevitably, the time comes ‘round when scalding them with published venom once again takes tactical precedence.  McCain and  Graham will never learn, because they’re blockheads. But Condi? We cannot bring ourselves to impute to her such tawdry motivations as impel the miscreancies of a Graham or a McCain—nor a Susan Collins nor a Michael Castle (ugh!)—no, she is a better person than they. She may have been honoring a friendship, or repaying a debt—she may, we feel obliged to consider, actually feel that women will fare better in seeking higher positions if the sexist rhetoric that invariably greets a strong woman in pursuit of a position of power is cooled through the raising of consciousness—and if this is what motivated her, we will accuse her of nothing more damnatory than niavte. But Condoleezza—and after all the emails we sent you begging you to run seven years ago, we feel as though we can address you as Condoleezza in a fullness of unwavering affection– if you were in any degree driven by the fantasy that you might somehow defuse the antipathy of the insensate left, perhaps particularly the academic left, by lending your visage and voice to these puerile assaults on free expression, you must already realize the foolish nature of that whim. rutgers village Even now, in the immediate aftermath of Dr. Rice’s association with this leftist campaign, the closing of the American mind as noted and prophesied by Professor Bloom seeks too further disparage her character. As Dr. Rice knows full well, and as you, gentle reader, may or may not know equally well, Rutgers University offered former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Rice the honor of appearing as its commencement speaker this spring.  An honorary doctorate (as though the lady hasn’t enough authentic ones!) was tossed into the bargain, and Dr. Rice graciously accepted. And the student body seemed pleased and open to hearing her address. Not so, however, the keepers of the flame of academic collegiality—no, the sybaritic fops and harpies crowding the Rutgers New Brunswick Faculty Council hollered, nyet, nyet, nyet!  These fading Yippees and mothballed bra burners were horrified—horrified that somebody whose views might in certain degrees clash with the accepted truths that pass for “open mindedness” on the Rutgers campus be permitted to approach an open microphone over which she might disseminate thoughts distinct from the faculty lounge “unithink” that, needless to say defines open-mindedness for these withering flower children. The threat was appalling enough that the Faculty Council rushed to produce a manifesto stating that “the school should not honor Rice because of her role in the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s use of controversial interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.”  Worse, “Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction”—and while that charge is in every detail preposterous, you may safely assume it is exactly what will be taught to the zombie army of Rutgers students whose professors will program and unleash them to shout Dr. Rice off stage in the event that her invitation holds and she is plucky enough to appear!  There is no sop to the addled left, no matter how sincerely intended, that can buy Rice dispensation against the closing of the American mind! Certainly not her phlegmatic gesture toward the prohibition of a measly little non-standard adjective. And so, you may ask, isn’t the Left waxing “bossy,” in this regard? And no, they will reply—they are “speaking truth to power,” forgetting, conveniently, that the leftist establishment in America is the power!

uh-oh...somebody gets it!

Uh-oh–somebody gets it!

Political correctness: Mao, dressed up like Miss Manners miss manners mao

We heard Dr. Edelstein’s version of what political correctness is—she told us it promoted multiculturalism and limits sexism and racism on campus while ensuring that the only views allowable will be those that are “fruitful and illuminating rather than bitter and confused.”  WOOF has no intention of suggesting that this definition is not authentically representative of Dr. Edelstein beliefs. If we were to accuse her of fascistic tendencies she would almost certainly stare at us, slack jawed and incredulous. She would explain at length that she is open minded, and seeks only to silence those who are not similarly enlightened. That her arguments reflect older, identical arguments effortlessly locatable in Mein Kampf  and  comparable (as indeed they have been broadly compared) to vital underpinnings of Marxist dogma (as here,for instance), might astonish her. The transformation of a magnificent, complexly descriptive language into a severely limited idiolect of prescribed, state-sanctioned usages from which all contrasting or dissenting locutions have been banned is most glaringly an achievement of Mao Tse Tung’s Red China  though it has certainly metastasized since. Propaganda and thought control during Mao’s reign of terror on the communist mainland  pioneered a number of these techniques, most notably a heavy reliance on “ideological remolding” and “thought reform.”

Lenin had so much trouble with his PC-addicted advisors he created "objective truth" as opposed to "relative truth" so they could tell him what was really going on!

Lenin had so much trouble with his PC-addicted advisors he created “objective truth” as opposed to “relative truth” so they could tell him what was really going on!

All this came with the use of a controlled and regimented jargon by which resistant political thinkers could be ostracized by “the people,” subjected to ritual humiliation (not a process invented by the Rutgers Faculty) and either slaughtered or subjected to months of political study undertaken in “re-education camps” where forbidden concepts and words were replaced with words and concepts acceptable to the communist government. One of the great misnomers of the radical ‘60s (one that Lyndon Johnson could not be disabused of during his disastrous presidency) was that Russian KGB agents were running the left-wing youth movements of the “New Left” out of Moscow. This was largely untrue (although Moscow was certainly making a game effort!) Unlike the McCarthy era of a decade earlier, during which the Department of State, the educational system, mainline churches, labor unions and the arts were heavily and successfully infiltrated by conscious agents of the Soviet Union, the radical youth of the 60s were drawn far more fiercely to Castro in their own hemisphere, and the Maoists in Beijing than to the beetle-browed Brezhnev or the eternally dyspeptic Kosygin, The Russian mission, in any case, might fairly be called accomplished, witness how suddenly our newspapers, magazines, TV programs, church pulpits, and motion pictures took the position of the student radicals within the decade! But the Chinese government was ill prepared at the time to capitalize on their booming popularity among our nations college radicals—they failed to undertake a campaign of subornment on American soil of anything like the magnitude the Kremlin had launched in an era when only McCarthy, Whitaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley and a few gutsy congressmen on the House UnAmerican Activities Committee stood against them. Even without active support from the Chinese Reds, American radicals turned to the literature of Mao’s revolution and dictatorship with reverential enthusiasm. The vital role of propaganda and “thought work” in China’s political subjugation made a tremendous impression on the young leftists in American dorms and urban centers in the late ’60s.  These same ardent students of the Maoist approach to language grew into first-tier leaders of the American Left during the ‘70s and spearheaded the post-Vietnam rush to the extreme left under Carter and Clinton, the use of language as a revolutionary weapon came with them. It came with them into politics, into cabinet appointments, into news reporting and of course, into the universities!

Ominous Parallels (apologies to Leonard Peikoff)

Today the parallels with our own “political correctness” are unmistakable. For example,the Chinese Communists use the technique of “thought work” (sixiang gongzuo) to manipulate language in such ways as may best guarantee popular obedience. These experts insist that while Mao’s campaigns aimed to transform Chinese society by developing a revolutionary lexicon to which loyal citizens of the state were required to adhere, the modern Chinese methods use thought control to spread government views in the media through the shared language of obedience.  Just as significantly, self criticism is mandated for comrades who stray from the approved idiom.  

Case in point

John King, CNN's lexical Hamlet--to report, or not to report?

John King, CNN’s lexical Hamlet–to report, or not to report?

How many of us remember John King at CNN during the Boston Marathon bombings who practically wept as he wrestled with whether or not to report that his informants were telling him a dark-skinned male was being taken into custody by police?I want to be very careful with this because people get very sensitive when you say these things. I was told by one of the sources, who is a law enforcement official, this was a dark skinned male. The official used some other words. I’m not going to repeat them…” (He didn’t dare say Arab, in other words.) Note the Marxist-like self criticism to which he reverted, and the refusal to employ terminologies that were not officially approved by the Leftist Establishment Media. He couldn’t report the news, because it didn’t fit the thought control template! King went into another fit of Marxist self criticism when one of his guests used a “banned” reference. On King’s program of January 19, 2011, a guest analyst committed the grave error of remarking that Rahm Emanuel was going to have it rough in his political bid to become Chicago’s mayor because several other candidates had him “in their crosshairs.” King waited until his non-thought-controlled guest departed the monitor and then turned to the camera in frozen horror to offer a personal apology to his (few) viewers, asking forgiveness for the use of a firearm-related metaphor while on the air.  “We’re trying to get away from using that kind of language” He said, solemnly. (audio available here).

What’s the frequency, Sheryl??

babelSo let’s be clear about the vital point of “PC” rhetoric and its accompanying list of mandated exclusions, shall we? Once you wade through all the persiflage, all the brain deadening goody-two-shoes injunctions to always say this or that, and to never say that or that other thing, you have before you a weapon for the advancement of communist subversion within the United States as potent, or more so than Alger Hiss or Theodore Hall or any of their comrades ever were. For, as the Maoists of the early ‘50s were perfectly aware, once you have shut down a nation’s language—its ability to call a thing by its proper name, or to impugn certain concepts deserving of criticism,  or speak out against the advancement of evil without sounding insensitive and unjust, you have neutered your adversaries so profoundly that you may safely expect to run rings around them while they struggle to formulate descriptions of your perfidies from the paltry set of locutions they retain the right to employ.   This is not exactly a new concept, gentle readers—and it is certainly not originally a communist insight. Take a look at Genesis 11 and you will note that to “confound the language of all the earth” was a tactic used, originally, on the side of the angels, perverted as is everything sacred, by the Worldwide Totalitarian Socialist Consiracy that Governs Us. And should the beleaguered patriot stray from the path of political correctness in his anxiousness to sound the alarm, the lexicon of political correctness comes replete with hundreds of denunciatory buzz lines that will put the upstart to shame without the slightest mental exertion required.

Nancy Keenan, president of Pro-Choice America, presented Sandra Fluke with the Stand Up for Choice Award for her amazing work speaking out for birth control in the face of "a panoply of personal attacks against her" by presenting her the organization's coveted inflated condom award.

Nancy Keenan, president of Pro-Choice America, presents Sandra Fluke with the “Stand Up for Choice Award,” which is evidently fashioned from an inflated condom. 

Should an unwary eristic speak out against homosexuals in the infantry, he can be dismissed as “homophobic” and the day is won. Should he opine that an unchecked flood of undocumented aliens entering our country may deracinate  American culture and bankrupt the exchequer,  one need merely trot out the charge of “xenophobe!” and the issue is cast aside. If the point is raised that Global Warming is unfalsifiable pseudo-science, the scoundrel may be incriminated as a “denier” while those foolish enough to resist the presidential ambitions of Mrs. Clinton are sexists and part of “the war on women” (but we’re coming to that!). Should notice be taken of the large number of known communists by whom the president was raised and educated and with whom he persists in surrounding himself while in office, one need merely invoke the magical phrase “McCarthyism!” and everyone will laugh and ignore reality. Similarly, “neo-cons” think we should spend more on defense, while “Zionists” think wee should support Israel. A politically-correct pejorative renders their desires unconscionable in the liberal cosmogony…just as any special privilege denied a female, such as denying her candy bowls brimming with free contraceptives, becomes “the Republican war on women!” Just as “binders,” those handy repositories of important documents such as dossiers of female candidates for job positions to which the hapless Mitt Romney made reference during the 2012 campaign, was transformed (however irrationally) into some sort of sly, sadomasochistic slur against the fairer sex. Seriously, gentle readers, until we have rolled back political correctness, we are doomed to play the game on the Left’s home court, by the Left’s surreal rules.

“Damn, this again?”

Professor Dyson--somebody must have just called him articulate.

Professor Dyson–somebody must have just called him articulate.

Sure, a lot of political correctness is just mindless schlock—the kind of stuff that slows us down a little, causes us some embarrassed moments of adjustment, but hardly threatens the nation’s security—at least in any overt way. If we must now call a man-hole cover a Personnel Access Unit, or think of a blackboard as a chalkboard so as to remove the connotation of race, or bid one another “happy holidays” in December for fear of imposing Christian values on Muslim or Hindu merrimakers, and if we need to say Asia instead of Orient because some 27-year-old wonk in some ivory tower decided the word “Oriental” was redolent of the “yellow peril, ” we can struggle along. And if we must now satisfy an increasing number of manuals of style by writing “he or she” or “him and her” when any English major could explain the unnecessary nature of doing so—we can adjust. Most of this dreck would erode our language quietly, unobtrusively, even amusingly. But then we get to the next tier of the assault in which some may become sensible that valued institutions are being nibbled upon by lexical termites, our  discomfort seems to intensify. The agenda seems to show itself less timorously and more perfidiously when we are reminded that a professor at Ball State University was recently banned from even mentioning the concept of intelligent design because the term violated “academic integrity.” Okay, so stupid professors don’t kill anybody, but Arab terrorists do.

Nidal Hasan--another disgruntled federal employee!

Nidal Hasan–another disgruntled federal employee!

Take the Fort Hood massacre during which Major Nidal Hasan nonchalantly gunned down 32 of his fellow soldiers. The Army had binders (oops!) of information proving Hasan was an Islamic extremist on the verge of jihad –their files poured forth devastating indictments of the Major, but although the evidence incontrovertibly supported the fact that Hasan’s views were at once psychotic and violent, and that he intended to wreck havoc against his fellow servicemen in the name of Allah, no action was undertaken nor was he ever disciplined for his views. Instead, his record was sheep-dipped in keeping with the military’s policy of downplaying Islamic extremism in its ranks, and his fitness reports were sanitized accordingly. And after he murdered 13 Americans the President re-defined his murder spree as “workplace violence” rather than acknowledge it as terrorism. What an age we live in! But remember, the president is a man who won election to his first term at least in part by conniving with his fully supportive press cadres to excoriate anyone who referred to his middle name, “Hussein.” Allude to it, however respectfully, and you were instantly branded a hater, race-baiter, or worse, an Islamophobe. Major news providers, such as AP and Reuters refuse to use the word terrorist in describing our adversaries in the Middle East, and similar sanctions have been placed upon words once as familiar as “articulate,” (now a code reference for Blacks who speak well, which is evidently insulting.) “You hear it and you just think, ‘Damn, this again?’ ” complained Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, where Blacks evidently know better than to hurl such obloquies at one another, or ever to say “hold down the fort” which the Global Language Monitor reminds us may be offensive to Native Americans, by which is meant, of course, American Indians, although we are not aloud to say so.

The two stupidest…

A little known fact: Actress Kim Novak is a full blooded Native American, tracing her birth to the city of Chicago, Illinois.

A little known fact: Actress Kim Novak is a full blooded Native American, tracing her birth to the city of Chicago, Illinois.

And by the way, the two stupidest political correctisms that WOOF has ever encountered are surely the tendency to describe American Indian’s as “Native Americans,” and the equally absurd phrase “African American,” neither of which makes operative or grammatical sense. First, anyone born in this country is a native American, right? If you were born of a Jewish mother and a Latvian father in Sausalito, California, you may safely refer to yourself as a Native American. You were born here, damn it! So always check the box that reads “Native American” if you were born in the States—it’s your birth right! If we MUST have a special politically correct term for American Indians, why don’t we borrow the Canadian phrase and call them First Nations People? That’s even kind of beautiful, and it doesn’t offend common sense. So why not? (Although polls recurrently demonstrate that most American Indians have no objection to being called American Indians.) As for African Americans, what on earth does this mean? Are they African or American? Are they in the process of deciding? And what makes them African? Are they from there, have they visited there, were they born there?

gary player

DID YOU KNOW? The first African-American golf superstar was Gary Player–he was born in Johannesburg, South Africa!

Do they just dress like they think people would dress who were from there? Does it matter even slightly that 1.1 billion people inhabit Africa’s 12 million square miles, and that these people are divided between 54-plus countries? Or that many of these countries contain large populations of white people, Arabs, Egyptians, and Libyans? Isn’t Gary Player an African American? And what about the millions of Blacks who never came from Africa at all? Jamaicans, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, others from the West Indies? And what about a black person who comes to America from England, or France. Is he now expected to be a British or French African American? “Blacks” was a perfectly good term for our darker brethren back when H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael began insisting on it as opposed to”negro”—it caught on and served the population well, until Jesse Jackson called a press conference in 1988 to announce his decision that Blacks should be called African American and confused the situation utterly.

Why Bossy? Why now? Hmmmm?

hill oneSo is it really high time to add “bossy’ to the long list of liberally banished locutions that must now shamble into the netherworld of once-convivial usages ruled socially unjust by the high priests of the New Lexicography? Must we bid “bossy” adieu as we have “gay” in its original context, or “queer” as a Lovecraftian synonym for odd, or jungle (which must now be rain forest), or fat, which must now be rephrased in some manner we can’t recall off hand, or illegal when conjoined to aliens who are now merely undocumented? WOOF thinks not—in fact, we rather suggest the line be held here…especially since we have late news that no less a person than Sandra Fluke, fresh from protesting the agony of college life without ample supplies of federally-funded condoms, has joined the movement to “ban bossy!”  What further proof is required of this salient’s insipidity?  And here’s another good reason to stand up for bossiness, gentle readers: The agenda behind the particularization of “Bossy” as a proscribed adjective—one to be shunned by sensitive, civilized conversationalists throughout the land—is the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That’s right. Make no mistake, this is no simple, playful beau geste aimed at elevating the tone of male/female colloquy. This is a major campaign-related effort to help nullify, to nip in the bud, one of Hillary Clinton’s most frequently tabulated negatives—the fact that focus group after focus group perceives her as too “bossy.”  Interestingly, the word isn’t really heard all that much in routine parlance except during Hillary’s focus-group debriefings. Was there, really, until this very moment, a decided lexicographical predilection to view the term  as predominantly defamatory of women? Weren’t Perry White and J. Jonah Jameson thought of as “bossy?” Wasn’t Mr. Dithers, the bain of Dagwood Bumstead’s existence, “bossy?” How about R. Lee Ermey?  What about Donald Trump? What about Patton?  Since when did “bossy” become the politer equivalent of the other “b” word?  Since it became a word that threatened Hillary’s march back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that’s since when! And how could a sweet, well-meaning lady like Sheryl Sandberg, busy as a bee just trying to make Facebook a friendlier place to post your chili recipes and funny cat pictures, have possibly gotten herself caught up in a master plan to march a paleo-Stalinist apparat-chick like Hillary Rodham Clinton into the Oval Office?  Well, gosh, Woofketeers, it turns out that Sheryl Sandberg actually knows Mrs. Clinton—hardly extraordinary, of course, the way these glitterati mix it up nowadays, but Sandberg turns out to have worked as chief of staff to Larry Summers under the last Clinton administration. She “maxed out” in her personal donations to Hillary both in 2007 and 2008, and paved the way for a Facebook video featuring Meryl Streep praising Hillary in a way that Sheryl termed, “amazing!” In 2013, Sheryl Sandberg presented Mrs. Clinton with the Champion of Peace Award (we are not making this up) and gushed effusively about the the possibility of a 2016 run for the presidency by her favorite bossy female. It was, apparently, feminist Germaine Greer who brainstormed the idea of banning bossy together in tandem with mind-numbing recitations about “the Republican War on Women,” to which so many of our well meaning yet hopelessly shatterpated fellow voters continue to give credence.

Best friends forever!

Best friends forever, and never bossy, either!

The new Bermuda triangle?

So be aware, brave Woofketeers, that while your gaze was cast skyward in the vain hope of rescue for the ill fated Boeing 777 that so distracted us, more deviltry was being plied here on terra firma, where the “beach prep” for Hillary’s 2016 onslaught is well underway, led by such seemingly trivial entities as Sheryl Sandberg, Jennifer Warren, Sheryl Streep, and yes, now the almost wholly inconsequential Sandra Fluke—her one glimmer of utility being her absurd but always-resurrectable association with that war on women that so infamously required her to shell out for her own condoms.  As always, dear readers, we here at Watchdogs of Our Freedom have kept our eye on the ball, our nose to the ground, and brought you this perspicacious update of what further depredations were visited upon our native tongue whilst the media blathered ceaselessly about everything from secret island airports to black holes to “The New Bermuda Triangle!” (WOOF is not making this up!–Actually CNN is!) And needless to say, we were going to offer some brilliant suggestions in closing as to how this whole, stupefyingly inane effort to ban “bossy” can be adroitly turned against its intended beneficiary to produce the perfect antidote! Sadly, somebody else already went to print with it–but you know us here at WOOF--we’re not proud! So in closing, here’s the perfect way to demonstrate solidarity with Sandberg, Garner, Fluke, et al., without sacrificing a single principle, and while laughing all the way down the road! [click here for a sticker–WOOF, sadly, is unprofitably non-affiliated!] WOOF PRINT

ban bossy sticker

Concept by Glenn Reynolds

“Why would I want to do that?” Or how an unguarded moment from the Senate Majority Reptilian put pediatric cancer in the spotlight

In Let's call the whole thing off forum on October 4, 2013 at 8:44 pm
"But things have come a long way since your dad was ill, Jimmy! Today we have wonder drugs--like Vicodin!"

“But things have come a long way since your dad was ill, Jimmy! Today we have wonder drugs–like Vicodin!”

What do you do with a problem like Harry?

What’s up with Harry Reid? As even his own staff admits off the record, he is a venomously mephitic little churl who holds voters in thinly disguised contempt, and never plumbed a depth to which he was not prepared to stoop in the manufacture of political billingsgate or accusatory simpering. Like, remember the time he took to the floor gushing shock and dismay at Rush Limbaugh’s unforgivable slander of our men and women in uniform? Recall that time? Limbaugh was exasperated, as were many radio talk hosts, by “seminar callers” who got through call screeners by claiming to be serving members of the military. Once on the air they would begin (reading) lengthy denunciations of the war and the military and the Bush administration, but seemed uniformly (excuse the pun) incapable of identifying their units, MOS’s, or even, in many cases, their precise branches of service. An infamous example is Jesse Macbeth, a war critic who falsely but widely claimed to be an Iraq veteran and an Army ranger. In exasperation, on September 28, 2007, Limbaugh referred to such poseurs as “phony soldiers.” Reid took the remark out of context and staged a carefully rehearsed hissy fit, complete with his trademark sniveling conflated with quavering nasalities, all somehow intended to connote moral outrage—an emotion to which Harry Reid has never been authentically subject. Not once.


Of course, if you followed that dust up, you will also remember that Reid, thinking himself on a roll, penned a letter to Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent company of Limbaugh’s broadcasting operation. In his letter, Reid demanded that Limbaugh apologize to the men and women of America’s armed forces, and, preferably, be relieved of his broadcasting duties given the embarrassment he had ostensibly visited upon Clear Channel’s good name. Besides Reid, 40 other Democrats who were either stupid enough to believe that Limbaugh had insulted America’s armed forces, or craven enough to agree to pretend that he had, appended their signatures. These included Hillary Clinton and then-Senator Barack Obama. Mays, citing Limbaugh’s longstanding reputation for unyielding support of our nation’s military men and women, and his enormous popularity with our troops overseas, thanked Reid for his letter, and handed it over to Limbaugh who auctioned it off on eBay, announcing on his program that he would match whatever sum the letter brought, and donate the entire sum to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, a nonprofit that gives scholarship assistance to children of Marines killed in the line of duty. In front of his 20-million-strong audience, Limbaugh then invited Harry Reid to do likewise.

phoney soldiers

Limbaugh’s ‘phony soldier’ remark was never intended for serving members of the armed forces. Here, for example, a typical seminar caller prepares to foist himself off as Army General Wesley Clark.

The accidental philanthropist…

The letter went for 2.1 million, which Limbaugh matched as promised, donating the 4.2 million to the predetermined charity. Reid did not donate a dime, but took to the Senate floor again, purring like a kitten. He announced that he was pleased that a letter signed by himself and some colleagues could bring so much money for “such a good cause.” He said he would have gotten every member of the senate to sign it “but we didn’t have time,” and concluded that “I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.”  “We?” Gosh—anyone might have thought Harry planned the whole moronic kerfuffle with charity in mind. Him and his buddy Rush, right? That’s Harry Reid in one lesson. And for whatever reason, the good people of Nevada re-elected this jackanapes in 2010, but we digress.


Always pleased to help Rush out with a worthy cause!

The Accidental reporter….

Reid is most lately in the news for steadfastly refusing to allow the Senate to give consideration to any bill sent over from the House that might partially or wholly finance various operations of government, but leave Obamacare unsubsidized. Reid and President Obama have firmly stated that no financing of anything will be permitted unless Obamacare is fully funded and operationalized as planned (except, one supposes, for those parts that President Obama has magically suspended in imperious confutation of the Constitution). The idea is simple: Either Harry and Barrack get 100% of what they want, or they won’t allow a funding bill to survive the Senate. Meanwhile, they will point at the chaos this engenders and declare, “Look at what those terrible Republicans have done!” And the lapdog media will cry out as a chorus, “Yes, and it’s all true, too!” And so it has been going for days now.

Dana Bash, an accidental outburst of journalism and Reid called her "irresponsible and reckless!"

CNN’s Dana Bash, an accidental outburst of journalism and Reid called her “irresponsible and reckless!”

But on Wednesday, Dana Bash of CNN pointed out that the GOP had proposed a no-strings-attached bill to fund the National Institute of Health. Bash observed that kids were being turned away from desperately needed cancer treatments and asked Reid if he was not inclined to allow the bill to pass the senate. Reid testily rejoined, “Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.” But Miss Bash persisted, asking Reid, “But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?” And Harry Reid, in one of those epiphanic moments of unguarded selfness replied, or rather seemed to ask rhetorically, “Why would I want to do that?” And then, sensible perhaps of having revealed too much, added, “I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own.” And suddenly conscious of having said entirely too much, he went for the counterattack, turning on Dana Bash with, “This is—to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless!” Yeah, Harry—people like Bash ought to keep their mouths shut, huh!


Higgins was for cancer funding before he voted against it!

With friends like these…

Thursday, while the Liberal Establishment Media spent the morning explaining to one another that Dear Harry had simply fallen prey to a lapsus lingua that belied his legendary heart of gold, the House made another stab at funding cancer treatment for kids. This time, in fact, 35 House Democrats broke ranks and voted for the bill too. But by no means all of them!  Congressman Brian Higgins, (D-NY) moaned that “The Tea Party shutdown will deny 200 patients a week—30 of them kids—treatment at the largest research hospital in the world, the National Institutes of Health,” adding, “These are often last chance cancer treatments that offer the only hope for kids who are stuck with cancer.” Having thus claimed the sympathies of one and all, and painted the bizarre picture of Tea Party activists somehow obstructing kids from receiving cancer treatment, Higgins proceeded to vote against funding the NIH. Did he not hear himself?

Sheila Jackson Lee--might have left her vote for NIH on mars, with Neil's flag?

Sheila Jackson Lee–might have left her vote for NIH on mars, with Neil’s flag?

Then came Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-TX), who famously if belatedly resurrected South Vietnam, explaining from the floor of the House in 2010 that it had learned to live in peace with North Vietnam despite their differences, and perhaps most famous for asking a NASA spokesperson whether the Mars Pathfinder could get a photo of the flag she thought Neil Armstrong  planted on the Martian surface in 1969.  Lee is at least a well-known supporter of pediatric cancer research. She underscored this fact by rising to declare that, “Every 36 minutes a child is diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. That’s enough children to fill a classroom each day, which adds up to almost 15,000 new cases of childhood cancer each year. Today, more than 90% of 13,500 children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States are cured because of the work of researchers like those working at NIH.” Lee then voted against funding the NIH.

Maryland's perennial munchkin menshevik lauds the importance of cancer research, votes against funding it!

Maryland’s perennial menshevik munchkin lauds the importance of cancer research, votes against funding it!

When the bill made its way to the Senate there was an equal outcry of compassion for the nation’s cancer-stricken youth. “The House is sending us bills which on first blush seem attractive,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D.-MD.). “I mean, who doesn’t support our National Guard? Who doesn’t want to fund NIH? I certainly do. NIH is located in my State. I am so proud of the men and women who work there.” She then declared that she would not vote to fund NIH unless the House agreed to fund every other program that President Obama wanted funded.  Dick Durbin spoke next. “I have said it before, but it bears repeating,” said the Senate Majority Whimp, who has never in his life said anything that bore repeating, “Two hundred people were turned away from the National Institutes of Health this week who wanted to enter clinical trials because of a serious life-threatening illness, including 30 children—cancer patients coming to the NIH with their parents for one last hopeful move to save their lives.” – -And having so spoken, Durbin set about his duty as Whip making sure none of his fellow Democrats intended to lift a finger to help those kids by doing anything so out of lock-step with the Democratic majority as voting to fund the NIH.

The Cancer wars

Is this simply a presidential hissy fit, and a bunch of senatorial kabuki dancers mincing supportively? Fully two decades have swept by without the 1BarackObama-Crybaby1-300x289development of any new drugs specifically targeted against pediatric cancers. A recent Institute of Medicine report revealed that better than half the drugs currently used to battle pediatric cancer are more than 25 years old. This is partially explainable in terms of market size, since the number of children with pediatric cancer is small by comparison to other varieties of the disease, and the payoff of for pharmacology is therefore less alluring. The pediatric drug shortage crisis is ongoing And the left-wing narrative of evil capitalists willing to sacrifice children on the alter of mammon would fit nicely here, if there weren’t another and rather more curious wrinkle involved. Dr. Peter Adamson, Chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, called last year upon policymakers to expedite a bill addressing the shortage of drugs for the treatment of kids with cancer, telling reporters, “If we can induce remission in children with leukemia in four weeks, I would challenge our colleagues in Washington to enact legislation in four weeks’ time.” But Washington does not perceive much urgency in this arena. Seemingly, Senator Reid is not alone in his apparent insouciance to the crisis.

Sarah%20Palin%20GunsIt might be fun, were this a Republican administration, to cry out that heartless budget cutting conservatives had so deprived the medical field of needful funds (in order to build death rays and nuclear-powered super stealth bombers and stuff), that nothing had trickled down to the afflicted waifs, alas and alack. And were it possible to sound plausible ascribing this injustice to “W” even now, MSNBC would happily lay such cruel parsimony at the feet of a skinflint executive branch, and a scattering of mad-dog right-wing axe wielders in Congress. But no– we have the socialist democrats in power currently, and they are the party of illimitable redistributive generosity, so why does pediatric cancer seem singled out for neglect? Long before the leftist pols were taking turns at the congressional microphones conjuring lurid images of insensate Tea Partiers gunning down fleeing oncologists in the hallways of NIH with their horrible AR-15s, it was looking sparse for pediatric cancer research in America. Why, one feels justified in asking, will a party of Marxian redistributionists who think nothing of chunking 50 billion dollars into the big burn basket marked “green energy initiatives” lift not a finger to help a ten year old kid with leukemia? Could it be…Bush’s fault?

Caroline Pryce-Walker, girl interrupted

RepresentativePryce and her daughter.

Representative Pryce and her daughter.

Caroline Pryce Walker died of Neuroblastoma in 1999, and her mother, Deborah Pryce, then a Republican Congresswoman from Ohio,was aghast at how few advances and how few funds were arrayed against pediatric cancer, the insidious number one medical killer of our nation’s young. She determined to do something about the problem and sponsored the Caroline Pryce Walker Childhood Cancer Act in her daughter’s memory. The bill called for the continuance, enhancement, expansion and intensification of pediatric cancer research, and the creation of new, effective treatments as well as preclinical tests, pediatric clinical trials and authorized award grants to childhood-cancer researchers as well as to direct service organizations for the expansion of activities ensuring early access to the best available therapies and clinical trials for pediatric cancer patients.  Additionally, the Act authorized the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to award grants to enhance and expand existing infrastructure to track the epidemiology of pediatric cancer and establish a comprehensive nationwide registry of pediatric cancer cases. So how wonderful is that?

"W" signs the act,, October 4, 2013.

“W” signs the Childhood Cancer Act, October 4, 2013.

The act was signed into law by George “W” Bush on July 29, 2008.  But rather like that fence that congress voted to build to secure our border with Mexico, it just never happened. Where did it go? It was never funded. Moreover, amid the most stupendously giddy outlay of stimulus spending in the history the planet, President Obama’s 831 billion dollar American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, it remained unfunded.  How come? Millions of investment dollars went to Bill Ayers’s pet project, Common Core, so we could destroy our schools; millions more ,untitledto green energy programs like Solyndra so that they could go bankrupt. Eighty million went to keep the National Education Association happily radicalized, and the amount is undisclosed that went to Gay groups like San Francisco’s “CounterPULSE” which advertises productions like “Perverts Put Out” during which participants are invited to experience the “long running pan-sexual performance series” and “join your fellow pervs for some explicit twisted fun,” yup, they got stimulus money. Millions were sent abroad where we now know the stimulus package helped stimulate such oddities as Finnish car manufacturing, Mexican solar panel production, and the construction of Danish windmills. But the incoming Obama administration just couldn’t quite manage to fund the Caroline Pryce Walker Act—even though it’s law. (An interesting precedent, huh!) So it died on Obama’s watch, without ever seeing a farthing of the 150 million it was scheduled to receive.  Is there something endemically adversarial to pediatric cancer research in the ultra-leftist mindset? Was Harry Reid simply enacting a kind of Joycean epiphany—that literary device that Joyce described as a thing suddenly revealed in all its “whatness” when he spoke with such callous nonchalance about kids with fatal cancers? Surely the answer is no. Surely Our Beloved Helmsman will correct this impression?

If you won’t give us money, how about a ribbon and some lights?

Attorney Jonathan Agin, a cancer parent and an activist for pediatric cancer research who lost his daughter to the disease, wrote to President Obama about his seeming lack of involvement with this issue, but never heard back. In a subsequent article Agin pointed out that just one of the President’s Sub-Saharan vacation junkets costs upwards of 100 million dollars. Agin pointed out that this is more than half the federal budget allotted to the National Cancer Institute (and that being inclusive of all varieties of cancers). Agin also remarked on the president’s laudable expressions of interest in funding programs to end hunger in Africa. He noted that Obama called this a “moral imperative.” Agin used a literary, and somewhat less frenetic version of Clint Eastwood’s empty-chair routine, addressing the absent Obama—asking him “I wonder where you place children in your own country dying of cancer? I would love to share just five minutes of your time to see whether you would agree with me, a father who has lost a four year-old child to cancer, that childhood cancer is a moral imperative for greater action. Seriously, do you agree with this statement?” (The rest was silence.)

Africa greets the Obamas during one of their many junkets--of course, many natives are georgraphically naive, and this sign should not be viewed literally!.

Africa greets the Obamas during one of their many vacation junkets–of course, many West African natives are geographically naive, and this sign should definitely not be taken literally!

Well, Agin never found out if Our Beloved Leader agreed or disagreed, because he never got a call from the enigmatic rover of the vast Sub-Sahara, or anyone on his staff. Others in the pediatric cancer advocacy groups voiced a considerably less ambitious request. September was cancer awareness month, during which the White House lit itself brightly pink not as an exposition of the chief residents political leanings, but rather in support of breast cancer research, which is represented by a pink ribbon. The ribbon for pediatric research is gold, and petitioners earnestly entreated the president to raise consciousness for their stricken children by lighting the White House gold for a night. To this end, a Whitehouse.gov petition was filled out with more than the requisite number of signatures back in 2012, but not a word was spoken from the Oval Office.

A pink White House to raise breast cancer s\awareness? No problem!

A pink White House to raise breast cancer s\awareness? No problem!

It was only this year, in fact last month, that the cancer parents heard anything at all, and this news came not from Our Beloved Leader, but rather his attaché, Comrade Paulette Aniskoff, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Engagement. With regard to lighting the White house gold for a night or two, the answer was no, or more precisely, the answer was: “although we cannot light the building gold….we’re issuing a Presidential Proclamation…” so there you have it. By the way, why can’t they light the building gold? Maybe they can’t afford gold light bulbs because of that mean Senator Cruz?  Miss Aniskoff didn’t bother saying.  Instead she pointed out that back in April, Dear Leader consented to meet for five minutes with 7 year old Jack Hoffman, a brain cancer patient and cancer research advocate. The President might have taken that opportunity to confide in young Mr. Hoffmann that he was appalled to learn that pediatric cancer receives only 4% of the entire budget for cancer research, and that he was upping that (by Presidential directive, of course) to 20 %, beginning at once. But no, he gave Mr. Hoffman, who is a gridiron enthusiast, an autographed football—and do you know whose autograph was on that football, sports enthusiasts? Yup—Barack Hussein Obama’s. Go out for a long one, Barry!

Rappin' Preezy shoots the breezy, but all Jack gets for his trouble is the football. Barack's stash stayed in the wall safe!

Rappin’ Preezy shoots the breezy, but all Jack gets for his trouble is the football. Barack’s stash stayed in the wall safe!

What’s so bad about pediatric cancer?

Hapless Dweeb in charge of persiflage, Paulette

Hapless Dweeb in charge of persiflage, Paulette Aniskoff.

Let’s face it, you don’t have to be a conservative to have enough brains to know that the White House can light itself up bright gold any darn time it wants to; on Obama’s whim, in fact. Miss Aniskoff’s assertion that in “cannot” do so for the child cancer cause is ridiculous—especially given the fact that lighting the executive mansion bright pink for breast cancer awareness was undertaken so alacritously. So do the Maoists in the mansion’s West Wing secretly want kids with cancer to die? Is that how insanely malevolent they’ve grown in power? No, to believe this would be to foolishly disregard Rebecca West’s old lesson about “the banality of evil.” This is the evil and banality exemplified by the stooped wraithlike figure of Harry Reid. It is not seething with malefaction at kids with cancer—of course not.  It does not reveal itself in maniacal cackling or Machiavellian hand rubbing as the doomsday clock expires—nothing of the sort. It simply puts Reid in “high def” for that Joycean moment—a suddenly reified image of the seedy gaming commissioner turned party hack, wondering aloud and apparently to himself why he would want to save some kid with cancer—or how it would fit the day’s itinerary, if at all.

The breast by comparison:

Nobody wants women to die of breast cancer, or to be cheated of the best conceivable talent while in treatment for breast cancer, but there is an object lesson for all of us in the fact that pediatric cancer is left penniless while breast cancer receives the most cancer funding by outlandish margins. Thus, advances are constantly forthcoming, and we are all pleased that they are, but the parents of cancer kids wonder why they can’t acquire the kind of mojo that keeps breast cancers at the forefront of research and funding efforts year after year. They don’t get it. In the plaintive voices of those among the moms who obviously entered into this familial nightmare with faith in Obama, the consternation is especially heart-rending.  Doesn’t he hear us? Doesn’t he understand us? These adorable keepers of the faith are remindful of the Russian peasants who endured the depredations of their inhuman labors and raids by Cossacks all the while while whispering to one another, “If only father Czar knew of our treatment!”

If only Father czar knew...!

If only Father czar knew…!

The answer is political all right, but nobody has it in for our kids, at least not this side of Common Core. Breast cancer is simply a veritable cornucopia of demographic treasures, from soccer moms to call girls to militant feminists to concerned husbands to courageous Hollywood glamour queens who have braved treatment and triumphed, it is the kind of politics that any candidate or elected official wants to be conspicuously associated with. And because the outcomes tend to be positive, one can bask in the aura of victory more often than defeat. Not so with pediatric cancer. The kids make people sad, they perish all too frequently, and the bald kids are not comely props for glittery photo ops–they represent no entree into a single hot progressive demographic…In fact, progressives are rather upset with people for having children at all these days—how selfish!  No, barring a miracle, funding for these most horrendous and heartbreaking cancers will remain minuscule. Those who would like to presume WOOF wrong about this may wish to view the educative Truth 365 video, [available by clicking here.]. It’s paleo-death panels, kids!

"Told ya!"

“Told ya!”

We has been disabled!

So here we have the death panels, in a kind of adumbrated fashion, like fossilized for-bearers of creatures yet to come. Please don’t shriek in disgust and click us to the cornfield on this point, dear readers—think about it for a moment. Some are dying because they lack a substantial voting bloc, nor do they occupy a progressively favored social category. Think we’re extreme? Spending on childhood cancer is actually diminishing each year, and is currently about $26.4 million. As a comparison, consider that NCI funding for AIDS research is nearly 300 million dollars, and breast cancer allotments are topping 600 million per annum.  Somebody, somewhere, is deciding who lives and who dies, isn’t that correct? Maybe without the slightest malice in his heart—but with a definite eye to political practicalities, nonetheless! Fortunately, we have dear Comrade Aniskoff’s letter to the parents of the afflicted children—the one explaining that lighting the White House gold would be too much effort. But she also offered some glad tidings, namely that “the Affordable Care Act offers a number of important benefits for children fighting cancer. For example, eliminating lifetime caps on care means insurance companies can’t set a dollar limit on what they spend on a child’s care. And insurance companies can no longer deny families coverage because their child has a pre-existing condition like cancer. And the law will help millions of Americans, including children, get health insurance so if an accident or illness like cancer happens, they can get the care they need and deserve and are protected from high, unexpected costs. You can learn more about these benefits and more at HealthCare.gov.” Enjoy!

Letssss seee---you say you got trouble breathing, is that right? And just did you say your oarty adffiliation is?  registration again?

Letssss seee—you say you got trouble breathing, is that right? And just  what did you say your party affiliation was again? 

So there’s a ray of hope, gentle readers! While your insurance company (that you got to keep because you wanted to) is going out of business because it cannot possibly afford to offer coverage of your child’s pre-existing illness that costs upwards of  $40,000 a day to treat, while reimbursing you with no dollar limits allowable on these costs in accordance with the new law, your government is standing by to take over as the single payer system it always intended to become (thus saving you from those dastardly capitalists who abandoned you when you needed them most!) All you have to do now is check out the exchanges and place a nitro tab (if you can afford to) under your tongue because you’re going to need it when you see what “affordable health care” costs!  and of course, once you’ve been saved from those money grubbing insurance people you’ll be in the competent and unbiased hands of the IRS–the ones who just tried to mess up Ben Carson’s life with a slue of audits to punish him for embarrassing President Obama at a prayer breakfast–but on the bright side, the IRS will probably put a stop to all their intrusions into the finances of non-Democrats. Why would they bother when they now possess the power to limit your medical treatment or your child’s medical treatment based on your party affiliation?   So, if you happen to have a kid with cancer, your best bet for the time being may be to go to the “We the People” forum at whitehouse.gov and enter a protest—except that you really can’t do that right now, because all you’ll get is what we just got:  A notice reading:

diana shedding“Due to congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, “’We the People’ has been temporarily disabled.” Got that?  Well, it seems like we the people has been temporarily disabled for five years now, if you ask us—and Obamacare turns out to be the solution?  See, Harry Reid isn’t the worst thing about the Age of Obama—he’s just its most conspicuous ambassador– the reptoid alien who forgot to wear his people mask on stage, that’s all. So pretend you haven’t noticed and keep checking those exchanges—once they get them working! That way, maybe they’ll eat you last!WOOF PRINT


OMG, they’re freakin’ lizards!


In Let's call the whole thing off forum on August 17, 2013 at 3:23 pm

snake oil By now most of us are well aware that a funny thing happened on the way to socialized medicine in the United States. So funny a thing, in fact, that it is funny in a variety of ways!  Let’s begin with the funniest part—as in funny-peculiar, not funny-ha ha—and we speak now of the “passage” of Obamacare into law.  How did this occur when at the time of passage a Rasmussen poll showed likely voters, by a margin of 13 points, opposed to the idea? Well that’s kind of funny too. While most Americans were debating the probable meaning of LOST, riveted to the regal engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton, or focused with profound intensity on Lady Gaga’s meat dress, the Democrat party got away with “deeming” that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” (previously and hereinafter referred to as Obamacare) was the law of the land. How did that happen? Like we said, it’s funny-peculiar. If you have a particularly mordant sense of humor, it’s even funny-ha-ha.

Great Caesar’s ghost, it’s Supermajority!

Senator Al Franken--the other ass remains unidentified.

Senator Al Franken–the other ass remains unidentified.

When Barack Obama was running for the presidency in 2008 he made health-care reform central to his campaign. He solemnly promised at every whistle stop that reform would grow out of bipartisan negotiations. He insisted repeatedly that the discussions in congress would be televised on C-Span for all the world to see, rather than held “behind closed doors.” He was lying, naturally–but, to a vast, preoccupied, semi-conscious electorate, it all sounded plausible. The nauseous details of the 2008 election need hardly concern us here. For our immediate purpose we may now move forward to that moment when the detestable Arlen Specter (no relation to the comparatively salubrious and vastly more talented Phil Spector) declared himself a Democrat (after decades of uninterrupted de facto Democratism).  Immediately following Specter’s moment of reification, the shatterpated pantaloon Al Franken was rather arbitrarily declared the winner of a hotly contested senatorial race in Minnesota (which was decided after several of those untrustworthy recounts so dear to the hearts of progressives, especially since unions supervise the voting machines), and thus the Democrats achieved a “super majority,” meaning enough votes in the House and Senate to drive the nation all the way to the dump without a single Republican bothering to climb aboard the dump truck. But wait!

Obama specifically warned voters to "forget about the truck" Brown drove--maybe it was a Ford?

Obama specifically warned voters to “forget about the truck” Brown drove–maybe it was a Ford?

This is the part where Ted Kennedy dies and, (just to make things even more funny-peculiar), Massachusetts goes into some sort of fit of extremely temporary lucidity and elects Republican Scott Brown to replace the newly defunct Hero of Chappaquiddick. Brown ran as a conservative’s conservative and handily rolled over liberal hack-ette Martha Coakley (despite or perhaps as a partial result of Obama jetting into the state to noisily endorse her candidacy).

Ever notice Teddy Kennedy's obsessive use of water metaphors? He even named his dog "Splash."

Ever notice Teddy Kennedy’s obsessive use of water metaphors? He even named his dog “Splash.”

Thus Brown triumphantly departed for Washington as the favorite of Tea Partiers, renascent commonwealth conservatives, libertarians, and the wonderfully gimlet Boston radio personality, Howie Carr. Brown was confidently expected to vote a solidly-right-of-center slate given the tenor of his campaign. Funnily enough, however, Brown immediately demonstrated a tone-deaf tendency to “cross the aisle” a la John McCain, and vote in ways contrary to the best interests of the Republic. Nevertheless, Brown remained emphatic about his opposition to Obamacare, and his presumptive “no” vote torpedoed the Dems’ supermajority. In a less surreal epoch, this would have crippled the drive for socialized medicine because the Republicans could have filibustered it to death.

Now you might think, beloved readers, that it hardly mattered if Scott Brown vouchsafed a senatorial filibuster given the fact that the Democrats infamously slipped through the Senate version of their bill on Christmas Eve (take that, America!) before Scott Brown could arrive. But wait! The threat of filibuster loomed anyway, because the House refused to pass the Senate version of the bill despite extreme pressure from the White House, AARP, Big Labor, Hollywood, and, hilariously enough, the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the health insurance industry’s massive lobby. (The AHIP later woke up, smelt the borscht, and spent a frantic 100 million trying to stop the initiative—they being a bit slow) So, given that the House refused to rubber stamp the Senate’s bill and expected to negotiate a better version in conference with the Senate, and given that whatever sort of bill might ramify from such a conference, it would have to go back to the Senate for approval and would therefore fall victim to a GOP filibuster—are you with us, gentle readers?  —it appeared that the surprise slime attack of December 24th had been neutralized. But wait!

Reconciliation, thy name is irony!


“You’ll have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it!”

Comes now the infamous “reconciliation” ploy, which ploy became necessary because Democrats, as we have observed, no longer had 60 votes in the senate by which to impose cloture (shut down any debate, that is) and the House naturally wanted to add its own contributions to the looming national disaster of mandated socialist health care. It is, by the way, a safe conjecture that nobody at this juncture had any idea what the legislation contained in full…in fact it was at this juncture, readers will recall, that Nancy Pelosi cheerfully explained that her colleagues would “have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it!” Reconciliation meant that when enough “Blue Dog” Democrats had been lied to, threatened, coerced and bought off, the House could pass a version that could then be “deemed to have passed” by the Senate. This was done through reliance on the time-honored principle of reconciliation. But wait!

What the heck is reconciliation? Good question! Reconciliation is a special legislative process established by Congress in 1974 to provide for expedited consideration of important budgetary legislation. When an obstructive minority determined to stage an indefinite filibuster threatens legislation, reconciliation limits debate to 24 hours after which a final vote is called. A simple majority is all that is required, at that point, to pass the legislation…so the Democrats had only to “deem” the bill passed, and the law became a fait accompli to the chagrin of the out-maneuvered Republicans in both houses of congress.  But wait!

miss us yetDid you make note, gentle readers, of the adjective “budgetary” in our description of the reconciliation process? That’s right—the whole idea of reconciliation is strictly limited to budget changes. It was meant to assist lawmakers in passing budgets for a single fiscal year. Nobody ever dreamt it might be jury-rigged to rationalize the passage of hugely controversial and unpopular legislation by nullifying the power of the filibuster, an historic institution of the senate intended to ensure the rights of the minority. Put plainly, the pounding of the square peg of reconciliation into the round hole of multipart legislation is not Constitutionally supportable– and confronted with this appalling abuse of the Constitution, the Republicans in congress did what you might expect they’d do: They stared at their shoes and muttered to one another that if the Tea Party would just go away, they could go about the important business of capitulation without all the right-wing interference!

Long before he became Speaker, John Boehner was already practiced in the art of standing up to the liberals in Congress!

Long before he became Speaker, John Boehner was already practiced in the art of standing up to the liberals in Congress!

Well, here it is 2013, and as of this month’s Gallup poll Our Beloved Helmsman’s approval rating on the economy officially dipped to a new low of 35 percent. How can this be happening right in the middle of “Recovery Summer IV”? Don’t folks know that Rappin’ Preezy is focused like a laser beam on jobs for the American people? (And has been for five years now with no discernible result?)  His Gallup ratings on the economy have fallen 7 points just since June, so obviously there’s no gratitude out there—possibly further evidence of racism!  But what of Obamacare? What of program that millions of establishment-trained low-information voters believe will result in free healthcare forever?

Honest Max Baucus: Ooops! Whata ya know--it's a train wreck!

Honest Max Baucus: Ooops! Whata ya know–it’s a train wreck!

After all, it passed back in 2009 and here we all are, still paying for prescriptions and medical insurance—what’s with that? Well, to understand the problem in the simplest possible terms, let us examine one of our favorite recent examples of abject (yet unchallenged) liberal hypocrisy. Remember Senator Max Baucus? Sure you do, he was Obamacare’s most enthusiastic advocate.  In fact the Associated Press adoringly identified him as the man who “who helped write President Barack Obama’s health care law,” at least until 2010 when Baucus told reporters he’d never read the bill. (Let’s face it, nobody who voted for the bill ever read the bill—it’s the size of War and Peace and considerably less engaging.) Still, you might think the man who helped write it would have some nodding familiarity with it! Not Baucus—he snarled that it would be “a waste of [his] time!” Apparently he subscribed to the Pelosi theorem that with passage would come edification—and apparently it did, because by May of 2013 Baucus felt obliged to opine, “‘I just see a huge train wreck coming down.” A shame, really, that Senator Baucus didn’t see this sooner, like maybe while he was ramrodding the bill through the Senate. But wait!

The Revenge of Chuckie

Charles Grassley: Hee hee hee hee hee...

Charles Grassley: Hee hee hee hee hee…

The next big stumbling block was the Grassley amendment. It seems that old Chuck Grassley sneakily planted a rider requiring Congress and its staff to get its own insurance under Obamacare. Somehow this slipped past the Democrats during the febrile run-up to the bill’s passage. When Grassley’s mischief was belatedly discovered, congress freaked out, scrambling to find a way to quash the amendment, since nobody who voted for this stuff ever expected to be subjected to it.  So even as the mentally random Nancy Pelosi was reassuring her constituents that, “Members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in health marketplaces as the Affordable Care Act requires,” her colleagues were pounding on the White House door begging to be omitted from the mess. And Rappin’ Preezy arbitrarily patched up the problem with one of his special, extra-constitutional, creative decretals; but not before the media subjected us to daily lamentations about how unfair Congressional inclusion in Obamacare would be. After all, the media explained, forcing Congressional staffers into Affordable Health when they clearly could not afford Affordable Health would be inhumanly cruel, not to mention the poor Congressmen themselves who make much too much for inclusion in taxpayer-provided subsidies and would pay around 20,000 annually for family insurance outside the system. This too, the media cried, was inhuman and unjustifiable. All of which begs the observation that all these horrendously unjust impositions upon the ruling elite are precisely what the rest of us are expected to accept unquestioningly—a healthcare system designed to bankrupt the wealthy and enslave everyone else. Beyond Congress, a survey of 2, 500 federal employees has just issued, indicating that only 2.9 percent favor shifting to Obamacare. We have already reported the fact that the head of the IRS is happy to opt out. Yet the Leftwing Establishment Media continue to insist that Obamacare is going to prove itself a miracle tonic for America’s ills.


It was always the case that the most awful aspects of the president’s health care plan were calculated to kick in well after the passage of the bill. Despite the fact that Americans were told health care had to be rushed into law because thousands of lives hung in the balance; because children were being denied vital treatments, and because the elderly were losing their homes en masse and becoming street people as their medical expenses rendered them destitute, the law was always slated to take effect between 2013 and 2014. The president’s handlers knew full well that once socialized medicine was inflicted on the U.S. population the mood would get ugly– so the president’s only shot at a second term required that implementation occur some time after the election of January 2012. But wait!

Suckered again! That's okay Teamsters, now you know what keeps happening to Black democrats!

Suckered again! That’s okay Teamsters, now you know what keeps happening to Black Democrats!

In the afterglow of defeating yet another moderate Republican presidential candidate, it dawned on Dear Leader & Company that all would be lost if the 2014 interim elections brought the Senate under Republican control and failed to recapture the House of Representatives for the Left. And the mood among Obama’s partners in crime was souring quickly as the former henchmen began to take second looks at what their exertions had won them. Foremost among these defectors were the major labor unions. Three of the biggest, the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and UNITE-HERE  wrote a frantic letter to Harry Reid, of all people, saying, in part, that:  “The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios: First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.” Well, duh!  It is only WOOF’s detestation of the cliché that obstructs us from asking the American Labor Movement, ‘what was your first clue?’

Look out unions! here comes the fasted "scab" in all Meximericanada!

Look out unions! here comes the fastest “scab” in all Meximericanada!

And the fact that illegal aliens will be omitted from such “perverse incentives” just as soon as Obama and John McCain get “immigration reform” passed, (or just as soon as Obama decides it’s the law regardless) has yet to occur to these poor union schlubs; but how much can one expect, really, from people so dumb they think Harry Reid gives a tinker’s damn about them?  Obama, meanwhile, continually issues fiats to the effect that this or that portion of his own plan will be delayed, or that this or that exemption from it will be made, as though he had any authority whatsoever to postpone or alter laws passed by congress…and the Republican “leadership” continues to stare fixedly at its shoes.

Something wicked this way comes.

Here are more insights into what the president’s plan will do for you and your family: Obama’s plan will require your private insurer (you know, the one you thought you could keep if you preferred to) to accept people with pre-existing conditions —and simultaneously caps how much insurers can charge.  While sophomoric liberals hear this and rejoice that “corporate rip-offs” will be banished by a benignant government, the proposition is untenable. First private insurance premiums will skyrocket making private insurance worthwhile only for the privileged few—and the Left needn’t worry that those evil one-percenters will be content with their private insurance because there won’t be any private insurance companies to pay within a year or two. See, rates will quickly shoot up to their respective caps, even as the number of payers into the system will be dramatically reduced by the high, largely unpayable rates, even as the number of conditions covered will be quadrupled by government mandate. Unless you’re a Utopian Democrat you can see the problem here, right? No income, plus governmentally required coverage and payouts equals closing up shop. The idea, as Obama makes perfectly clear in the now infamous 2003 video tape of his speech to the AFL-CIO’s Civil, Human and Women’s Rights Conference, is to move toward, “…a single-payer universal health care program…a single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.” But, he might have added, we can get there pretty fast by driving the private insurers to ruination! What about the states? Obamacare requires all states to expand their Medicaid program to 133% of the federal poverty level. Sounds great, right? Except that expansion will cost the states at least 120 billion dollars—which comes from where? Obama’s stash?

Obama forgot to tell them they'd all be standing in the single payer line in the end!

Obama forgot to tell them they’d all be standing in the single payer line in the end!

No, from taxpayers paying through the nose, and through cuts in services provided. The fun is never ending! What about your work-related insurance? A leaked  administration document estimated that under the rules, about fifty-one percent of employers would have to give up their coverage for employees as early as 2014. (The rest, obviously, to follow thereafter.) The exception, you will not be surprised to learn, is union healthcare plans. They’re safe from interference for now.  Sound unequal and unfair? Now come the waivers. For instance, Section 2711 waivers supposedly guarantee businesses and labor unions the ability to hang onto their private insurers , but a) there won’t be any private insurers soon for the reasons mentioned above, which is why the waivers are deemed temporary, by the way, and b) the Department seems only to grant such waivers to unions, leaving businesses twisting in the wind as befits exploiters of the proletarian masses, of course. At any rate, all waivers expire by 2014, which is when WOOF predicts unions will get a reprieve and an extension and business will …well, there won’t be any businesses by then—except for the huge (and largely liberal democratic) big businesses that are being granted waivers willy-nilly….which sounds like an equal protection problem, except somebody would have to have the temerity to say so.

Death panels anyone?

We actually liked Screamin' Jay Hawkins better--but here's Howard.

We actually liked Screamin’ Jay Hawkins better–but here’s Howard.

Of course there are death panels, Virginia, although Obamacare prefers to call them Independent Payment Advisory Boards (IPAB). The role of these budgetary oversight and case-review panels, which will function as mini-fiefdoms,  is so obviously what Sarah Palin was talking about that several Democrats are starting to get a case of the heaves over them, and Howard Dean, former DNC Chair, medical doctor and  screaming presidential candidate overcame his chronic lunacy long enough to pen an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal calling for a repeal of the boards.

Nice try lady, but WOOF is on to you!

Nice try lady, but WOOF is on to you!

Even Screamin’ Howie Dean realized that, “the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.”  (Which process would actually be a fallback position in case of unexpected resistance, since the IPAB can simply deny payment on a cost efficiency basis up front!)  Death panels? Of course there are death panels—and if you thought that stuff requiring end-of-life counseling had been taken out of the law under a storm of protest, WOOF knows that sneaky old Katherine Sebelius slipped mandatory end-of-life counseling back into Obamacare after Obama’s great show of removing it. That the plug can indeed be pulled on granny is so blatantly obvious that the flood of denials in the liberal blogosphere is almost touching it its frantic intensity. But death panels that gauge the practicality of one’s medical treatment in terms of how old and expensive one has become, are only the exposed dorsal fin of a far more predacious beast.

Ohhh yeah, that's a death panel all right!

Ohhh yeah, that’s a death panel all right!

Why stop with ethnicity?

The IRS: You liked them in control of your income--you loved them in control of your politics--you'll rave about them in charge of your literal survival!

The IRS: You liked them in control of your income–you loved them in control of your politics–you’ll rave about them in charge of your literal survival!

A chilling section of the Affordable Care Act calls for the study of how cost-effective various treatments are for “subpopulations,” among which the law includes racial and ethnic minorities, women, senior citizens, and groups with certain comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or “quality of life preferences.” The CATO Institute has sagely remarked that “Unlike market-generated research, a federal comparative-effectiveness agency would be subject to political manipulation, which could block the generation of any useful research.”  Block research? The good folks at CATO are too sanguine. Once studies into subpopulations have been undertaken, opportunities exist for institutional racism, regionalism, ageism, and yes, homophobia (by which we mean a sensible accounting of the fact that the Gay lifestyle is often one that conduces toward health risks). But wait!

The buck never stops at this president's desk--ever! And it probably shouldn't!

The buck never stops at this president’s desk–ever! And it probably shouldn’t!

The risk of political manipulation of a more direct and intimidating variety seems equally possible. Registered Republican voters are, for example, a subpopulation—and if you think it unthinkable that any American administration would use healthcare to target its political rivals for demise by calculated neglect, consider that the Administration has already used the IRS to target rival organizations for destruction, and the NSA to spy on all of us. Consider also that it is the same IRS that leapt to sustain the liberal cause by targeting Tea Party groups at Obama’s behest that will be implementing Obamacare. Consider another point in closing: Liberalism is ceaseless in its proclivity for naming initiatives that are fundamentally inimical to the commonweal in ironic ways. Examples: The Marriage Equality Act—an effort to destroy the 20,000-year-old concept of marriage.

Marriage Equality! It may not be pretty, but it's ...um...equal!

Marriage Equality! It may not be pretty, but it’s …um…equal!

And how about Gun Safety Laws—laws that make us all less safe by taking our guns away. Or the Voter Rights Act:  Laws that promote the rights of non-Americans to get away with voting illegally while doing nothing whatsoever for the rights of voters. “Choice”:  a funny name for the political support of infanticide leaving the unborn baby with no choice whatsoever because his mommy made the wrong choice in getting pregnant and another wrong choice in killing her child. And now we have “the Affordable Care Act” which is expected to jack up monthly premiums insanely, hitting the young most severely when they are least able to afford the insurance offered or the penalties for not buying the insurance, and further devastating the economy so that inflation will make things still less affordable and joblessness will place even affordable products beyond most peoples grasp.  And while we’re on the subject of irony, you know the APA is also called the Patient Protection Act?  Hmmm?  …probably calling it the Politically Permissible Genocide Act wouldn’t have the same snap, right?

Remember all those doctors wearing lab coats in the Rose Garden? Did you ever see the close-ups?

Remember all those doctors wearing lab coats in the Rose Garden? Did you ever see the reverse-angle close-ups?


In Let's call the whole thing off forum on May 26, 2013 at 6:40 pm
WOOF barks truth at power!

WOOF barks truth at power!

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” –John Marshall

Most Americans think we’ve always had an income tax, but then most Americans also think we’ve always had a Department of Education and elected representation in the Senate. Most Americans think the Monitor fought the “Merrimack” in the civil war, that Custer was an idiot and Joe McCarthy was the wickedest American who ever lived. Most Americans think that gun stores sell assault rifles, that Jack Kennedy was a pacifist, and that President Obama is smart. So you probably think this is going to be another WOOF screed about how lousy our public schools are, right? But no, it’s actually an article about the IRS, America’s redoubtable Internal Revenue Service. And yes, polls have long shown that almost one third of  adult Americans believe the Founding Fathers placed the IRS in the constitution to keep the country solvent. (Of course these are the same Americans who numbly assert that rich people don’t pay their fare share—forgetting in their righteous daze that poor people don’t pay any share at all, that “rich people” (top 10 percent) pay 37 percent of the nation’s taxes, and that those middle class folks so beloved of Democrats and for whom Our Dear Leader continues to battle so energetically (although apparently unsuccessfully) continue to pay a whopping 70 percent!

Go Culpeper, beat Tech!

Go Culpepper, beat Tech!

That’s right, gentle readers, this is going to be an article about the bloody, tawdry, mercilessly Marxian monstrosity known as the Federal Income Tax—and those valiant civil servants who exact it from us in blatant contravention of the American Constitution and the free-market ethos—the men and women of the IRS.  Of course, someone is going to remonstrate with us at this point that Abraham Lincoln started the income tax to help pay for the civil war, and yes, this was among our 16th president’s several injudicious ventures—but even so it was a far milder beast in those days at three percent of earned income–tepid and short lived, albeit no less unconstitutional, and hey, only half the country had to pay it, right? Besides, it vanished shortly following the cessation of civil hostilities, and was not seen abroad in the land again until that dark hour that oversaw the election of the insufferable Woodrow Wilson.

Colonel House--Wilson's  éminence grise who doubled as an éminence rouge.

Colonel House–Wilson’s éminence grise who doubled as an éminence rouge.

True, the idea was broached anew in 1894 but promptly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its enlightened ruling in Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company. It is worthy of note that the Court struck down the proposed income tax  because it failed to make any provision for apportionment, as required by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. And there the issue should have rested, but in 1912 Americans did a particularly ill-considered thing—they elected Woodrow Wilson President of the United States. Wilson, contrary to what many of our readers may believe, was not a communist—in fact, he reviled communism (there’s some good in everyone, Woofketeers). What he was, however, besides being a raving racist, a war monger and a manipulative fascist, was stupid—and he was easy prey for less benighted men who were dedicatedly communist. One such man was his trusted adviser Col. Edward Mandell House, whose vision for America amounted to “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” So on the pretext of funding World War One, which America was duped into fighting by Wilson and his progressive allies, Colonel House proposed the return of the federal income tax and rammed it through congress as a patriotic necessity to support the dough-boys abroad…and thus we have the dreadful Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution granting the Federal Government the right to implement a progressive income tax, precisely as called for in the Communist Manifesto (Plank #2 if you’re thinking of checking). By the way, House and Wilson next instituted the ruinous Federal Reserve Act, but let us not digress.

A target rich environment!

Why does WOOF choose to devote space to the IRS imbroglio, with so much else at stake in the nation? After all, we have been screaming bloody murder (and justifiably so) about Benghazi for months—and done our part to raise the consciousness of the average American about this travesty—and with enough success that more and more of our fellow citizens are beginning to recognize that Benghazi was not the actor who got killed fighting Patrick Swayze at the end of “Road House.”

Ben Gazarra--growing numbers of AMericans realize he is not the second largest city in Libya!

Actor Ben Gazarra–growing numbers of Americans realize he is not the second largest city in Libya!

We also remain concerned with the Obama initiative known as “Fast and Furious.” This, you may recall, was the Administrations 2009 gun-running operation to the Mexican drug cartels– who used the guns (provided to them at bargain rates by Attorney General Eric Holder) to kill American border guards—all this in an apparent effort to raise an outcry against the 2nd amendment, which amendment the Nation’s First Skeet-shooter finds objectionable. The details surrounding “Fast and Furious,” in WOOF’s view, seem to hint some rather apparent improprieties—which improprieties, however, remain insufficiently apparent to attract the notice of American news reporters. ..

More and more Americans realize this is film is not what Eric Holder was up to his neck in!

More and more Americans realize this  film is not what Eric Holder was involved in!

For four years running…but the media, to be fair, do have another opportunity to discover “Fast and Furious” (as if!) since the Justice Department IG (who must have missed the memo) issued a report to the effect that the Department violated policy by purposely leaking materials of a defamatory nature against their own agent John Dodson with the sole purpose of discrediting him as a “Fast and Furious” whistleblower. The report called the behavior “egregious,” particularly because its intent was to undermine valid information disclosed to lawmakers by Dodson. Back in the days when guys like Scooter Libby went to prison because they misremembered a detail during testimony that was in any case inapposite to the alleged crime, a President would have been dragged through the dust by a raging news industry had he overseen a gun deal to drug hoods and attempted to smear and intimidate whistleblowers from within his own Administration. Nowadays? Not so much.

John Dodson, unsung American patriot survived the Baur/Obama smear machine and was vindicated by the ATF and praised for his courage by his commander.

John Dodson, unsung American patriot who survived the Obama smear machine and suffered betrayal by his own ATF. which organization ultimately vindicated him and praised him for his courage- once “Fast and Furious” became impossible to keep under wraps!

And then, of course, there is the matter of the Attorney General feloniously seizing the email records of the Associated Press (where’s the gratitude?) and of certain reporters at Fox News– notably the lovable and patriotic James Rosen– in an effort to silence dissent (to the extent that any may be said to exist) in the media. To be fair, President Obama has officially acknowledged feeling “troubled” by the invasive email seizures, and as a demonstration of his level of perturbation he recently assigned Attorney General Holder (otherwise known as the perpetrator) to investigate himself and report back. One could go so far as to remark that the number of controversies engulfing the Obama Administration at this point is so elevated that one doubts the media’s capacity to stay on top of each erupting enormity with sufficient attentiveness to keep everything adequately suppressed; besides which the Associated Press, long among Dear Leader’s most adoring and sycophantic support groups, is feeling a bit huffy about having its sources pinched and may remain at least vaguely adversarial for another week—possibly even two—before it forgives and forgets.

So why did WOOF decide to address the tax issue in this screed? Because it has the most traction, Woofketeers! This may seem baffling until you stop to consider that comparatively few Americans know anybody who has been gunned down by Mexican drug lords—or buggered and murdered by Al Qaeda in the streets of Benghazi—or (knowingly) had his emails grabbed for analysis by the Justice Department. But almost half the country still pays taxes, and everybody hates the IRS. Even moronic MSNBC and CNN pontificators hate the IRS, because even though most of them are British subjects they still work over here and pay taxes. So WOOF decided to go with the flow. If the Tea Party Tax scandal has the most juice, let’s roll!

Even Obama's Treasury Secretary, Honest Tim Geitner, hated the IRS--before he ran it, he tried to cheat them out of $30,000!

Even Obama’s original Treasury Secretary, Honest Tim Geitner, hated the IRS–before Obama put him in charge of it,  he tried to cheat it out of $30,000!

Crimes recent and less recent

Americans who remember who Monica Lewinsky was (and actually still is, by the way) may also recall that the IRS came under considerable fire during the Clinton Administration. In that era it became evident that the Clintons were using the IRS to bludgeon Christian groups, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, National Review, Citizens Against Government Waste, Bill O’Reilly, Concerned Women of America, and indeed, any women of America who had any inconvenient recollections of past involvements with President Bill. Actress Elizabeth Gracen, for instance, made the mistake of acknowledging a fling with Bill Clinton in her past and was directly informed that she would be, among other things, audited if she didn’t shut up.

Wow, the Daily News scooped the Times--how very peculiar!

Wow, the Daily News scooped the  NY Times again–how very peculiar!

And before Bill and Hill there was Nixon, remember him? He was that Keynesian guy who ended the draft, got out of Vietnam, and hugged Mao Tse Tung and who is reviled to this day by liberals as an arch right winger! Nixon tried to use the IRS to harass people on his famous ‘enemies list’ but met with righteous resistance in the House of Representatives. Did you know that when impeachment articles were drawn up against Nixon a portion of the language averred that “He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”  Imagine that—a guy could get impeached for this stuff back in Nixon’s day!

In fairness, after Nixon shook hands with Mao Tse Tung, he also shook hands with Elvis--thus reducing his time in purgatory by several hundred years.

In fairness, after Nixon shook hands with Mao Tse Tung, he attempted to repent his sins by shaking hands with Elvis Presley–thus reducing his time in purgatory by what?  Several hundred years?

What happened in 2012?

So what did the IRS do in 2012? Really just business as usual. Among dozens of other equally dastardly depredations, it sent signed letters to nearly every identifiable Tea Party group applying for or attempting to retain tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) group, (the necessary status for groups raising public awareness whose missions are partly political).  These letters  demanded that the Tea Party groups surrender everything from their membership lists to screen shots of their Facebook pages and lists of all speakers who spoke at their meetings or conventions, and all donors–and this despite the fact that 501(c)4 tax status specifically guarantees the anonymity of all donors. Conservative educational groups that work with youth were told to submit lists not only of all young Americans they had helped educate, but, somewhat implausibly, all those whom they planned to educate in the future. Groups failing to comply would be denied tax exempt status despite the fact that such demands by the IRS have no legal basis and violate the Constitutional rights of the applicants.

Who is Bob Bauer?

Robert Bauer, Rappin' Preezy's muscle from Chicago. Doeesn't he kind of remind you of Ron Perlman on Sons of Anarchy? Only not as nice.

Robert Bauer, Rappin’ Preezy’s muscle from Chicago. Doesn’t he kind of remind you of Ron Perlman on “Sons of Anarchy?” Only not as lovable  right?

WOOF knows that Bob Bauer, who was the Obama campaign’s general counsel, and who became White House general counsel, is a specialist at using governmental agencies as instruments of intimidation and coercion. In 2008 Bauer pressured the Department of Justice to bring criminal investigations against the American Issues Project to prevent it from exposing Obama’s close associations with retired Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers.  Later that year, Bauer teamed with the Democratic National Committee and a bevy of pro-Obama front organizations to pressure Jewish community leaders into dropping the beautiful and gifted Sarah Palin from a rally against Iran’s nuclear policies. WOOF suspects that more recently Bauer may have functioned as the President’s Chicago-style “enforcer,” ramrodding the recent campaigns against Tea Party-type groups. WOOF further suspects that Bauer’s marching orders in this capacity were to generate sufficient disruption of those organizations’ outreach efforts as to achieve de facto voter suppression during Our Beloved Helmsman’s re-election campaign. Romney contributors, by the way, were similarly targeted. WOOF further suspects that its own candidate in the 2012 presidential race, the beautiful and talented Christine O’Donnell, may have performed poorly at the polls despite WOOF’s endorsement owing to similar shenanigans!

Christine O'Donnell--Was WOOF's nominated candidate a victim of mass voter suppression last November?

Christine O’Donnell–was WOOF’s nominated candidate a victim of mass voter suppression last November?

Fools on the Hill

Commisioner Shulman testifies--sort of. Hey, did you ever see Wallace and Grommet?

Commissioner Shulman testifies–sort of.  Hey, did you ever see ‘Wallace and Gromit’?  Never mind.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers summoned IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman to testify before the congressional hearing on the scandal, but Mr. Shulman turned out to be no help at all, telling committee members that he only knew one thing for certain, and that was that he bore no personal responsibility for the creation of the list targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups for blanket audits and other illegal types of scrutiny, or for denying such groups tax exempt status on the basis of ridiculously elevated or contrived criteria. So—no help there!

The committee next called Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin who told the incredulous assemblage that he could find “no indication” that the Treasury Department was involved—a claim that struck even Democrats like Stephen Lynch as so bizarre that Inspector General J Russell George was called in to straighten things out, but George’s testimony amounted to saying, in so many words, that whatever Wolin said was okay with him.

The Piece Resistantly speaks…

The pièce de résistance was next, however, as star witness Lois Lerner took the hot seat.  Lerner was the obvious key witness in the proceedings, she being the head of the office that oversees applications for tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. She was also the IRS official who took it upon herself for somewhat mysterious reasons to volunteer an apology earlier in the month at a meeting of American Bar Association in which she admitted that the IRS had been busily targeting Tea Party groups as well as groups with “patriot” in their names, groups stating a desire to educate people about the U.S. Constitution or taxation, groups saying they wanted to “make America a better place to live,” or groups that criticized how the country was being run.  Lerner is also the woman who took point for the Clinton administration back in the ‘90s when it sued the Christian Coalition, and lost.  Lerner was the woman who told the ABA that she didn’t reveal the IRS’s witch hunt for Tea Party groups sooner because she was “never asked,” even though she’d been asked about precisely this matter two days earlier by Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and ducked the question.

The pièce de résistance resists! Lerner tells the Congress she's totally innocent and will not be taking questions.

The pièce de résistance resists! Lerner tells the Congress she’s totally innocent and will not be taking questions.

Now, looking demure in a grey jacket, black slacks, and carefully coiffed hair, Lerner gave an opening statement, boldly declaring, “I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”  Everyone assumed that the game was on at this point, but everyone assumed wrong. Having asserted her perfect and absolute innocence on every count, Lerner then proceeded to invoke the Fifth Amendment, presumably on the grounds that she might otherwise tend to incriminate herself. Dear readers, WOOF could not make this stuff up if it wanted to.

So…quo vadis?

And thus we lurch as a nation into a long memorial-day weekend, during which respite it is expected by the Administration and many pundits and prognosticators on both sides of the aisle that we will go back to concerning ourselves with more important stuff, like whether Jodi Arias will get the death penalty, whether Amanda Bynes was really sexually assaulted by police after tossing her bong out of her thirty-seventh floor apartment, and how we all feel about Jennifer Aniston playing a stripper in her new film. Fortunately, WOOF can answer these questions accurately right now: “She won’t; she wasn’t; who cares?”  See? That was easy—and with those issues out of the way, we can get back to thinking about a rogue agency that under President Obama’s sinister control has proven itself a menace to our liberties, our livelihoods, and our Constitutional heritage.

Even the Beatles warned us about the taxman!

Even the Beatles warned us about the taxman!

Back in 1951 the magnificent American industrialist and patriot Vivien Kellems got it exactly right when she wrote that, “There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.” And that was during the Truman administration! Vivien Kellems checked out in 1975, sad to say, but the IRS is still around. So in between drone overflights, email scandals, gun grabs, foreign policy disasters, and continuing economic misery, let’s take a few moments out this summer to fix the tax system, okay?  We could ask the President to fix it, but he’s pretty busy trying to find out who’s behind the drone overflights, email scandals, gun grabs, foreign policy disasters, and the awful economy. So how about the Heritage Foundation? We bet they could fix the tax system in about a week—assuming they’re out from under audit by now! WOOF PRINT


Vivien Kellems: Patriot, Industrialist, tax resistor, American heroine.  And we’re stuck with Lois Lerner. (Sigh.)

%d bloggers like this: