1962 Key West Florida Beach – Hawk Guided Missile Defense During Cuban Missile Crisis
Having served in the US Navy, based for a time in Key West, FL, I am aware first hand how ridiculous it is that US national security is still threatened by this poverty stricken island of Communism. Even back in 1982 I was warned along with the rest of the crew that we were to keep quiet about our ship’s itinerary, not telling family or friends since possibly Castro might find out. I told our CO that our own “getting underway” procedures alerted Castro with a lot more accuracy since our radars were turned on 30 minutes prior to port departure only 90 miles from the Cuban coast. Each radar has an electronic “fingerprint” that identifies the vessel, since we used that all the time when we encountered Russian vessels at sea as well.
Jacob Hornberger, from Future of Freedom Foundation, gives us the low-down on Cuba and some possible reasons why the US military and Deep State might want to keep Cuba poor and on the “bad guy” list:
Of all the ludicrous aspects of the Cold War, among the most ridiculous was the notion that Cuba posed a threat to US “national security.” For some 30 years [since the fall of the USSR], the US deep state (i.e., the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA) maintained that Cuba was a communist “dagger” pointed at America’s neck and, therefore, was a grave threat to “national security.”
Again, whenever you hear the government use the “fear card”, you have to do your research instead of accepting it. Our government uses fear to keep us “safe” in our chains, and ignorant, so that we will not ask questions.
Did they mean that the Cuban army was about to invade Florida, conquer the state, move up the Eastern Seaboard, and end up forcibly taking over the reins of the federal government, thereby enabling it to control the IRS and HUD?
If so, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Cuba has always been an impoverished Third World country, one with a very small military force. Even if it could have scrounged up a few transport boats to get a few dozen troops to Miami, they would have been quickly smashed by well-armed private American citizens.
It is true that even my little ship, a 131 foot (40m) US Navy Hydrofoil, went quickly in and out of Cuban waters only to scramble a MIG-21 or MIG-23 our way. This is what a bully does to someone who has no real fighting chance.
Maybe they meant that Cuban leader Fidel Castro would export socialist ideas to the United States, where they would then infect the minds of the American people.
If so, that’s ridiculous because socialism was already taking over the minds of the American people, and long before Fidel Castro took power in Cuba. That’s what President Franklin Roosevelt’s Social Security scheme was all about — bringing socialism to America. That was some 25 years before Castro came to power!
Let’s not forget, after all, that Social Security did not originate with James Madison or Patrick Henry. It originated among German socialists near the end of the 1800s and then came to the United States in the 1930s. That’s why the Social Security administration has a bust of Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, prominently displayed on its website. Bismarck introduced Social Security to Germany. He got the idea from German socialists.
So it was NOT a physical threat to Florida or a socialist export threat to the US as a whole as this came into our culture by other means. It just has to be those “offensive” Cuban missiles that are pointed at America right?
What about the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Castro invited the Soviet Union to install nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the United States? They were defensive in nature. The Pentagon and the CIA were pressuring President Kennedy to wage a war of aggression against Cuba, with the aim of installing another pro-US dictator into power, such as Fulgencio Batista, the brutal and corrupt Cuban dictator who preceded Castro. A prime example was Operation Northwoods, the false and fraudulent scheme that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously presented to Kennedy after the CIA’s Bay of Pigs disaster, with the aim of securing regime change in Cuba. (To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected it.)
To deter another US attack or to defend against such an attack, Castro sought assistance from the Soviets. If the Pentagon and the CIA had not been pressuring Kennedy to attack Cuba, Castro would never have invited the Soviets to install those missiles. This was confirmed by the fact that once Kennedy promised that he would not permit the deep state to attack Cuba again, the Soviets took their missiles home.
Oh, defensive, I see. Okay, so now what, what could possibly be of benefit by ensuring that the people of Cuba remain in poverty much like the North Korean people?
Today, 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the US deep state steadfastly maintains that Cuba continues to pose a threat to US “national security.” That’s what the decades-old economic embargo that targets the Cuban populace with impoverishment and death is all about.
But the fact is that Cuba has never posed a threat to US “national security,” whatever definition one puts on that nebulous, meaningless term. The truth is that it has always been the US government that has posed a threat to Cuban “national security,” as manifested by such illegal and wrongful actions as the CIA invasion at the Bay of Pigs, the decades-long cruel and brutal economic embargo against the Cuban people, the false and fraudulent Operation Northwoods, state-sponsored assassinations attempts against Castro, and acts of terrorism and sabotage within Cuba.
At the end of the day, it is the Deep State (CIA, NSA, and Pentagon) that uses it primarily as a marketing tool to keep defense spending a top priority for the American tax slaves.
The great thing about what is left of the “free” Internet is knowing that you are not alone in one’s own thoughts about the future. I think it can be a curse to be equipped with the ability to see “red flags” when few others do. When I think of the word prophetic, I don’t mean fore-telling as in declaring future events, but forth-telling as in revealing truths.
There are those that have this gift, like Patrick Henry, when he commented about the release of the document called the US Constitution with “I smell a rat”. This among many other “red-flags” he saw in that document came true in the years and decades to come.
The administrator of The Burning Platform wrote today about his (and others like Ron Paul) ability to see what was coming before 2008 and now sees more clearly what is unraveling once more. He also has learned a bit about human nature in this decade since the economy was turned upside-down and the banks were bailed out using taxpayer money.
First, about the sheep:
I will also no longer overestimate the ability of the American populace to see through this charade and come to their senses regarding their unsustainable use of debt to try and maintain an unrealistic lifestyle. Their willful ignorance, created through government education propaganda and social engineering, will not be extinguished until the inevitable financial collapse wipes them out again.
Second, about the wolves:
I suppose I continue to underestimate the level of maliciousness, gluttony, and pure arrogance of those pulling the strings behind the curtain, as they rape and pillage the dwindling financial resources of our empire in its death throes. These psychopaths in suits care not for this country or its people. These globalist pricks want nothing more than pliable slaves, distracted by their iGadgets, sports, and Hollywood drivel.
Lastly, about President Donald Trump:
Vintage 2016:
“They’re keeping the rates down so that everything else doesn’t go down. We have a very false economy. At some point the rates are going to have to change. The only thing that is strong is the artificial stock market. The U.S. economy is in a big, fat, ugly bubble. I will get rid of the nation’s more than $19 trillion national debt over a period of eight years.I’m renegotiating all of our deals, the big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on.” – Donald Trump, September 2016.
Vintage 2019:
“The U.S. economy would grow more quickly if monetary policy were eased. If we had a Fed that would lower interest rates, we would be like a rocket ship. We don’t have a Fed that knows what they’re doing. Our most difficult problem is not our competitors, it is the Federal Reserve. The Fed raised rates too soon, too often, and doesn’t have a clue!” – Donald Trump, July 2019
Obama did that too! The candidate sounded credible .. but once in office, one would think that someone has their kojones in a vise.
I certainly overestimated the campaign rhetoric truthfulness of Donald Trump as he railed against the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates too low, creating a stock market bubble, and contributing to the parabolic rise in debt. His promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years was impossible, but I thought he might rein in spending and reduce annual deficits.
It seems men who may have the best intentions to do what is right on behalf of the American people when they seek higher office or are appointed to positions of power, such as the Federal Reserve, are summoned into a dark boardroom and informed who are the real bosses and what truly makes the world go round.
Sick but true. As FDR said:
The only reason they are selected is because they WILL do the bidding of those that bought, I mean brought, the puppet, I mean candidate to office.
So where does that have us in the 4Q of 2019?:
So here we are, entering Trump’s fourth year in office as the Deep State and their cronies in Congress, the CIA, and fake news media use impeachment as their last straw in their ongoing attempted coup, and the national debt is up by $3 trillion since Trump took office. At the end of his first term the national debt will exceed $24 trillion and interest on that debt will approach $600 billion.
Is this a good direction? Is this Trumps 4D chess? Using Kevin’s voice from the movie “Home Alone” I say: “I don’t think so”
The tax cuts for corporate America and the richest individuals reduced tax revenues and resulted in corporations buying back billions of their own stock to drive the stock market to the highest valuations since the 2000 dot.com bubble. Meanwhile, Trump fed the military industrial complex with billions more, while funding war throughout the world. Rhetoric about ending wars is just bullshit for the masses. The entitlement outlays remain on an unsustainable path, as Trump and all the feckless politicians in D.C. pretend all is well. Nothing bad has happened – Yet.
I am sure during the Democrat/CIA attempted coup that Trump did not want to pull back DOD spending, especially since a large number of his backers are pro-military, no matter what other country’s women and children will be droned.
The Fed balance sheet peaked at $4.5 trillion as they increased interest rates by a mere 200 basis points over a few years, still 200 basis points below what used to be considered normal. We’ve heard the boasts about the “best economy ever”, “lowest unemployment in history”, “stock market highest ever”, and “record corporate profits”, but with interest rates still at emergency levels and the Fed balance sheet a mere $750 billion lower than its peak, somehow the Fed feels compelled to cut rates and restart QE – but not calling it QE. Powell is bowing down to his Wall Street masters and Trump by taking actions which would only be taken during a recession or financial crisis.
Nothing to see here. Either they will fake it until 2020 elections or the wheels will come off the months prior.
GDP has averaged 2.5% in 2019, with consumer confidence high, consumer spending solid, unemployment at all-time lows, the stock market within spitting distance of all-time highs, and corporate profits at all-time peaks. Why would the Fed cut rates by 50 basis points, with more coming, and increase their balance sheet by $180 billion in one month, with a commitment to increase it by $60 billion a month for the foreseeable future? Will these actions benefit the average person or the above average bank and corporate executives? Savers are again being sacrificed on the altar of corporate America.
Yes, this is the reward people who have tried to save all their lives so they will not be a burden to their kids or to society get when the central bank allows a government to mortgage the future taxpayers lives as perpetual slaves.
Until then, other than Climate Change causing the end of the world in 2032, we have a few things to beware of:
His [Trump’s] impeachment and/or election of a gun grabbing socialist will surely lead to civil violence.
The continued provocations between superpowers with nuclear weapons and a Middle East always on the verge of apocalypse only needs an arrogant misstep by an egomaniacal leader to trigger a global conflagration.
Stay tuned. Glad I am not the only one that sees these “red-flags”. Now there are at least two, or three or more if you count Captain1776 and Malibu, two of my sons, .. or maybe more if you count my other two sons and my daughter.
You may not know it today, but in the days to come, you might have to lean on your faith (if that is what you have/want/need), that there is a hope for a better future at some point. The founders talked a bit about Providence in their trying times.
Here is to a new generation that can take to heart that after the storm, there will be peace and prosperity.
There is a constant in politics. Smoke and mirrors, nothing is what it says it is or was, and everything comes down to the ability to lie well, “for humanity’s sake”
While I am picking on the GOP today, it would be equally easy to pick on the Democratic or even the so-called Libertarian Party as well.
A Republican today is someone who thinks .. :
*That unemployment compensation for laid-off workers is socialism and multi-billion dollar bailouts for banking and stock swindlers is capitalism.
*That killing women and children with high explosives in remote corners of the earth is defending “our way of life.”
*That the purpose of education is to train good workers.
*That immigration is good because it supplies good cheap workers.
*That the 10th Amendment means that the federal government should tell the States what to do rather than do it itself.
*That criticism of Lincoln is near treason.
*That the President is “Commander-in-Chief” of the country, especially when he is a Republican.
*That freedom is protected by undeclared wars and military tribunals.
*That “right to life” is a good campaign gimmick, but not to be taken seriously.
*That any campaign promise or slogan should gull the saps who are not in the know but is not to be taken seriously.
*That the way to beat the Democrats is to take up whatever they propose and promise to do it better
On that last one, know that Trump-care would follow Obamacare, the same thing only different. But I digress.
I think we can all agree to what these three parties are today, however, I do think we might have some disagreement on what these parties were in years gone past.
Today I will limit myself to the Grand Old Party, since I have limited time …
Here is some popular thoughts accepted by the masses and the people they trust from Paul H. Yarbrough:
[we can] blame the Democrat party for slavery, Jim Crow and most every other popular racial badness. The Republicans supposedly are angels wiping out these evils.
Yes, aligns perfectly with everyone’s history books, so this data must be good, but not so fast. It should be noted that:
Many, if not most, slave traders were Northerners regardless of political party.
Republicans, for the most part, were not opposed to slavery. They just did not want it extended into the western territories. They sided with the abolitionists only in that they wanted slaves freed so as they might be repatriated to Africa.
Republicans sponsored the Corwin Amendment introduced in 1860 by prominent Republicans William H. Seward and Thomas Corwin that would have kept slavery in perpetuity. The amendment was only ratified by two border states, Maryland and Kentucky and three Northern states: Ohio, Rhode Island and Illinois (which had passed laws prohibiting entry by free blacks into the state).
Let’s look at this amendment (would have been the 13th if ratified):
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.””
This does NOT sound like a party that is anti-slavery does it? No, this sounds like a party that changed its mind in 1862 when its invasion of the South was being frustrated, so it changed its mission from “Saving the Union” to “Free the Slaves” (to encourage a general slave revolt in the South to end the War Against Southern Independence faster).
About the Jim Crow laws that today’s Republicans claim is a legacy of the Democrats:
.. the Republicans who controlled the South during the military occupation following the war, forced the Black Codes, nonexistent in the South, on the South in 1866. The Black Codes were a Republican concept. And Northern Republicans were the creators of the later to come Jim Crow Laws.
Surprised? You should never be surprised when your beliefs based on political books like the ones on history are revealed as mere myths.
Now, how “republican” is the Republican party? About as “federalist” as the Federalist party was in the 1790s. Politicians even lie when naming their own parties, it has always been that way!
The Republican party is no more republican then the Democratic party is democratic. Both are oligarchies promoting their namesakes as if those in charge (power) have the interests of the people firmly in their hearts (with their pocketbooks in their hands).
True. When one looks at the legacy of the Republican party, one really has to stretch the meaning of the word to apply it even in 1856/1860 (thanks to Laurence M. Vance for his work on these very accurate attributes):
The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln. Republicans who liked to accuse Obama of being dictatorial some years ago have forgotten all about their beloved Lincoln. He issued a proclamation that freed no slaves. He destroyed the country to save the union. He presided over the first income tax. He supported an amendment to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. He shut down Northern opposition newspapers and imprisoned Northern political dissenters. He oversaw the deaths of 500,000 to 800,000 Americans. He destroyed the system of states’ rights and federalism created by the Founding Fathers.
Dang. Maybe in “peacetime” Republicans are more in line with the founding fathers and this federated republic? You can bet the GOP plans ZERO peace in the near-term. It is just not in their DNA to be anything but like the Democrats, only different.
Other attributes:
The Republican Party is the party of the drug war. Although Republicans say they are the party of the Constitution, they show their contempt for the Constitution by their ardent support of the unconstitutional drug war that has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. Republicans are the greatest advocates of locking up people in cages for possessing substances the government doesn’t approve of.
The Republican Party is the party of the warfare state. Closing a domestic military base is implausible. Scrapping a weapons system is out of the question. Cutting the bloated defense budget is inconceivable. Invading and occupying other countries is viewed as defensive warfare. Bombing, maiming, and killing whomever the government labels as “the enemy” is viewed as defending our freedoms.
The Republican Party is the party of empire. Republicans support the stationing of troops and the maintaining of foreign military bases all over the globe—including in Germany, Italy, and Japan even though World War II ended 70 years ago. Closing an overseas military base is unthinkable. Bringing all of the troops home is unimaginable.
The Republican Party is the party of the welfare state. Republicans are welfare statists just like Democrats. They believe that it is the proper role of government to provide public assistance, have entitlement programs, maintain a safety net, and guarantee income security. They continually support food stamps, WIC, TANF, federal job training programs, rent subsidies, heating assistance, farm programs, SSI, and refundable tax credits that allow some Americans to receive tax refunds when they paid no taxes to begin with. They support the government providing unemployment benefits so that those who work can support those who don’t. They have no philosophical objection to the government fighting poverty by taking money from some Americans and redistributing it to others. When Bush the president and had a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress for over four years, the Republicans could have eliminated or substantially rolled back the welfare state. They did neither.
The Republican Party is the party of Social Security. Although Republicans may criticize FDR and many of his New Deal programs, they love his Social Security program and want to “save” it so future generations of young people can support the elderly via an intergenerational, income-transfer, wealth-redistribution welfare scheme.
The Republican Party is the party of socialized medicine. Although Republicans rail against Obamacare, they are silent about their passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003—the greatest expansion of Medicare since LBJ. Like Social Security, Republicans are some of the greatest champions of “saving” Medicare. And just because they criticize Obamacare doesn’t mean that they favor a real free market in health care, the total separation of medicine from the state, the complete deregulation of the health-insurance industry, or the establishment of medical freedom. Republicans believe that some Americans should pay for the health care of other Americans.
The Republican Party is the part of foreign aid. Republicans have no philosophical objection whatsoever to taking money from American taxpayers and giving it to corrupt foreign regimes, including bribing them with cash and military equipment to get them to obey U.S. dictates. Spending on foreign aid practically doubled during the Bush years.
The Republican Party is the party of federal control of education. The Democrats may have given us Common Core, but the Republicans gave us No Child Left Behind. Republicans support the federal student loan program, Pell Grants, the National School Lunch Program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Head Start. And instead of eliminating the federal Department of Education when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress for over four years during the Bush presidency, they practically doubled the department’s budget. Republicans believe that some Americans should pay for the education of the children of other Americans.
The Republican Party is the party of an aggressive, belligerent, and meddling interventionist foreign policy. Republicans believe that the United States should be a busybody who polices the world and tells every other country what it should and shouldn’t do. They fully support CIA covert activities and torture—as long as the American people don’t find out about it.
The Republican Party is the party of taxes. Tax reform is unacceptable unless it is revenue neutral. Tax deductions, credits, and loopholes that allow some Americans to keep more of their money should be eliminated. “The rich” should pay their fair share via a progressive tax system. The government is entitled to a portion of every American’s income.
The Republican Party is the party of the national security state. Republicans gave us the Department of Homeland Security when we already had a defense department. They gave us the Patriot Act to violate our liberties. They gave us the TSA to grope us when we travel. The current vocal criticism by some Republicans of the NSA would be reduced to a whimper under a Republican administration. Republicans support a CIA that spies on the whole world and works mischief throughout.
The Republican Party is the party of massive government spending and debt. The national debt rose almost a trillion dollars between the Republican Revolution that wasn’t in 1995 and Bush’s first inauguration in 2001. During Bush’s presidency, government spending skyrocketed, the national debt almost doubled, and the federal deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the first time. Republicans in Congress regularly vote to raise the debt limit under Republican presidents. They have no philosophical objection to spending billions of taxpayer dollars on thousands of departments, agencies, grants, and programs that are not warranted by the Constitution.
Now you have a flavor of a political party that in no way reflects the “republican” nature of government that Thomas Jefferson, who formed the Democratic-Republican Party (formally called the Republican Party) around 1792 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury and chief architect of George Washington’s administration.
Words matter. You know, like the “Patriot” Act. As Ron Paul points out:
The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications.
How patriotic is that?
It is a minefield out there. Be careful in your assumptions! The labels are many times very misleading.
Service members pick through the rubble following the bombing of the USMC barracks in Beirut, Lebanon on Oct. 23, 1983. The terror attack resulted in the deaths of 220 Marines. File Photo by USMC/UPI
You can count on one hand the times that the United States of America refrained from its drive for war. While its third president said on 04MAR1801:
… peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none …
… in hindsight, presidents that followed Thomas Jefferson did not have those ideals and/or could not resist the unity that happens when the war path is decided on. War is good for the state as well, which statesmen back in the day and politicians today realize clearly. The state was meant for war.
However, there was a time in the early 1980s when the US backed off from the war path. It was tempting, but at the end of the day, cooler heads prevailed. As Kenny Rogers sang
He said, “If you’re gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
In this article, the details emerge from a time in 1983-1984 when the US Empire acted more like a man of character than that of a bully. Confident that knowing when “to hold them, and knowing when to run” displayed more meekness, power under control, than most Presidential administrations to date.
While Reagan’s administration piled on the debt more than Carter’s, engaged in the drug trafficking trade called the Iran-Contra Affair, and also ratcheted up “gun-control”, this event in Lebanon and the US response is something that needs to be remembered and admired.
Setting the stage:
In October of 1983, a truck filled with explosives leveled the four-story U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. The intelligence community laid responsibility for the act at the feet of Tehran’s mullahs, who’d tasked Hezbollah, their proxy in Lebanon, with pushing the U.S. (which had deployed the Marines as part of a multinational peacekeeping mission) out of the region. The incident (the largest non-nuclear explosion since World War Two, as we were told at the time), touched off a legendary internal Reagan Administration dispute over how, and whether, the U.S. should retaliate.
As today, there were members of the administration that were more war-hawk in nature, and others who have been in combat, and acutely know what the unintentional consequences might be in ordering a retaliation.
I do like Caspar Weinberger’s (US Army veteran of some intense Pacific fighting in WWII) angle:
Secretary of Defense [Weinberger] had opposed the deployment of the Marines to begin with, and had the support of the military. Colin Powell, Weinberger’s senior military assistant, spoke for many of the military’s leaders when he described the Lebanon deployment “goofy from the beginning.”
On the other side was Secretary of State George Shultz:
For Shultz, however, revisiting the deployment decision was a waste of time. In a series of knock-down-drag-outs that pitted him against Weinberger, the Secretary of State argued that “American credibility” (that old standby), was being tested and that, therefore, the deaths of 241 U.S. Marines was cause enough for a military escalation.
The kicker comes here where Weinberger’s wisdom is revealed:
Weinberger disagreed: “retaliation against who?” he asked. Slow-rolling the president, he argued that the U.S. needed better intelligence before deciding who to punish. Weinberger was adamant: the U.S. had just left one unwinnable conflict (in Vietnam), and shouldn’t be so quick to start another. He dug in.
I do wish that this effort could be made today. Instead of lashing out like a bully swinging wildly to and fro, connecting here, connecting there mainly with innocent people and missing the real culprits, can’t today’s US government ever take time and wisely ascertain what is really happening? No more “WMD’s in Iraq”, no more Colin Powell holding some “chemical weapon” in his fingers at the UN, no more stories of babies in incubators left to die. The CIA/MI6/Mossad deep state “evidence” needs to be compared to truly independent science, if one can every practically get there.
Maybe, just maybe today’s announcement that Sen. Rand Paul has been chosen to be a point of dialog with the regime in Iran, is a rare piece of good news that I myself have been waiting years if not decades for.
Back to 1983.
It seems that the Vietnam War was not too far in the rear-view mirror as men with war experience from WWII in the South Pacific, who started as PRIVATES, who have seen the elephant, could wisely speak into:
NOTE: “Weinberger was a Harvard-educated lawyer, his formative experience came in World War II, where he served as an infantry officer during the 1942 Battle of Buna—a fetid, leech-infested Japanese base on the rim of northern New Guinea. For those who survived, including Weinberger, the swamp-slogging battle was an unrelenting nightmare: at its end, the Japanese resorted to cannibalism and used the bodies of the dead to reinforce their defenses. ”
Staying strong:
The Shultz-Weinberger tilt dragged on until February of 1984, when Reagan decided to “redeploy” the Marines to U.S. ships on station in the Mediterranean. The “redeployment” was seen by Shultz as an ignominious retreat, a sign of American weakness. But, as capably rendered by Marine Colonel and historian David Crist in The Twilight War, that’s not the way the Pentagon viewed it.
Only the insecure thinks this is a loss. The mature and secure person can see better the big picture and risk the possibility of this reaction to be seen as week.
Then the truth is unearthed, something that the US Empire struggles with to this very day:
The problem with American policy in the Middle East, Koch implied, was American hypocrisy—and our selective use of the word terrorism: when our friends plant bombs we say it’s because they’re defending our values, but when our enemies do it, it’s terrorism.
The entangling alliances will always cause hypocrisy. We had been warned from over 200 years ago and we (especially our leaders) still don’t get it.
Over reaction to the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, or to anything we might see in the Persian Gulf in the coming weeks and months is a recipe for a disaster that will over-shadow Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Things were very different even 5, 10, 15 and even 20 years ago. The world has changed, Russia and China have not only survived US sanctions and tariff wars, but they also have allies in other countries that have been bullied by the US Empire especially since the end of WWII.
.. striking back, killing who you can because you can (and simply to assuage your own anger) is not only “beneath our dignity”—it’s a signpost on the road to unwinnable wars.
Don’t we know it. The US Empire legacy lives on, and it ain’t a pretty sight.
As I have stated many times before, there is a bit of misinformation out in our world that can lead people to believe things that are not actually true. This happened well before the Internet’s “fake news” and “fact-check” phenomenon as Mark Train points out here:
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”
So take all your history books (especially if they have anything to do with the South and the North and were published after 1865) with a grain of salt when you read them. Source material is out there but mining that is more and more difficult as search engines have been compromised.
While I never expect any politician except perhaps Ron Paul to get history > 90% correct, this latest article laments how Ted Cruz has latched on so some fake history in the last few days:
It is also appalling to me when a conservative such as Glenn Beck or Ted Cruz—who would never allow the politically correct to deceive them on contemporary issues—routinely allow themselves to be hoodwinked on historical topics. Nathan Bedford Forrest is a prime example.
So hang on now and consider these thoughts without accepting them as truth until you do your own homework. Context, as always, is imperative in making wise judgements:
The year 1865 was pivotal in American history. It was the year the Civil War ended, the Confederacy died, the Ku Klux Klan was born, and the Democratic Party transitioned from the party of slavery to the party of white supremacy.
It must be known that the GOP/Republican party was originally a Free Soil party that believed in white land ownership exclusively. Lincoln himself is on record saying many times that the black race was subpar to the white race:
“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Let’s look at the initial focus of this organization instead of focusing on what it became, especially in the 1900s when members were waving the stars and stripes and intimidating the general public into a race war like you see below:
1925 KKK March on Washington DC
Today’s focus if on the first version (1.0) of the Ku Klux Klan that ran from 1866-1869:
It (KKK) was born in the law offices of Judge Thomas Jones in Pulaski, Tennessee. Half its original members were attorneys. Its initial standards were high. One had to be in the Confederate Army at the time of the surrender or in a Union prisoner-of-war camp to be eligible for membership. Its original mission statement called for it to be “an instrument of Chivalry, Humanity, Mercy and patriotism” which was to “relieve and assist the injured, oppressed, suffering, and unfortunate, especially widows and orphans of Confederate soldiers.”
You have to know how much the North, especially the government, hated everything about the South after Lincoln was assassinated. In fact, there is some contention that the assassination might have been orchestrated much like our current FBI and CIA helps unstable individuals to carry out these kind of things when a large public figure might go a direction they are not willing to travel. It was well known that Lincoln wanted a peaceful transition back to the Union for these eleven states. Not everyone in government was ready for that, in fact, they rather loved the way Lincoln shifted the republic towards a centralized, tyrannical state. “States rights” were violently dismissed by 1865. Eventually, military districts were established as these states were raped and pillaged one more time for the North’s benefit.
[US government] have a 47% tax on cotton, which they used to subsidize Northern railroads and other large corporations. On the other hand, they did provide pensions to Northern widows and orphans at the expense of Southern widows and orphans.
As 1866 dawned, here was the real ‘state of the South’ under Union occupation:
The loss of the war and the death of the Confederacy were not isolated events. They also signaled the breakdown of the Southern economy and the collapse of law and order in many localities. Gangs of criminals and individual thugs had a field day throughout the South. Union deserters, Southern outlaws, recently freed slaves who did not know how to handle their freedom, and professional criminals ran amuck. Arson, robbery, rape, and murder were the order of the day. At the same time, Carpetbaggers and collaborators pillaged the public treasuries, increased taxes 300% to 400%, ran up huge public debts, pocketed the proceeds, stole land and farms, and enriched themselves at the expense of a helpless and impoverished people.
African Americans suffered most of all. Much of the South’s land was ruined during the conflict, and 1867 was a year of famine. The new Northern rulers had no interest in the Southern people, black or white. Tens of thousands of Negroes literally starved to death. No effort was made on the part of the new rulers to even keep records of how many died.
Public health was almost completely ignored. Smallpox epidemics periodically raged throughout the South in the 1862 through 1868 period. The weakened and malnourished black folks were especially susceptible, often dying at rates of three or four times higher than Southern whites, who were themselves not well nourished. Black children were particularly hard hit. In one six-month period in 1865, 30,000 African Americans died in North Carolina and South Carolina alone. The epidemic lasted six years.
Much like the aftermath of the Iraq invasion in 2003 when the USA really did not have a game-plan except to overthrow their old partner Saddam Hussein, the North did not really want the blacks migrating north and so the GOP used the government offices of the south to entice them to stay. In the end the GOP “used” the blacks to maintain their control in these southern states. Not until the corrupt Grant administration was there the trade-off to allow the people once again to vote in even honorable ex-Confederate officers and enlisted men to public office and allow these states re-entry into the Union in the late 1870s.
It was in this context that Northern politicians actually entertained the thought of a 2nd Civil War:
Not content with theft and neglect, a significant minority of Northern politicians openly advocated a second Civil War. They included Thaddeus Stevens, the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives; General Benjamin F. “Spoons” Butler; Governor Richard Yates of Illinois; carpetbagger Governor Andrew J. Hamilton of Texas; and Senator Jim Lane of Kansas, among others. U.S. Congressman William Anderson Pile advocated “death to all supporters of the South, past or present.” General William T. Sherman wanted Southerners demoted to “demizens”: people who were given certain rights (such as the right to pay taxes) but not others (such as the right to vote). Governor William G. “Parson” Brownlow of Tennessee. A former Methodist preacher, slave owner, and newspaper editor, he believed slavery was “ordained by God.” He nevertheless supported the Union and a second Civil War. “I am one of those who believed that the war ended too soon,” he declared, and “the loyal masses” should not “leave one Rebel fence rail, outhouse, one dwelling, in the seceded states. As for the Rebel population, let them be exterminated.”
About this time in correspondence between Robert E. Lee and Lord Acton in England, Robert E. Lee responded:
.. while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.
At this point in time, in the middle of a despotic domestic scene, great men will arise and protect their families and their land. The character of Nathan Bedford Forrest can be seen in his quotes:
“I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue”
“I went into the army worth a million and a half dollars, and came out a beggar”
So here is Nathan’s entry into this foray and the real source of the term “wizard”:
The government were it was functioning at all was often in the hands of criminals, and they felt compelled to take the law into their own hands. There is a point between civilization and anarchy in which vigilantism is an acceptable, temporary measure, until law and order can be restored. Into that breach stepped Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was receiving a hundred letters a day from his former soldiers, relating eye-witness accounts of outrage and lawlessness .. Forrest applied for membership … In the spring of 1866, the leaders of the KKK met in the Maxwell House in Nashville, Tennessee, and created the position of “Grand Wizard,” a tribute to Forrest’s wartime nickname, “Wizard of the Saddle,” and gave it to the general .. Under Forrest, it [KKK] became, as he said, “a protective political military organization,” i.e., a paramilitary force, a counterbalance to [Governor] Brownlow’s Loyal Legion.
All government would react, but it is interesting how Tennessee’s governor reacts:
Governor Brownlow sought to pass a law making it legal for anyone to shoot a former Confederate on sight.
Now there is a data point to think about. What was it that really made the Union and the GOP so hateful? The treatment of blacks? I highly doubt it, it was more like when a spouse seeks to leave a marriage due to abuse and the other spouse ramps up the abuse to keep them in the “union”. What the South was to the North before the war was tariff income. After the war it became conquered territory to be used and abused.
Forrest knew the support he had from his former soldiers:
If that law passed, Forrest declared, there would be a second war, although he did not want it, but he would look upon the activation of Brownlow’s militia as a declaration of war. He also declared that he could raise 40,000 Klansmen in Tennessee and 550,000 throughout the South in five days. No one wanted to fight a half a million man cavalry army under Nathan Bedford Forrest ..
The Tennessee governor relented.
Just a few years later:
In February 1869, Brownlow resigned as governor. His successor sought to work with the Democrats, was conciliatory to his former enemies, and restored voting rights to Southern veterans and Confederate sympathizers. Forrest, meanwhile, became concerned that white trash elements were taking over large parts of the organization and were using it for their own nefarious and hateful purposes. As a result, Nathan Bedford Forrest issued General Order Number One, disbanding the Ku Klux Klan. “There was no further need for it,” Forrest commented later, “. . . the country was safe.”
So was Nathan Bedford Forrest this horrible guy? No. He had a heart for the people oppressed by the likes of Brownlow and other Northern politicians that had a hate streak for all things of the South. Obviously, if the South was that bad, why didn’t Northern politicians just let her go?
