Home / LA Times Blinded From Light Shed By Hugo Chavez

LA Times Blinded From Light Shed By Hugo Chavez

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Los Angeles Times: the blind informing the blind.  LA Times editors revealed a sad epitaph in their September 15 editorial targeting Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s President Evo Morales. Indeed, the Times’ cynicism killed any serious analysis of what amounted to a charge of attempted murder levied against the government of the United States. At the end of its opinion, the only thing we know for sure is that any sense of objective understanding of the relations between the U.S. and its southern regional neighbors died upon arrival at the Times.

After expelling U.S. ambassadors from their countries last week, presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia railed about ending American interference in their countries’ domestic politics. This came after Chavez invited four Russian naval vessels to participate in joint training exercises in the Caribbean and allowed Russian long-range bombers to visit, while ranting about warding off an invasion by the United States.

Did somebody announce we are at war with Latin America and forget to tell us? The expulsion of the ambassadors came seemingly without provocation, and the notion that President Bush is plotting an invasion is laughable.

The editors at the Times apparently forgot to open their history books — or better yet, open most any of the recent barrage of books exposing the culture of lies and deception that make up the core and character of the Bush administration.

Chavez has consistently accused the U.S. of supporting covert attempts to assassinate him. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that the Bush administration lies to and deceives the American people. Chavez even accused the U.S. of intervening in S. Ossetia, which was liberated from Georgian forces after Russia used heavy-handed tactics (although far less so than those used by Israel when it invaded Lebanon in 2006) to remove an aggressive Georgia. When the smoke cleared, we discovered Chavez was right. The U.S. played an integral part in initiating that conflict.

Perhaps the Times skipped The Washington Post’s Pulitzer prize-winning two-day series ("Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency," Sept. 14-15, 2008) revealing how Vice President Dick Cheney sought to bully the Justice Department into supporting the executive branch in a flagrant flouting of the law in Cheney’s effort to push through a domestic spying program uninhibited by the Constitution.

If only the Los Angeles Times editors were as cynical toward the regimes they have graciously considered "governments" in Washington D.C., they may have had at least a small clue that the CIA has conducted one or two (actually dozens) of unprovoked clandestine operations in foreign countries with the express goal of regime change.

Such operations include violence, Mr. and Mrs. LA Times editors, in case you all were under the perception that we sneak up on foreign leaders under cover of darkness and whisper gently, “Please get out.” In terms of life and death, U.S. covert operations mean death. The only debate is over the justification for such decisions.

This recent accusation by Chavez isn’t the first time he has accused the U.S. of using clandestine measures to overthrow his leadership. During a meeting of 116 non-aligned nations in Cuba in September 2006 (a.k.a. America‘s enemies), Chavez harshly criticized the Bush administration for its aggression around the globe. On Sept. 20, 2006, Chavez took the podium at the United Nations and blasted President George Bush, flatly accusing the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism, kidnapping and attempted overthrow of his government. Chavez described Bush, who had spoken the day before, as Satan. And the world leaders in attendance at that U.N. meeting applauded. Is the whole world crazy? I don’t think so. Chavez, not Bush, is voicing world opinion.

“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez said. “And it smells of sulfur still today. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: The Devil's Recipe.

But Chavez isn’t the only leader south of America’s borders to make such an accusation. In fact, a number of leaders around the world have alleged the U.S. uses terrorist tactics, sponsors terrorism, overthrows governments and lies to the American people as it spreads aggression around the world while simultaneously calling for peace. A number of leaders have used the word hegemony in reference to the aggressive actions committed by covert and overt U.S. operations on foreign soil.

The evidence of such acts is overwhelming. In this year alone, a bookshelf of literary works have exposed the Bush administration’s deceptive machinations. Authors ranging from a venerable journalist (Bob Woodward) to an award-winning top prosecuting attorney (Vincent Bugliosi) have dropped the dime on the Bush administration. These charges aren’t allegations of sexual impropriety or even lying to a jury about manipulating the legal system to save face. The charges are more serious: undermining the Constitution, abuse of power, even murder.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s five-year investigation concluded these authors and others, including former White House Spokesman Scott McClellan were all correct. The Bush administration is deceptive, lying and untrustworthy. Senator John D. Rockefeller issued a statement on June 5, 2008:

Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced.  Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence. In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.  As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.

It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

Of course, history has revealed that every U.S. presidential administration dating back to Harry S. Truman has lied to the American people about war. But, as is the case with each generation, each presidential administration has strayed a bit farther from the Constitution and frayed further the tether that holds it accountable to the truth. That tether is the American press.

The editors at the Los Angeles Times have a duty to inform the public of the truth. In this case, with heads of state calling out our president — charging him with the equivalent of attempted murder among other crimes — the Times’ editors sought refuge behind a façade of cynicism and obfuscation – perhaps even outright deception.

The Times’ Sept. 15 editorial lambasting Chavez and Morales is an insult to the American public. It reeks of pandering and placating. And it spares us the crucial elements necessary in well-written editorials … honesty.

History sides with Chavez. His correct analysis in 2006 of the pending downfall of the American system is evident today in the utter obliteration of financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and others with their heads laid on the chopping block hoping for a political savior to wave off the executioner’s axe.

  • America’s experiment of “democratizing” the Middle East is a failure.
  • It’s aggressive efforts to control Central and S. America have been met with anger and revolt.
  • It’s recent focus on orchestrating aggression through its proxy Georgia was met with a massive response by the regional giant Russia, which wasn’t amused.
  • And China has emerged as America’s landlord, with huge surpluses as U.S. citizens drown in a sea of debt.

When Chavez accused the U.S. of secret ops in his country, the LA Times apparently forgot that the U.S. has been caught operating secret prisons, detaining and torturing anyone it desires, operating secret spy programs on suspected enemies, allies, and even American citizens. The U.S. conducts secret ops through 16 secret agencies and blatant in-your-face military operations that ignore the will of the American people and the cries of innocent men, women and children dying in the dust clouds we leave behind in our rush to yell, “Mission accomplished!

The Times’ editors have forgotten that we have a government (perhaps a dictatorial regime) that ignores congressional subpoenas, manipulates the Justice Department, deceives the American people into sending our sons and daughters to fight its wars with which most of us vehemently disagree, and lies about virtually everything.

The editors failed to notice that while they cast aspersions upon unpopular or even popular leaders elsewhere, our own president’s approval ratings are at historical lows, falling even below the plummeting economic factors that have ruined tens of millions of families. Do American citizens deserve the wrath of the world that this president has wrought, even if we don't support his policies? If not, then surely citizens of foreign lands also deserve some discretion when their leaders operate in opposition to the will of the citizenry.

The Los Angeles Times would better serve the American people by studying the accusations being made by not only Chavez and Morales, but leaders elsewhere in the world as well. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has reached out several times to the American people. He has written letters (1, 2), traveled to our country and made several public appearances, even subjecting himself to questions by our media and ridicule from a caustic Columbia University president.

The Times has obviously not delved into the charges leveled by Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and other leaders, no more deeply than they have sought to understand the allegations made by Chavez.

No, the Times’ editors are no more trustworthy on this issue than the Bush administration itself. They seek to mitigate, minimize and move on. They refuse to acknowledge that no one but our government could possibly be trusted when charges of clandestine operations are brought up.

When America is painted as a bully, a terrorist and a monolithic monster who rapes and pillages, the Times’ editors hear none of it … even if some or all of it is true.
And that, unfortunately, means we no longer have an objective truth-seeking panel of leaders sitting at the upper echelon of the Los Angeles Times. The truth seems irrelevant in this circle of upper-crust elitists.

The only thing that appears to matter to these blue-blooded bad-asses is that they can use the big mouth of the Times to broadcast a cynical viewpoint and minimize serious long-term allegations by important leaders of nations with which the U.S. must get along. And by so doing, they reflect an investment in the same idiotic system we see operated by an untrustworthy White House: Dispense with dialogue, demonize those we don’t like and denounce two-thirds of the world as jealous and dependent upon us.

It’s no wonder the Times’ editors have such a skewed perspective of U.S. foreign relations.

Powered by

About Mike Green

  • Humberto Benavides

    Dear Sir: Great article on the L A Times you practically take the editors masks off and reveal how they specialize in fooling people for the benefit of a few very greedy individuals that have no bones about screwing any one whether they are forign countries or the American people, in fact they have done this in the US recently by taking advantage of the oil situation to make huge profits thru speculation, they like to create chaos so they can benefit by the high prices in energy and by selling arms to apeace situations that they themselves have undermine, Progress in my oppinion is achived thru work fair play and invention, and there is no one better at this than the American people

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Ah, but Mike, we LIKE messing about in other countries whose regimes we don’t cotton to.

    Boy, it would be a treat to sit down and have lunch with you sometime:)

  • Wow. Based on the title I expected something non-crazy. Guess that was too much to hope for from Mike.

    What I don’t understand is why Mike a ‘christian conservative’ keeps repeating lies originating in socialist disinformation campaigns and seems to believe every delusional bit of insanity to come out of Chavez corrupt and failed regime in Venezuela.


  • …Wow. Based on the title I expected something non-crazy. Guess that was too much to hope for from Mike.

    i just love it when one of the editors openly belittles a writer like this.

    it makes bc look so professional.

  • Mark, I refrained from having anything to do with editing this article specifically so that I could belittle it. I plan to do some more really substantial belittling later when I’m more rested.

    I don’t object to publishing absolute garbags so long as it’s competently written, but I’m certainly not going to passively endorse it by not commenting on it.


  • Jordan Richardson

    I don’t object to publishing absolute garbags (sic)

    Quoted for truth.

  • cuervodeluna

    Actually, nalle is being unusually modest: he PROMOTES garbage–especially if it is written by him or his clones.

  • Hmm, cuervodeluna, now who does that remind me of?

    Shouldn’t it be cuerva?

  • cuervodeluna


    I hate to have to remind such an erudite stiff upper lip type as yourself that this is virtual reality.

    Anybody can be anybody–and any gender.

    For all you know I am a 19-year-old farmboy. And always have been.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    You know, Dave, you can be a Christian conservative and still make sense. Mike is da livin’ proof!

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    You know, Dave, you can be a Christian conservative and still make sense. Mike is da livin’ proof!

  • In my experience Christian conservatives make very little sense, but they also don’t generally hold the kinds of generally anti-capitalist, pro-socialism viewpoints which Mike consistently expresses. I suspect that if Mike were to define his version of ‘conservative’ it would be very different from what most of us expect. On the other hand, maybe he IS a real conservative. The American left certainly isn’t liberal, so maybe the left is conservative and I just haven’t been briefed on it.


  • cuervodeluna

    Dave chooses to be blind so that he can claim to have his own, unique vision.


    Just another riff.

    Nothing makes sense in Gringolandia politics, so why should anyone care what the label of the senselessness is?

  • Condor

    “it makes bc look so professional”

    It’s not, it’s a sinister cabal… of which I am drawn to like a moth to a flame. There are MANY articles with boldface inacuracies so large that you could drive a truck thru them. A few outspoken contributers don’t check facts at all, and then claim them absolutely valid. Even after when the “facts” are completely discredited by other stone valid resources.

    Always read the articles here with a jaded eye, especially the opinion articles. I won’t name any author(s) but over time, with a bit of due dilligence on your part you will be able to make the case that anything those individuals write is pure hogwash.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Mike, I admire your courage.

  • Thanks Lisa. I appreciate your support.

    But not to worry. As a military veteran, I’m accustomed to maintaining a focus on the mission in spite of dangerous distractions. In this case, I am allied with the truth. I provide links, logical deductions and specific commentary pertaining to the issues I address.

    My detractors, on the other hand, attack my motives, my knowledge and my wisdom. They make targeted attacks upon me personally, casting aspersions as a means of discrediting me. Of course, one must possess credibility in order to discredit another.

    I am not perfect, however. And I maintain a realization that one mistake, one slip, however tiny, will be used as a wedge by some who hate what I say. Others will use mistakes as fodder to ridicule me. So I tread carefully in here, knowing that while truth-seekers abound, not all are here to have civil discourse over issues with which we may disagree.

    Despite the hostility, I cling to my core values: truth, intellectual honesty, civil discourse, respect for others and love of Jesus.

    Thanks again for interceding on my behalf.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    I spent the summer I was 15 as an exchange student in Venezuela. It was a whole other country then…. beautiful but troubled in a much different way. It took me years to realize it.

    I suffer from the same assaults. Read my latest and you shall see. Ah, the slings and arrows.

    I appreciate your writing, that’s all. And that your faith doesn’t stop you from being open-minded. And I said on another post, neither does my very strong faith.


  • Franco

    Mike Green subscribes to the old adage that “If you throw enough mud against a wall, some of it will stick.” But apparently not enough has stuck for Mike’s sake, as his book sales are in the tank.

    If you hadn’t clicked on the above Amazon link Mike provides to his book, you didn’t miss much. With a total of two (2) customer reviews (over a 3 year time span) and with both reviews offering up Amazon’s lowest rating, and to add insult to injury, Mike’s book sales ranking is at #1,384,551, which is literally off the charts, and not in a positive way.

    Mike’s ideas are facing some rejection problems. But hey, if at first you don’t succeed, and as Mike himself points out in post #16…

    “But not to worry. As a military veteran, I’m accustomed to maintaining a focus on the mission in spite of dangerous distractions.”

    What ever that means. Maybe is has to do with the Japanese solders they found still living in caves long after the war was over. But maybe I shouldn’t be so dry about Mikes theories. As one (1) out of only two (2) customer reviews Mike’s book gets on Amazon noted,….I think its funny….

    Maybe those fun loving liberals here in this thread that laud Mike for his bravery should put their money where their mouth is and cough up some bucks and buy his book for Pets’s sake. Hell, he has to eat too, right. Is that not the socialist thing to do?

    Then again those that have spent their money on it aren’t lauding it. The only other Amazon customer review had this to say…….…Conspiracy theories on steroids……

    So with books sales in the tank, Mike has come on to BC to thrown out a four (4) page opinion of more re-enforcing mud slingging. Is he throwing anything new? Nope, it’s that same old crap he throws out in his book. Including this line he throws out in post #16.

    “In this case, I am allied with the truth.”

    I guess just saying so must make it so, right?

    Maybe that’s good critique for trying to sell books and hopefully making a buck in the process while singing to a radical socialist choir.

    However, Mike gives no quarter, thus makes no headway with those who see right through the likes of Chavez and the other characters he links us to in support of his theories, as emplified in his spin on the LA Times.

    This “no quarter” stance by Mike is why his book is in the tank and his BC opinion piece has received a whopping total of 18 thread comments (including this one) since he posted in 5 days ago.

    Hey, but Mike is “accustomed to maintaining a focus on the mission in spite of dangerous distractions,” again, what ever that means.

    The validity of truth in any assertive opinion invariably and without execution rests on its key supporting pillars. In this case, Mike supports his theories with links to his supporting pillars.

    And here are this for key supporting links presented here in bold and taken right from his opinion piece. Please note the number of times Mike uses the word accusations (which I will alos underline) as supporting proof which he uses even in his links. Enjoy.

    Chavez has consistently accused the U.S. of supporting covert attempts to assassinate him. This recent accusation by Chavez isn’t the first time he has accused the U.S. of using clandestine measures to overthrow his leadership.

    But Chavez isn’t the only leader south of America’s borders to make such an accusation. In fact, a number of leaders around the world have alleged the U.S. uses terrorist tactics, sponsors terrorism, overthrows governments and lies to the American people.

    Now who or what do these links take us to. Here are the four-(4) men Mike Green’s links us to in his support.

    Hugo Chavez, Authoritarian socialist ruler of Venezuela controlling all power over the General Assembly, the Judiciary, Military, the police, and every other living soul in the country because he says it’s for everyone’s good as he and Castor see it.

    Manuel Noriega, Panamanian dictator and drug smuggler’s and who’s mouth peace, President, Manuel Solis Palma, Mike links us to.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current president of Iran, a radical Shi’ah Muslim and supporter of terrorism and mouth peace for the radial ruling Clerics. All of which believe the Muslim messiah the Nahdei or the 12th Imam will user in Islamic domination of all the world.. While the world is focused on Iran’s push for a nuclear bomb, another mission by Iran’s president and the religious ruling elite goes largely unnoticed.

    Vladimir Putin, current Prime Minister of Russia and Kremlin controlling string puller in conveniently ushering in the uncontested new Russian yes man. Putin’s Kremlin authoritative power is unchallengable in all of Russian polices.

    I will leave all of Mike’s four (4) character support pillars to speak for them selves. You’re old enough to do your own homework and decide for yourself about these four (4) men. Maybe you’ll what to buy his book.

    As for me, after having opportunity to read Mikes opinion pieces here on BC and his back door attempt at pushing his failing book, I think I’ll save my money and buy “The Law” written by Frederic Bastiat in 1850.

    Frederic Bastint, a classical anit-authoritarianist, was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly in the first half of the 19th century who wrote extensively on liberty.

    Bastiat asserted that the only purpose of government is to defend the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property. (Sounds like something I once read in the Declaration of Independence if I’m not mistaken)

    As Bastiat maintained, government control of private individuals and regulation of private industry was inefficient, economically damaging, and morally wrong.

    From this definition, Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if it promotes socialist policies inherently opposed to these very things. In this way, he asserts, the law is perverted and turned against the thing it is supposed to defend.

    Selected quotations from “The Law”

    “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

    “Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” — from The Law

    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” — from The Law

    “When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.” — from The Law

    “But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.” — from The Law

    Bastiat is commemorated by a road bearing his name in Pairs, France.

    Funny how history repeats itself and so many are unaware of there causing to happen.

    Had Mike used the likes of high charter individuals like Frederic Bastiat as pillars to support his augments against what ever evils lay in US Foreign policies , that would have made for some excellent dissuasion/debate, brought many of his concerns to proper light, and his book sales would have found that same respect.

    But unfortunately, Mike choose to dig down to the bottom of the barrel to drudge up the likes of the four (4) authoritarians he linked us to as his support and then used them to throw his and their mud onto the walls of life, liberty and propriety. In essence, The Declaration of Independece itself.

    Finally, as far as Mike’s Christianity being sincere, I can not question that, but as a Christina myself, I find it limited in its depth.

    For it is not a result of the US governments foreign policies that promotes terrorism upon the world today. As a Christian he should know that todays terrorism goes all the way back to Abraham’s two sons, Issac and Ishmael, 4000 thousand years ago, and that out of all the millions of deaths that have occurred over this connecting core issue over the past 4 century, what we are experiencing today is only a minute fraction of militant events in this greater over all never ending battle.

    He needs to start reading up more before speaking up if he wants any credibility with those who already have.

  • Thanks for the vitriol Franco. Judging form your response to my commentary, one might be tempted to entertain the thought that you are the writer of the LA Times editorial. The tone and organization of your response appears to be in line with the same sort of hit-piece mentality that conjured the idea for the editorial that appeared in the LA Times.

    Take a look at how you responded to the points made in my commentary:

    I began with a legitimate criticism of the Times’ cynical approach to addressing a serious charge alleged against the United States — a charge that has been alleged by more than one leader of a foreign nation and a charge that has historical roots as one that is plausible. What judge would approach the same issue with such frivolity and flippant attitude when the charged is being made against a felon with a history of such crimes?

    In response, your initial approach isn’t anywhere in the ballpark of addressing the issue. Instead, you comment on my book sales, seeking to dismiss my points based upon the notion that if my book wasn’t a success, what could I really know?

    Is that really an argument?

    You then say with regard to my opinion that, “it’s that same old crap he throws out in his book.”

    But Franco, indeed, you have never read my book. Your analysis amounts to repeating the goofball statements made by two anonymous sources who supposedly read my book. Thus far, I am unconvinced that the LA Times would hire anyone with so little regard for development of an argument. So, despite my initial leanings, I must forego the notion that you have any relations with the Times whatsoever.

    Having shred me with your cutting analysis of my book sales, you then move on to stomping on my back like a child throwing a tantrum by noting emphatically that only 18 comments were made under my commentary.

    Franco, at this point in your response, I was seriously wondering if you were somehow deeply offended by my critique. Perhaps you are the writer of the editorial, after all, as difficult as it is to believe. Thus far, you, sir, have used far more space than any of the comments above you and have yet to make even one legitimate point on the issue.

    But you finally get to the point:

    Your point is that the men who charged the U.S. with murderous plots are untrustworthy. You say:

    “I will leave all of Mike’s four (4) character support pillars to speak for them selves. You’re old enough to do your own homework and decide for yourself about these four (4) men. Maybe you’ll what to buy his book.”

    In your condescending tone, you tell readers that they are “old enough” to do their own homework. But what does that mean? Are you suggesting that anyone who does their homework will agree with you and dismiss my points altogether?

    Such an elitist and elementary perspective fails to take into account that my point is that these men did indeed charge the U.S. with doing bad things. That is the reason for the links. The U.S. has a long history of doing bad things. If you do YOUR homework, you wouldn’t argue this point either. For the LA Times to dismiss serious charges solely based upon the idea that nothing these men say ought to be considered seriously is a foolish and haughty thing to proclaim! Is the U.S. never guilty of anything? Does the LA Times believe the U.S. is guilty of committing any crimes against any foreign nation that its leaders accused our nation of committing?

    Has the U.S. not been culpable in any covert operations conducted by secret agencies that answer to the president? Does history not reveal anything that gives the LA Times pause to consider the plausibility of the charges levied against the U.S. by its so-called enemies?

    You, my dear sir, readily dismiss what I have to say without offering a cogent argument. You dismiss me and therefore (in your mind) my argument. For elitists, the arguments of those who are viewed on a lesser level cannot be considered equal to the arguments of those perceived to be on higher ground. That sort of thinking is repugnant, but typical of elitists.

    That is the approach the LA Times took in its editorial that I criticized above. You, sir, sound like the LA Times.

    There is one bright spot in your commentary appropriately situated beneath by Opinion. You and I agree that the little book, “The Law,” is a splendid addition to anyone’s home library.

    However, Mr. franco may wish to re-think his understanding of how this nation operates under “the law.” History reveals that while we are a nation of laws, such applications of laws have been, and likely always will be, separate and unequal, for some and not others, arbitrary in enforcement and constantly evolving.

    The result is that our executive branch has grown out of control. Our media has sold out long ago and fails to achieve its mission as commissioned by the Constitution and hoped for by the Founding Fathers, the Congress no longer adequately represents the people as it takes political sides in party loyalty. The government isn’t anywhere near what is being taught in public schools. And all of the wars and those conflicts not considered wars that ahve been fought by this nation directly and indirectly have all been outside of The Law that Mr. Franco wishes to hold up here.

    My point began with the notion that we, as a nation, have done harm to others who have charged us with such actions. And if our media were the watchdog it was, it would not simply dismiss such charges with great irreverence, but rather delve into the allegations to determine if, indeed, our government is involved in covert operations in foreign lands seeking to undermine and overthrow governments around the world.

    If our own media would have the healthy skepticism that most rational knowledgeable Americans have, it would be the bearer of truth, exposing the deceit and dishonesty that many authors reveal in many books that do make the New York Times Bestseller’s list, even if mine does not. As a Christian who stands for truth, with truth on my side, the words I write and the information I provide has been and continues to be revealed by many others sources as fact.

    Perhaps Mr. Franco would like to actually provide an argument that defends his premise, whatever that may be, rather than merely attack me for noting that an allegation isn’t made false simply because the LA Times (and Mr. Franco) doesn’t like the individual making the charge.

  • Correction: I stated “And all of the wars and those conflicts not considered wars that ahve been fought by this nation directly and indirectly have all been outside of The Law that Mr. Franco wishes to hold up here.”

    The correct statement is: And all of the wars and those conflicts not considered wars that have been fought by this nation, since WWII, directly and indirectly, have all been outside of The Law that Mr. Franco wishes to hold up here.