Biden Is Brain Dead

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The first time that I came into contact with Joe Biden was when I had just left the U.S. Senate in January of 1973.  I attended his first committee hearing before the Senate Banking Committee—where I had served as a staff attorney, before heading the staff of the late Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts.[2]

In a very real sense, it was a tragic occasion because one month before—on December 18, 1972—Biden’s first wife Neilia and their one-year-old daughter Naomi were killed in an automobile accident while Christmas shopping in Delaware:

Neilia Biden’s station wagon was hit by a tractor-trailer truck carrying corn cobs as she pulled out from an intersection. Biden’s sons Beau and Hunter survived the accident and were taken to the hospital in fair condition, Beau with a broken leg and other wounds, and Hunter with a minor skull fracture and other head injuries.  Doctors soon said both would make full recoveries.  Biden considered resigning to care for them, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield persuaded him not to.[3]  

Yet that day in the Senate, Biden was courageous and all smiles; and his colleagues in the Senate welcomed him graciously, as a newly-minted U.S. Senator.

Thereafter, I attended many Senate hearings, as I had when I worked there.  However, it seems that I will always remember that one day.  Biden was doing his best—and life had to go on.  Many if not most of us might have gone into near- or complete-isolation following such a tragedy; and I admired Biden after that.

I came to the Senate as a Democrat, having been raised in a devoutly-Republican family, where giants like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur—and Richard Nixon—were lionized.[4]  Indeed, my mother had a framed photo of Pat and Dick Nixon on our living room table.

Fast forward to my post-Senate beliefs, and I had seen enough not to believe in either political party, so I became an Independent and have been one ever since.  I learned that the Kennedys were the very worst of American politics[5]; and Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the tragic Vietnam War, in which friends of mine were killed for nothing.

Indeed, when I left the Senate, I concluded that the Democrats were “evil” but smart, while the Republicans were “Neanderthals” and dumb.  I have never changed that opinion.

Joe Biden went through “vanity” hair transplants, just as one of my Senate “heroes” Bill Proxmire did[6]; and I did not pay much attention to Biden until Barack Obama picked him as a running mate.  Also, I have not paid much attention to the scandals surrounding Biden and his son Hunter, or to claims of Biden’s womanizing—which are “standard fare” in Hollywood, Washington and other power centers of this world.

While I have commented about Biden sporadically[7], the issue before the American people now and in the days and months to come is whether he has the mental capacity to be President of the United States.  These are not normal times, with the Coronavius sweeping the world and people dying—or at least being hurt and perhaps never recovering (e.g., economically).  And there appears to be no end in sight, with the virus’ “state sponsor” China seeking global domination.[8]

It goes without saying that Americans of all colors, religions and political persuasions cannot have a President who is “asleep at the switch,” quite literally.  And Biden has endured multiple brain operations, which may have affected his mental capacities in ominous ways.[9]  Our enemies globally are not stupid; and they have vast intelligence apparatuses that follow everything important that happens in our great nation.

Needless to say, they are not “missing a beat” in diagnosing Biden’s mental condition, which may be why it is reported that China wants him to succeed Donald Trump as our President.[10]  An “incapacitated” Joe Biden may be just what they want and need to advance their plans globally, and change the United States’ trajectory forever.

Lastly, it is worth repeating what I wrote almost twelve years ago about the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen’s magnificent work:

In the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all” — and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.[11]

Perhaps before the 2020 presidential campaign has run its course, one little child will express the belief that Joe Biden is “brain dead,” or certainly very close to it.  Lots of Democrats know this already, but are too afraid (or ashamed) to acknowledge it publicly. 

 

 

© 2020, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30 ; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/edward-w-brooke-is-dead/ (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/the-brooke-amendment-and-section-8-housing-revisited/ (“The Brooke Amendment And Section 8 Housing: Revisited”)

[3]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Family_deaths (“Joe Biden, Family deaths”) (footnotes omitted)

[4]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower (“Dwight D. Eisenhower”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur (“Douglas MacArthur”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon (“Richard Nixon”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/ (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History”) (see also the extensive comments beneath this article) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/ (“Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy: A Question of Character”)

[6]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/#comment-1800 (“When A Giant Named Senator Bill Walked Through Washington”)

[7]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/american-blacks-constitute-less-than-14-percent/#comment-24781 (“Biden’s Basement Strategy: Just Say Nothing”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-21003 (“Barack Obama, The Clintons And The Bidens”)

[8]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/04/chinas-goal-is-global-domination-and-it-must-suffer-the-soviet-unions-fate/ (“China’s Goal Is Global Domination, And It Must Suffer The Soviet Union’s Fate”)

[9]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/05/the-millennials-may-never-forgive-biden-and-the-democrats/#comment-23417 (“Biden Is In A Steep Mental Decline”)

If Biden chooses California’s Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate, it may simply compound the Democrats’ problems.

See, e.g, https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/it-is-time-for-trump-supporters-to-fight-back/#comment-21650 (“Down And Out: Willie Brown’s Ho Is Gone”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/it-is-time-for-trump-supporters-to-fight-back/#comment-23415 (“Willie Brown’s Ho Is A Total Hypocrite) 

[10]  See https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/07/politics/2020-election-russia-china-iran/index.html (“Intelligence community’s top election official: China and Iran don’t want Trump to win reelection, Russia working against Biden”)

[11]  See Timothy D. Naegele, Viewpoint: Greenspan’s Fingerprints All Over Enduring Mess, American Banker, October 17, 2008 (http://www.naegele.com/documents/GreenspansFingerprints.pdf); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”)

Of Course Colleges Are Dinosaurs

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

As I wrote almost twelve years ago about the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen’s magnificent work:

In the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all” — and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.[2]

The grand swindle of a college education is being exposed for all to see too, as a result of the deadly Coronavirus pandemic that China unleashed on the world—which will not run its course until the end of 2021, at the earliest.[3]

As I wrote nine years ago in an article entitled “Are Colleges Dinosaurs?”:

The exorbitant costs associated with college educations have been rising for a long time now

America’s Middle Class is being priced out of colleges for their kids; and many parents are questioning whether college is worth it, and whether they can afford it.  This is true to an even greater extent when it comes to graduate schools, such as law schools.  As more and more Americans face economic problems during the balance of this decade, which will be true of their counterparts abroad as well, many will find that undergraduate college educations and graduate schools are luxuries that they cannot afford.  Many families will be doing whatever they can just to survive. . . .

Certainly in the case of State-supported schools, where budgetary pressures are dictating that their expenditures be slashed, the twin pincers of parents who cannot afford to send their kids to these schools, and declining budgets, may break the backs of such schools.

Another old friend of mine, who covered Washington for many years as a talented and insightful political and economic reporter and editor, told me recently that colleges are effectively dinosaurs and relics of the past, like newspapers and newsweeklies in this Internet age.  The educational institutions of the future will be online—or so my friend believes—which cost a fraction of what “bricks-and-mortar” educational institutions cost today.  The kids now are computer literate like no generation of the past; and the idea of learning online is second nature to them.

Why spend money on college tuitions and campus living expenses, and professors’ salaries and the infrastructure of college campuses, when everything can be done online for a fraction of the cost?  Why have professors repeating essentially the same lectures year after year, when such lectures can be taped once and shown again and again on YouTube? Why not eliminate “redundancy” and have the best professors teaching students online nationwide, and eliminate the costs of multiple professors?  Why allow “teaching assistants” (or “TAs”) to educate our kids, when the professors are paid to do this?  Why not eliminate colleges and graduates schools in wholesale numbers—just like libraries and book stores are closing or becoming “bookless” because everything is online?

The bottom line with respect to whether education shifts to the Internet might not be a function of conscious decisions by educators or parents: pure economics in America and globally will determine the results.  Falling governmental tax revenues will dictate drastic cuts like never before; and declining personal incomes and home values and foreclosures, and other family sacrifices, will result in changes to personal life styles that will affect the way educational programs are perceived and delivered worldwide. [4]

What was not mentioned in the article itself, but was discussed in comments beneath it, is the fact that student loans have kept the colleges, universities and graduate schools alive financially, all the while saddling the students and/or their parents with massive student debts that must be serviced and cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

As if to echo what I wrote, the UK’s Economist has an article entitled “The absent student,” which states:

In the normal run of things, late summer sees airports in the emerging world fill with nervous 18-year-olds, jetting off to begin a new life in the rich world’s universities. The annual trek of more than 5m students is a triumph of globalisation. Students see the world; universities get a fresh batch of high-paying customers. Yet with flights grounded and borders closed, this migration is about to become the pandemic’s latest victim.

For students, covid-19 is making life difficult. Many must choose between inconveniently timed seminars streamed into their parents’ living rooms and inconveniently deferring their studies until life is more normal. For universities, it is disastrous. They will not only lose huge chunks of revenue from foreign students but, because campus life spreads infection, they will have to transform the way they operate. . . .

Yet the disaster may have an upside. For many years government subsidies and booming demand have allowed universities to resist changes that could benefit both students and society. They may not be able to do so for much longer.

Higher education has been thriving. Since 1995, as the notion spread from the rich world to the emerging one that a degree from a good institution was essential, the number of young people enrolling in higher education rose from 16% of the relevant age group to 38%. The results have been visible on swanky campuses throughout the Anglosphere, whose better universities have been the principal beneficiaries of the emerging world’s aspirations.

Yet troubles are piling up. China has been a source of high-paying foreign students for Western universities, but relations between the West and China are souring. Students with ties to the army are to be banned from America.

Governments have been turning against universities, too. In an age when politics divides along educational lines, universities struggle to persuade some politicians of their merit. President Donald Trump attacks them for “Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education”. Some 59% of Republican voters have a negative view of colleges; just 18% of Democrats do. In Britain universities’ noisy opposition to Brexit has not helped. Given that the state pays for between a quarter and a half of tertiary education in America, Australia and Britain, through student loans and grants, the government’s enthusiasm matters.

Scepticism among politicians is not born only of spite. Governments invest in higher education to boost productivity by increasing human capital. But even as universities have boomed, productivity growth in the rich-country economies has fallen. Many politicians suspect that universities are not teaching the right subjects, and are producing more graduates than labour markets need. Small wonder that the state is beginning to pull back. In America government spending on universities has been flat in recent years; in Australia, even as the price of humanities degrees doubles, so it will fall for subjects the government deems good for growth.

There are questions about the benefits to students, too. The graduate premium is healthy enough, on average, for a degree to be financially worthwhile, but not for everybody. In Britain the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has calculated that a fifth of graduates would be better off if they had never gone to university. In America four in ten students still do not graduate six years after starting their degree—and, for those who do, the wage premium is shrinking. Across the world as a whole, student enrolment continues to grow, but in America it declined by 8% in 2010-18.

Then came covid-19. Although recessions tend to boost demand for higher education, as poor job prospects spur people to seek qualifications, revenues may nevertheless fall. Government rules will combine with student nerves to keep numbers down. Last month the Trump administration said new foreign students would not be allowed to enter the country if their classes had moved online. Sydney, Melbourne, UNSW and Monash, four of Australia’s leading universities, rely on foreign students for a third of their income. The IFS expects losses at English universities to amount to over a quarter of one year’s revenues.

The damage from covid-19 means that, in the short term at least, universities will be more dependent on governments than ever. The IFS reckons that 13 universities in Britain risk going bust. Governments ought to help colleges, but should favour institutions that provide good teaching and research or benefit their community. Those that satisfy none of those criteria should be allowed to go to the wall.

Those that survive must learn from the pandemic. Until now most of them, especially the ones at the top of the market, have resisted putting undergraduate courses online. That is not because remote teaching is necessarily bad—a third of graduate students were studying fully online last year—but because a three- or four-year degree on campus was universities’ and students’ idea of what an undergraduate education should look like. Demand for the services of universities was so intense that they had no need to change.

Now change is being forced upon them. The College Crisis Initiative at Davidson College says that less than a quarter of American universities are likely to teach mostly or wholly in person next term. If that persists, it will reduce the demand. Many students buy the university experience not just to boost their earning capacity, but also to get away from their parents, make friends and find partners. But it should also cut costs, by giving students the option of living at home while studying.

Back to the mortarboard
Covid-19 is catalysing innovation, too. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a group of midwestern universities, is offering many of its 600,000 students the opportunity to take online courses at other universities in the group. There is huge scope for using digital technology to improve education. Poor in-person lectures could be replaced by online ones from the best in the world, freeing up time for the small-group teaching which students value most.

Universities are rightly proud of their centuries-old traditions, but their ancient pedigrees have too often been used as an excuse for resisting change. If covid-19 shakes them out of their complacency, some good may yet come from this disaster.[5] 

Amen to all of this.  The only caveats that I have about effectively “gutting” colleges is that many students fool around with their online classes, and do not take them seriously; and hence, they run the risk of learning little or nothing.  And missing from a totally-online education is the social interaction that a college campus and environment provide.  Lastly, at least in America, college sports provide much-needed relief from the pressures of everyday life, which have increased dramatically—and beyond all reckoning—because of the Coronavirus. 

 

 

© 2020, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele, Viewpoint: Greenspan’s Fingerprints All Over Enduring Mess, American Banker, October 17, 2008 (http://www.naegele.com/documents/GreenspansFingerprints.pdf); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”)

[3]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/04/chinas-goal-is-global-domination-and-it-must-suffer-the-soviet-unions-fate/ (“China’s Goal Is Global Domination, And It Must Suffer The Soviet Union’s Fate”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/are-colleges-dinosaurs/ (“Are Colleges Dinosaurs?”) (footnotes omitted)

[5]  See https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/08/08/covid-19-will-be-painful-for-universities-but-also-bring-change (“The absent student”); see also https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/08/08/covid-19-could-push-some-universities-over-the-brink (“Uncanny University”—”Covid-19 could push some universities over the brink”—”Higher education was in trouble even before the pandemic”—”Covid-19 has put immense pressure on all universities. But the problems are about to get particularly severe for those in America, Australia, Canada and Britain that have come to rely on international students to fill their coffers.  . . . Even before the pandemic, many such universities worried about worsening relations with China, the biggest source of international students.  . . . Academics, used to tricky questions, now face an existential one: how will universities survive with many fewer students in them?  The problem is that campuses make an excellent breeding ground for the virus, and students travelling across the world are a good way to spread it.  A study by researchers at Cornell found that, although the average student at the university shares classes with just 4% of their peers, they share a class with someone who shares a class with 87%. The potential for the rapid spread of the disease was shown by the arrival of recruits at Fort Benning, an American army base. When 640 arrived in spring, just four tested positive. A few weeks later, more than a hundred did. According to the New York Times, some 6,600 covid-19 cases can be linked to American colleges.  . . . The risk is that, beyond the lecture hall, youngsters will ignore many restrictions. In July the University of California, Berkeley reported an outbreak involving 47 covid-19 cases, with most traced to parties in the fraternities and sororities. At the time, administrators urged students to keep gatherings to below 12 people, to hold them outside, to stay at least six feet apart and to cover their faces; they have since announced that all classes will be online and only 3,200 of the university’s 40,000 students will be allowed to live on campus.  . . . In America an estimated one postgraduate in three was studying fully online last year, up from one in five in 2012.  . . .  [I]n America, New York University is home to the most international students with 19,605; in Britain, University College London is, with 19,635.  The experience of either city—with all the possibilities of exploration and romance which urban life brings, even under semi-lockdown—cannot be replicated through video calls in a parental living room.  . . .  [E]ntry restrictions currently prevent students from getting to lots of countries. Since February all Chinese visitors have been banned from entering Australia. Pilot programmes to fly in groups of a few hundred students were abandoned when the local case count rose. Currently Canada will not let in students who did not get a visa before March. Some Indian students are allowed into America, but Chinese ones are not. Both would be welcome in Britain, so long as they quarantined for a fortnight.  . . . If the pandemic drags on, if a vaccine is not forthcoming or if the economic climate becomes particularly bad, then things will get bleaker still. Politicians will have bigger things to think about than protecting universities. The first two decades of the 21st century were ones of extraordinary growth for universities in many countries. That golden age is over”)

The Democratic Party Defines Itself As The Party Of Women, Gays, Hispanics, African Americans And Other People Of Color

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

For openers, African-Americans (or blacks) are by no means monolithic.  They have been used and abused by the Democrats for generations; and lots of them have been benefiting economically from the policies of President Trump.[2]  The same is true of Hispanics and other “people of color.”  And yes too, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

The title of this article is the conclusion of Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—who has written:

After celebrating Tuesday’s takeover of Virginia’s legislature and the Kentucky governorship, the liberal establishment appears poised to crush its biggest threat: the surging candidacy of Elizabeth Warren.

From the tempo and tenor of the attacks, establishment fears of Warren’s success are real — and understandably so.

Two Wednesday polls show Warren running even with Joe Biden nationally. And a new Iowa poll shows Warren in front of the field with 20%, and Biden falling into fourth place with 15%.

The danger for Democrats: While Warren is now the party’s front-runner, they fear she’s a sure loser to Donald Trump in 2020.

And, again, with reason. A recent poll of six battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, showed Trump beating or tying Warren in all of them except for Arizona.

Nightmare scenario: Warren wins the nomination, but when her neo-Marxist agenda is exposed, Middle America recoils in horror.

The economic elite is already sounding the alarm.

Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase says Warren “vilifies successful people.” Microsoft founder Bill Gates says her proposals would imperil “innovation” and “capital formation.”

Writing in The New York Times, Obama adviser Steven Rattner describes a Warren presidency as “a terrifying prospect.”

Warren would “extend the reach and weight of the federal government far further into the economy than anything even Franklin Roosevelt dreamed of (and) … turn America’s uniquely successful public-private relationship into a dirigiste European-style system.”

“If you want to live in France” — where half the GDP is controlled by the regime — says Rattner, “Warren should be your candidate.”

What finally shocked anti-Warren liberals into action was her recent revelation of how she intends to pay for her “Medicare for all” plan.

Warren’s plan would require at least $23 trillion more in federal spending over a decade. Other experts say the added costs could run to $32 trillion, raising the U.S. government’s share of the GDP by one-half and abolishing the private health insurance plans of 156 million Americans.

“Many of America’s global champions, like banks and tech giants, would be dismembered,” writes Rattner, “Shale fracking would be banned, which would send oil and natural gas prices soaring and cost millions of Americans their jobs.”

Beyond “Medicare for All,” Warren has other plans. Universal child care and free schooling from pre-kindergarten through college and the cancelation of student loans, plus a new look at reparations for slavery.

How would President Warren pay for all her “plans”?

She would raise the corporate rate to 35% from 21%, and slam a 40% tax on the profits of companies that try to flee the country.

She would raise the capital gains tax, impose new estate taxes, raise Social Security taxes on folks with higher incomes, and confiscate 2% of the wealth of those with $50 million in assets and 3% of the wealth of those with $1 billion, every year.

Writes Politifact: “All told, we counted $7 trillion in new spending over a 10-year period, and that’s without Medicare for All. On the flip side, Warren offered specific tax proposals that came to $4.55 trillion.”

Still, Warren’s socialism is not what her main rivals, all white men, are zeroing in on. They’ve decided to play hardball.

Thursday, under a headline, “Warren Faces Accusations that She’s ‘Angry,’ Which Supporters Say is Sexist,” The Washington Post reported:

“Two of the leading male candidates in the Democratic presidential primary race — Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — have escalated separate lines of attack as they attempt to counter the field’s most prominent woman: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is antagonistic and angry.”

Warren has a “my way or the highway” approach, said Buttigieg, she is “so absorbed in the fighting that it is as though fighting were the purpose.”

Biden says Warren, who has a real shot at taking the nomination, reflects “an angry unyielding viewpoint that has crept into our politics.”

This is “treacherous,” warns the Post, “given that many Democrats remain upset over what they view as the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton, the party’s last nominee.”

The Democratic Party today defines itself as an inclusive party of women, gays, Hispanics, African Americans and other people of color.

Yet three months out from the decisive early contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the party is going into the semifinals of its contest for a leader and future president without a single person of color in the final four.

Moreover, the three white males are denigrating and piling on the woman who is the front-runner with attacks on her personality for which conservatives, if they used such tactics, would be charged with “dog-whistling” the white working class.

When one looks at the approval-disapproval rating of the president, re-election appears problematic. When one looks at the Democrats’ agenda and field of candidates, the odds of Trump’s re-election seem a good deal better.

This thing is by no means over.[3]

Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren is going nowhere fast.  She has lied and lied again.  This is her “M.O.” or Modus Operandi, a Latin phrase that refers to a pattern of behavior.  She is a wacko, which is how she has defined herself from the very beginning when she claimed that she was a Native American (or Indian), yet refused to take a DNA test to prove it.  After all, she had made such claims for much of her life, and used them to her advantage to gain advancement in academia and elsewhere.[4]

In the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen, two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all”—and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.[5]

Like the potentate in the fable, Elizabeth Warren is a fraud, pure and simple.  It is who she is, and it has defined her and continues to do so.  It is her “M.O.” that she cannot shake.  Like her fellow Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, she is destined for the dustheap of history, as a footnote if that much.[6] 

 

 

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and https://naegeleblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/timothy-d.-naegele-resume-19-9-27.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7666233/The-best-come-pledges-Donald-Trump-Blacks-Trump-event.html (“‘The best is yet to come’ pledges Donald Trump at ‘Blacks for Trump’ event as he says African-Americans have the ‘worst schools than anybody’ and Democrats care more about illegal aliens than them”)

[3]  See https://buchanan.org/blog/will-sexist-white-males-derail-warren-137724 (“Will ‘Sexist’ White Males Derail Warren?”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/#comment-12509 (“LYING POCAHONTAS REFUSES TO BE TESTED”)

[5]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor’s_New_Clothes (“The Emperor’s New Clothes“)

[6]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis (“Michael Dukakis”—”Dukakis was criticized during the campaign for a perceived softness on defense issues, particularly the controversial ‘Star Wars’ program, which he promised to weaken.  In response to this, Dukakis orchestrated what would become the key image of his campaign, although it turned out quite differently from what he intended.  On September 13, 1988 Dukakis visited the General Dynamics Land Systems plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, to take part in a photo op in an M1 Abrams tank.  The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, had been photographed in a similar situation in 1986, riding in a Challenger tank while wearing a scarf.  Compared with Dukakis’ results, Thatcher’s picture was very successful and helped her reelection prospects.  Footage of Dukakis was used in television ads by the [George H.W.] Bush campaign, as evidence that Dukakis would not make a good commander-in-chief, and ‘Dukakis in the tank’ remains shorthand for backfired public relations outings”); see also http://www.dickmorris.com/how-the-dem-primary-is-shaping-up-2020-election-alert/ (“How The Dem Primary Is Shaping Up – 2020 Election Alert!”)

The Department Of Injustice’s Inspector General Is Complicit In The Deep-State Cover-Up!

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

In his long-anticipated, more than 500-page report[2], the Department of Justice’s Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz[3] ignored the “800-pound gorilla” in the room; namely, the greatest scandal in American history.  He seems totally oblivious to—and has criminally whitewashed—the “deep-state cover-up,” or the combined efforts of Barack Obama and others to destroy the candidacy and the presidency of Donald Trump.[4]

In addition to Obama, the treasonous wrongdoers include but are not limited to  former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton; former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy AG Sally Yates; former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey; former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; former CIA Director John Brennan; former National Security Advisor Susan Rice; former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe; and Senior Advisor to Obama, Valerie Jarrett.[5]

By taking a dive and burying the truth and treason, Horowitz has added more shame to American government and to the corrupt DOJ and FBI.  He too should resign immediately in disgrace.  For openers, not once does his report mention Rice or Jarrett.  The traitor Mueller is mentioned on 4 pages, while his co-conspirators—Rosenstein, Clapper and Brennan—are mentioned on a scant one page each, with Rosenstein being cited only in an innocuous footnote.[6]  

Horowitz has committed one or more crimes—including treason—by covering up the greatest scandal in American history.  He has zero integrity or credibility.  He is part of the corrupt DOJ/FBI “culture” that has existed for decades, which is not discernibly different than the former Soviet Union’s brutal KGB.[7]  Like Hans Christian Andersen’s fable, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” Horowitz’s own criminality has been exposed for all Americans and the world to see.[8]

To be sure, such a wholesale attack against our Constitution, presidency, democracy and republic is every bit as evil as a physical attack against our great nation by an enemy.  Clearly, the DOJ Inspector General’s office is “where the truth goes to die.”  And the response must be equally severe—to send a message far and wide that such conduct and complicity will not be tolerated ever again.

 

 

© 2018, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/TimothyD.NaegeleResume.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

[3]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz (“Michael E. Horowitz”)

[4]  See https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529019893&sr=8-1&keywords=Gregg+Jarrett (Gregg Jarrett: “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/#comment-9505 (“FBI Officials To Be Investigated Over Clinton Probes”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/ (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”); see also  https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/ (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/what-atrocities-did-robert-mueller-commit-in-vietnam/ (“What Atrocities Did Robert Mueller Commit In Vietnam?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-13242 (“Federal Judge Questions The Traitor Mueller’s Powers In Manafort Case”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/#comment-13233 (“MEMO TO OUR PRESIDENT: DEFY MUELLER AND DESTROY HIM”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-13002 (“Congress Must Impeach Deputy AG Rosenstein And FBI Director Wray”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12919 (“THE TREASONOUS ROBERT MUELLER SEEKS TO OVERTURN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12778 (“Dershowitz On Special Counsel: The Investigation Should End”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12675 (“ANOTHER DESPICABLE: THE TRAITOR JAMES CLAPPER”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12657 (“ANOTHER TRAITOR JOHN BRENNAN SQUEALS”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12611 (“The Traitor Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12597 (“ANOTHER FACE OF PURE EVIL FALLS”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/robert-mueller-should-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-12518 (“NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/#comment-10051 (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice”)

Also, it must be noted that the present FBI Director Christopher Wray was Assistant Attorney General from 2003 to 2005, where he worked under James Comey.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray (“Christopher A. Wray”)

[6]  With respect to such wrongdoers, the report simply states:

In an October 5, 2016 email, Comey explained his position on the statement to Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.  [page 348]

Rosenstein is mentioned in footnote 224 on page 431.  The report mentions Obama on 17 pages; Hillary Clinton on 72 pages; Bill Clinton on 32 pages; Holder on 7 pages; Lynch on 123 pages; Yates on 76 pages; Comey on 282 pages; and McCabe on 131 pages.

[7]  Under Joseph Stalin and other ruthless Soviet leaders, the KGB was brutal and responsible for the deaths of millions, directly or indirectly.  However, by “killing” one innocent American, it is arguable that the DOJ and FBI have been and are just as brutal and reprehensible.

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin%E2%80%99s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao%E2%80%99s-chinese-holocaust/ (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust”)

As Lou Dobbs—an American television personality, author, radio host, and anchor of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network—stated correctly on June 11, 2018, regarding the FBI: “It is so corrupt, and its corruption is so pervasive.”

See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/the-united-states-department-of-injustice/ (“The United States Department of Injustice”)

[8]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”)

Is Financial Reform Simply Washington’s Latest Boondoggle?

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

When I arrived in Washington, D.C. after graduating from law school in California, I spent two years at the Pentagon working as an Army officer in intelligence and budgets.  It was a great experience, and I have the utmost respect for our military, which is the best of our government.  One lesson I learned was that if Congress was breathing down the Pentagon’s neck, the easiest way to deal with the issue was to “reorganize,” which would throw them off the track—and the “bloodhounds” would lose the scent.

Then I worked on Capitol Hill as a young attorney with the Senate Banking Committee, and realized that when there was a national policy issue that was “too hot to handle,” a presidential commission would be formed, not unlike reorganizations at the Pentagon.  Months and sometimes years would pass while people studied the issues ad nauseam; and in the interim, the monkey was off the politicians’ backs.  One of my first tasks on the Hill was to staff such a presidential commission.

Fast-forward to today, and no regulatory “overhaul” is going to make a tinker’s damn in preventing future economic crises or solving the present one.  By and large, the financial regulatory agencies (e.g., the Fed, the FDIC) do a fine job, often under very difficult circumstances.  There are career professionals who will keep doing their jobs, regardless of what Barack Obama or Congress propose or enact—which is high political theater and demagoguery, and not a whole lot more.

Recent reorganizations, such as in the intelligence community, have not produced better intelligence.  Similarly, changes to the financial regulatory structure will not prevent the economic meltdown that riveted the nation in 2008, and continues to this day.  It is a tsunami, and Man’s ability to stop or affect it is marginal at best.  Reorganizing the deck chairs on the Titanic, or closing the barn door after the horse is out, will never address future problems.  The flim-flam boys of Wall Street and other financial capitals will make sure of that.

Alan Greenspan unleashed the tsunami; and the words of Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, are true and cogent to this day:

Greenspan was considered a master.  Now we must ask ourselves whether he is not, after [Osama] bin Laden, the man who hurt America the most.[2]

No financial regulatory overhaul will prevent a Fed chairman like Greenspan, or some other government official from making mistakes that produce massive suffering domestically and globally.  Perhaps if Paul Volcker had been in charge of the Fed instead of Greenspan, the economic meltdown would have been avoided.  After all, Greenspan admitted in testimony before the House that he never saw the housing crisis coming.

Like the emperor with no clothes in Hans Christian Andersen’s fable, no one was willing to call Greenspan a buffoon who was over his head—until he had unleashed economic pain, the likes of which has not been seen since the Great Depression.  It will continue to the end of this decade, in all likelihood; and there is nothing that government can do to stem it.[3]

With respect to the existing financial regulatory agencies, it must be remembered that they and their affiliated agencies (e.g., the FSLIC, RTC) dealt effectively with the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s.  In the process, almost 800 S&Ls failed, an enormous financial crisis was averted, and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers was less than expected.

Nonetheless, in 1999, Congress repealed the Glass–Steagall Act, which had controlled financial speculation since its enactment in 1933.[4] Under Glass–Steagall, there had been a separation between commercial banking and “investment banking”—or gambling by Wall Street.  Coupled with Greenspan’s mistakes and financial deregulation, which had been championed by him, a laissez faire attitude in Washington resulted in the massive problems of today.

Can greed on Wall Street and in other financial markets be stopped?  Never.  Can the SEC do a better job?  Can the existing financial regulatory agencies tighten up here and there, and do their jobs better with enhanced powers?  Sure, but the system is not perfect just as human beings are not perfect.  Utopia is not possible; and history repeats itself over and over again.  More government regulation will not prevent economic tsunamis and meltdowns from happening.  Anyone who says so might try to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn next—or ObamaCare.[5][6]

Yet, capitulation to political demogoguery and public anger is likely.[7] With the repeal of Glass–Steagall and financial deregulation, a blurring of the lines between commercial banking and investment banking took place; and now the chickens are coming home to roost.  The baby is in the process of being thrown out with the bath water; and the demogogues in Washington are strutting in full bloom.[8] A Wall Street Journal editorial states:

While the details matter a great deal, the essence of the exercise is to transfer more control over credit allocation and the financial industry to the federal government. The industry was heavily regulated before—not that it stopped the mania and panic—but if anything close to the current bills pass, the biggest banks will become the equivalent of utilities.

The irony is that this may, or may not, reduce the risk of future financial meltdowns and taxpayer bailouts.

. . .

As in health care, Democrats are intent on ramming this reform through Congress, and Republicans ought to summon the will to resist. Absent that, the only certain result is that Washington will be the new master of the financial universe.

Amen, and then some![9]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] See http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html

[3] See, e.g., http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/tms/politics/2009/Apr/08/euphoria_or_the_obama_depression_.html and http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/; see also http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

[4] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act

[5] Harvard professor Niall Ferguson and Wall Street investor Ted Forstmann state in a Wall Street Journal article:

By all means let us regulate the derivatives market—beginning with a reform that makes it a real market. And let’s clamp down on excessive bank leverage. But let us not believe we can abolish both bailouts and depressions, other than by creating another layer of government regulation.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/BacktoBasicsonFinancialReform.pdf

I agree with their conclusion.

[6] See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii/

[7] See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/AScoldingforWallStreetHonchos.pdf; see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704830404575200580858688618.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

[8] Real problems with the legislation may be considerable.  See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575199582764862248.html

[9] See http://www.naegele.com/documents/TheNewMasterofWallStreet.pdf

Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy: A Question of Character

By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

 

With the passage of time, America’s greatest presidents prior to the 21st Century are apt to be viewed as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.  Gone from that list most certainly will be John F. Kennedy. Today, few young Americans even know who he was—or care about him—because less than a handful of his positive accomplishments had any lasting significance.

Reagan will be remembered, while Kennedy may be forgotten. This conclusion will surely offend those Kennedy disciples who are still pushing the myth of Camelot until its last gasp. Like William McKinley, the fact that an assassin cut short Kennedy’s life and presidency might be all that Americans recall about him 50 years from now.

It is striking how the death of Reagan . . . made one realize how great he was, and how small and inconsequential Kennedy’s accomplishments were. Aside from some flowery words—mostly written for him by Theodore Sorenson—and what remains of the once-vibrant Peace Corps, Kennedy’s legacy is almost nonexistent today.

Reagan was lucky and blessed to have survived an assassin’s bullet only 69 days after he took office on January 20, 1981, and America and the free world are fortunate that he did.  More than 40 years after Kennedy’s death, the full extent of his life-long medical problems is still being withheld from the American people and conservative scholars; and it is doubtful whether he would have lived to accomplish anything approaching what Reagan achieved.

Kennedy launched this nation into Vietnam; and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced.  More than 50,000 brave Americans died, and it impaled this nation’s honor on the horns of a tragedy that still haunts policy makers and citizens alike.

Even before Vietnam, Kennedy was responsible for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, where Fidel Castro humiliated him completely. This led to more than 40 years of enslavement for the Cuban people. The Cuban Missile Crisis, or Kennedy’s confrontation with the Soviet Union, might have given rise to a nuclear winter.

Reagan is remembered for having brought down that “Evil Empire,” as well as the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, and for freeing the people of Eastern Europe. Today, America’s friends in “New Europe” are its partners in NATO and its allies in the EU—as free men, woman and children who are no longer enslaved by communism.

Reagan’s marriage to Nancy was special and they were blessed with love. There was no hiding of mistresses by the Secret Service, which took place during Kennedy’s presidency. His reckless affairs with women were only outdone by his irresponsible and dangerous relationships with mobsters such as Chicago crime boss Sam Giancana.

Reagan was a doer who had style. Kennedy had style; however, the bloom has even gone off that rose. His serial womanizing, relations with Mafioso figures like Giancana—through their sexual liaisons with Judith Campbell Exner, who was used as their go-between—and other serious character flaws marred it.

Reagan was elected and reelected by landslides, while it is doubtful whether Kennedy would have become president in 1960 if the Mob had not helped him in Illinois and West Virginia—and Giancana claimed credit for that. Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger, and the apple does not fall far from the tree.

The discrepancy between Camelot and the man himself has been laid bare; and there is a stark difference between the hype of Kennedy acolytes and the truth. Perhaps the debunking of his myth is similar to what happened to this country after Vietnam. Maybe Kennedy and America’s invincibility before that war both shared a similar fate, and this country’s naiveté somehow ended.

Kennedy was not someone to look up to, much less deify. Many of us came to that conclusion reluctantly, years ago, with a sense of sadness rather than anger. Like the potentate in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the myth about Kennedy and his feet of clay have become clear for all to see with the passage of time.

In a recent Discovery Channel poll, Reagan was chosen as the “Greatest American,” edging Lincoln by a small margin. When he left office, Reagan had fulfilled his 1980 campaign pledge to restore “the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism.” Also, greatness is often achieved in times of war, and Kennedy never won the war with Cuba, much less the Vietnam War that he started, nor did he win the Cold War—which Reagan won, as he implemented the policy of “peace through strength.”

Reagan will be remembered as one of America’s greatest presidents and a man of character. Kennedy was a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history. Perhaps this contrast between Reagan and Kennedy—this question of character that Thomas C. Reeves described in his terrific book about Kennedy—is what separates the men and underscores their differences, and ultimately will define their respective places in history.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] This article was published first at MensNewsDaily.com on August 1, 2005.  See http://www.naegele.com/documents/ReaganJFK.pdf

Barack Obama: America’s Second Emperor?

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Just days after announcing the surge of 30,000 more U.S. troops in his Afghan war, Barack Obama was in Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize that was announced shortly after he became president—before he had done anything.  Next, he was in Copenhagen accepting a deal without any teeth to address “global warming,” in the midst of a blizzard that dumped snow on the Danish capital, suggesting to most people that the issue is a “hoax.”

Straddling his back-to-back trips to Europe, he was in Washington, D.C.—where he was met by a blizzard on his return from Denmark—pushing for the enactment of ObamaCare that Americans oppose[2].  The legislation is so reckless that it had to be rammed through the U.S. Senate on a partisan vote.  Also, the Democrats’ leadership hid the exact nature of the health care bill from senators, who surely had a right to know what they were voting for.

Then the president jetted off to spend the holidays in Hawaii[3], having irresponsibly saddled the people with ObamaCare—after the legislation clears a joint Senate-House conference committee and he signs some version of it into law—which is reprehensible, certainly with respect to its impact on Medicare patients[4].  His recent travels alone create a carbon footprint globally that boggles the mind, especially when so many Americans are suffering from an economic meltdown that shows few real signs of abating.  Indeed, 49 States have lost jobs since his so-called “Stimulus Package” was enacted.[5]

His popularity poll numbers have been plummeting[6], but he is seemingly oblivious to the will of the people and determined to remake the United States and the world in his own image.  Never mind that his life was shaped by years growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, he is bent on changing this country.  He did not set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles and Columbia University in New York City; and when he did so, he was a druggie—according to his own admissions[7].

He ignores a super-majority of Americans who believe warming and cooling are natural phenomena that have occurred in cycles on this planet for millions of years.  Science and common sense tell us that some of the coldest temperatures recorded to date have occurred in recent years.[8] Yet, in remarks prepared for delivery in Denmark, he called on heads of state and other attendees to forge a deal, warning that “[u]nchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet.  This much we know.”[9]

What we know for certain is that scientific studies support the opposite conclusion, namely that “global warming” is a hoax; and they have been suppressed and their authors have been intimidated.  Also, the leaders who arrived in Copenhagen did so on private jets, and they commandeered a fleet of limousines in the midst of global economic problems—as if to thumb their noses at “commoners” worldwide who pay for their trips and lavish life styles, and say: “Let them eat cake.”

Obama is determined to close our detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its “detainees” (or jihadists) to prisons in the continental U.S., which the American people oppose.  Also, he pushes for the trial of terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City—rather than in a military tribunal—which will make a public spectacle of the event, and expose the city to more chaos and the risk of additional attacks at a time when it is still traumatized by 9/11.

His decisions on both issues are wrong and irresponsible, which was underscored by the attempted Christmas Day terrorist bombing attempt on Northwest Airlines Flight 253.[10] Earlier in the year, the president had the audacity to give himself a “B+” for his performance in office.  However, it is doubtful that a majority of Americans would give him a grade even remotely approaching that.  In fact, he has been given an “F” for protecting Americans, and criticized harshly.[11]

Obama is pursuing his war in Afghanistan, but failing to heed the advice of his generals and trying to micromanage the war on the cheap, thereby endangering the mission as well as brave members of our military—which is stretched too thin already.  They do not deserve to be hamstrung into failure by an anti-war community organizer-president, who is half-heartedly supporting the war and unable (or unwilling) to state that the goal of winning is why we are there.[12]

He is pursuing deals with Russia’s “dictator-for-life” Putin, who is a smoother version of Stalin.  Both men are known for the brutal oppression and systematic elimination of their critics.[13] Russia is no longer a super power, and it is little more than a Third World country with severe economic problems.  It should not be helped by the United States, much less coddled; and Putin should be treated as our enemy[14]. Obama has befriended Venezuela’s Chavez too, and other tinhorn dictators and enemies of America.

In 1859, Joshua Abraham Norton—better known as “Emperor Norton I,” a celebrated citizen of San Francisco—proclaimed himself “Emperor of these United States.”  He issued numerous proclamations including his “order” that the U.S. Congress be dissolved by force.[15] If there was ever an American who had regal notions of grandeur and an imperial presidency, it is Barack Obama.  His naïveté[16] has been matched by his arrogance and overarching narcissism.  Ultimately, he may be viewed as a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history.

In a famous Danish fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen, an emperor marches in a procession under a beautiful canopy wearing a new suit of clothes that does not exist, provided by two swindlers. A little child says at last: “But he has nothing on at all.”[17] Obama’s core beliefs and modus operandi are becoming clear for Americans and the world to see[18], as the first decade of the 21st Century ends ominously.  He is a mistake of potentially cataclysmic proportions.[19]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/december_2009/voter_attitudes_towards_health_care_plan_harden_58_opposed (December 30, 2009: “(“Thirty-nine percent (39%) of voters nationwide support the plan, and 58% are opposed.  That’s consistent with our weekly tracking of the issue which has found support between 38% and 41% every week from just before Thanksgiving to the end of 2009.  The new figures include 19% who Strongly Favor the plan and 46% who Strongly Oppose it.”)

[3] See, e.g., http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091224/NEWS01/912240345/Timing++of+Obama+s+family+vacation+in+Hawaii+is++perfect+

[4] See, e.g., http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0

[5] See, e.g., http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=164206

[6] See, e.g., http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[7] See Barack Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), p. 93 (“Junkie.  Pothead.  That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.”); see also pp. 120, 270; https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/.

[8] See, e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/cold-weather-europe-death-toll; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6787095.html (“[T]he Dallas-Fort Worth area was experiencing its first White Christmas in more than 80 years”); http://www.weather.com/newscenter/stormwatch (“Historic snowstorm enters the record book”); http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1248956/Snowmageddon-brings-chaos-U-S-East-Coast-Washington-DC-braces-worst-blizzard-90-years.html (“[‘Snowmageddon’ brings] the heaviest snowfall in [Washington, D.C.] for 90 years”)

[9] See, e.g., http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/text-of-obamas-remarks-in-copenhagen (“All of you would not be here unless you, like me, were convinced that this danger is real.  This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet.  This much we know.”)

[10] See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126209221278008901.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews AND http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624503147162222.html (“Sending Gitmo’s jihadists back to this [Yemeni] maelstrom makes no security sense”)

[11] See, e.g., http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100020934/barack-obama-gets-an-f-for-protecting-americans AND http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101744.html (“The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension”)

[12] See, e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/25/AR2009122501923_pf.html (“Terms such as ‘winning’ and ‘victory’ have been eschewed by the White House.  Obama did not use either in his Dec. 1 address, and he said in an interview earlier this year that he was uncomfortable using the term ‘victory’ when fighting ‘a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like al-Qaeda.’”).

[13] See, e.g., http://www.theotherrussia.org/

[14] See, e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/29/ap/world/main6032803.shtml

[15] See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

[16] See, e.g., http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DEE3CCB3-18FE-70B2-A8EADFBA65A39259

[17] See, e.g., http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

[18] See, e.g., Barack Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004).  See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist

[19] See, e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628134281062714.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read (“[The] patina of cosmopolitanism in President Obama’s background concealed the isolationism of the liberal coalition that brought him to power.  . . . The man who demolished the Iraqi tyranny, George. W. Bush, is no longer in power, and a different sentiment drives America’s conduct abroad.  . . . No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue.  . . . He had declared a unilateral end to the ‘war on terror,’ but the jihadists and their mentors are yet to call their war to a halt.  From Yemen to Fort Hood and Detroit, the terror continues.”)