I am Proud to Introduce Phoolan Devi to my Readers

September 23, 2018

Phoolan was born into a poor family in rural Uttar Pradesh in India in 1963. As an 11 year old girl, Phoolan married a man three times her age in an arranged marriage that lasted a year before she fled. Having been brutalized by her husband, she walked hundreds of miles back home only to discover that her family considered her act disgraceful and would not allow her in the home.

Living on the streets, Phoolan was raped, robbed and assaulted regularly as a member of the lower castes in India. She received no help from anyone, not even the police.

Since Phoolan was estranged from her husband and her family, the very young girl sought escape by running away and joining a gang of bandits. She was the only woman in that gang, and her relationship with one gang member, coupled with other minor factors, caused a gunfight between gang members.

Phoolan’s lover was killed in that gunfight. The victorious rival faction, who were Rajputs, took Phoolan to their village of Behmai, confined her in a room, and took turns to rape her repeatedly over several days. After escaping, Phoolan rejoined the remnants of her dead lover’s faction, took another lover from among those men, and continued with banditry. However, the memory of Behmai remained uppermost in her mind.

A few months later, her new gang descended upon the village of Behmai to exact revenge for what she had suffered. About twenty-two Rajput men belonging to that village were lined up in a row and shot dead by Phoolan’s gang.

Since Phoolan was a woman, and her victims were men, the press portrayed the Behmai massacre as an act of righteous rebellion. The respectful nickname ‘Devi’ was conferred upon her by the media and public at this point.

Devi evaded capture for two years after the Behmai massacre before she and her few surviving gang-members surrendered to the police in 1983. In poor health and exhausted by the struggle to stay hidden, Devi negotiated her surrender to avoid a death sentence. Although she agreed to 8 years’ imprisonment, she ended up being jailed for 11 years, without trial.

She was charged with 48 crimes, including multiple murders, plunder, arson and kidnapping for ransom. Devi spent the next eleven years in jail, as the various charges against her were tried in court. In 1994, the state government headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party summarily withdrew all charges against her, and Devi was released.

The 1994 film “Bandit Queen” is loosely based on her life until that point when she was 30 years old and just released from jail.

Devi then ran for Parliament as a candidate of the Samajwadi Party and was twice elected to the Lok Sabha as the member for Mirzapur. In 2001, she was shot dead by former rival bandits whose kinsmen had been slaughtered at Behmai by her gang. The assassination took place at the gates of her official bungalow that was allotted to her as a Member of Parliament in New Delhi.

Devi became legendary for both her acts of revenge on those who had abused her and her Robin Hood-like activities to aid the lower castes. As a member of the lower house of Parliament she continued as a champion of the poor and oppressed.

When Devi was assassinated in 2001 she was 37 years old. I am not her judge but I cannot imagine walking in her shoes during those 37 years, can you?
If you think the 1994 film was embraced by the government of India, you have another think coming! Here is a headline discussing the year long censorship battle, ‘Disgusting and revolting and obscene’: ‘Bandit Queen’ and the censors, Shehar Kapur’s path-breaking film, ‘Bandit Queen’, went through all kinds of checks, from the CBFC’s examining committee to the Supreme Court, before its release.

Bandit Queen premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 1994 to wide critical acclaim. Variety called it “gripping”. The Economist said it would change Indian cinema forever. Evening Standard, in its page-long review, called it “truly radical”—“angry, shocking, potentially inflammatory”—helping “Indian cinema come of age”. But a Hollywood Reporter festival round-up piece pointed to the anxieties accompanying the acclaim. “Whatever the film’s reception in Cannes,” it said, “the brutal realism is certain to cause huge problems in both the subcontinent and Western territories….”

The film’s producer, Bobby Bedi, wasn’t surprised. “We knew it would have trouble,” he says over the phone. “But we weren’t expecting the kind of trouble it got.” The makers submitted the film to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on 17 August 1994. The examining committee—comprising an examining officer and four members of the advisory panel—saw it, raised objections, and referred it to the revising committee. On 19 July 1995, the revising committee—headed by a chairman, with not more than nine members of the censor board and advisory panel—recommended an A certificate, subject to cuts and modifications. The revising committee, clamping down heavily on cuss words, rape sequences and frontal nudity, “added more than 100 cuts”, says Bedi.

But Bandit Queen’s director, Shekhar Kapur, thought the CBFC had seen his film in a “callous and careless way”, and didn’t want to negotiate or accept the cuts. Neither did Bedi. They applied to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), the next recourse in the censorship process, challenging the revising committee’s decision. The FCAT—presided over by a retired judge of the Bombay high court, Lentin J., and three members (all women—Sara Mohammad, Sarayu V. Doshi, and Reena Kumari)—stated that the expletives were “not intended to be taken literally”, as they reflected the nuances of the language spoken in the villages of Chambal ravines. The censor board also wanted to delete a scene that showed a policeman hitting Phoolan Devi with the butt of a gun. The FCAT said that deleting the scene would “negate the very impact of the film”, which depicted the “maltreatment and cruelty” suffered by Phoolan Devi and her motivation for taking revenge.

The revising committee had demanded that 70% of the scene of Phoolan Devi torturing her husband be cut. The FCAT believed it was a “powerful scene”, demonstrating “Devi’s pent-up anger, emotions, and revulsion”, whose reduction “would negate its impact”. The revising committee had asked for another scene, where Phoolan Devi is paraded naked in the village, to be cut heavily. The FCAT asserted that it was “an integral part of the story”, one that intended to “create revulsion in the minds of the average audience towards the tormentors and oppressors of women. To delete or even to reduce these climactic visuals,” it said, “would be a sacrilege.”

The FCAT’s unanimous decision overruled the revising committee’s orders, and gave the film an A certificate. At the hearing, recalls Bedi, Justice Lentin suggested the censor board representative “take a trip to Khajuraho”, joking that it was unlikely the Indian government would send him to Rome, to “understand the difference between nakedness, nudity, and obscenity”.

Bandit Queen released in theatres a few months later, on 25 January 1996, after an year-long censorship battle. But that relief was short-lived. Two days later, Om Pal Singh Hoon, a Hindu Gujjar, filed a writ petition in the Delhi high court, seeking to quash the film’s censor certificate and restrain exhibition in the country. Phoolan Devi’s portrayal, said Hoon, was “abhorrent and unconscionable and a slur on the womanhood of India”. He felt that the rape scene, by a character called Babu Gujjar, lowered the reputation of the Gujjar community, discriminating against him and violating several articles of the Constitution.

I won’t continue with details of the fight but I hope you realize how government censorship is a bad thing? It makes no difference if a movie is censored because of political implications or texts and documents are classified because they might embarrass the government or expose deep state corruption.


Will Anyone Help Gene McVay Fight Arkansas Government Corruption?

September 16, 2018

Almost ten percent of the Arkansas State Senators have been convicted and sentenced to prison or indicted. Many more are believed to be under investigation.

Almost a year ago the FBI subpoenaed records from the Arkansas Legislature and the Legislature hired a high powered Little Rock Law Firm to fight the subpoenas.

Even though $60,000 of tax revenue had already been spent, taxpayers and the public are being kept in the dark about what information the FBI is seeking and why the State Government is fighting to conceal it.

The FBI asked the Senate President Pro Tem elect to wear a wire to prove that he had been offered a bribe by another State Senator but Senator Jim Hendren refused to assist the FBI. The State Senator who allegedly requested the bribe is Senator Jon Woods who has since been convicted of crimes and sentenced to 18 years and four months in prison.

Even though all this was going on, Governor Asa Hutchinson and the incoming Senate President Pro Tem still supported soon to be convicted felon Senator Jon Woods for reelection.

You can’t make this stuff up!

■■■ As a fifth generation Arkansan and lifelong Republican, I’m not sure what to do?

In some states there are legitimate news organizations that hold government accountable. Here is an example:

■These public servants think their records aren’t your business. We’re suing to change that

The News Tribune and nine other news organizations are suing the Washington State Legislature, alleging that lawmakers are violating the state’s Public Records Act by withholding records tied to their legislative business.


In other cases it is up to citizens to step up and sue with the state Attorney General defending a corrupt Legislature. Here is an example of that:

■Tim Eyman, well known initiative sponsor, won an overwhelming and decisive victory in Thurston County Superior Court on Friday. His lawsuit was simple and clear, and his defense of the Washington State Constitution was solid.

The Attorney General’s effort to defend the unconstitutional action by the Washington State Legislature was feeble and Thurston Superior Court Judge Schaller’s carefully articulated and clear ruling from the bench will become legal precedent for future reference. The constitutional protections for initiatives to the legislature will stand as written. It was a solid reminder to the legislators in Olympia to not ignore the Constitution in the future.


I had hoped I would not have to be the one to sue Arkansas Legislators on behalf of Arkansas Taxpayers but the egregious disregard for the Arkansas Constitution is screaming for justice.

I don’t believe hiring law firms to squash FBI Subpoenas is a lawful use of Taxpayer’s dollars. If corrupt Legislators require defending, wouldn’t that be the duty of Attorney General Leslie Rutledge?

Since Arkansas AG Leslie Rutledge has no stomach for fighting Arkansas political corruption, can’t she at least defend Arkansas political corruption and save we the people the expense of hiring outside law firms?

Surely there is something Leslie Rutledge can do besides peddling influence at posh resorts?

Yes, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge is the Chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association.

Maybe she is too busy raising money for Republican AGs to see what has happened to her own state government?

Maybe the nine newspapers in Washington State will join a Gene McVay lawsuit in Arkansas?

Governors Gone Bad

September 2, 2018

Believe it or not, there are State Governors who make the trip from the Statehouse to the Big House but some of them avoid the slammer.

Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife, former first lady Maureen McDonnell, were convicted of multiple counts of corruption, fraud and bribery in 2016. McDonnell wept as the guilty verdicts were read. The lifestyle he grew accustomed to as governor — which included a luxury vacation in Cape Cod worth more than $7,000 — is about as far as you can get from where he could be headed next. Don’t cry for Bob and Maureen, last year the Supreme Court vacated Bob McDonnell’s conviction, but condemned his conduct on ethical grounds. McDonnell and his family accepted $177K in gifts and loans while he was in office. His attorney admitted the evidence looked bad, but that’s just the way U.S. politics works.

Now, politicians found guilty of bribery in New York, Pennsylvania and Louisiana are using the McDonnell case to fight their own convictions. What was that President Trump called it? Oh yeah, THE SWAMP!

Some of the crooks really do get more than a slap on the wrist.

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was found guilty in 2011 of attempting to sell President Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat. He was convicted of 17 of 24 federal charges against him and is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence. I guess Blago couldn’t afford Bob McDonnell’s high powered lawyers?

Republican of Rhode Island Edward DiPrete was indicted in 1994, accused of taking close to $300,000 in bribes from contractors in exchange for state contracts. He pleaded guilty to 18 counts of corruption — including bribery and extortion — in 1998, before trial, in exchange for leniency for his son, who was also accused. DiPrete served just one year in prison.

Former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards was convicted in 2000 of extorting nearly $3 million from companies that applied for casino licenses. The four-term governor, 72 years old at the time, received a 10-year sentence. He is currently out of prison and running for Congress. Politicians have learned that they can make big bucks handing out casino or marijuana licenses.

Arch Moore Jr., Republican Governor of West Virginia Arch Moore Jr. charges stemmed from a nearly $600,000 payment he extorted from a coal operator in return for a refund of millions from the state’s black lung fund for miners. He was also charged with filing false tax returns, and in connection with a vote-buying scheme. Moore received a prison sentence of just under six years and a $170,000 fine. Now we’re getting into the serious money usually only attainable in Arkansas.

Republican Governor of Connecticut John Rowland served 10 months in prison after he admitted in 2005 to illegally taking trips and vacations to Las Vegas, Vermont and Florida and getting improvements to his lake cabin. He is currently facing federal conspiracy charges in an unrelated case.

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and tax fraud — largely related to selling government licenses and contracts as a public official. Ryan was released from prison in 2014 after serving five years. Four of the past seven governors of Illinois, including Ryan, have gone to prison. Going to prison can become a tradition.

Democrat Governor of North Carolina Mike Easley managed to stay out of the big house when his attorneys reached a plea deal in 2010. Prosecutors dropped additional charges when he pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws. A federal probe found that the two-term governor took advantage of free flights, cars and vacations, questionable real estate deals, and that he created a job for his wife at a state university. He had faced up to 15 months in prison, but prosecutors agreed to no jail time and a $1,000 fine plus court costs. Are you kidding me?

Republican Governor of Alabama Guy Hunt was convicted of using $200,000 from a tax-exempt fund for his own inauguration and violating state ethics laws. He got five years’ probation, was ordered to pay a $211,000 fine and eventually received a state pardon in 1998. Ask not what you can do for your state, ask what your good ole state can do for you. Don’t you try this if you are Joe Bag of Donuts!

Former South Dakota Governor Bill Janklow soon after his election was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for crashing into and killing a motorcyclist in South Dakota. The four-term governor was sentenced to 100 days in the county jail and three years’ probation. I guess you can’t get off in the Dakota’s just because you’re the Guv?

Republican Governor of Arizona J. Fife Symington III was convicted of bank fraud, making false financial statements and extortion, much of which was related to a failing real estate business. He was sentenced to prison, but his 1997 conviction was overturned and, in 2001, President Clinton gave him a pardon. Politicians are sometimes really bad at running businesses but they do just fine if they have friends in high places.

Republican Governor of Ohio Bob Taft pleaded no contest to four misdemeanor ethics counts for failing to report gifts of more than 50 golf outings, dinners and other largess. He was ordered to pay a $4,000 fine and write an apology to the people of Ohio.

Democrat Governor of Missouri Roger Wilson pleaded guilty to illegally shifting money to make political donations. He faced a $2,000 fine and a year in prison, but was sentenced to pay the fine and given two years’ probation.

Democrat Governor of Arkansas Jim Guy Tucker was found guilty by an Arkansas Jury in 1996 giving rise to now Florida resident Mike Huckabee. The Jury found Tucker guilty of fraud, conspiracy and the engineering of about $3 million in fraudulent loans. Tucker was spared prison, in part because of a serious liver illness. He was ordered to pay $294,000 back to the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Democrat Governor of Oklahoma David Lee Walters made a deal with prosecutors in 1993 where Walters pleaded guilty to one of the eight felony counts he faced for allegedly violating campaign contribution laws, perjury and conspiracy to hide donations.

I am going to take some time to humanize David L. Walters who carried seventy-five of the state’s seventy-seven counties in the general election. He earned an Industrial Engineering Degree from the University of Oklahoma and a Master’s Degree in Business Administration from Harvard University.

Walters began his professional career as an administrator at the University of Oklahoma and then entered private business as head of two real estate companies. Governor George P. Nigh asked him to serve as co-chair of the one-hundred-member Commission on Government Reform in 1984 and later appointed him to serve on the Oklahoma Human Services Commission.

Walters failed in his first bid for the governor’s office in 1986, losing to Republican Henry Bellmon after winning the Democrat nomination. In 1990 Walters campaigned on a platform of no new taxes without public approval, his promise to run state government like a business, his support for term limits, and his support for education reforms. Walters’s election signaled a desire of the public to elect a real outsider. Since the election of Robert S. Kerr nearly a half-century before, no other governor had been chosen who had not previously held elective public office.

Walters’s administration made major capital improvements on Oklahoma’s higher education campuses. The governor launched major initiatives in children’s, rural development, and welfare reform programs. His Quality Jobs program was nationally recognized. He successfully sponsored significant workers’ compensation reform. A widely respected technology magazine recognized Walters as the nation’s leading governor in the introduction of technology to government applications.

Tragedy struck the Walters family when son Shaun died in December 1991. An overdose of prescription medication came after heavy press coverage of a police search in Shaun’s Norman apartment that uncovered a single seed thought to be marijuana, an assumption overturned later by law enforcement tests. The family was devastated, and all Oklahomans mourned the loss. Shaun’s death changed Governor Walters’s outlook on political life. Asked if he would run for Governor if he had it to do all over again, Walters replied, “No, I would not. I lost my son because I ran for public office.”

In order to honor the memory of their late son and children of all Oklahoma Governors, the Walters commissioned in 1994 a bronze sculpture to be placed on the Governor’s Mansion grounds to honor children of past, present, and future Oklahoma Governors. The red granite base of the sculpture includes the names of all the children of Oklahoma chief executives. The youngest Walters daughter, Elizabeth, was a model for the girl, and the boy in the sculpture was modeled after Shaun. Private donations, assisted by former Governors Boren and Nigh, funded the fifty-thousand-dollar sculpture by Lena Beth Frazier of Norman.

After three years of investigation of alleged campaign contribution irregularities and “fearing that the continued negative attacks could further damage his family,” Governor Walters asked prosecutors what they wanted to end the process. An agreement was reached that the Governor would plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense and pay a fine and the record would be expunged in twelve months. Walters claimed his innocence but said it was in the best interest of the state and his family to accept the plea agreement. Walters did not run for reelection in 1994 and entered the international independent power business.

There is probably a moral to this story somewhere but one thing is clear. Justice is not blind nor is it applied equally and that is sad.

Follow Gene McVay Back to 1917

September 1, 2018

Will you follow Gene McVay back in time to 101 years ago?

In 1917, the US ordered General Pershing to end his drive against Pancho Villa. Pershing was unhappy about it and complained that we “are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs.”

On Feb 3rd the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany.

On Mar 1st Germany sent a secret message known as the Zimmermann Telegram. It offered to return to Mexico border states that the US took from Mexico after the US-Mexican War if Mexico would join Germany against the US. The British intercepted the telegram and the US government made the text of the telegram public.

On Mar 4th Woodrow Wilson began his second term as president. Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman member of the House of Representatives.

On Mar 5th Hitler was on duty in Munich after having been wounded and hospitalized. He was appalled by the apathy and anti-war sentiment among German civilians. He eagerly returned to his regiment at the front to fight the Battle of Arras.

On Apr 2nd Wilson is overwhelmed by public opinion. His advisers favor war against Germany, and after Russia overthrew its Tsar it is argued that the US would be fighting a war against autocracy. Wilson tells Congress that the US will not choose “the path of submission” and asks Congress for a declaration of war on Germany to make the world “safe for democracy.”

On Apr 6th the House of Representatives votes 373 to 50 in favor of declaring war, and the Senate votes in favor by 82 to 6. Congress goes wild with joy.

On May 18th Congress passes the Selective Service Act, giving the President the power to draft people into the military.

On Jul 28th A parade in silence is organized by the NAACP in New York to protest the East St. Louis Riot of July 2 and lynchings in Texas and Tennessee.

On Dec 18th in the new atmosphere of righteousness in war and creation of a more perfect and moral United States, the US Congress passed a law amending the US Constitution – the 18th Amendment – prohibiting the manufacture, sale or transportation of alcoholic beverages.

General of the Armies, John Joseph “Black Jack” Pershing would go on to command the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War I. He had been the president and first captain of the West Point class of 1886.

The average life expectancy for men was 47 years.

Fuel for cars was sold in drug stores only.

Only 14 percent of the homes had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower

The average US wage in 1910 was 22 cents per hour.

The average US worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year.

A dentist $2,500 per year

A veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year.

And, a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births took place at home.

Ninety percent of all Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!

Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were
condemned in the press AND the government as “substandard.”

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and, used Borax or
egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from entering into
their country for any reason.

The Five leading causes of death were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars ..

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada was only 30.

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn’t been invented

There was neither a Mother’s Day nor a Father’s Day.

Two out of every 10 adults couldn’t read or write.

And, only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter
at local corner drugstores.

Back then pharmacists said, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives
buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach, bowels, and is, in fact, a
perfect guardian of health!” (Shocking?)

Eighteen percent of households had at least one full-time servant or
domestic help.

There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A.!

Since our history is no longer taught in our public schools and colleges, occasionally old Gene McVay will share a little.


August 30, 2018

I know many great people have sacrificed a great deal for America. Many of us fought and bled for America and successfully sought out and killed the enemy.

Unfortunately, it was not enough. If we sit silent and submissive any longer, the globalist, socialist, Marxist minority will reduce America to an empty shell.

Do you think the corrupt fake news media just arrived in America by way of the hole in the border fence? In the past the media was much more clever and deceptive. Occasionally, they would report actual news.

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President more than 37 years ago. Since I was a GS-13 in the government and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Reserves, President Reagan was my Commander in Chief and my ultimate civil service boss. Of the eight Presidents I served, Reagan was the best by a country mile.

Do you think the news media embraced President Reagan with open arms like they did Kennedy, Clinton and Obama? Hardly!

From depicting Reagan as a puppet of the rich whose economic policies were cruel towards the poor and minorities, to denying his foreign policy vision helped lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the media did their best to trash our 40th President.

At the end of his presidency, a great many people thought he’d made the wealthy wealthier and had not improved life particularly for the middle class.

As I hear the eulogies from the corrupt media for Senator John McCain, I remember that there were no such eulogies for President Ronald Reagan. Some of the comments are included in my epistle.

While 90% of the President Trump coverage is negative, judge for yourself how the talking heads treated the Gipper.

“Despite the accolades lavished upon Reagan since his death Saturday — for ending the Cold War, for restoring the nation’s optimism — his many detractors remember him as a right-wing ideologue beholden to monied interests and insensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable Americans.” Peter Jennings talking to co-host Charles Gibson on ABC’s Good Morning America, June 10, 2004

~~~ “Elected on a promise to slash taxes and crack down on freeloading ‘welfare queens,’ Reagan depicted government as wasteful and minimized its capacity to help people, ideas that survive today. Reagan also dealt a blow to organized labor by firing the striking air traffic controllers, and appointed Antonin Scalia, still the Supreme Court’s most conservative jurist.”

“Reagan’s weakening of the social safety net by dismantling longtime Democratic ‘Great Society’ programs arguably vexes his critics the most. By persuading Congress to approve sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing welfare benefits and other social services like the federal housing assistance program, Reagan was blamed for a huge surge in the nation’s poor and homeless population.”
— Beth Fouhy in an AP story headlined: “Many Still Troubled by Reagan’s Legacy,” June 9, 2004.

~~~CBS’s Morley Safer: “You talk about a vision, and it’s some kind of abstract, vague idea. Did his [Ronald Reagan’s] vision include extraordinary deficits? Did his vision include cutting of the budgets for education and a back of the hand in terms of public education?”

Larry King: “History will not be kind to him?”

Safer: “No, I don’t think history particularly will be kind….I don’t think history has any reason to be kind to him.” CNN’s Larry King Live, June 14, 2004.

~~~“Most of those who are physically, economically or otherwise disadvantaged, deeply resented and still resent his insistence that government is the problem, not the solution. Severe and continuing cutbacks in government services to the poor and vulnerable resulted, and the gulf dividing rich from poor widened.” Former New York Times Washington Bureau Chief R. W. “Johnny” Apple in a June 11 “news analysis.

~~~“After eight years of what many saw as the Reagan administration’s benign neglect of the poor and studied indifference to civil rights, a lot of those who lived through this week in Overtown seemed to think the best thing about George Bush is that he is not Ronald Reagan….There is an Overtown in every big city in America. Pockets of misery made even meaner and more desperate the past eight years.” ABC’s Richard Threlkeld reporting from a section of Miami where there had been riots, on World News Tonight, January 20, 1989.

~~~“Senator, don’t you believe, a lot of people do think that the ‘80s were an excess, which a lot of people got richer and people got poorer, and it’s now fair to redress that balance?”
— Sam Donaldson to Robert Dole on This Week with David Brinkley, Feb. 21, 1993.

~~~ “In the greedy excesses of the Reagan years, the mean income of the average physician nearly doubled, from $88,000 to $170,000. Was that warranted?”
— Bryant Gumbel to Dr. Richard Corlin of the American Medical Association, March 31, 1993 Today.

~~~“Before Reagan, people sleeping in the street were so rare that, outside of skid rows, they were almost a curiosity. After eight years of Reaganomics – and the slashes in low-income housing and social welfare programs that went along with it – they were seemingly everywhere. And America had a new household term: ‘The homeless.’” Reporter Kevin Fagan in the June 10, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle.

~~~“I used to say I thought if you were down on your luck and you got through the Secret Service, got in the Oval Office and said, Mr. President, ‘I’m down on my luck,’ he would literally give you the shirt off his back. And then he’d sit down in his undershirt and he’d sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare.” ABC’s Sam Donaldson, who covered the White House during the 1980s, on Good Morning America, June 11, 2004.


~~~“All of us who covered the Reagans agreed that President Reagan was personable and charming, but I’m not so certain he was nice. It’s hard for me to think of anyone as nice when I hear him say ‘The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.’ To my mind, a President should care about all people, and he didn’t, which is why I will always feel Reagan lacked soul.” UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas in the July 1993 Good Housekeeping.

~~~“There is still, of course, much anger in many communities. Joining me from Savannah, Georgia, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci, thanks for being with us tonight. Dr. Fauci, the San Francisco Chronicle said that Ronald Reagan was guilty, and I quote, of a ‘shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.’ If he had been more vocal and compassionate early on would it have made a difference?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper during a segment on the Reagan administration’s handling of AIDS aired on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 June 8, 2004.

~~~“The Reagan Administration has made a bad situation worse in two ways: first, by convincing the Soviet leaders that the U.S. no longer accepts military parity as the basis for relations with Moscow; second, by challenging the legitimacy of the Soviet regime, calling the USSR an ‘evil empire’ doomed to fail.” Time’s Strobe Talbott on pre-Olympics U.S.-Soviet relations, May 21, 1984 issue.

~~~ “Some say Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by spending so much on defense that the Kremlin went bankrupt trying to keep up. That won’t wash. During Reagan’s presidency the United States itself became a bankrupt country.” Commentator (and former anchor) John Chancellor on the November 20, 1990 NBC Nightly News.

~~~“The Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended almost overwhelmingly because of internal contradictions and pressures within the Soviet Union and the Soviet system itself. And even if Jimmy Carter had been reelected and been followed by Walter Mondale, something like what we have now seen probably would have happened.” Time Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott on Inside Washington, September 21, 1991.

~~~“The Reagan presidency also saw….the Iran/Contra affair, the near tripling of the national debt, the fact that 30 – count em 30 – of his administration staffers would serve time in jail for bribery, corruption and influence peddling.” Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown, June 7, 2004.

~~~“Can you tell, Thelma,…if the crowds really look like America? Are they ethnically diverse – African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans – or is it largely white?” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asking reporter Thelma Gutierrez about the crowds at Reagan’s presidential library during live coverage on June 8, 2004.

~~~Ted Koppel: “There were some fairly contentious issues and he was a fairly controversial President – we’ve more or less overlooked much of that over the past week. But I suspect as his friends and supporters try to raise to him to the very heights there, and perhaps find a place for him on Mount Rushmore, that some of that controversy and some of the debate will come back.”
Peter Jennings: “No doubt about it.” Exchange during ABC’s live coverage of Reagan funeral events on June 11, 2004.

In conclusion, the simple truth is that it’s us against them. Their agenda is not our agenda. If you try reaching across the aisle you’re likely to grasp a rattlesnake. It was like that long before the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter and for 100 years after the Civil War while they were blocking the doors of high schools to prevent Black America Citizens from getting an education.

Your kids are not and will not be taught true history in public schools and the news media will not broadcast the real news. That is up to us. If we don’t do it, who will? The John Brummett Democrat-Gazette wants us to remain silent. All of the corrupt media wants President Trump to stop Tweeting and they want you and me to do the same thing.

I am begging you to get louder and more engaged in the battle for America. Will you?

People Who Hate President Trump are Seething with Hatred

August 28, 2018

I talk to people regularly who don’t simply disapprove of President Trump or dislike him, they hate him. When talking about our President, their whole demeanor changes.

When I try to understand why they hate him so passionately, it’s not easy to put my finger on it. I think some of it is the vast cultural difference. My High School class traveled from friendly little Mountain Home, Arkansas to DC and New York City for our Senior Trip a long time ago. We spoke to people we passed on the sidewalk in Mountain Home and if someone was passed out on the sidewalk we helped them. In New York it’s best not to look at people you pass on a sidewalk and folks simply avoid or step over passed out human beings. New Yorkers don’t care if they hurt your feelings when they deal with each other.

Donald Trump was born and raised in the New York City borough of Queens, the easternmost and largest in area of the five boroughs.

Queens is the fourth-most densely populated county among New York City’s boroughs, as well as in the United States. If each of New York City’s boroughs was an independent city, Queens also would be the nation’s fourth most populous, after Los Angeles, Chicago and Brooklyn. In addition, Queens is the most ethnically diverse urban area in the entire world.

Queens was established in 1683 as one of the original 12 counties of New York. The settlement was presumably named for the Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza (1638–1705), Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Queens has the most diversified economy of the five boroughs of New York City. It is home to JFK International Airport and LaGuardia Airport. These airports are among the worlds busiest, in turn giving Queens the busiest airspace in the United States. I spent time in Queens where I trained in a flight simulator for a couple of weeks.

I loved having lunch in the Marine Air Terminal located at LaGuardia Airport, the only active airport terminal dating from the first generation of passenger travel in the United States, a.k.a. the “Golden age of the flying boat.”

The first flight from the Marine Air Terminal by a Pan American Clipper departed on March 31, 1940, carrying a crew of 10, nine passengers and over 5,000 pounds of mail. It landed in Lisbon, Portugal 18 hours and 30 minutes later. The Pan American Clippers – with a wing span of 152 feet, a cruising speed of 200 mph and a capacity to carry 72 passengers – were luxurious. The two-deck interior featured dining rooms, private compartments and sleeping sections. The Marine Air Terminal was referred to as the Pan Am Building by the locals.

I know I get carried away sometimes but I love history and I want everybody to know that the people in New York are not exactly like people from Arkansas but we are all people and we are all products of our environment. While I was fighting with bullies in Mountain Home, the Donald was fighting with bullies on the streets of New York. When I was watching the Razorbacks or Travelers play baseball, Trump was watching the Yankees or the Mets. We were both eating hot dogs.

As I see it, the people who hate Trump don’t like the blunt way he talks and his demeanor. The brilliant talking heads like Brian Kilmeade and Glenn Beck have had advice for Trump from the beginning. He should do this or he should stop doing that. I have advice for all those talking heads, step up to the plate and run for President. The fact is that if Trump had listened to you guys, Trump would not be President, period.

The people who hate Trump seem to want a President who measures and carefully divides his words. Maybe runs his words by a committee? Trump shouldn’t be spontaneous like JFK when he said, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Just kidding, I’ll always believe somebody wrote that for Kennedy.

Maybe Trump should be Presidential with quotes like these:

“The finest steel has to go through the hottest fire.

Never let your head hang down. Never give up and sit down and grieve. Find another way. And don’t pray when it rains if you don’t pray when the sun shines.

A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits.” ~Richard M. Nixon

Or maybe President Trump could tweet:

“We all do better when we work together. Our differences do matter, but our common humanity matters more.

People are more impressed by the power of our example rather than the example of our power…

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” ~Bill Clinton

Or better yet, President Trump might really wax inspiring like this:

“This country is ready for a transformative politics of the sort that John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt represented.

Too many times, after the election is over and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.

Look, you know, when you’re in this job, I think, uh—every president who’s had it is constantly humbled by the degree to which there are a lot of issues out there, and the notion that one person alone can solve all these problems—I think you’re cured of that illusion very quickly.

You know, this is a town where once a screw-up happens, people can’t just say, ‘OK, that was a screw-up and let’s fix it.’ There has to be, you know, two weeks’ worth of cable chatter about it.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them”. ~Barack Obama

Unfortunately, the Trump haters can’t get beyond their hate or what is said about our President on CNN, NPR, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and most talk shows. None of the positive changes made by President Trump will ever make the evening news in America.

I didn’t care much for Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama or the Bushes but I don’t hate them. I have also lost all respect for the above mentioned fake news networks.

Is Healthcare Spending a Train Wreck?

August 16, 2018

Since those paid to inform the public about our nation’s healthcare problems are profiting from our healthcare mess, they’re not going to rock the boat. That leaves the nation’s whipping boy, Gene McVay, to stand on the soapbox and take the slings and arrows. You’re welcome.

You probably don’t think much about the totality of the healthcare behemoth when you trot down to the Doctor’s Office with an ailment. Why should you? Coping with life and putting food on the table is daunting enough for the average person.

The United States spends more than $2.6 trillion on healthcare or about one fifth of our gross domestic product. Of course, that is MUCH MORE than any other country on this planet by a wide margin.

There are many reasons for our big government healthcare debacle and maybe I can expose those reasons using my training as an Intelligence Analyst at the National Security Agency. It goes beyond the mounds of regulations and laws that add costs and complexity to healthcare and create a firewall between patients and Doctors.

We pay our doctors, hospitals and other medical providers in ways that reward doing more, rather than being efficient.

Most big healthcare insurers, including Medicare, pay doctors, hospitals and other medical providers under a fee-for-service system that reimburses for each test, procedure or visit. Coupled with a medical system that is not integrated, this encourages overtreatment, including repetitive tests.

There are efforts in the federal healthcare law and among some private insurers to move payments toward a flat rate for a specific condition, such as a knee replacement, or for a patient’s entire episode of care, in order to streamline costs. Medical systems and doctors are also looking to electronic medical records as a way to improve coordination and reduce unnecessary repeated tests. Does that give you a warm fuzzy feeling? It’s 2018 and our medical records are still being chiseled on stone tablets. There is no logical reason why health records were not standardized and digitized 30 years ago! Some Stone Age hospitals still hand patients a clipboard with a stack of forms to be filled out. Those clipboards have more germs than the door handles on the inside of their restrooms. All the information they request already resides in the bowels of the hospital but finding it would be like finding your old football jersey in your attic.

As for a flat rate for specific conditions, if you saw that dollar amount you would likely go into shock and have a stroke on the spot. There is an Oklahoma surgery facility that publishes their prices. The Surgery Center of Oklahoma is a Doctor owned facility that is performing operations for less than the deductible in some cases and you know what it will cost before you go under the knife. Your insurance company will probably not pay for your operation there because there is not enough slop for them to make a killing. If a hospital charges you $100 for an aspirin that costs them a penny, there’s plenty of wiggle room for every layer of inefficiency to pocket some of your cash.

If you took the time to see how much money the big pharmaceutical companies, healthcare insurance companies, hospital conglomerates and nursing home owners donate to your Governor, Legislators and federal politicians, you might need resuscitated.

The bribes that recently resulted in prosecutions in Arkansas are not reported on campaign finance reports but the legal amount these politicians receive is a game changer. Where do you think the lobbyists get all that money? Ultimately, it comes out of our pockets when we pay $100 for an aspirin or our life savings for a nursing home stay.

I am not going to ignore the fact that we are getting older and fatter. The baby boom generation is heading into retirement with enrollment in Medicare set to grow by an average of 1.6 million people annually. Additionally, nearly half the U.S. population has one or more chronic conditions such as asthma, heart disease or diabetes, which drive up costs. Two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese, which can also lead to chronic illness and additional medical spending. If that is not bad enough, millions of Americans are smoking and using illegal drugs as a form of self destruction.

If a cure for some illness was invented today, it would be obsolete long before it could be approved by the government bureaucracy. The path to approval would bankrupt George Soros or Bill Gates. Americans are flying to foreign countries to save their lives because our government is protecting them by denying them medical treatment. President Trump is trying to make experimental treatments available to terminally ill patients but establishment Republicans, Democrats, Judges, the corrupt media and every federal agency will fight him with all their strength. Should American’s have to go to the Congo or India for medical treatment?

One thing you can bank on, every new treatment will be more expensive than the old treatment.

The majority of people with insurance get it through their jobs. The amount employers pay toward coverage is tax deductible for the firm and tax exempt to the worker, thus encouraging more expensive health plans with richer benefits. How that coverage is designed also plays a role: Low deductibles or small office co-payments can encourage overuse of care. Increasingly, however, employers are moving toward high-deductible coverage as a way to slow premium growth and require workers to pay more toward the cost of care. In Fort Smith, business is booming at a community clinic because people with healthcare insurance can’t afford $200 copay and $6,000 deductible.

While medical journals, the Internet and talking heads on TV are saturated with health information and studies, professionals and patients find there is no broad standard for evaluating individual treatments, or how specific treatments compare with others. Even when evidence shows a treatment isn’t effective, or is potentially harmful, it can take a long time for that information to actually change how doctors practice or what patients demand. One of my friends was on a vacation in China when he had a heart attack. Guess what, people have heart attacks all over the world and receive treatment. We have been practicing medicine in America for about 500 years. In China, they have been practicing medicine for thousands of years. Chinese patients have a choice between modern medicine and traditional medicine so a nurse might be pushing a cart down the hall with pills next to potions and herbs. There are probably cures that have been known in China since Columbus discovered America that are unknown in America?

While mergers or partnerships among medical providers or insurers may improve efficiency and help drive down prices, consolidation can also have the opposite effect, allowing near-monopolies in some markets and driving up prices. Increasingly, hospitals are buying up rivals and directly employing physicians, creating larger medical systems. Unfortunately, in my opinion these conglomerates are focused on profit instead of patients. Yes, that includes the not-for-profit hospitals.

Just like schools have more librarians, bus drivers, coaches and cafeteria workers than teachers, hospitals have more administrators than Doctors.

The number of physicians in the United States grew 150 percent between 1975 and 2010, roughly in keeping with population growth, while the number of healthcare administrators increased 3,200 percent for the same time period. This is not a typo! Please don’t call me a dishonest because you are not paying attention.

Some claim the huge number of administrators is needed to keep pace with the drastic changes in healthcare delivery during that timeframe, particularly change driven by technology and by ever-more-complex regulations and laws thanks to your smiley faced politicians and bureaucrats.

The simple truth is that the army of administrators does little to relieve the documentation burden on clinicians, while creating layers of high-salaried bureaucratic expansion in healthcare organizations.

The bottom line is that the increase in the number of administrators has created a huge burden on physicians. For physicians, the focus is always on the patient. There’s only one person that makes the key diagnostic and other decisions on behalf of the patient and that’s the doctor.

Since the early 1980s, there has been a consolidation and aggregation of larger and larger physician groups in our health system, some affiliated with one or more hospitals. Then there’s the trend of hospitals merging into larger networks. All of that introduces a level of complexity that has grown exponentially and the degree of external regulatory requirements has also skyrocketed.

I’m just an old retired fighter pilot but I believe the sheer number of administrators is compromising relations between physicians and patients and helping drive healthcare costs into the stratosphere.

There has been a fundamental change in the business model, thanks to the astronomical changes of regulations and public reporting requirements. Automation and electronic medical records have actually not led to a workforce reduction. What’s increased is the amount of support needed to make those systems work.

My mother used a Doctor in Mountain Home Arkansas who had a small office in a drug store. He charged $5 for an office visit and made a very good living and donated a lot of money to the local college. If he could see what healthcare has become and the costs associated with the change, he would need to be resuscitated.

The healthcare industrial complex is paying bean counters more than Doctors in many cases. President Eisenhower would never believe the military industrial complex would become peanuts in comparison.

In the 1970s, the hospital was seen as an open workshop where doctors brought their patients and worked largely independent of the hospital. Now, more than 50 percent of physicians are employed by hospitals and work in large specialty groups. They’re being asked to follow protocols within a hospital system and report to administrators.

I understand how things work since several Doctors and a clinic was under my command and my responsibility in the military. That didn’t make me a Doctor! I never made an incision, examined a prostate or otherwise come between a Doctor and a patient. The healthcare administration should be a tool to help relieve physicians of administrative and clerical burden, which detracts from patient care and contributes to physician burnout. Beyond that, the best way to improve the quality of care that patients receive is to have a strong partnership between physicians and administrators so that both understand the complexity of how “quality” is defined and reported, and both understand the real-life details of high-quality care at the bedside.

Health systems should be more welcoming to physicians who want to be involved in administrative medicine. There needs to be a common understanding that the term physician-administrator does not require that a physician stop caring for patients. Physicians have to have the opportunity to be involved in administrative roles and continue to practice if that is their desire.

Malpractice premiums and jury awards are part of what drives spending. A larger problem, although hard to quantify, is “defensive medicine” where doctors prescribe unnecessary tests or treatment out of fear of facing a lawsuit. Fraudulent billing or unnecessary tests by medical providers seeking to “game the system” are another real problem. Do you think politicians, who receive huge political contributions from the healthcare industrial complex, are going to bite the hand that feeds them?

State laws limit the ability of nurse practitioners or other medical professionals, who are paid less than doctors, to fully perform work for which they are trained. The U.S. faces a shortage of primary care doctors, so more advanced practice nurses and others will be needed to help care for patients who gain insurance coverage under socialized healthcare laws.

Doctors believe that 21 percent of all medical care is unnecessary, including 22 percent of prescriptions, 25 percent of tests and 11 percent of procedures.

Nearly 85 percent of Doctors said the reason for overtreatment was fear of malpractice suits, but that fear is probably exaggerated since only 2 to 3 percent of patients pursue litigation, and paid claims have declined sharply in recent decades.

Nearly 60 percent of doctors said patients demand unnecessary treatment. A smaller number thought that limited access to medical records led to the problem.

More than 70 percent of doctors conceded that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them, while only 9.2 percent said that their own financial security was a factor.

My Flight Surgeon, who became the head of the Arkansas Health Department, once told me that his professor in Medical School told him that about 75 percent of his patients would get well whether he did anything or not and that 2 percent would die regardless of how much effort he put into saving them. Then he told my Flight Surgeon to try not to kill the other 23 percent. My percentages may be a little off but you get the idea.

You have seen the kind of leadership we have in Congress, the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, Veterans Affairs and the rest, do you think we have better leadership in the healthcare cartel? Do you think your state politicians have the capacity or will to even begin to understand the problem and formulate a solution?

We have placed our hope in Barney Fife and Gomer Pyle. Next January the three stooges will join them and together all our problems will be solved.

And now, Gene McVay returns you to Maxine Waters and John Brennen who will call the President of the United States a “Low down, lying skunk.”

Does Police Corruption Exist in your State or City?

July 26, 2018

Police corruption is the abuse of police authority for personal gain. Corruption may involve profit or another type of material benefit gained illegally as a consequence of the officer’s authority. Typical forms of corruption include bribery, extortion, receiving or fencing stolen goods, and selling drugs. The term also refers to patterns of misconduct within a given police department or special unit, particularly where offenses are repeated with the acquiescence of superiors or through other ongoing failure to correct them.

Safeguards against police misconduct exist throughout the law. Police departments themselves establish codes of conduct, train new recruits, and investigate and discipline officers, sometimes in cooperation with civilian complaint review boards which are intended to provide independent evaluative and remedial advice. Protections are also found in state law, which permits victims to sue police for damages in civil actions. Typically, these actions are brought for claims such as the use of excessive force (“police brutality”), false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and wrongful death. State actions may be brought simultaneously with additional claims for constitutional violations.

Through both criminal and civil statutes, federal law specifically targets police misconduct. Federal law is applicable to all state, county, and local officers, including those who work in correctional facilities. The key federal criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone acting with police authority to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another statute, commonly referred to as the police misconduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or local police to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).

Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimination in police work. Any police department receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. These laws prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments to respond to discrimination complaints.

Because neither the federal criminal statute nor the civil police misconduct provision provides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal government may bring suit under these laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of the justice department. Criminal convictions are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Civil convictions are remedied through injunctive relief, a type of court order that requires a change in behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases force police departments to stop abusive practices, institute types of reform, or submit to court supervision.

Private litigation against police officers or departments is difficult. Besides time and expense, a significant hurdle to success is found in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since the late twentieth century, many court decisions have expanded the powers of police to perform routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the part of police; showing mere negligence or other failure of due care by police officers often does not suffice in court.

Most problematically of all for plaintiffs, police are protected by the defense of immunity—an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens. This immunity is limited, unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In theory, the defense allows police to do their job without fear of reprisal. In practice, however, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for damages for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have continually asserted the general rule that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt that they acted lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties, a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).

Society has grappled with misconduct and corruption issues for as long as it has had police officers. Through the mid-to-late nineteenth century, private police forces were commonplace, and agents of Pinkerton’s and other for hire services became notorious as the muscle employers used to violently end strikes. Heavy handed law enforcement as well as vigilantism by groups such as the racist ku klux klan spurred passage of the civil rights act of 1871, which criminalized acting under state law to deprive a person of constitutional or other rights under federal law. section 1983 of the act remains a critical tool in the early 2000s for enforcing constitutional rights, with direct applicability to police misconduct cases.

The twentieth century saw multiple legal, administrative, and scholarly approaches to the problem. Some developments bore indirectly upon police misconduct, such as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave new protections to citizens who had long suffered discriminatory policing. Additionally, a string of landmark Supreme Court decisions during the era gave new force both to individual privacy rights as well as to curbs upon police power: highly influential cases resulted in the strengthening of fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, evidentiary rules forbidding the use at trial of evidence tainted by unconstitutional police actions, and the establishment of the so-called Miranda Warning requiring officers to advise detained suspects of their constitutional rights.

While these decisions profoundly shaped the legal and social landscape, renewed focus on police misconduct and corruption occurred in the latter part of the century. As the pioneering criminologist Herman Goldstein argued, traditional views were based on the assumption that police abuse reflected the moral failings of individual officers—the so-called “bad cop.” Public scandals began to shape a new view of the problem. In 1971, New York City organized the Knapp Commission to hold hearings on the extent of corruption in the city’s police department. Police officer Frank Serpico’s startling testimony against fellow officers not only revealed systemic corruption but highlighted a longstanding obstacle to investigating these abuses: the fraternal understanding among police officers known variously as “the Code of Silence” and “the Blue Curtain” under which officers regard testimony against a fellow officer as betrayal.

Broader recognition of the problem brought more ambitious reform efforts in the 1980s and 1990s. Spurred by the work of criminologists such as Goldstein and others, police departments sought to improve organizational rules, training, and prevention and control mechanisms. Such efforts are reflected in the publication of a code of police conduct by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, more rigorous training for officers, and experimented with so-called community policing programs to improve ties between officers and the public. Several cities established joint police and civilian complaint review boards to give citizens a larger role in what traditionally had been a closed, internal process by police departments.

Among the most dramatic examples of system-wide reform is New York City’s response to long-standing brutality, discrimination, and corruption within the New York City Police Department (NYPD). After flirting with civilian review of complaints against police in the 1960s, the city committed to it after public outcry over the videotaping of officers beating citizens who violated curfew in 1988. The city subsequently established its Civilian Complaint Review Board, which became an all-civilian agency in 1993. In 1992, responding to new complaints, Mayor David N. Dinkins appointed the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department, known as the Mollen Commission. Two years later, the commission concluded that the city had alternated between cycles of corruption and reform. Afterwards, in 1995, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani established the full-time Commission to Combat Police Corruption (CCPC) as an entity independent from the police department. The CCPC monitors

The NYPD anti-corruption policies and procedures, conducts audits, and issues public reports.

Despite legal safeguards and well-intentioned reforms, police problems have continued to produce headlines. The exact scope of misconduct is unknown. Misconduct complaints can be quantified on a city-by-city basis, but these data are often subjective, and far more complaints are filed than ever are evaluated at trial. Corruption is even harder to measure. As the National Institute of Justice acknowledged in its May 2000 report, The Measurement of Police Integrity, most corruption incidents go unreported, and data that do exist “are best regarded as measures of a police agency’s anticorruption activity, not the actual level of corruption.”

During the late 1990s, highly-publicized cases in New York, New Jersey, Texas, Detroit, and Cleveland exposed an apparently new trend: police drug corruption. In the Cleveland case alone, the FBI arrested 42 officers from five law enforcement agencies in 1998 on charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In a 1998 report to U.S. Congressman Charles B. Rangel, the federal general accounting office (GAO) found evidence of growing police involvement in drug sales, theft of drugs and money from drug dealers, and perjured testimony about illegal searches. The GAO survey of police commission reports and academic research suggested a troubling new dimension previously not seen in studies of police corruption. Traditionally, police corruption had been understood to involve individuals acting alone, but the new trend revealed officers working in small groups to protect and assist each other.

In 1999, this pattern emerged in one of the worst police corruption scandals in U.S. history. The scandal involved the Los Angeles Police Department’s Rampart precinct and particularly its elite anti-gang unit, CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums). Following local and federal investigations, CRASH was dismantled, some 70 officers were investigated, and several either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of crimes ranging from drug theft and peddling to assault, fabricating arrests, and filing false reports.

The Rampart scandal bore heavy costs, financially as well as in human terms. Several dozen criminal convictions credited to the work of the corrupt officers were overturned. By 2003, the city had already paid $40 million to settle lawsuits. In a settlement with the federal government in 2000, the Los Angeles City Council accepted a consent decree that placed the city’s police department under the supervision of a federal judge for five years to implement and monitor reforms.

However, reform is no panacea. Even New York City’s extensive reforms were called into doubt by two high-profile police cases in the 1990s. Both highlighted the difficulties inherent in prosecuting even apparently clear-cut misconduct. The first, in 1997, involved Haitian immigrant Abner Louima, who was shockingly beaten in a police cruiser and sodomized in a bathroom with a broom handle by four NYPD officers. Louima ultimately settled a civil case against the department for $8.7 million in 2001, one of the highest police brutality settlements ever paid and the highest by New York City since paying a $3 million settlement in the choking death of Anthony Baez in 1994.

Yet, despite much public frustration, prosecution of the officers was less conclusive. Officer Justin Volpe pleaded guilty to leading the sodomy assault and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. However, in 1999, his fellow three officers were acquitted on charges of assault in the police cruiser; one of them, officer Charles Schwarz, was convicted of violating Louima’s civil rights for holding him down during the bathroom assault. In 2000, all three were convicted of obstructing justice for their actions in covering up evidence of the attack, but these convictions were later overturned in United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002). Ordered a new trial on the civil rights charge, Schwarz reached a plea bargain in September 2002, agreeing to be sentenced to a 5-year prison term.

The second New York controversy involved the killing in 1999 of an unarmed man. Four undercover police officers shot Amadou Diallo 41 times after stopping the Guinean immigrant in the vestibule of his apartment building, where, they said, he reached into his back pocket. Large public protests attracted activists such as Susan Sarandon and former New York mayor David Dinkins, who argued that the department’s so-called Aggressive Street Crimes Unit was in fact far too aggressive. In 2000, the four officers were acquitted in a trial that supporters said vindicated them but which critics blamed on lax prosecution.

Outside the courts, mounting resentment over discriminatory misconduct by police officers has occasionally led to rioting. In contemporary experience, the Los Angeles riots in 1992 followed the acquittal of white police officers charged with the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King. In April 2001, three days of rioting in Cincinnati followed the acquittal of a white police officer on charges of shooting Timothy Thomas, a 19-year old unarmed black man.

Cities, courts, police departments, and criminologists all continue to examine ways to bring meaningful reform to police departments. Some critics have argued that misconduct and corruption are age-old problems that resist all efforts at eradication; the best society can do, in this view, is monitor and correct. Others trace recent problems to public policy that emphasizes aggressive policing of drug, gang, and street crimes. Whatever the cause and the solution, until more efficacious remedies are found, some citizens will still require protection from the very people appointed to protect and serve them.

The Three Wise Monkeys: Asa Hutchinson, Comey & Mueller

December 16, 2017


Maybe you are familiar with the three wise monkeys. Together they embody the proverbial principle “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. I plan to make the case that Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson along with former FBI Directors James B. Comey and Robert S. Mueller, III, may be modern day wise monkeys?

Asa Hutchinson’s record of seeing, hearing and speaking no evil can be found as easily as tracking an elephant through the snow but most voters simply lack the time and inclination to actually know who they vote for. Maybe my research will help?

Asa Hutchinson, as a crime fighter, does not remind me of Eliot Ness, Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok, he brings to mind Steven Quincy Urkel. Urkel is a fictional character on the ABC/CBS sitcom Family Matters who was originally slated to have been a one-time only character on the show; he soon became its most popular character and gradually became the main character.

I begin with a newspaper article by Mara Leveritt.  She won a White Award for investigative journalism in 1991, was named Arkansas Journalist of the Year in 1992, and was awarded Arkansas’s Booker Worthen Prize in 2000 for her book The Boys on the Tracks”.  She is also a contributing editor to the Arkansas Times”:

“Some strange things happened in Asa Hutchinson’s district while he was federal prosecutor that he doesn’t mention in his speeches. Specifically, a man identified by federal agents as “a documented, major narcotics trafficker” was using facilities at an airport in Hutchinson’s district for “storage, maintenance, and modification” of his drug-running aircraft, throughout most of Hutchinson’s tenure. The man was Adler Berriman “Barry” Seal. For the last four years of his life – and throughout Hutchinson’s term as U.S. attorney – his base of operations was Mena, Arkansas. In 1982, the year that Hutchinson took office as U.S. attorney and Seal moved to Mena, federal officials were already aware that he controlled “an international smuggling organization” that was “extremely well organized and extensive.” Agents for the DEA, FBI, U.S. Customs, and IRS were watching him. They brought Hutchinson evidence that Seal was “involved in narcotics trafficking and the laundering of funds derived from such trafficking.” . . . My interest in the relationship between Seal and Hutchinson was piqued as I became aware of how heavily drug prosecutions fell on street- and mid-level dealers, while smugglers like Seal, who imported drugs by the ton, rarely ended up in prison. So when rumors surfaced about Seal and his organization, and how they had managed for years to avoid prison, even though the extent of their activities was well known to drug authorities, I wanted to know more. But getting the story has not been easy. In the early 1990s, I asked Hutchinson about Barry Seal and his associates at Mena. Hutchinson provided no information, and politely dismissed the complaints that had arisen by then about his failure to prosecute Seal. He said he had already resigned as U.S. attorney by the time the matter arose . . . I believe that if this country is going to fight a long and costly war, the war’s leaders have an obligation to report faithfully on its battles. The incidents that surrounded Seal constituted a major battle. But the faithful report has been missing. For more than 15 years, U.S. government officials, including Hutchinson, who were close to the events have maintained a stony silence . .”

ACCORDING TO POLICE SOURCES in Arkansas, Bush’s reported nominee to head the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, knew about the extensive drug importation at Mena during the 1980s but looked the other way. Hutchinson was replaced by Mike Fitzhugh who was reluctant to let investigators Russell Welch of the state police and William Duncan of the IRS present evidence of money-laundry to a grand jury.

Russell Welch was poisoned with Military Grade Anthrax

According to a memo obtained later by Arkansas Times reporter Mara Leveritt, an FBI agent in Hot Springs notifies the agent in charge of the Little Rock office that Fitzhugh would be “withholding presentation” about the investigation at Mena from the grand jury. The memo is dated days before notorious drug trafficker Barry Seal’s murder, and a month before he was to come to Arkansas to appear before that same grand jury. The agent in Hot Springs further reports that Fitzhugh “advised that he will not utilize Seal as a government prosecution witness in view of his lack of credibility in other mitigating circumstances.” Wrote Leverrit, “For almost three years, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Arkansas considered questions about drug-running, money-laundering, and illegal airplane modification – all of which investigators believed were being conducted at the Mena airport. But Fitzhugh reportedly focused only on the drug-running allegations, the aspect of the case the jurors felt would be the most difficult one to prove about anyone except Seal, and he, by then, was dead. According to statements from one of the jurors, Fitzhugh refused to consider the money laundering or conspiracy charges, for both of which the jurors believed evidence was substantial. ‘We asked him about it,’ the juror said, “and it was like just blown off. We were never given a straight answer.’ Fitzhugh has denied having stymied the grand jury, but he has never explained why, in the three years it met, Welch and Duncan, the central investigators in the case, were never called to testify.”

IN 1995, THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR magazine published an article by L.D. Brown, a former member of Clinton’s Arkansas State Police security detail, in which he described participating in two secret flights from Mena in 1984, during which M-16 rifles were traded to Nicaraguan Contra rebels in exchange for cocaine. Brown also claims that Clinton knew of the activity. Writes Mara Leveritt in the Arkansas Times: “That announcement spurred Fort Smith lawyer Asa Hutchinson, chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, to request yet another Congressional Inquiry into long-standing allegations of money-laundering at Mena. Hutchinson was the the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas when investigators first presented evidence supporting those allegations. In an argument disputed by police investigators, Hutchinson claims he left office before the evidence was well established. Since he harbors political ambitions, he has an interest in clearing his name.” (Note: Are you beginning to see that Congressional Inquiries, like the Congressional Ethics Committee, have as much consequence as passing gas in a Category Five Hurricane?)

FROM A CONGRESSIONAL DEPOSITION from IRS investigator William Duncan:

Q. Would you describe the nature of your instructions and the manner in which you carried out those instructions as they relate to activities surrounding the Mena Airport matter?
A. I was assigned to investigate allegations of money laundering in connection with the Barry Seal organization, which was based at the Mena, Arkansas airport.
Q. And can you — how long a duration were you involved in this investigation?
A. I received the first information about Mena and illegal activities at the Mena Airport in April of 1983, in a meeting in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Asa Hutchinson was the U.S. Attorney then. Also present at that meeting was Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Jim Stepp, S-T-E-P-P.
Q. Did you discover what you believed to be money laundering?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who was the object of your investigation, and what institution?
A. Rich Mountain Aviation, Incorporated based at the Mena Airport. Barry Seal was not actually a target. We had targeted the employees and cohorts of his which operated out of the Mena Airport.
Q. What did you do with the evidence of money laundering that you gathered from your investigation?
A. Presented it to the United States Attorney’s Office, Western Judicial District, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Q. And what were your recommendations to the U.S. Attorney?
A. That those individuals and corporation — the corporation be prosecuted for violations of the money laundering statutes, also there were some perjury recommendations and some conspiracy recommendations.
Q. Did you present to the U. S. Attorney a list of prospective witnesses to be called?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. For a grand jury?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have the names of those witnesses?
A. There were a variety of witnesses. There were some 20 witnesses. He called three witnesses. The witnesses including — included the law enforcement personnel who had participated in the investigations, Barry Seal, members of his organization, people who were involved in the money laundering, and various financial institution officers who had knowledge.
Q. Mr. Duncan, the money laundering to which you refer, did that arise out of an alleged drug trafficking operation managed from the Mena, Arkansas airport?
A. It did.
Q. And it has been alleged that the Central Intelligence Agency had some role in that operation. Is that the same operation that you investigated?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you submitted the witnesses, the names of the prospective witnesses to the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas, are you referring to Mr. — what was the name of the U. S. Attorney?
A. Asa Hutchinson.
Q. Asa Hutchinson. And what was his reaction to your recommendations?
A. It had been my experience, from my history of working with Mr. Hutchinson, that all I had to do is ask for subpoenas for any witness and he would provide the subpoenas and subpoena them to a grand jury. His reaction in this case was to subpoena only three of the 20 to the grand jury.
Q. Now, of the three witnesses, who were — what was the nature of the evidence that would have been elicited from those witnesses?
A. Direct evidence in the money laundering.
Q. And did those witnesses testify for the grand jury?
A. yes, they did.
Q. Were you present at the time of the grand jury?
A. No, I was not.
Q. You were not?
A. I was in the witness room, but I was not in the grand jury.
Q. I see. What was the result of the testimony given by the three witnesses to the grand jury?
A. As two of the witnesses exited, one was a secretary who had received instructions ~~~ and I think on some occasions had discussed with Barry Seal, the methodology. She was furious when she exited the grand jury, was very upset, indicated to me that she had not been allowed to furnish her evidence to the grand jury. ~~~ She was the secretary for Rich Mountain Aviation, who participated in the money laundering operation upon the instructions of Hampton, Evans.

* * * * *

Asa Hutchinson was close to George Bush and a big player during his campaign for President by giving speeches on his behalf. Few people knew as much about the drug smuggling and money laundering business as Asa. While I met George H.W. Bush when he was Vice President, I never met “W”. When I met “H.W.” he shook my hand and I said, “I didn’t catch your name.” He clasped my hand with both of his hands and broke out in laughter. We talked for a few minutes and that was that.

I lost respect for “W” after we both attended USAF Pilot Training. I flew fighters most of my career and “W” checked out in the F-102 with the Texas Air National Guard. In those days it cost the taxpayers about six million dollars to train a Fighter Pilot. I ended up flying 50 Combat Missions in Vietnam while “W” simply blew off his obligation. After the taxpayers spend the money to train an Air Force Pilot, the Pilot incurs a five year obligation to defend America. If I had quit flying and started politicking, I would have gone straight to jail. My daddy was a mechanic, not the Director of the CIA, so the double standard that existed then and exists today favors only the high and mighty. George W. Bush even refused to take his annual Flight Physical and moved out of state to help somebody during a political campaign. Finally, “W” returned to Texas to take the physical but never returned to the cockpit. He couldn’t take the chance of being sent to Vietnam and becoming a decorated combat pilot like his dad but he found time to become Commander in Chief.


Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, a weekly newsletter based in Washington, D.C. Russell interviewed Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, from January 2001 to July 2003.

RUSSELL MOKHIBER – Ari, you said the other day that the United States is “set in stone against military coups of any kind.” And yet, there is a long history of the United States organizing coups against democratically elected leaders, including, Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile and Lumumba in the Congo. So, when you said we are “set in stone against military coups of any kind,” were you announcing a new policy?

ARI FLEISCHER: Russell, I think the examples you use are interesting. I think when you talked about Iran, you just went back to 1954. President Bush came into office here in 2001. And one of the great prides and success stories of American politics has been that in the last 20 years, there has been a wonderful sea change in Central and South America, brought in large part, as a result of Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams and others — Ronald Reagan, George Bush — who worked very hard to bring democracy to the region. And as a result, there is a difference in the military in those regions.

Reich was a Cuban-American obsessed with overthrowing Fidel Castro’s regime and was also a big political supporter of President Bush’s brother and Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who needed strong support from Cubans in Florida in his re-election bid. Reich, along with fellow Reagan administration cohorts, Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte, were discredited for their covert activities and false assertions when the United States intervened in Central America in the 1980’s and ’90s, but were re-instated in prominent positions in the second Bush administration. They abhor Latin-American governments that are elected by the poor and working class people.

Abrams was convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra scandal, but was remarkably rehabilitated and recycled back into the second Bush administration as head of the “Office of Democracy and Human Rights.” Negroponte was appointed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in spite of being implicated as a friend of Honduran death squad leaders who committed atrocities against the people of Honduras while he was the U.S. Ambassador there. The most recent resurrection of this trio of renegades is the appointment of Otto Reich as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs . . . On September 30, 1987 a Republican appointed comptroller general of the U.S. found that Reich had done things as director of the OPD that were “prohibited, covert propaganda activities, “beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities….”

WASHINGTON POST: Sheriff Ari Fleischer was on duty Thursday and upset with Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth. Bush that morning urged parents to talk more to their kids about the dangers of drugs. Roth, at Fleischer’s daily briefing, asked: “Ari, the president talked about parental involvement today. How much has he talked to his own daughters about both drugs and drinking? And given the fact that his own daughter was cited for underage drinking, isn’t that a sign that there’s only so much effect that a parent can have on their children’s behavior?” Fleischer responded brusquely: “No, I think, frankly, there are some issues where I think it’s very important for you all in the press corps to recognize that he is the president of the United States; he’s also a father. And the press corps has been very respectful in the past of treating family matters with privacy, and I’m certain that you’re going to do so again. I hope so.” Fleischer later called Roth to chastise him, telling him his question had been “noted in the building.”

JOEL SKOUSEN’S WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF: Robert Mueller was responsible for the prosecution of Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was the CIA’s main money launderer for CIA operations in Panama. Even Congress knew of Noriega’s CIA connections. Senator Kerry said that Noriega “had been on the payroll and an employee of the CIA for many, many, many years” Noriega was taken down by the CIA and prosecuted because he was found to be taking a much larger cut out of CIA drug profits than was agreed upon. During the trial, the presiding judge ruled that Noriega could not enter into evidence any documents proving his relationship to the CIA over the years. Mueller helped cover up this major issue by silencing Noriega . . . Mueller presided over the prosecution of John Gotti, the alleged Mafia head of the Gambino family group. CIA agent Richard Beneke, in response to a question of whether or not the Gotti family had ties to the CIA, testified, “Yes. As far back as 1968 and early 1969, we had begun to launder money from organized crime families in New York. At that time, Mr. Gotti was an up and coming member of one of the families. We used to wash their money out overseas and put it in Switzerland in nice, safe places for them.”We do not know why the government turned on Gotti as a partner in crime. Perhaps he was also found guilty of skimming too much off the top.

Are you beginning to get the picture yet? Who could be trusted to run the Drug Enforcement Agency and not spill the beans? Only one of the most trusted Wise Monkeys, Asa Hutchinson, of course. George W. Bush’s dad was Vice President from 1981 until 1989 and President from 89 until 93. Clearly, “W” couldn’t have any skeletons pop out of the closet or have some rouge DEA Administrator get curious about our pretended War on Drugs!

One of my friends ran the Counter Drug efforts for the Air National Guard. I was in his office in the swamp when our government was tracking a Boeing 727 aircraft from the U.S. to an airport in Mexico. The highly coordinated effort between the U.S. and Mexican authorities were ready to pounce on the jet in Mexico. It was known to be carrying a lot of U.S. unmarked currency. With sirens blaring, the highly trained authorities chased the wrong aircraft and surrounded its surprised crew. Meanwhile, the 727 with the cash unloaded and disappeared into the Mexican night. We pretended to go after the Drug Cartels and they pretended to be scared.

Asa “Urkel” Hutchinson vanquished the drug moister so ineptly that he became the Father of the Transportation Security Agency. Pretending to solve problems so people would FEEL safe required a man like Asa. The United States managed to survive for 226 years, including two world wars, without a Department of Homeland Security. It took a BIG GOVERNMENT Republican to expand the bureaucracy and the swamp.

Here is what the new bureaucracy says it does: “The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, and our goal is clear – keeping America safe.”

When the TSA fondles little girls and grandmothers in wheelchairs, Americans FEEL safe; almost as safe as they feel when NSA spies on law abiding Americans and our best allies like Israel.

Unfortunately none of this big government road show has prevented a single terrorist attack or secured our 92,000 miles of coastline. During security tests, more than 90% of fake guns and bombs made it through TSA security undetected. I rarely fly on airlines because I am not content with feeling safe. I feel safe on private jets and have flown a couple of hundred hours on them. The real shame is that the United States could become secure like Israel but Little Satan is not politically correct. Israel profiles! There, I said it. Israeli leaders know that little girls don’t hijack airliners and they don’t hire pedophiles as airport security. They also have a sophisticated wall on their southern border with radar that can detect a vehicle several miles away and a person within a mile. The Israeli government likes to know who enters their country and what their intentions are. The willy-nilly U.S. homeland security would never satisfy the Israeli Citizens, not for a New York second.

Asa “Urkel” Hutchinson has fought President Trump since before he endorsed Little Marco. He often appears on MSNBC with his like-minded buddies and trashes our President. He fought against repealing and replacing Obamacare and refused to give the President’s Voter Fraud Commission the information they asked for from Arkansas. My guess is that the 60% of Arkansas voters who supported President Trump and several thousand who have wised up since, are not happy with Governor Hutchinson who has depended on 100% of the Democrats and his handful of RINOs to steamroll his liberal, socialist agenda through the Arkansas Legislature.

Many people are telling me they just didn’t know. The Republican Primary is in May. Will you make an effort to know who you’re voting for this time?

When President Trump talks about the Swamp, he’s not kidding! The good guys like Generals Petraeus and Flynn get the shaft while the seedy folks, like the Wise Monkeys, get the plum jobs and all the glory.

The IG System is Fraudulent!

December 14, 2017


Al Franken wanted to go before the fraudulent Senate Ethics Committee for good reason!

Surprise, the government Inspector General System is 1,000 times more fraudulent!

IG’s are not independent & almost NEVER substantiate fraud or criminal activity!

Whistleblowing is suicide!

Every federal employee or member of the Armed Forces knows that if they report fraud waste & abuse the IG will crucify them.

Reprisals against whistleblowers are a career ending certainty.

For 40 years I have begged for criminal investigations into the IG system!

FW&A costs taxpayers a trillion dollars!

Congress passed Whistleblower Protection Laws and later strengthened the laws but nothing has any effect on the absolute certainty of reprisals.

If you watched Rosenstein thumb his nose at Congress you got a tiny taste of the arrogance of the deep state.

Members of Congress who are appeased or comforted by IG Investigations are worse than fools!

Do you trust the FBI, DOJ, VA, EPA, IRS, TSA and State Department to investigate themselves?