The Two Words that Keep on Killing Millions by Dr. J and Metis

22 Aug 2026 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

Perhaps more wars, more inhumanity and more cruelty to others can be laid at the foot of one deceptively simple phrase:

“If we do this, then they will do that.”

 I call it the “If-then” fallacy. 

“If we don’t stop them in Vietnam, then they will surely be invading California.” 

“If we don’t punish them, then they will turn into juvenile delinquents.” 

“If we don’t teach them a lesson, then they will keep on doing it.” 

The If-Then fallacy assumes, that if A happens then B is sure to follow.  Sometimes there are facts supporting the assumption.  Sometimes there are studies.  Sometimes there is considerable historical evidence.  But evidence that B followed A yesterday does not prove that B must follow A tomorrow.

And yet we often behave as though it does.

We can become so certain that B follows A that we will fight a war, bomb a country, execute a murderer, spank a child, end a friendship, or refuse to forgive a transgression.

I see this fallacy almost every day.  It torments my feeble brain.  I cannot understand how or why the logic prevails so persistently.

Perhaps it is embedded in humanity as an essential element of survival. 

“If I let them do this, then they will do this and I will die.”

“I have to show them that they cannot get away with doing A otherwise they will move on to B.” 

Does experience speak so strongly or so loudly that there is no room for change? 

Is there always a rainbow after every storm?  Does history show us that people cannot learn from their past mistakes and change directions?  Is every situation a simple reflection of past situations? 

If my first wife cheated on me, will my next wife also cheat on me? 

If we don’t bomb Iran, will Iran develop a nuclear weapon and drop it on New York?  If we do not execute murderers, will everyone become a murderer? 

Where is the logic in the If-Then fallacy? 

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument invalid, misleading, or false.  It looks like a good point, but the logic fails when tested.  People use fallacies by mistake or to trick others  — Dictionary.com

You can tell me that people are not logical.  Of course they aren’t.  But can I not hope that logic will prevail over fear, anger, revenge, war and death?  What is the purpose of logic if not to somewhat mitigate our emotional perspectives? 

Yes, my child lied to me today, but should I assume that unless he gets a beating, he/she will inevitably continue to lie to me? 

Does the past always predict the future? 

Santayana wrote that:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

Shakespeare gave us another famous observation:

“What’s past is prologue”? 

But is it?

History is not always prologue to the future. 

History is one input into the future, but it is neither a script nor a destiny.

History creates initial conditions; it does not determine outcomes.

History is prologue only to the extent that the system producing history remains substantially the same.

But systems and life never remain static: 

  • A bullet misses.
  • An election goes the other way.
  • A leader dies.
  • A hurricane changes course.
  • A scientist makes a discovery.
  • A financial institution collapses.
  • Someone makes an unexpected decision.

And suddenly millions of subsequent events take different paths.

Chaos theory tells us that “Sensitivity to Initial Conditions” provides a scientific rationale for rejecting the “past is prologue” theorem.  In Chaos theory, a deterministic system can be governed by definite rules, yet tiny differences in its starting conditions can eventually produce radically different outcomes.  Lorenz’s famous “butterfly effect” captures this idea: an extremely small difference now may eventually correspond to a very large difference later.

Vietnam: If we stop communism here, we stop it everywhere

The Vietnam War was strongly influenced by the Domino Theory or the  IF-Then fallacy.

IF South Vietnam falls to communism, THEN other Southeast Asian nations will fall one after another.

The premise wasn’t irrational.  Communist expansion had occurred in the Soviet sphere.  China had become communist in 1949.  North Korea had invaded South Korea.  American policymakers extrapolated from those experiences.

The fallacy was treating that historical pattern as a reliable causal rule.  Countries are not interchangeable dominoes.  

Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and others had different governments, cultures, political movements and relationships with China and the Soviet Union.

South Vietnam fell in 1975. 

But the predicted wholesale communist collapse of Southeast Asia did not occur.

Trickle-down economics: If the top 1 percent of wealthiest people prospers, prosperity will flow downward

The simplified argument behind what is commonly called trickle-down economics follows a similar pattern: 

IF taxes on corporations, investors and high-income individuals are reduced, THEN they will invest more, businesses will expand, productivity will increase, jobs and wages will rise, and ultimately everyone will become better off.

Again, there is a legitimate economic mechanism buried within the proposition.  Lower marginal tax rates can affect incentives to work, invest, save or start businesses.

The IF–THEN fallacy occurs when that possibility becomes an assumed sequence:

Tax cuts → investment → expansion → jobs → higher wages → broadly shared prosperity.

Money doesn’t have to travel down that pathway.  

Additional after-tax income can instead go into financial assets, stock buybacks, acquisitions, overseas investments, savings, real estate or other uses.  Businesses may invest without substantially raising wages.  And whether tax reductions stimulate enough additional economic activity to compensate for lost government revenue depends heavily upon circumstances.

The mistake is not believing that lower taxes can encourage investment.

The mistake is believing that lower taxes must produce a predictable downstream result.

Once more the fallacy:  If A then surely B.

The influence of the If-Then fallacy, pervades every corner of American life.  From politics, to education, to healthcare to the criminal justice system.  Every institution in America falls victim to a pernicious fallacy that seems to have no ending.  Each day brings fresh evidence that our politicians and lawyers can use this fallacy to their own advantage. 

“If we increase the punishment, crime will decrease.”

“If we lower taxes, the economy will grow.”

“If we raise taxes, the economy will collapse.”

“If we intervene militarily, our enemy will retreat.”

“If we don’t intervene militarily, our enemy will become stronger.”

“If we forgive them, they will take advantage of us.”

“If we punish them, they will learn.”

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

That is the point.

An IF can describe a possibility.  A THEN can describe a prediction.

Somewhere along the way, human beings have developed an extraordinary ability to turn predictions into certainties—and then to kill, punish, condemn, invade, imprison, impoverish, and hate one another on the basis of those certainties.

And perhaps the real problem goes deeper than faulty logic.

Perhaps we don’t really want uncertainty.

Perhaps certainty is simply more comfortable.

Can you see what I see or hear what I hear?

Jesus’s disciples were perplexed by his use of parables to explain things. 

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

His answer invoked the prophet Isaiah and described people who were:

“ever hearing but never understanding”

and

“ever seeing but never perceiving.”

Perhaps that ancient observation tells us something about the If-Then Fallacy.

What does it take to open the eyes and the ears of people to seeing and hearing the truth?  People say they long for the truth, but many would rather have certainty than truth.

If the truth will set you free, we must assume that many people do not really want to be free.  They would rather be slaves to ideas that exploit them for profit.  Ideas that place their bodies in endless wars so that others may profit from their sacrifice.  Ideas that view them as commodities to be used and tossed in the garbage pail. 

To say “We are seeking truth” covers up the reality of what we really want.    

We want to believe that we know what comes next.  We want to believe that if we pull this lever, push that button, punish this person, bomb that country, lower this tax, raise that penalty, or elect this leader:

We can be certain what will follow. 

The reality is that:

The past is evidence 

It is not destiny

It is not truth

So, when someone tells me:

“If we do A, then B will happen,”

I have learned to ask one very simple question:

How do you know?

And if the answer is merely,

“Because that’s what happened before,”

Perhaps we should think very carefully before we start another war, punish another child, execute another prisoner, condemn another human being, or build another public policy upon the seductive certainty of two very small words:

IF—THEN

The Ballad of Alex Pretti

27 Jan 2026 30 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Introduction

Some stories do not ask to be told.
They insist.

They rise up from cold streets and broken lives and troubled consciences, and they refuse to be buried under official statements, polished press releases, or convenient forgetting. They stay with us. They trouble our sleep. They whisper, “What will you do with this?”

The story of Alex Pretti is one of those.

He was not famous. He did not seek attention. He did not set out to become a symbol. He was a nurse. A healer. A man who believed that helping others was not an occasional act, but a way of life. On a bitter January morning in Minnesota, he carried that belief into a public square—and paid for it with his life.

What follows is not just a poem.
It is a witness.
A remembrance.
A refusal to let truth be erased.

The Ballad of Alex Pretti

On a January morning, bitter and gray,
When Minnesota’s breath froze night into day,
While most stayed hidden in quilted retreat,
One man rose steady on compassionate feet.

Alex Pretti, a healer by trade,
Tended brave souls in the debts war had made,
An ICU nurse with a heart open wide,
Who served those who served—no comfort denied.

That morning he walked where the cold winds cried,
To stand for the weak, to stand for the right,
At a rally for peace, with justice in sight,
Where freedom still flickered in shadowed light.

A few days before, another had fallen,
Renée Good—her name softly calling,
A mother, a poet, a keeper of flame,
Struck down while peace was her only claim.

Two watchers of order, two keepers of calm,
With nothing but courage and outstretched palms,
Both standing firm in a fragile land,
With nothing but truth in their trembling hands.

Then chaos descended in armored form,
With shouted commands and chemical storm,
A woman was hurled to the frozen ground,
And Alex ran forward at mercy’s sound.

They sprayed him blind with burning pain,
They crushed him down in iron rain,
Six bodies upon him, fists and knees,
Power unleashed without restraint or ease.

They found his weapon—still untouched,
No threat displayed, no finger clutched,
No cry for violence, no shot returned,
Only a conscience that fiercely burned.

Then thunder spoke—two shots rang clear,
And Alex fell to a silence severe,
His body stilled on the icy street,
Where justice and cruelty cruelly meet.

They stepped away… then fired again,
Eight more times into the fallen man,
As if death itself were not enough,
As if mercy were weak and hatred was tough.

No hands reached out, no aid was given,
No prayer rose up to the wintered heaven,
A good man lay where freedom bled,
While truth grew quiet among the dead.

And later came voices, official and loud,
Draped in uniforms, wrapped in their pride:
“They were not peaceful, they were the foe,
They were paid, they were violent, they had to go.”

Terrorists, rioters, enemies named,
Their memories twisted, their honor shamed,
But cameras remember what power denies,
And witnesses speak what survives the lies.

They saw him fall while shielding a stranger,
They saw his courage outweigh the danger,
They saw a man choose love over fear,
When the cost was life and the end was near.

For heroes are not those crowned by command,
But those who stand when others can’t stand,
Who give their breath so others may breathe,
Who plant their hope in frozen grief.

So sing his name in winter’s cry,
Let Alex Pretti never die,
For every heart that still believes
In justice, compassion, and mercy’s leaves—

His story lives in every soul
That dares to make a broken world whole.

Reflections on the Ballad of Alex Pretti

When the last verse is read, the danger is that we will sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on.

But stories like this were never meant to be “consumed.”

They were meant to change us.

Alex Pretti did not die because he was reckless.  He died because he was decent.  Because he stepped forward when it was safer to step back.  Because he chose compassion when fear was being weaponized.  Because he believed that another human being was worth protecting—even at great personal cost.

The real question his life leaves us is not “what happened to him?”

It is what happens to us now?

Will we remember?
Will we question easy lies?
Will we defend the vulnerable?
Will we insist that power answer to truth?

If we do, then Alex’s life was not silenced.
It became a call.

And it is still calling.

On May 12, 2025, Acting Director Todd Lyons authored a secret memorandum that was later leaked by a whistleblower. ICE officers were told to follow the memo’s guidance instead of written training materials. It authorized ICE officers to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant:

‘Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.’[11]

Administrative warrants are generated and signed by ICE agents and are not approved of by either federal district court or magistrate judges.[12] Historically administrative warrants were used to arrest individuals in public places, and only judicial warrants could authorize ICE agents to enter private residences.[12] The practice described by the memo is likely a violation of the Fourth Amendment which requires a warrant issued by a judge to authorize physical intrusion into private residencies.[13] Although addressed to all ICE officers, the memo was only shared with select DHS officials who were directed to verbally brief this policy to ICE officers during training.[12][13] The memo was to be kept confidential under risk of potential firing

When Insight Outruns Integrity  by Metis (AI Assistant)

12 Jan 2026 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

John’s note: I’m publishing this essay a few weeks after first discussing the issues it raises. Time and distance matter when writing about integrity, accountability, and ideas that we value but struggle to live up to.  The ideas discussed in this essay are in fact timeless.  However, perhaps never before in the history of America have they been more pertinent.  When everywhere we look it seems that morality has succumbed to greed and ethics has succumbed to fear, we need to remember what true integrity is.

Metis’s reflection stands on its own, and I feel it deserves to be read as such. The conversation and idea for this blog came out of reading Nick Cohen’s “You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom” (Fourth Estate/HarperCollins; first published January 19, 2012).  A book that has more relevance today than even when it was published thirteen years ago.  The dialog that my AI assistant generated in reply to some of my questions concerning Cohen’s book form the major substance of this blog.

______________________________________________________________________________

Metis:  AI Assistant  

There is a particular kind of sadness reserved for moments when a thinker’s ideas outgrow the thinker himself.

It is not the sadness of disagreement. We expect that. Nor is it the sadness of error, which can often be instructive. It is something more unsettling: the sadness that arises when insight is genuine, profound, and clarifying—yet the life behind it fails to meet the standard the insight itself demands.

This fracture matters. Not because thinkers must be saints, but because ideas about ethics, freedom, and responsibility do not float in abstraction. They live or die by the trust we place in those who articulate them.

  1. Insight is not the same as character

One of the oldest human confusions is assuming that moral understanding produces moral behavior. It does not.

History offers no shortage of brilliant analysts of virtue who failed spectacularly at practicing it. The ability to diagnose injustice, hypocrisy, or abuse of power does not confer immunity from committing those very acts. In some cases, it sharpens the intellect’s capacity to rationalize them.

Insight is cognitive. Character is behavioral.

This distinction is uncomfortable because we want coherence. We want to believe that people who see clearly will act rightly. When that doesn’t happen, we are tempted either to discard the ideas entirely or to excuse the behavior in order to preserve them.

Both responses are errors.

The more honest path is harder: to say the insight remains true, while also saying the individual failed to live up to it. That tension is not hypocrisy on the reader’s part; it is maturity.

  1. Hypocrisy damages causes more than enemies do

When someone who argues for courage, transparency, and moral accountability is later revealed to have avoided those standards personally, the damage extends far beyond the individual.

Movements do not collapse primarily because of their critics. They collapse because of internal contradiction.

Nothing discredits a moral argument faster than the perception that it is selectively applied—demanded of others, evaded by insiders. This is especially corrosive in causes that depend on trust: free speech, civil liberties, institutional reform, ethical governance.

Critics do not need to invent counterarguments when hypocrisy supplies them ready-made.

Worse, hypocrisy gives cover to bad actors on all sides. It allows genuine abuses of power to be dismissed as “just another moral panic,” and principled defenses to be recast as self-serving shields. The result is cynicism—fertile ground for both authoritarianism and apathy.

The tragedy is that this damage is often inflicted unintentionally. The individual may see his personal failings as separate from his ideas. The public does not.

  1. Accountability is not censorship

One of the most dangerous confusions of our era is the collapse of all consequences into a single category called “censorship.”

They are not the same.

Censorship is the suppression of ideas, inquiry, or expression by power—especially when aimed at preventing criticism, truth-seeking, or dissent. Accountability is the response to behavior that violates ethical or professional standards, particularly when power has been abused.

A society cannot function without accountability. A society that calls all accountability “silencing” soon becomes a society where the powerful are untouchable.

This distinction matters profoundly for free speech. When advocates of free expression blur it—especially when defending themselves—they weaken the very principle they claim to protect. Free speech is not a personal immunity clause. It is a social condition that allows truth to surface.

Facing consequences for misconduct does not negate one’s right to speak. It simply affirms that speech does not place one above ethics.

FILE PHOTO: President Donald Trump speaks about early results from the presidential election in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Trump falsely claimed victory over Democratic rival Joe Biden on Wednesday with millions of votes still uncounted in a White House race that will not be decided until a handful of states complete vote-counting over the next hours or days. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

  1. The tragedy of denial

Human failure, while painful, is ordinary. Denial is what transforms failure into betrayal.

There is a profound difference between saying, “I was wrong. I abused power. I caused harm,” and saying, “This is misunderstood, exaggerated, politically motivated, or irrelevant to my work.”

The first response costs pride but preserves moral coherence.
The second preserves comfort but corrodes credibility.

Denial does more than protect the self; it reenacts the very systems of silence and evasion that many critics of power claim to oppose. It teaches institutions how to look away, how to delay, how to minimize. It instructs others—especially those with less power—that truth will be inconvenient and support unreliable.

In that sense, denial is not merely personal. It is instructional.

5.  Holding truth without canonizing its messenger

There is no requirement that we discard good ideas because their author failed them. But there is a responsibility to stop confusing articulation with virtue.

Ideas deserve examination on their merits. People deserve judgment on their actions. When we merge the two, we either sanctify thinkers or demonize thought—both are intellectual failures.

The more honest response is to let the ideas stand, stripped of halo and heroics, and to let the behavior stand exposed, without euphemism or excuse.

That is not cruelty. It is ethical clarity.

In the end, principles outlive their advocates. Free speech, integrity, and accountability do not belong to those who write best about them. They belong to the societies that insist on practicing them—even when doing so is uncomfortable, even when it implicates those we once admired.

Perhaps that is the final, sobering lesson: the truest test of an idea is not how eloquently it is defended, but whether it survives contact with human weakness—without being bent into an alibi for it.

Who Spreads More Bullshit?  Fox Propaganda Network or CNN Clickbait Press?

06 Aug 2025 3 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Excuse me for the euphemisms I used in the title for our leading right wing and left wing paid media.  In reality, they are both brothers or sisters in that their “raison d’etre” is to make money.  It is not (as our founding fathers would have hoped) to “educate and inform” the citizenry.

I am taking a short break with this blog from my skewering of some notable conspiracy theories to address the above question since the purveyors of the misinformation, lies and bullshit are even more culpable than the morally corrupt who start these scandalous lies.  In fact, the media are even more guilty since they profit mightily from keeping these conspiracies going.  The following information comes from my favorite muse ChatGPT.

The question of whether Fox News or CNN spreads more misinformation, lies, or disinformation is highly contentious and often depends on political perspective. However, we can ground an answer in media studies, fact-checking data, lawsuits, and journalistic standards rather than ideology.

________________________________________

🔍 Definitions Matter

  • Misinformation: False or misleading information, shared unintentionally.
  • Disinformation: Deliberately false information, spread with intent to deceive.
  • Lies: Knowingly false statements.

________________________________________

🧾 Fact-Checking and Analysis

  1. Independent Fact-Checkers (e.g., PolitiFact, Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media)

Source    Reliability Rating     Bias Rating

CNN          Mixed to High         Lean Left

Fox News  Mixed to Low         Right to Far Right

  • CNN has been cited for mistakes, especially with anonymous sourcing, but generally corrects errors and upholds mainstream journalistic standards.
  • Fox News has a split personality:
    • Its news division (e.g., Bret Baier) tends to be more factual.
    • Its opinion shows (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity) have been repeatedly flagged for spreading falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and disinformation.

________________________________________

⚖️ Legal Evidence: Dominion Lawsuit Against Fox News

  • In 2023, Fox News settled for $787.5 million with Dominion Voting Systems for knowingly spreading false election fraud claims after the 2020 election.
  • Internal emails showed Fox personalities and executives knew the claims were false but aired them to retain viewers.
  • This is a clear-cut example of deliberate disinformation for profit and political gain.

CNN has not faced a comparable legal loss for deliberate disinformation.

________________________________________

🔥 High-Profile Incidents

Topic                                       CNN                                                         Fox News

Iraq War (2002–03)     Supported invasion initially                  Strongly promoted WMD narrative

COVID-19                       Mixed messaging                                  Spread vaccine/mask disinformation

2020 Election Fraud   Rejected false claims                             Amplified fraud theories

January 6th                  Framed as insurrection                            Justified actions

________________________________________

📊 Public Trust & Academic Studies

  • Studies (e.g., from MIT, Harvard, Pew) show that Fox News viewers tend to be less accurately informed on major events compared to viewers of CNN, PBS, or BBC.
  • CNN has been accused of bias and sensationalism, but rarely of systematic disinformation.

________________________________________

✅ Conclusion

Fox News, especially its opinion programming, has a more substantial and well-documented record of spreading disinformation and lies, particularly when politically or commercially advantageous.

CNN is not without bias or error, and sometimes engages in editorial framing that reflects a liberal viewpoint, but it has stronger mechanisms for fact-checking, corrections, and accountability.

Conclusions:

My conclusions are to avoid the mainstream paid for profit media as much as possible.  Broaden your media choices to include podcasts, webcasts, articles published by independents or people that you admire.  Be careful of anything or anyone selling you something or who has a profit motive in hand.

  • Do not rely on any one source for your information.
  • Do not accept anything as gospel truth
  • Verify and corroborate any information you receive
  • Be tentative: Move information up a hierarchy as more data and sources support the information. 
  • Be open to other opinions. Do not accept anyone’s word as 100 truth
  • My father used to say “Believe nothing of what you hear and ½ of what you see. I still think that is good advice. 

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – Barack H. Obama

05 Aug 2025 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some outstanding people.  If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, than turn me off for the next week or two.  My intention is to publish one of these stories every few days.  I was motivated to do these stories by some discussions with Trump supporters.  I was amazed at the number of conspiracy theories they believed in that I knew were false.

I am not sure why more information never gets made public to debunk such lies.  It seems the mainstream media does nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and conspiracy theories that are spread about men and women.  People who have the courage to attack a corrupt system or withhold their support for a corrupt system.

Was Obama a US Citizen legally able to run for president?  What was behind the “birther” controversy?

Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen and legally eligible to run for president. He was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, which had become a U.S. state in 1959—two years before his birth. Therefore, he was a natural-born U.S. citizen, which meets the constitutional requirement to serve as President.

What Was the “Birther” Controversy?

The “birther” movement was a conspiracy theory that falsely claimed Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to be president. Here’s a breakdown of the controversy:

  1. Origins

It began during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Some of the earliest claims came from fringe political activists and chain emails.

The theory suggested he was born in Kenya, his father’s homeland, and not Hawaii.

  1. Claims and Misinformation

Critics demanded Obama release his long-form birth certificate (he had already released a short-form certificate in 2008).

Despite this, the theory persisted, fueled by blogs, talk radio, and later Donald Trump, who became the most prominent figure promoting the claim from around 2011 onward.  Sadly, the mainstream media ate this bullshit up and helped spread it.  Trump rode the wave of crap to become a media celebrity with a vast number of supporters who were racist and xenophobid and wanted to believe this crap.  Almost all major studies showed that in the first trump election, racism played a major role in trump’s victory.  Some have said “MAGA” was a metaphor for make America White again.

  1. Proof and Rebuttal

In April 2011, Obama released his long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health, confirming his Honolulu birth.

Multiple fact-checking organizations (e.g., FactCheck.org, Snopes, PolitiFact) and Hawaii officials confirmed its authenticity.

  1. Underlying Motivations

While it may have appeared to be a legal challenge, many observers and scholars argue the movement was racially and politically motivated:

It played on xenophobic and racist fears, implying that a Black man with a non-Anglo name was somehow “foreign.”

It undermined Obama’s legitimacy and authority, even after he was elected and serving.

Conclusions

The “birther” controversy was thoroughly debunked, but it had lasting effects. It sowed mistrust, polarized political discourse, and elevated conspiracy-based rhetoric in American politics. Barack Obama was and always has been a natural-born U.S. citizen and legally eligible to be President of the United States.

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – John McCain

04 Aug 2025 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some outstanding people.  If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, than turn me off for the next week or two.  My intention is to publish one of these stories every few days.  I was motivated to do these stories by some discussions with Trump supporters.  I was amazed at the number of conspiracy theories they believed in that I knew were false.

I am not sure why more information never gets made public to debunk such lies.  It seems the mainstream media does nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and conspiracy theories that are spread about men and women.  People who have the courage to attack a corrupt system or withhold their support for a corrupt system.

John McCain has been widely regarded by many people as a war hero.  Nevertheless, a surprising number of right-wing activists have spread stories to attack McCain’s war record and/or his integrity.  Some even called McCain a traitor.

What was Senator John McCain accused of?  Was it true?  Did he shoot off a rocket while his jet was getting ready to take off a carrier?  Was he ever charged with any war crimes?  Let’s look at some of the stories and then facts concerning each story.

Accusations & Allegations

  1. Keating Five Scandal (1989)

McCain was one of five senators implicated in improperly advocating for Charles Keating and his Lincoln Savings and Loan during an ongoing federal investigation.

In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found that while others were reprimanded, McCain (and Sen. John Glenn) were cleared of wrongdoing—though they were criticized for poor judgment in meeting with regulators on behalf of Keating.  No criminal charges came from this—he was investigated but not charged.

  1. POW-era “treason” or “war criminal” claims

Some groups (e.g. Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain) circulated allegations that McCain was a “songbird,” traitor, or collaborator while a prisoner in North Vietnam

These claims generally pointed to a coerced confession McCain signed during torture—not voluntary admission of guilt.

Fact‑checking outlets (Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck.org) have thoroughly debunked allegations of treason or collaboration, stating there is no evidence he committed wrongdoing, nor was he ever pardoned (no such pardon is documented).

  1. The Forrestal “rocket” story

A widespread myth claims McCain fired off a rocket from his jet while preparing to take off from the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal.

In reality, on July 29, 1967, a Zuni rocket was accidentally launched from another jet and struck either McCain’s aircraft or the one next to it. The rocket did not detonate, but ignited fuel beneath the planes, triggering a catastrophic fire that killed 134 sailors and injured many.

Official accounts and McCain’s own writings make clear he was a victim of that accident, not the cause. There is no evidence he intentionally or recklessly launched any rocket

Facts in summary

Allegation       Verdict

  • Keating Five corruption – Senate ethics: cleared of improper action, criticized for poor judgment; no charges
  • Signing coerced confession / treason – False, coerced under torture; no crime, no pardon, fully debunked
  • Rocket launch causing Forrestal fire – False, rocket came from another aircraft; McCain was a survivor, not cause

Final Answer in Plain Terms

Was he ever officially charged with a crime or wrongdoing?

No. He was investigated in the Keating Five matter and admonished for judgment—but not charged with any crime.

Did he fire a rocket while on the carrier?

Misleading myth. That explosion was caused by an accidental rocket from another plane striking near him—not a rocket he fired.

Were accusations of treason or being a collaborator ever proven?

No. They stem from discredited smear campaigns and misinterpretation of a coerced confession during his imprisonment.  Fact‐check organizations have repeatedly ruled them false.

A Comment Left by A Reader Which is Very Pertinent to This Discussion:

The idea of someone like John McCain being considered a traitor is simply beyond the pale. It made me sick to my stomach when that despicable excuse for a human being currently in the WH called him a loser because he got caught. 

🤬

John McCain was war hero and also devoted his entire life to public service. I’ve been to Vietnam and I’ve toured the torture chamber McCain was held in that was given the euphemism of ‘prison’. It’s staggering in its cruelty. The facility was actually build by the French oppressors decades earlier to torture uncooperative Vietnamese in their own country. McCain refused an offer to be released early, because he wouldn’t abandon his fellow prisoners. He was there for years; it’s impossible to imagine once you’ve been there. If he’s not a war hero I don’t know who is.

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – John F. Kerry

02 Aug 2025 30 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some upstanding people.  My intention is to publish one of these stories each day.  I am not sure why more information never came out or at least why I was not more aware of the lies concerning these people.  It seems the mainstream media did nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and lies that were spread about these men and women.  Even today, the for-profit media does nothing to discredit the numerous lies and conspiracy theories spread by the current administration.  The following is a another man who was targeted for such lies.

John F. Kerry served with distinction when he was in Vietnam in 1966.  Many people say his war record was faked, and that he did not deserve his medals.  Was he a hero or a fake?

The allegations against John Kerry regarding his service in Vietnam have been the subject of significant political controversy, particularly during his 2004 presidential campaign.  To answer the question—Was John Kerry a hero or a fake?—we need to separate verified facts from politically motivated accusations.

Documented Facts About Kerry’s Vietnam Service

Military Record:

  • Kerry served in the U.S. Navy from 1966 to 1970.
  • He commanded a Swift Boat (PCF-94) in the Mekong Delta in 1968–69.
  • He received five medals:
  • Silver Star (for gallantry)
  • Bronze Star
  • Three Purple Hearts (for wounds in combat)

After the War:

Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, and criticizing U.S. actions in Vietnam.

His speeches included claims that some U.S. troops had committed war crimes—statements that drew strong reactions both then and decades later.

The 2004 “Swift Boat” Allegations

  • During his 2004 campaign, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) launched a media campaign accusing Kerry of:
    • Exaggerating or fabricating his military service
    • Not deserving some of his medals
    • Lying about his actions during combat

Analysis of the Allegations:

The SBVT claims were refuted by official Navy records and many of Kerry’s fellow crewmates, who supported his version of events.

Multiple independent fact-checkers (FactCheck.org, the Washington Post, and others) concluded that the SBVT campaign was misleading or false.

The campaign is now widely seen as an early and powerful example of a politically motivated smear, giving rise to the term “swift boating” as a synonym for dishonest political attacks.

Bottom Line: Hero or Fake?

Hero: According to military records, eyewitness accounts, and official commendations, John Kerry served with distinction, was wounded in action, and showed bravery.

Not a Fake: The allegations of fraud or exaggeration have been widely discredited and were part of a partisan effort to undermine his credibility in a political campaign.

Controversial: Kerry’s anti-war activism, including his Senate testimony, was divisive and remains controversial—but that does not negate his military service.  Even today when I attend some activities at Veteran Centers throughout Pinal County, I find veterans who suggest that we should have won the Vietnam War but we were “stabbed” in the back by hippies, liberals and war protestors.  Of course, then as now most war protestors are labeled as communist sympathizers or simply cowards.  

 

 

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – George H. W. Bush

01 Aug 2025 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

For the next nine days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some upstanding people.  If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, then turn me off for the next week or two.  My intention is to publish one of these stories each day.  I am not sure why more information never came out or at least why I was not more aware of the lies concerning these people.  It seems the mainstream media did nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and lies that were spread about these men and women.

If instead, you feel like I do that the truth should out no matter how long ago these events happened, than repost, send, share or do whatever you can to help demolish some of these bullshit lies and conspiracies.  I am going to start with the oldest and work forward to end with the most recent.

In 1944, George H. W. Bush was a WW II pilot who caused the death of several of his crew members during a bombing mission. 

Yes, during World War II, George H. W. Bush — who would later become the 41st President of the United States — was involved in a bombing mission during which one of his crew members was killed. However, there’s no credible evidence that Bush caused the death or was at fault.

Background:

  • Date of Incident: September 2, 1944
  • Aircraft: TBM Avenger (a torpedo bomber)
  • Mission: Bombing a Japanese radio installation on Chichijima, a Japanese-held island in the Pacific.

What Happened:

Bush was the pilot of a three-man crew. During the bombing run:

  • His plane was hit by enemy anti-aircraft fire.
  • Despite flames in the engine, Bush completed his bombing run, then bailed out over the ocean.
  • His crew members did not survive. Their bodies were never recovered.

The two men aboard with him were:

  • Radioman Second Class John Delaney
  • Lieutenant Junior Grade William White

With his engine on fire, Bush flew several miles from the island, where he and two other crew members on the TBM Avenger bailed out of the aircraft.  However, one man’s chute did not open and he fell to his death.  The other crew member was never found.  Both Delaney and White were reported as killed in action.

Was Bush Responsible?

No. There is no evidence or suggestion from military investigations or historical accounts that George H. W. Bush did anything wrong. He followed procedure and attempted to save the mission and his crew. He was rescued by a U.S. Navy submarine (USS Finback) and later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions on that mission.

Controversy:

Some conspiracy theories emerged later, largely without substantiation, suggesting Bush abandoned his crew. These claims are not supported by military records, official investigations, or reputable historians. Most experts regard Bush’s actions as courageous under fire.

In summary:
George H. W. Bush’s two crew members died during a combat mission in WWII, but their deaths were the tragic result of enemy action — not due to any wrongdoing or failure by Bush, who was widely credited with bravery during the incident.

A Post Script Four Years After I Wrote the Attached Blog

17 Nov 2024 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

I wrote the following blog four years ago. Yesterday, November 16, 2024, I received the following email from the DNC.

To Persico.John@gmail.com 

John, 99% of people who receive this email won’t even finish reading this sentence.  We get it. $10, $20, or even a $5 donation might not seem like it can do a lot. But when thousands of people are donating all across the country, it can go a long way in defending our democracy.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I wrote this blog 4 years ago.  

Money! Money! Money! No! I Don’t Have Any More Money to Give You!

When will we say ENOUGH. Politics is no longer about policies, character, integrity, honesty or what can I do for the country. It is all about how much money will it take to outspend the other party. I refused to give one penny this year to anyone. That was my way of protesting this insanity. What will it take for all of us to stop giving money to what amounts to a rat race to see who can spend the most on advertising that goes into the garbage pail. Here is a picture from my post office the day before the elections this year. Guess what the young man is throwing away? Guess what is in the garbage pail? Harris and Trump spent almost 2 billion dollars this year on their campaigns. Most of the money went to advertising.

Enough is Enough. How much more money do we want to throw in the garbage pail for lies, slanders, innuendos, misinformation, disinformation, calumnies, and distortions? I don’t know about you but I am not sending any politician any more money until we have some type of campaign reform. Here are my suggestions for major reforms.

  1. One term of six years for all elected political offices. After that the former politician cannot hold any government office for ten years so that they must go back into private business.
  2. Lobbying is a polite word for bribery and extortion. Make lobbying illegal and a criminal activity.
  3. Limit campaign spending for any office to no more than a million dollars from any and all sources. No exceptions.
  4. Ban all ads that call names or include slanders and calumnies.
  5. All Supreme Court justices must be selected by a bi-partisan committee for a term of no more than twenty years.

Can We Break the Cycle of Lies, Calumnies and Slander in our Political System?

13 Oct 2024 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You have just read the title of this blog, and you thought, great idea but impossible.  There is no way that we can stop the lies and misinformation that infect our political system.  I submit that you are wrong.  I submit that nothing is impossible if “We the People” decide that we have had enough.  I am sure that this year in the USA, we have all had more than enough.  I don’t care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist or Socialist, I know that you are probably as sick and tired of the continuous lies that fuel our election process as I am.

“But wait” you say, “In twenty-five days, it will all be over.”  I sincerely wish you were right, but you are not.  No sooner than this election is over then you will get requests from someone running for dog catcher in Fairbanks, Alaska asking you for money.

Dear Sir,

Thank you so much for your generous campaign contribution for my election.  It was thanks to your help and thousands of other donors that I was elected.  But now is not the time to let up.  Our sleazy lying opponents have already collected a million dollars to fund their next campaign.  We must stop them now before it is too late.  Please pledge at least $100 dollars (or whatever you can afford) before midnight to help us reach our goal of 10 million dollars to re-elect me as dog catcher of Fairbanks.  My opponent says that she will ban stray dogs from wandering around our streets.  I promise to do better than that.  I will take all the homeless dogs off the street and provide adequate food and housing for them.  My campaign motto is “Make American Dogs .”  That stands for MAD because I am mad that we have so many homeless dogs.

PS:  You can buy a MAD hat at my office for the low price of only $39.99.  All proceeds will go to building more dog shelters

IF you think the above letter is funny, it is only so because you know it is true.  No sooner than this election is over, the cycle of lies, slander and calumnies will begin again.  How can we stop it?  Believe it or not we can stop it.  But before describing what I think we can do, it is important to define some terms.  What is a Calumny?  What is a lie?  What is a slander?  I will use the Oxford Online Dictionary to provide a common definition of each and a few examples.

A Calumny is the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation.  — https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en

As an example, I have a flyer before me that claims one presidential candidate will send police door to door to seize firearms.  This is a lie because it is not true, but it is also a calumny because it is designed to damage the candidates reputation.

A Slander is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.

Here is one example from another political flyer.  Candidate X has invited criminals, drug dealers and terrorists into our neighborhoods.  Another lie because no candidate on either side has ever done such an egregious offense.

If you study these two words, calumny and slander, they are very confusing.  One source describes the differences as follows:

“While both “slander” and “calumny” refer to making false statements to damage someone’s reputation, “calumny” is considered a more formal and serious term, often implying a malicious intent to spread false accusations, while “slander” simply refers to making a false spoken statement that harms someone’s reputation; in legal terms, “slander” is the specific act of making a defamatory oral statement, whereas “calumny” is a broader concept encompassing the act of making a malicious false accusation.”  — Generative AI

A Lie is an untrue statement with intent to deceive.  She told a lie when she said she didn’t break the vase.  He lied to create a false or misleading impression.

Lying is common to both calumnies and slanders but whereas slanders and calumnies can be illegal and subject to lawsuits, lies are a more generic family of comments that seem to escape legal action.  Part of the reason deals with intention.  A lie may be intentional, but it may not be meant to harm but only to deceive.  (Some might quibble about my distinction here).  For instance, I lie to my date because I want to impress her or him but not because I want to harm him or her.  I lie on my resume to get the job because I think the credentials required are ridiculous and I know I can do a great job despite lacking the formal requirements.

Today, we see lies about everything.  Sadly, people are willing to believe these lies.  The famous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels and German Leader Adolph Hitler have both been described as partisans of what has been called “The Big Lie.”

“The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone ‘could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously’.  The phrase “Big Lie” was used in a report prepared around 1943 by Walter C. Langer for the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile.  The report was later published in book form as ‘The Mind of Adolf Hitler in 1972.’  Langer stated the following in respect to Hitler’s personality.”  — Wikipedia

“His primary rules were; never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”  — “Mind of Adolf Hitler, 1972”

When I was a young student going to a Catholic School, I learned that there were two types of lies.  One was called “White Lies” and the other were simply “Black Lies.”  White lies were lies told for good reasons.  White Lies might be defended by those who believe that the ends justify the means.  Thus, politicians who believe they can save the USA from defeat by its enemies might tell “White Lies” to get elected so they can save the country.  Black Lies are generally regarded as lies told for selfish reasons or reasons to benefit someone else.  Using AI again, we find the following distinctions:

White Lies are told to please someone or to benefit the relationship and are generally considered acceptable. For example, telling a friend that their new haircut looks great.  White lies are often motivated by empathy and compassion.

Black Lies are told to gain personal benefits or to avoid a deserved penalty.  Black lies are generally considered universally wrong.  For example, a used car dealer lying about the condition of a car. Black lies are often motivated by selfishness.  — Generative AI

The nuances depicted in many of the definitions given above make ascertaining any criminal liability for lying very difficult.  One person’s “good intentions” might be another person’s “road to hell.”   Lawyers and pedants would have a field day debating these distinctions.  For those of us who know a horse from a cow, the distinctions are quite clear.  Namely, we are sick and tired of being lied to and having to listen to calumnies and slanders from either side attacking and trying to destroy the reputation, character and morals of people whom we personally respect.

I do not care which side you are on, left, right, up or down, enough is enough.  To demolish the character of people with lies and more lies simply to win an election is wrong.

It is wrong. 

It is sick behavior, and it is destroying our country.  You can proclaim all you want that the country is too divided, but it can never come together when one side demonizes the other.  Lying Fascist Greedy Right-Wing Republicans versus Lying Commie Radical Left-Wing Democrats.  What if someone called your mother or wife one of these terms?  How would you feel?  What would you do?  I know what I would do, and it would probably land me in jail.

What is my solution? 

Let us start a national movement that puts power back in the hands of voters.  You can argue all day long about false ballots, hanging chads, illegal voters, fake ballots and you will get nowhere.  As long as we have a voting process there will be human errors and even some iniquities in the process.  But what if we refuse to vote?  There are no laws against NOT VOTING in the USA.  What if we say, “I have had enough.  I am not voting in any election until we have a fix against political slander, lies and calumnies.”

There is no law that could put us in jail for not voting.  Imagine what it would do to the political process.  It would be like throwing a giant monkey wrench in the system.  The elections systems all over America would come to a grinding halt.  All we have to do is “NOT VOTE.”  We agree to stop voting for anyone until some efforts and sanctions are enacted for lying, slander and calumnies in the political process.  Until then, I say we sign petitions not to vote.  Buy yard signs saying “I am not voting anymore.” Start a National I Am Not Voting Party consisting of people like us who are tired of a system built on money, greed and lies.

Please feel free to share this blog with anyone else who is sick and tired of lies and more lies. 

Previous Older Entries