By Florida Bill
James Comey is out as FBI director and President Trump discharged him. The President acted within his constitutional authority and was guided by the advice and recommendations from the Attorney General and his deputy and many others. "He didn't do a good job," and that's it, said President Trump.
Comey responded professionally to news of his termination, and in a note to coworkers said that the President acted within his authority to fire an FBI director for any reason or for no reason. "I'll be fine," he wrote.
The indisputable facts are that the towering six-foot, eight inch, neatly-attired Comey did a lousy job and is one of the few figures in Washington to raise the ire of both Democrats and Republicans during his reign. His miscues stretched way back to the unprofessional and questionable way in which he investigated the alleged criminal behavior of Mrs. Clinton in her handling of classified documents while she was Secretary of State.
In that "probe," he gave her a pass from prosecution and oiled the way for her candidacy. He gave her the get-out-of-jail-free card even though he articulated her actions in such a way as to indicate they clearly were criminal and supported prosecution. Along with his misstating the law and recommending against prosecution, it was not a decision which Comey was authorized under the law to make. Prosecutorial decisions belong solely to the Attorney General as head of the United States Department of Justice, and that AG was the incompetent, partisan Loretta Lynch.
After cries from both parties of incompetence during the campaign, Comey has now taken on the role of martyr. Trump's cashiering of the 56-year-old FBI director is supposedly an attempt to quash the so-called investigation into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, according to Democrats' latest playbook. The claim of collusion has already been denied frequently by foremost government intelligence officials, including James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. It is simply empty rhetoric from unhappy Democrats, lead by "Crying" Chuck Schumer, minority leader in the Senate.
If there is any collusion going on, it will be found in Comey's relationship and dealings with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was the head of the department of Justice and Comey's superior. Key evidence of this unwholesome relationship has recently been revealed by the New York Times newspaper and by U.S. Senator Charles Grassley with the existence of written documents, possibily emails, that stated that Lynch was providing "political cover" for Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.
There are many factors which point to a whole bag of partisan misdeeds by AG Lynch, an appointee in 2013 of President Obama. As head of the Department of Justice, she was calling the shots and in the fall of 2015, when allegations of Mrs. Clinton mishandling of classified emails and her pay-for-play leadership of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation became public, Lynch knew what she had to do. To keep Democratic leaders, including her boss, President Obama, happy, she had to assure that Mrs. Clinton would become the nation's 45th president. And she did it, but Clinton got beat anyway.
Lynch is a career prosecutor whose only job has been on public payrolls. Together with Obama, and her predecessor Eric Holder, they were tethered together as alums of Harvard law school. They are tight as peas in a pod, and the idea of Clinton not winning the presidency was anathema to them.
With the intense public clamor about Clinton and her email mishandling and her other faux pas', and Clinton's high profile, Attorney General Lynch should have authorized a grand jury investigation, but she declined to do so. Without one, the FBI was limited in its ability to compel testimony from witnesses and to subpoena documents. Despite all of the noise, the investigation simply had no real legs. Compounding the mish mash, Comey, with Lynch's blessings, handed out grants of immunity like sugar candy to potential witnesses in exchange for testimony; and then these witnesses reportedly declined interviews.
Mrs. Clinton was never interviewed by the FBI under oath and it is believed by many lawyers that Clinton herself was given immunity from prosecution by Comey with the blessings of Lynch--and probably Obama--who had publicly endorsed Clinton as his successor.
A few days prior to Comey's announcement on July 5 of last year that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted, Lynch met privately with Mrs. Clinton's husband, the former President, on an airplane in Phoenix. The substance of the conversation is not known, but the meeting constituted an egregious and improper violation of legal ethics and honesty, and observers have strong reasons to believe that the Clinton "fix" had been put in. In past years, President Clinton had appointed Lynch to high jobs and higher pay inside the Justice Department, where she had been one of his fans. In the give and take of government, there are always "paybacks," and "thank yous."
In announcing at a news conference that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted, Comey assumed the role of Attorney General in absolving Clinton of any and all wrongdoing. He ignored completely the allegations of corruption levied against her concerning the Clinton Foundation with its huge payroll for friends and Clinton loyalists. His usurping of authority, apparently with Lynch's approval, smacks of impropriety and may even be a violation of law.
Following the election of President Trump, Democrats were beside themselves with bitterness. They piled the the blame on Comey himself for the defeat. Harrry Reid, former majority leader of the Senate, and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, blamed Comey and demanded his termination. The Democratic senator from Minnesota called for a Congressional investigation of the FBI director. Clinton, herself, recently took to television and said she would be President, but for James Comey, and insiders have added that she would have fired him on her first day as President.
Later, when it was determined that the Russians had actually hacked into Democratic committee emails and made them public,which cast an embarrassing light upon candidate Clinton as a disingenuous and unlikable person, Democrats had a new rallying cry. They quickly began pushing the scenario that Trump loyalists colluded with deputies to President Putin in an effort to bring her down. After Trump fired Comey, Democrats did a 180-degree turn around and said that Trump acted to stamp out the so-called "Russian" investigation. because he had been working hand in hand with the Kremlin to defeat Hillary. It is all political nonsense, but that is their claim, even though intelligence experts say there is no evidence of it. Still out there is the pending investigation into possible misconduct by James Comey which was undertaken last January by Michael Horowitz, Inspector General of the Department of Justice. That should be interesting and if Horowitz is on the up and up, we will hear plenty about the "cover up and protection" policies which Loretta Lynch provided for Hillary Clinton.
Also, both Clinton and Loretta Lynch are being investigated by Judicial Watch, a bipartisan government watchdog organization which has named Clinton as a defendant in more than 20 lawsuits now pending. A good number have been initiated with demands for information under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Also, still on the table, is Trump's promise-- which he made on television during the final debate with Clinton-- that after his election he would direct his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the conduct and behavior of "Crooked Hillary"relative to her handling of classified emails. Trump said many times that Clinton broke the law and should never have never been permitted to run for the high office of president, and should be in jail. .
It seemed at the time he may have dropped his pledge to put Hillary in jail in the magnanimousness of victory, but in today's acerbic political world, with its ever growing tangle of investigations, he may revisit the idea.
xxx
By Florida Bill
In recent weeks and months, we have come to know Ms. Susan Rice, National Security Adviser to President Obama, but not necessarily to love her. There are indications that she has had her fingers into the sneaky surveillance of members of the new President's team, and her testimony is being sought by the Senate's Intelligence Committee.
Senators want Ms. Rice to explain the country's ability to tap into the telephone conversations of various members of Donald Trump's inner circle, possibly even those involving the President himself.
When that eavesdropping occurs, it is known as "incidental" surveillance. When identities are revealed, that constitutes "unmasking." When the "unmasking" and the contents of a conversation are memorialized and leaked to the media, that is a felony and the "leaker," if caught, can be sent to prison.
In the case of General Flynn, who was fired by President Trump after serving for a few weeks as his National Security Adviser, that is what happened to him and it appears that Susan Rice has the answers as to who, when and how that "unmasking" took place and the senate's Intelligence committee has requested her testimony under oath. She is declining to appear, but it is expected that she will be compelled to testify pursuant to an enforceable subpoena.
During an interview with media reporters, Rice said that she "had no knowledge" about the Flynn "incidental" surveillance and the leak to the Washington Times newspaper. Later, however, Rice confirmed that she was familiar with telephone surveillance and "unmasking" of incidentals and when it occurs, she has said, it is always done in the name of national security.
Rice, 52, is on the road to acquiring a reputation as a liar and manipulator of the truth. She is like a protégé of Hillary Clinton who has a well-established record of dishonesty during her more than 40 years in the public eye. The late New York Times columnist, William Saffire, once described Clinton as a "congenital liar."
Rice, though a good deal younger, is following in Clinton's footsteps. We now have two ladies from the Obama administration who have distinguished themselves by their deceptive behavior. Former Secretary of State Clinton, who ran unsuccessfully for President twice, has picked up the nickname of "Crooked Hillary." Now, we have Ms. Rice, whom critics and observers of political machinations are referring to as "Sneaky Susan."
Rice is the recipient of a Bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1986 and a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 1990. No doubt that she has brain power, but she fumbles big time when it comes to telling the truth.
As a young woman, Rice got going in political circles in the 1990s doing work for the Clintons, and she served as the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Clinton's second term. She hung around doing assorted political chores for Democrats and in 2008 with the recommendation of Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, was named the nation's 27th Ambassador to the United Nations, and it was in that arena where her disingenuous behavior spiraled upward.
Following the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2011, in which four Americans including an ambassador were slaughtered, Rice made the round of TV stations explaining that the attack was a spontaneous eruption by Muslims angered because of an Internet video which demeaned Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. The story was rubbish with an admission of the true cause--terrorism--coming some days later. Rice offered the lie in support for Obama's fiction that his administration was winning in the battle against Al Qaida, and that terrorists were on the run.
In 2013, Obama made the pliable Rice his National Security chief and she did his bidding in 2014 by informing the nation that army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had served his country in Afghanistan with "honor and distinction." It was a bold distortion, endorsed by Obama, who welcomed the soldier home in a Rose Garden ceremony at which Bergdahl's father praised the "merciful Allah," for bringing his son home.
The story which Rice was hiding was that Bergdahl had deserted his unit in the mountains of Afghanistan, and surrendered to, or was captured by, the Taliban, where he was held for five years. Obama ordered the release of five terrorists from Guantanamo prison in exchange for Bergdahl. The president authorized the exchange deal in contravention of a law which had obligated him to notify the Congress of such an exchange at least 30 days prior to its execution. Currently, Bergdahl is in a military prison awaiting court marshal on charges of desertion and of aiding the enemy. He faces a sentence of life in prison.
And Susan Rice, where is she these days? She's just hanging with Democratic friends, hoping to duck all questions about her behavior and double talk as President Obama's key security adviser. But as they say, she can run, but she can't hide. Eventually, we'll learn the depth of her deception.
xxx
By Florida Bill
What ever became of the "investigation" into the gumshoe techniques used by FBI Director James Comey in his examination of Hillary Clinton and her handling of classified emails? She was reckless and sloppy, but committed no crime, reported Comey in a highly publicized news conference last July.
Because of accusations that he had caved in to pressures and had given Mrs. Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card, Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced last Jan.12 that he would review the matter from start to finish and determine if there was misconduct on the part of Comey.
Nearly four months have now passed and nothing from the IG. The office of the Inspector General exists to provide oversight and monitoring of the Department of Justice with the FBI and its fleet of well paid attorneys. Is this one of those "investigations" which is announced with great fanfare, but then just disappears like mist on a foggy day?
FBI Director Comey, an appointee of President Obama, began an investigation in the Fall of 2015 into Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of classified emails and documents when she was Secretary of State. Coupled with the allegations that she was fast and loose with sensitive emails were reports of her corrupt practices in administering the billion dollar "Clinton Foundation," and her granting of governmental favors to big money donors, including those from other countries.
During his probe, Comey passed out grants of immunity like pieces of chocolate to witnesses who then reportedly declined to be interviewed. There was no grand jury and computers were withheld from FBI scrutiny. Then Comey's boss,
Atty Gen. Lynch, held a sneak and improper meeting with Clinton's husband, the former President, raising allegations that a "fix" had been put in.
On July 5, 2016, as the presidential campaign was on fire, the 56-year-old Comey held a news conference to announce that the FBI could not recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton. He dodged any mention of the "Clinton Foundation" and Democrats celebrated her exoneration.
The smoke and stench from the FBI determination did not go away and 11 days before the November 8 election, Comey said that he was reopening the email investigation because of the discovery of 650,000 emails connecting Mrs. Clinton in some way to the disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner who was the estranged husband of her closest aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin. But then a few days later and three days before the election, he said that the new emails had been reviewed and that Clinton was in the clear of any wrong doing. At that point, President Trump noted that reviewing 650,000 emails in a few days was virtually impossible. Following the election and the unanticipated victory of Donald Trump, IG Horowitz got into the controversy with his news conference announcing the investigation of the FBI director. Because of Comey's peculiar detective methods, Horowitz said that he will explore "allegations that Justice department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed." ... and that when finished he will issue a report detailing what has been found. He explained further that he would review Comey's behavior, and that the investigation would be broad, and thorough and that he could recommend criminal charges for anyone found to have violated a law. An investigation of the successor to J. Edgar Hoover is a pretty unusual occurrence, and it seems strange that it has apparently lost traction--and media attention--so quickly.
Both Republicans and Democrats have called for Comey to resign. One Democratic senator proposed that a congressional committee investigate Comey, claiming that his blunders and misconduct caused Mrs. Clinton to lose the election.
After the dust of the election had lifted and Trump was inaugurated, it was anticipated that the new President would tell Comey to resign, but reports circulated that the new President met with Comey and decided to retain him in the job. Some Trump supporters have continued to urge him to discharge Comey and to appoint South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, an aggressive attorney and a former state prosecutor, to replace him. At this point, it appears that Director Comey is just "twisting in the wind."
During a recent hearing by the senate's judiciary committee, Comey testified that he has been interviewed relevant to the IG examination of his behavior and that, surprisingly, he thought that the review of his leadership in the email investigation was a good idea. "I felt that I did everything right, but if I did something wrong, I want to know about it," he said.
I haven't seen any report from Horowitz on the findings or status of his investigation. However, he promised to deliver a report at the conclusion of the review, and he should be held to his word. In Washington, too many promises of one thing or another, seem to magically disappear. So we'll see. xxx
By Florida Bill
I had the idea that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his "free stuff" theories would fade into the sunset. But I was dead wrong; Sanders is like crazy glue.
His bespectacled, round face and snow white mane keep popping up alongside TV pundits pushing his liberal agenda for the United States. He has few good words for America, and his real praise goes to the government of Denmark where tuition and medical care are free, citizens primarily move about on bicycles and extremely high taxes do it all.
In the USA, where Sanders has been on public payrolls just about his entire life, he is the always-available shill for CNN and NBC and other far left media outlets. He rants about the fumbling USA, and he charges that billionaires on the top of the mountain are stepping upon the middle class and the poor, enriching themselves. He denounces President Trump as a bigot, a racist and a bully. The liberal media eats it up and heralds the 75-year-old Sanders as some sort of a savior who was sent from above.
Peculiarly, the feisty senator labels himself as an "Independent," one of two in the upper house of Congress, but he ran for President as a Democrat and he shuns Republicans for conduct which he says is "immoral, wrong and bad economics." He hangs exclusively with Democrats and recently he has been on the front line of a national Democratic party effort touring the states, urging Americans to "Come Together and Fight Back."
A new TV survey supposedly has determined that the socialist senator, who sees the USA as a defective and unfair republic, is the "most popular politician" in America. Was that the the product of the same pollsters who made 1,000 telephone calls and ascertained that Hillary Clinton was the nation's "most admired woman"? Great stories for the liberal anchors, but they are phony and belong in the garbage can.
Some stations are predicting that Sanders will be challenging President Trump for the presidency in 2020, so maybe that is what this is all about. Of course, Sanders would be the first octogenarian in the oval office.
So what is Sanders now offering for Americans in his persistence to be president. Just more of the same, only with greater largess. He loves that spotlight and probably continues to receive donations. Key in his vision is for the USA to become socialistic in the Scandinavian way or maybe even a little like Russia where he and his wife honeymooned in 1988. Taxes would provide the free stuff---education at all levels, complete medical care; welfare and assistance, food stamps and maybe some walking around money. The Sanders price tag would be in the tens of trillions of dollars heaped upon a national debt now standing at about $20 trillion dollars-- a sure prescription for bankruptcy.
The senator was a conscientious objector and a pacifist during the Viet Nam war days. He now asserts that "Climate Change" is the country's biggest threat, and his rhetoric downplays the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran. I do not know if he has changed much since he dodged the draft, but his views on the military have to worry a lot of Americans. My guess is that he is anathema to men and women who have worn the uniform of their country.
He has criticized President Trump as one of the nation's billionaires who pays too little in taxes. In 2005, it has been reported, Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on income of $158 million. That same year Sanders and his wife paid $27,653 on combined income of $205,000. Trump was in a 25 per cent bracket, while Sanders enjoyed a 13 percent level, and he apparently made use of every gimmick and loophole to get there. Some critics call upon Sanders to find a way to earn more so he could contribute more, so that the free party he envisions can move forward.
In the 2016 campaign, Sanders had his moment on the big stage, and it whetted his appetite for more of the same. He won support from a select group for his wild views, and received about $80 million in donations. Other than at least one arrest for protest demonstrations against the Viet war in the 1960s, Sanders has been law abiding. Patriotism and love of country are not part of his bag. For the most part, Americans are patriotic and view their country as exceptional. They have heard enough from this "independent" mouth.
xxx
By Florida Bill
I was flabbergasted to learn that "Big Dog" Bill O'Reilly of Fox News had been fired from his lofty perch.
The left-wing media has now had its prayers answered. Somehow, it seems suspicious that its always a conservative taking a hit, and not the disingenuous phonies packing the network microphones.
The 67-year-old O'Reilly is out the door, but he steps away with many millions of dollars accruing from his ouster. That money enhances his status as a millionaire, maybe even a billionaire, achieved from big salaries and residuals from the writing of top selling books. He probably gets top dollars for speaking engagements and other activities. But so what if he is rich? Even with the greenbacks filling his pockets, he limps away from his Fox News microphone, embarrassed and accused of being a sexual predator; a pundit with a loose zipper. O'Reilly responded in a terse statement that it is "tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today."
Shortly after his termination, the fighting newscaster counter punched on a podcast. He asserted that "I can tell you that I am very confident the truth will come out," and he indicated that the full story will pretty much expose the claims as being without merit, and will recount accurately what has happened behind the curtain."
Personally, I was saddened to learn of the unceremonious dismissal of Fox's main attraction. He was knowledgeable and analytical and he delivered the news of the day with his own spin in a "no spin" way. It was informative and entertaining, and reportedly he had four million viewers tuned in for each one hour show. It goes without saying--O'Reilly will be missed, and I will be one of them.
For almost 21 years, O'Reilly was the face of Fox News. His "O'Reilly Factor" was the number one news show on the tube. When news was on the table, O'Reilly was a bulldog, and he had little patience for left-wing absurdities. In interviews, he asked the questions, and then he answered them. If guests sought to provide their own answers, he knew how to talk over them and if a guest persisted in arguing with the "Big Dog," they held losing cards. His style drew loyal fans.
Some guests tried hard to cross swords with O'Reilly--like former Congressman Barney Frank and Rev. Al Sharpton--but the neatly attired O'Reilly pushed them into grave-like holes and kicked the earth over them. Confirmed liberal Democrats like Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera frequently challenged O'Reilly, but then they backed away or were put down by the host. Both Williams and Rivera are paid contributors by Fox News and they make a sweet salary, and the "no Spin" with the Big Dog is not a gig they wished to lose. It's the O'Reilly spin, without liberal nonsense.
One regular guest and perhaps the only pundit capable of challenging the "Big Dog" with any success was Charles Krauthammer, a widely respected commentator and columnist, with credentials as a trained psychiatrist. When the frisky O'Reilly offered what he deemed an irrefutable theory, guests normally nodded in agreement. But Krauthammer nodded only when he considered O'Reilly to be completely accurate on some matter. More often, O'Reilly would complete his talking points and ask Dr. K, "What say You? Where did I go wrong?".
"Where didn't you go wrong," Krauthammer might respond and then he would lay out precisely how O'Reilly had erred in his conclusions or analysis. O'Reilly generally argued the point with Krauthammer, but then rhetoric turned to other topics of which they were more in agreement.
Apparently, a number of young women piled on against O'Reilly, offended by his lack of "political correctness." O'Reilly saw no negatives in complimenting and in teasing the attractive young newscasters, but apparently they did, claiming that he was hitting on them in a sexual way, breathing hard over the telephone--and more.
While the veteran journalist has never been known to harbor any animus toward African Americans, he may have been too casual about race, and demonstrated a disregard for workplace etiquette and correctness. Ms. Perquita Burgess, who is black and was a temp-clerical worker at the news station in 2008, now recalls O'Reilly's sexist and racial misbehavior. Accompanied by her attorney, Lisa Bloom, she appeared a few days ago on the women's talk show, The View" and shared her story of O'Reilly's unacceptable conduct. He "grunted and leered" at her cleavage, she said, as he would pass by her desk on the way to his office, and on one occasion called her "hot chocolate." Greeting her once with a "looking good there, girl," she said he acted like Fox was a "plantation."
Some years ago, those comments to Burgess might have qualified as complimentary and friendly, but in today's milieu, it is to some a sign of racism and sexism rolled into one offensive ball. You might wonder if the Burgess complaint is typical of the charges being thrown at the prominent O'Reilly, a multi-millionaire. Is Ms. Burgess and her counsel looking for a little cash? In truth, complaints such as the one by Ms. Burgess, ought to be tossed into the waste basket.
O'Reilly's aggressive nature as a tough journalist has no doubt made him many enemies over the years, and they are all jumping on the bandwagon now. It doesn't help his case that it has come out that many of these offended ladies have settled for many millions of dollars with both O'Reilly and the station.
A few months back, Fox President Roger Ailes was fired for allegedly seeking special favors from attractive women on a quid pro quo basis. Again, who knows what really went on? For sure, Ailes and O'Reilly were reporting to a couple of left-leaning bosses, and those chiefs took the opportunity to make their mark with liberal America. One thing is for sure: It will be a while before the company fully recovers, if it ever does, from the financial losses and diminishing number of viewers triggered as a result of the "Big Dog's" discharge.
Predictably, in the future, O'Reilly will continue as a man about town. He will be writing best selling books (often made into movies) and making speeches; and, as is his pugilistic style, he will be mixing it up with journalists in interviews. Who knows--maybe he will be reinstated behind a mike somewhere. (Marv Albert had some strange proclivities that cost him his spot behind the lines at NBA games, but he has found his way back behind the mike.) Prevaricating Brian Williams is back "shooting the bull" for MSNBC. In my judgment, the "Big Dog," respected by millions of patriotic and hard-working Americans, would be welcomed back as a regular on the tube.
XXX
By Florida Bill
Ms. Rachel Dolezal has said in an interview that she is "Transracial." She is definitely breaking new ground for celebration by the progressive crowd.
Ms. Dolezal is the 39-year-old woman with the wild, tangled Afro and the confident demeanor, who was forced to resign as president of the Spokane Washington chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) after her parents revealed that she was, in fact, a White woman.
This is a real twist and so the acronym LGBTQ will need to be amended in some way to include individuals who "trans" race. (Perhaps a capital "TR" could now follow the "Q.") Dolezal has claimed in a recent interview that the phenomenon of "transracialing" is a twin sister to transgendering. Ethnicity, she said, is not biological.
Ms. Dolezal is the author of a new book, "In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World." In CNN and other interviews, she indicated she feels that she has been misunderstood. Yes, she is a civil rights leader, she argues, but never identified herself as African American. "I've identified as Black.... and Black is a culture, a philosophy, a political and social view," she asserted. She urges that critics who are filled with hate should read her book with an open mind.
Born in Montana of White parents, she earned a bachelors degree and later a master of fine arts from Howard University, a predominantly Black school where she assumed the persona of a Black woman, though she may have never stated her race formally. One person who knew her said that she did not pose as a black woman; it was simply assumed that she was black. She sounded Black particularly when she spoke on the telephone, one person observed.
Dolezal also has compared her situation to that of a transgender individual, such as Caitlyn Jenner, the former Olympian who transitioned from male to female in 2015. People should not be defined by who or what they were at birth. "Race is a Social Construct," she declared
A glib talker, she went about her activities in the African American community, attending rallies and participating in forums. She spoke often and her prominence grew, and she rose to become the president of an energetic chapter of the Washington state NAACP. Her difficulties exploded when her parents revealed that she was masquerading as Black, and that she was their child and they were pure Caucasians of Czech, German and Swedish origin.
She was fired from her NAACP leadership position and lost her job as a teacher of Black history. She was booed when she tried to deliver a lecture and well--old friends quit calling. She even changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo which is said to have the meaning of "Gift of God" in west Africa territory. The new name was designed to recapture her standing and to explain her transitioning from white skin to inner blackness, although that physically she retained the outward characteristics of a Caucasian. Nevertheless, she remained the butt of jokes. Currently, she is on food stamps unable to find another job.
Back in the 1940s, there was the movie, "Pinky," which told the story of light-skinned Afro-American woman who passed for being Caucasian as she worked and studied to become a registered nurse. She fell in love with a white doctor, admitted her deception, and somehow the whole thing had a happy ending.
Rachel Dolezal's story is sort of a twist on the "Pinky" screen story--but without a happy ending. She pretended to be Black and blended into that culture, marrying an African American man, and rising to a respected leadership role with the NAACP on the west coast and even nationally. But instead of gaining status and understanding after being "outed" with her true skin color becoming known, her associates in the Black community and elsewhere dumped her and saw her as sort of a white "loon."
xxx
.
By Florida Bill
The way to get ahead in this dog-eat-dog world is simply to deliver the best zinger. It has nothing to do with what is right, and what is wrong; or what is true or what is false. What you need is that poisonous dart, known as a "gotcha," thrown to demean, disparage and destroy.
This phenomenon applies in most every walk of life, but seems most prevalent and effective in the world of politics. If you can deliver the most tiger-like "gotcha" punches, even via twitter, you will likely win the day.
So what constitutes the "gotcha"? It may be a comment or an observation or a charge or perhaps a question. It can take many forms. It might be an item of clothing, such as a glove too small to fit the hand of O.J. Simpson. Former President Clinton's "gotcha" was an unlaundered blue dress.
But usually it is made up of insulting words. The nation's new President, Donald Trump, is a daily target, but he is also a champion at delivering "counter gotchas," and when the dust clears, he remains standing. That is the way it was in the primaries with the debates and then in the battle against Hillary Clinton, or as Trump referred to her, "Crooked Hillary," a haymaker "gotcha."
In many ways, Trump is like "Horatius at the Bridge." Like the great Roman, he stands virtually alone, defending his territory against thousands hell-bent on bringing him down. When the media exploded over Trump's claims of being wiretapped by Obama, he came back with evidence of "incidental surveillances" of him and his team, turning the spotlight on former NSA adviser to Obama, Susan Rice. "I think that she is guilty of a crime," he asserted. Gotcha!
In news conferences, the media representative reaches for the sledgehammer "gotcha" such as when Fox News' Megyn Kelly wanted to know why candidate Trump called women "fat pigs and slobs and disgusting animals." Trump flinched and tried to turn it around by twittering that Kelly was a "bimbo...incompetent and crazy," but he lost with his comebacks since Kelly was not a candidate, only a part of the media. With all of the publicity, her celebrity grew, signing a $25 million dollar a year contract with NBC. The anti-feminine "gotcha" bruise to Trump faded away after he and Kelly made up on a TV special.
The debate stages in the last Republican and Democratic primaries had little to do with policies. Everyone of the candidates promised to bring more jobs and good things for citizens, but the promises for a better America paled alongside the insults which seemed to resonate.
In the Democratic campaign for the nomination, the outcome had been decided from day one in favor of Mrs. Clinton so a "gotcha" brawl was unnecessary. Sen. Bernie Sanders accused Clinton of being a cash driven double talker who voted for the war in Iraq, but Clinton brushed it off and consistently seemed to be grateful to Sanders for him avoiding the sensitive email issue. Any "gotchas" were of the super soft ball variety with no one getting hurt.
Much different story in the Republican war zone which eventually led Donald Trump into the nomination. Candidate Trump hammered everyone with nickname "gotchas" and the public loved it. One by one they fell. There was "Low Energy Jeb", "Lying Ted," and "Li'l Marco." Gov. Christie had to hang up his skates when nailed by Sen Paul for the TV hug he gave to President Obama when Obama visited New Jersey in the aftermath of a storm. Recalling the hug was a damaging "gotcha" which assisted Trump and gave Christie a very red face. That had to be the impetus for Gov. Christie to withdraw as a candidate and join forces with Trump.
Trump was labeled a "con man" by Sen. Rubio but all his attacks about the integrity of Trump University ended up as tiny flesh wounds which quickly healed. "The Donald" maintained his lead in all polls by using effective counter "twitter gotchas," denouncing Sen. Rubio as a useless squirt and an ineffective Florida senator. Screaming insults at "Li'l Marco," Trump won handily in the Florida primary.
In Trump's head-on-head with Hillary Clinton, he nicknamed her "Crooked Hillary," asserting before millions that she should be in jail, not even allowed to run for President. She attempted to counter by calling his followers a bunch of "deplorables," but her counter got her nowhere, and actually caused her to lose ground. In a way, her "deplorables" comment, which even turned into the subject of a T-shirt, came back at her as a "backfiring gotcha."
So on the road to this White House, never mind all that talk about new policies, the key to the door of the Oval Office in this election turned on the big and little "gotchas," the uglier the better. Mrs. Clinton and 16 other Republican candidates running in the primaries all fell to the power of the slings and arrows that came out of Trump's bow. Face facts. That is how a blustering, billionaire outsider with no experience in government became America's 45th President, and the most powerful man on the planet. It is not what you know, but it has everything to do with who delivers the the most crippling "gotchas."
XXX
