#National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under US Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford

[worstloki]

Was kissinger a zionist or something?

Zionism was very much not the main thing he was known for

[liesmyteachertoldme]

Interference in US foreign policy and elections? Try Israel

There are over 100 high-level members of the US government who are citizens of Israel. The US State Dept. allows dual citizenship. If you don't think Israel exerts  tremendous influence  over the decisions, policies, and wars of the United States, think again. It is absurd that people who are citizens of foreign countries would be allowed to hold public office in the US. One  cannot serve two masters.

Michael Cheroff - Israeli/US dual citizen, second United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2005-2009). Co-author of the USA Patriot Act.  Federal Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2003-2005). US Assistant Attorney for the Criminal Division (2001-2003) of the Dept. of Justice personally supervised and controlled the entire FBI non-investigation of 9-11. He is also responsible for the obstruction of justice and blocking access to evidence since Sept.11,2001. He also advised the CIA of the legality of torture techniques in coercive interrogation sessions.

Michael Mukasey - Israeli/US dual citizen. 81st Attorney General of the US (2007-2009). He was the second Jewish US Attorney General. 18 years as a judge of the US District Court of New York (1987-2006), 6 of those years as Chief Judge (2000-2006).

Richard Pearle -  Israeli/US dual citizen was first Assistant Secretary for Global Strategic Affairs under Pres.Ronald Reagan. Senior staff member to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson on the Senate Arms Committee in the 1970's. On the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (1987-2004) under the Bush Administration.  Resigned due to conflicts of interest. Most likely an Israeli government agent. He was expelled from Senator's Jackson's office in the 1970's after the NSA caught him passing highly classified national security documents to the Israeli embassy. Perle was amember of the Bilderberg Group  until Dec. 2015. Also known as the "Prince of Darkness" and is a major player in the Israeli lobby.

Paul Wolfowitz - Israeli/US dual citizen. He is a political scientist and diplomat, was the tenth President of the World Bank (2005-2007). Resigned under pressure from World Bank members for misuse of power. US Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005) under G.W. Bush and US Ambassador to Indonesia under Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush (1986-1989).

Douglas Feith - Israeli/US dual citizen. Worked at the Reagan White House as a Middle East specialist for the National Security Council and then served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy. Served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the G.W.Bush Administration from 2001 to 2005. He is closely associated with the extremist group the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which attacks Jews that don't agree with their extremist views. Feith supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group of policy and intelligence analysis created to provide senior government officials with unvetted raw intelligence. The office was responsible for hiring Lawrence Franklin who was convicted along with AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman for passing classified National defense information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon.

Henry Kissenger - Israeli/US dual citizen was the 56th US Secretary of State from 1973-1977 under Pres. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Was Assistant to the Pres. for Natiional Security Affairs under Nixon and Ford. Member of the Foreign  Intelligence Advisory Board from 1984-1990. A member of the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy of the National Security Council and Defense Department  from 1986-1988.  A member of both the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

John Bolton - Israeli/US dual citizen. National Security Advisor to Pres. Trump. Assistant Attorney General under Reagan (1985-1989). One of the most hawkish of war hawks, he aggressively supported and helped plan military action and regime change in Iraq and Libya and is now doing the same thing in Syria and Iran.

Israeli/US dual citizens in high level US government positions:

Janet Yellen-Federal Reserve Chair

Stanley Fisher-Federal Reserve Vice-Chair

Lincoln Bloomfield-Assistant Secretary of State

Daniel Kutzer-Ambassador to Israel

Cliff Sobel-Ambassador to the Netherlands

Stuart Bernstein-Ambassador to Denmark

Nancy Brinker-Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin-Ambassador to Singapore

Ron Weiser-Ambassador to Slovakia

Jay Lefkowitz-Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Domestic Policy Council

Ken Melman-White House Political Director

Brad Blakeman-White House Director of Scheduling

There are 14 current and former US Senators who are dual Israeli/US citizens.

There are 32 current or past members of the US House of Representatives who are Israeli/US citizens.

[head-post]

US government official Henry Kissinger died at 100

Henry Kissinger, former chief US diplomat under the Nixon and Ford administrations, passed away on Wednesday at the age of 100.

His death was confirmed by his personal website.

Kissinger, considered by many to be the most influential US Secretary of State, is credited with brokering the opening of US-China relations, culminating in President Richard Nixon’s landmark visit to Beijing in 1972. He is also believed to have influenced détente with the Soviet Union, improving relations between the nuclear superpowers.

Besides serving as Secretary of State from 1973-1977 under Nixon and President Gerald Ford, he also served as National Security Advisor from 1969-1975.

However, he also faced worldwide condemnation over his role in the US bombing of Cambodia and the 1970 invasion alongside the South Vietnamese. According to the US Holocaust Museum, the bombing campaign and invasion were aimed at disrupting North Vietnam’s supply chains. The military action entailed a massive bombardment campaign in which more than 2.7 million tonnes of bombs were dropped.

Read more HERE

[classyfoxdestiny]

Military equipment to WTO push – How US aided China’s extraordinary rise

Military equipment to WTO push – How US aided China’s extraordinary rise

File photo | Mao Tse Tung, shakes hands with Henry Kissinger, while Gerald R. Ford, Susan Ford watch, 2 December 1975, Peking | US National Archives

Text Size: A- A+

The US opening to China in the summer of 1971, heralded by Henry Kissinger’s secret trip to Beijing in July 1971, has been romanticized and celebrated in American and Western annals. In India, the trip was vilified and demonized. With time, the triumphalism associated with it in the US and elsewhere has meliorated and the opprobrium attached to it in India has softened. Fifty years on, how shall we assess it? China opening played a role in the ending of the Cold War, though the Soviet Union played the decisive part in its own destruction. The normalization of US-China relations also played a role in China’s rise. However, Kissinger was hardly the main architect. Much of the credit on the US side should go to the presidents that succeeded Richard Nixon and the National Security Advisors (NSAs) that followed in Kissinger’s wake. The US sowed the seeds of China’s rise for forty years, and now it and others must deal with Chinese power as never before.

Having said that, the next century will not be a Chinese century. The future will be bipolar, with three bipolar possibilities—the most likely being one that Kissinger would have been familiar with, namely, regulated competition. As for India, it missed the signs of the sudden rapprochement in 1971. It must be attentive to the signs of the US once again possibly changing course with China. It is good to remember that the US has long had a fascination with China. Even in these times of Sino–US conflict, the American interest in, knowledge of, and linkages to China are far greater than with India.

Also read: Biden’s US is done engaging with China. This is what India should do now

Kissinger and the opening to China 

Henry Kissinger is credited with the opening to China in 1971, but it would be more accurate to say that he was ‘associated’ with it. America’s decision to normalize relations with China was already in process before Kissinger became Richard Nixon’s National Security Advisor: the thought of a strategic opening to China can clearly be traced to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in the period 1961 to 1965. In any case, it was Nixon more than Kissinger who conceptualized the move. And it was President Jimmy Carter and his NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and then President Ronald Reagan and his team who laid the foundations for the lips-and-teeth relationship that was to develop for the rest of the Cold War. Kissinger’s informal advice to US presidents and Chinese leaders, his voluminous writings and his consultancy work may have done more for US–China relations than his policy interventions in office.

As early as 1963, the US was already working on a degree of normalization with China. Washington was aware of the Sino–Soviet rift of the late 1950s and sensed an opportunity. In 1961, when he took office, President John Kennedy wanted to move beyond the diplomatic stalemate with China under his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, but given the narrowness of his victory in the presidential elections, he held off. Even so, a policy review was quietly begun. The slow churn on China might have led to some ‘breakthrough’ initiatives in December 1963. With Kennedy’s assassination in November those moves petered out. Nevertheless, in December 1963, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Roger Hilsman gave a speech where, in Joanne Chang’s words, he ‘urged Americans to take a realistic view of the PRC, asserting that the Communist regime was here to stay and recognizing the possibility that the PRC would evolve into a more moderate state’.

Kennedy’s death slowed down but did not altogether stop the winds of change. By 1965, President Johnson was already easing the travel ban and the restrictions on Chinese journalists—if this had little effect, it was because Beijing was not ready for an opening. Indeed, under Johnson, relations worsened due to the full-blown US military intervention in Vietnam. The anti-war protests at home doomed Johnson’s re-election hopes, and in November 1968, Nixon, defeated by Kennedy in 1960, won the presidency. As early as October 1967, he had penned an article in the US journal, Foreign Affairs. Titled ‘Asia After Viet Nam’, it argued for the necessity of engaging China. Nixon’s clinching argument was that ‘Any American policy toward Asia must come urgently to grips with the reality of China … Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors.’

Between March and September 1969, China and the Soviet Union fought a series of battles along the Ussuri River over their unsettled border claims. The fighting started after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ambushed Soviet forces. The emerging strategic convergence between the US and China may well have emboldened Beijing to precipitate matters with Moscow. In the event, the Soviets, rather shaken by the Chinese attack, were stirred to contemplate radical action including a possible joint nuclear attack with the US on Chinese nuclear forces. The US refused. China meanwhile decided that it needed a tacit alliance with the US. A complex process of signalling between the two sides ensued.

Looking back on it, quite a bit of the process leading up to Kissinger’s trip in July 1971 was jejune if not comical. A Chinese media account describes some of the communication that went on in 1970. First, Chinese leader Mao Zedong invited American journalist and writer Edgar Snow to stand on top of the Tiananmen gate to watch the National Day celebrations, a privilege never granted to a foreigner before. Then, President Nixon announced rather mawkishly during an interview with Time magazine, that ‘If there is anything I want to do before I die, it is to go to China. If I don’t, I want my children to.’ This was followed by the comedy of the US table tennis team meeting their Chinese counterparts in a tournament in Japan and asking to be invited to a subsequent tournament in China. The request was turned down until an American and Chinese player descended together from the Chinese team bus grinning in front of reporters. When Mao saw the picture of the two players, he ordered the Chinese team to accept the American request. The US team finally played in China in April 1971, and no less than Zhou hosted a reception for them. The Chinese also ensured that some of their players lost to the outgunned Americans—mocking their rivals and befriending them at the same time!

These and other—more serious—signals led up to Kissinger’s incognito trip to Beijing, with its near-farcical elements. The trip was hilariously codenamed ‘Marco Polo’. Before he went to the airport, Kissinger suddenly feigned heat sickness and was taken to Pakistani President Yahya Khan’s retreat outside Islamabad to ‘recover’. Later, he was to go to the airport with his face covered in a scarf and sunglasses. There is a hint of Peter Sellers’ farcical Inspector Clouseau from the Pink Panther movies here— secrecy that was hardly warranted and a disguise that would not have fooled anyone who was even vaguely familiar with the Kissinger visage.

The convulsive laughter in Beijing must have been a sight to see. Here were hard-boiled revolutionaries, who had fought and survived a cruel civil war and a war against Japan, being asked to play amateur cloak- and-dagger with the naïfs, Nixon and Kissinger. Is it any wonder that the meetings with Kissinger were marked by a touch of condescension on the part of Mao and Zhou? While Nixon and Kissinger were full of vanity and desperate to leave their mark in history, Mao and Zhou were comfortable in their own skins and had already taken their places in history. The meetings were not of equals: the Americans kowtowed, and the Chinese knew it. Kissinger seems to have been overawed and so desperate to make the opening that he exceeded his brief. For instance, according to John Pomfret, ‘He [Kissinger] assured Zhou that whether or not China pursued peaceful unification with Taiwan, “We [the US] will continue in the direction which I indicated”—which meant that the US would withdraw recognition of Taiwan and establish ties with China.’

Nixon and Kissinger certainly made the breakthrough—and more— with Beijing that the Kennedy administration had hoped to curate. Yet, the roots of the China opening go back to the assassinated president and his team. Neither Nixon nor Kissinger were ever generous with their praise of others. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that too much credit has been given to Nixon–Kissinger and particularly to Kissinger, given that Nixon had conceptualized the opening as early as 1967.

Also read: Don’t burden Delhi-Washington ties with Afghanistan, or issues like democracy under Modi

The world after the Kissinger visit 

The choreography around Kissinger’s trip may have been ludicrous, but the purpose was serious as were the consequences. It was correct to bring China out of the cold and into international order: one billion people had to be recognized and integrated. The alliance against the Soviets was less understandable. If Washington and Beijing had read US diplomat George Kennan’s ‘Sources of Soviet Conduct’ more carefully or taken more seriously the young Russian dissident Andre Amalrik’s Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (published in 1970), they would have seen that they were confronting an increasingly hollow empire that was not far from self-destruction. Or perhaps the Chinese knew the extent of Soviet infirmities but played on the credulity and greed of the Americans to further their own project—which was more about accessing US investment/technology than it was about forging a common front against Moscow. After all, Beijing could have hardly failed to notice that only those countries that befriended the US and accessed its capital and knowhow achieved rapid, sustained economic growth: that was the story of East Asia from the 1950s onwards.

More than Nixon and Kissinger, it was Carter/Brzezinski, then Reagan/ George W. Bush Sr., and finally Bill Clinton that helped China on its extraordinary economic journey from 1979 to the present—which is why the Chinese accusation that the Americans have always tried to contain China’s rise is so laughably absurd. Beyond economic partners, the US and China became strategic partners. When the Soviets sent in their forces to save the Babrak Karmal government in Afghanistan in December 1979, the US and China with Pakistan deployed Islamic radicals to wear down the Red Army. Over the next decade, the US released high technology and weaponry to China to bolster the quasi-alliance. It granted most-favoured-nation (MFN) status to China, relaxed Cold War rules so that the US and its allies could sell advanced technology to Beijing, provided credits so that the Chinese could import US technology and approved World Bank loans.

The US also helped modernize China’s military equipment. Chinese students and tourists in the US and Americans visiting (and sometimes studying) in China grew dramatically. When Warren Christopher, Clinton’s secretary of state, rather timorously tried to raise the issue of human rights, Premier Li Peng, ‘the Butcher of Beijing’ (so named for his role during the Tiananmen Square protests), responded aggressively and cancelled the American diplomat’s meeting with Jiang Zemin, general secretary of the communist party. Predictably, China gave no ground, and yet in 2001 the Clinton administration went ahead to endorse China’s membership in the WTO. And the rest, as they say, is history—the history of China’s astonishing rise.

This excerpt from A New Cold War: Henry Kissinger and the Rise of China, Edited by Sanjaya Baru and Rahul Sharma, has been published with permission HarperCollins India. 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)

if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod?

n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);

if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';

n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;

t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];

s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window,document,'script',

'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');

fbq('init', '1985006141711121');

fbq('track', 'PageView');

window.fbAsyncInit = function() FB.init( appId : '885510301622193', cookie : true, xfbml : true, version : 'v2.12' );

FB.AppEvents.logPageView();

;

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

$(document).ready(function() $(".entry-category a:contains('ThePrint Hindi')").parent().css("display", "none"); $(".td-tags li a:contains('Bloomberg wire')").parent().css("display", "none"); $(".td-tags li a:contains('ANI wire')").parent().css("display", "none"); $(".td-tags li a:contains('PTI wire')").parent().css("display", "none"); $(".td-tags li a:contains('Featured')").parent().css("display", "none"); $(".td-tags li a:contains('SG NI Archive')").parent().css("display", "none"); $(".td-module-meta-info a:contains('Sponsored')").css("pointer-events", "none"); );

$(document).ready(function() if($("body").hasClass("category-defence")) $("head").prepend(''); );

$(document).ready(function() if($('article').hasClass("category-50-word-edit")) $('meta[name=atdlayout]').attr('content', '50word'); );

$(document).ready(function() if($('article').hasClass("category-my543")) $("body").addClass("my543"); );

$(document).ready(function() $('#comments').hide(); $('#contentsWrapper').on('click', '#view_comment', function() $(this).toggleClass("display"); $(this).next('#comments').slideToggle(); ); );

$(document).ready(function() if ( $("#comments .td-comments-title-wrap").length > 0) $('#view_comment').show(); else $('#view_comment').hide(); );

/*Sticky sidebar without infinite scroll**/

$(function() if($('body').is('.post-template-default')) $(window).on('scroll', function() var conetntDivPos = $('.content .td-ss-main-content').offset().top; var scrollPos = $(window).scrollTop(); if(scrollPos >= conetntDivPos - 100) $('.content .td-pb-span4.td-main-sidebar').removeClass('absolute'); $('.content .td-pb-span4 .td-ss-main-sidebar').addClass('fixed') else $('.content .td-pb-span4 .td-ss-main-sidebar').removeClass('fixed'); ); );

/*for Font resize*/ var cookie = "fontsize";

var getFontSize = function() var value = parseInt($.cookie(cookie)) return value

var changeFontSize = function(direction) var newSize = Math.min(24, Math.max(16, getFontSize()+direction)) $.cookie(cookie, newSize, expires: 30, path: '/', domain : ''); updateFontSize(newSize) var updateFontSize = function(fontsize) var style = $('#font_size_style') if(!style.length) style = $('

') $(document.body).append(style) style.text(".td-post-content p font-size: "+fontsize+"px; line-height: "+(fontsize + 6)+"px;") <p>var initFontSize = function() var fontsize = getFontSize() console.log(fontsize) updateFontSize(fontsize) <p>$(document).ready(initFontSize); <p>$('#td-outer-wrap').on( "click", "#up", function() changeFontSize(1) ); <p>$('#td-outer-wrap').on( "click", "#down", function() changeFontSize(-1) ); <p> <a href="https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/military-equipment-to-wto-push-how-us-aided-chinas-extraordinary-rise/711833/">Source link

[beastwarking]

Healing America

If Donald Trump is found guilty of violating campaign finance laws, or found to have conspired with a foreign country to subvert a democratic election, than he should spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Why? Because that is how we would heal America.

In 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency amid the Watergate scandal. His successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him, arguing the following:

"It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States (Proclamation 4311)."

A quote from Nixon on crime:

"[The] solution to the crime problem is not the quadrupling of funds for any governmental war on poverty, but more convictions.”

Sounds like he should have rejected the pardon, going on his own harsh words towards those victimized by circumstance.  

In 1992, Republican President George H.W. Bush issued Proclamation 6518, the Grant of Executive Clemency, pardoning disgraced Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and others in their involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. He wrote:

"I am pardoning him not just out of compassion or to spare a 75-year-old patriot the torment of lengthy and costly legal proceedings, but to make it possible for him to receive the honor he deserves for his extraordinary service to our country."

His pardon extended to five others:

"I have also decided to pardon five other individuals for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair: Elliott Abrams, Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, and Robert McFarlane. First, the common denominator of their motivation -- whether their actions were right or wrong -- was patriotism. Second, they did not profit or seek to profit from their conduct. Third, each has a record of long and distinguished service to this country. And finally, all five have already paid a price -- in depleted savings, lost careers, anguished families -- grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds or errors of judgment they may have committed."

He referenced history as the reasoning for his decision making:

"In addition, the actions of the men I am pardoning took place within the larger Cold War struggle. At home, we had a long, sometimes heated debate about how that struggle should be waged. Now the Cold War is over. When earlier wars have ended, Presidents have historically used their power to pardon to put bitterness behind us and look to the future. This healing tradition reaches at least from James Madison's pardon of Lafitte's pirates after the War of 1812, to Andrew Johnson's pardon of soldiers who had fought for the Confederacy, to Harry Truman's and Jimmy Carter's pardons of those who violated the Selective Service laws in World War II and Vietnam."

"Notwithstanding the seriousness of these issues and the passions they aroused, my predecessors acted because it was time for the country to move on. Today I do the same."

For reference, here is Reagan's stance on crime:

"We do not seek to violate the rights of defendants. But shouldn't we feel more compassion for the victims of crime than for those who commit crime?"

Just like Ford, George H.W. Bush referred to a great healing, while at the same time ignoring his predecessor's views on crime and punishment.

But then, how has this worked out for us? How healed are we as a nation.

Democratic President Bill Clinton was convicted of lying under oath, and was subsequently impeached for it. He was allowed to carry out the remainder of his term and the Senate did not vote to convict. He was also disbarred from practicing law, but neither of these decisions have tarnished his legacy. If anything, the actions of his successors are actually improving the overall outlook of his presidency. He's one of the highest points in a series of low points. Great.

George W. Bush and his administration faced no repercussions for the war crimes committed in their crusade to thwart terrorist threats, both domestic and abroad:

"In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were... found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia...At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council."

Once more, this is George W. Bush's view on crime:

"Each of us is responsible for the decisions we make in life. The old [juvenile justice] code used to say if you commit a crime it is not your fault, it is our fault. The new code recognizes that discipline and love go hand in hand. Our new juvenile justice code says there will be bad consequences for bad behavior in the state of Texas. We want you to understand you are responsible for the decisions you make in life. It’s called tough love."  

Now, we have Republican President Donald Trump. The man who used campaign funds to pay off a porn star. There are Currently 36 indictments from those associated with his administration, with more expected to come. The man who may have conspired with Russia to win an election. There's not a whole lot more to say.

I'd share his stance on crime, but that would be beating a dead horse. Instead, The story of the Central Park Five should be enough to clue you in.

For almost 50 years, Republicans and Neo-liberal Democrats have encouraged this behavior. Republicans through their decision making, and Democrats through their own inaction. Since Nixon, we've had eight presidencies, including Ford; so seven if you count the elected ones only. All but three, Ford, H.W. Bush (in his presidency, though he may have had a hand in the Iran-Contra affair), and Obama were involved in some sort of impeachable scandal. Take away Ford, and you are left with one who was involved in a major controversy during his Vice Presidency, and the first black president who was criticized for using Dijon mustard.

And this is what healing without any real, tangible sacrifice gets you: it removes accountability and encourages hypocrisy. It encourages risk. It makes it clear that the ends justify the means. And most damning of all, it's what invariably destroys democracy, with examples dating all the way back to the Roman Empire serving as a warning that we can no longer ignore. What we have is an entire generation of politicians that have refused to make the difficult choice: to hold their peers for their own poor judgement. And we the public need to do a better job at holding our politicians accountable for not applying the law uniformly. Be it through the ballot box, or if need be, the jury box.

If we don't, if decide to let the same cycle play out, what will the next crooked politician; one with brains and the mindset to do what they please, do when they look at a pardoned Trump administration? Will they postpone elections in the name of public safety after the next big terrorist attack? Will they curtail the freedom of the press because the nation needs a break from the negativity of their own actions, or the actions of their predecessor? Or will they simply make their enemies disappear, offering neither an explanation nor an acknowledgement? What do we do then?

I do not know what the future holds, nor would I want that burden. But I do know that the past is telling us to start holding our politicians accountable. If not for the future's sake, than at least for our own peace of mind. What kind of message are we sending our children, our allies in the world, when we talk about being just when we ourselves cannot see the act of justice through to the end, regardless of outcome? What are we?