Congressman Nixon having been elected VP under President Dweight Eisenhower had Rockefller Alan Dulles Wild Bill Donovan backing of Mafia control of independent nations with “stay behin units” (think Hogan’s Heroes, saboutage in plain clothes while behind enemy lines) working to overthrow Latin American governments leaning Communist.
Nixon had recruited Jack Rubetsien of the Yiddish Mafia in 1946 for the Mafia acts of Gladio worked out with Catholics in their Convents.
The term convent derives via Old French from Latin conventus, perfect participle of the verb convenio, meaning “to convene, to come together”. It was first used in this sense when the eremitical life began to be combined with the cenobitical. The original reference was to the gathering of mendicants who spent much of their time travelling. Technically, a monastery is a secluded community of monastics, whereas a friary or convent is a community of mendicants (which, by contrast, might be located in a city), and a canonry is a community of canons regular. The terms abbey and priory can be applied to both monasteries and canonries; an abbey is headed by an abbot, and a priory is a lesser dependent house headed by a prior. In the Middle Ages, convents often provided to women a way to excel, as they were considered inferior to men.[2] In convents, women were educated and were able to write books and publish works on gardening or musicology.[2] The Abbess of a convent was often also involved in decisions of secular life and interacted with politicians and businessmen.[2] Unlike an abbey, a convent is not placed under the responsibility of an abbot or an abbess, but of a superior or prior. In English usage since about the 19th century the term convent almost invariably refers to a community of women,[3] while monastery and friary are used for communities of men. In historical usage they are often interchangeable, with convent especially likely to be used for a friary. When applied to religious houses in Eastern Orthodoxy and Buddhism, English refers to all houses of male religious as monasteries and of female religious convents.
History[edit]
The mendicant orders appeared at the beginning of the 13th century with the growth of cities; they include in particular the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Carmelites, and the Augustinians. While the Benedictine monks and their various variants devoted themselves to their agricultural properties, the mendicant friars settled from the start in the cities, or in the suburbs thereof, preferably in the poorer and more densely populated districts. They therefore had to adapt their buildings to these new constraints.
These bastions of stay-behinds mostly left alone after Regime Change such as Nazi overthrow of Austia or Germany invovled underground railroads, etc.,
They also became usefull for information (HUMMINT) on activities transpiring within countries such as the safety and condictions of the convened Monsatics or Priests and the facilities as well as what was happeing to parishners, what was being heard.
In conjunction with the CIA these Gladio Churches could now funnel arms as well as information.
Ties to local combatants – including mafia groups – became the norm and George H.W. Bush was among the liasons to the mafia much like during that assasination of Diem in Vietname the CIA had a Liason the group that kidnapped him.
“Get Hoffa” was “Get Nixon-Angleton”
Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Presidential Campaign Files, 1960
JFKCAMP1960-1050-017
This folder contains correspondence concerning the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, commonly known as the McClellan Committee, and newspaper clippings about James R. “Jimmy” Hoffa, President of the Teamsters union.
In fact Boston “puritan” RFK dispised organized crime and wanted on the national level under the Commerce Clause to take on interstate rackets through the FBI DOJ.
But during this time the CIA and Vice President Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, and others were RELYING upon the mafia including the TEAMSTEARS as right wing dogs in a dog fight displacing Socialist dogs that took for for of labor organizing.
U.S. Supreme Court
In Whitney v California the Communist think tank and teaching institutes right to speech was protected. In Thomas V Collins a Union ORganizwer did not require State of Texas to liscense his speaches (think English Liscensing Order, Prior Restraint, Areopgatica)
Charlotte Anita Whitney, a member of a distinguished California family, was convicted under the 1919 California Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party of America, a group charged by the state with teaching the violent overthrow of government.
Whitney denied that it had been the intention of her or other organizers for the party to become an instrument of violence.
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)
Thomas v. Collins
No. 14
Argued May 1, 1944
Reargued October 11, 1944
Decided January 8, 1945
323 U.S. 516
Syllabus
1. A statute of Texas requires labor organizers to register with and procure an organizer’s card from a designated state official before soliciting memberships in labor unions. While a state court order restraining the appellant from violating the statute was in effect, he made a speech before an assemblage of workers. At the end of his speech, he urged his hearers generally to join a union, and also asked an individual by name to become a member. Appellant was sentenced to a fine and imprisonment for contempt.
Held:
(a) Upon the record, the penalty for contempt must be treated as having been imposed in respect of both the general and the specific invitations, and the judgment of contempt must be affirmed as to both or neither. P. 323 U. S. 528.
On the question whether a restriction could be sustained in respect of the appellant’s solicitation of the individual, if considered separately, the Court expresses no opinion.
(b) As applied in this case, the statute imposed a previous restraint upon appellant’s rights of free speech and free assembly, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. P. 323 U. S. 532.
(c) A requirement that one register before making a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is incompatible with the guaranties of the First Amendment. P. 323 U. S. 540.
2. The task of drawing the line between the freedom of the individual and the power of the State is more delicate than usual where the presumption supporting legislation is balanced by the preferred position of the freedoms secured by the First Amendment. P. 323 U. S. 529.
3. Restriction of the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment can be justified only by clear and present danger to the public welfare. P. 323 U. S. 530.
4. The rational connection between the remedy provided and the evil to be curbed, which in other contexts might support legislation against attack on due process grounds, will not, in itself, suffice
to sustain a restriction of the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. P. 323 U. S. 530.
5. Freedom of speech and of the press, and the rights a the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances, are cognate rights. P. 323 U. S. 530.
6. The First Amendment’s safeguards are not inapplicable to business or economic activity. P. 323 U. S. 531.
7. State regulation of labor unions, whether aimed at fraud or other abuses, must not infringe constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly. P. 323 U. S. 532.
IV
The case confronts us again with the duty our system places on this Court to say where the individual’s freedom ends and the State’s power begins. Choice on that border, now, as always, delicate, is perhaps more so where the
usual presumption supporting legislation is balanced by the preferred place given in our scheme to the great, the indispensable, democratic freedoms secured by the First Amendment. Cf. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158. That priority gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions. And it is the character of the right, not of the limitation, which determines what standard governs the choice. Compare United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 304 U. S. 152-153.
For these reasons, any attempt to restrict those liberties must be justified by clear public interest, threatened not doubtfully or remotely, but by clear and present danger. [Footnote 19] The rational connection between the remedy provided and the evil to be curbed, which, in other contexts, might support legislation against attack on due process grounds, will not suffice. These rights rest on firmer foundation. Accordingly, whatever occasion would restrain orderly discussion and persuasion, at appropriate time and place, must have clear support in public danger, actual or impending. Only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation. It is therefore in our tradition to allow the widest room for discussion, the narrowest range for its restriction, particularly when this right is exercised in conjunction with peaceable assembly. It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable. They are cognate rights, cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 364, and therefore are united in the First Article’s assurance. Cf. 1 Annals of Congress 759-760.
This conjunction of liberties is not peculiar to religious activity and institutions alone. The First Amendment gives freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience. Cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158. Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was insured, and, with it, the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones. And the rights of free speech and a free press are not confined to any field of human interest.
The idea is not sound, therefore, that the First Amendment’s safeguards are wholly inapplicable to business or economic activity. And it does not resolve where the line shall be drawn in a particular case merely to urge, as Texas does, that an organization for which the rights of free speech and free assembly are claimed is one “engaged in business activities,” or that the individual who leads it in exercising these rights receives compensation for doing so. Nor, on the other hand, is the answer given, whether what is done is an exercise of those rights and the restriction a forbidden impairment, by ignoring the organization’s economic function, because those interests of workingmen are involved or because they have the general liberties of the citizen, as appellant would do.
These comparisons are at once too simple, too general, and too inaccurate to be determinative. Where the line shall be placed in a particular application rests not on such generalities, but on the concrete clash of particular interests and the community’s relative evaluation both of them and of how the one will be affected by the specific restriction, the other by its absence. That judgment in the first instance is for the legislative body. But, in our system, where the line can constitutionally be placed presents a question this Court cannot escape answering independently, whatever the legislative judgment, in the
light of our constitutional tradition. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 161. And the answer, under that tradition, can be affirmative, to support an intrusion upon this domain, only if grave and impending public danger requires this.
That the State has power to regulate labor unions with a view to protecting the public interest is, as the Texas court said, hardly to be doubted. They cannot claim special immunity from regulation. Such regulation however, whether aimed at fraud or other abuses, must not trespass upon the domains set apart for free speech and free assembly. This Court has recognized that,
“in the circumstances of our times, the dissemination of information concerning the facts of a labor dispute must be regarded as within that area of free discussion that is guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . Free discussion concerning the conditions in industry and the causes of labor disputes appears to us indispensable to the effective and intelligent use of the processes of popular government to shape the destiny of modern industrial society.”
The USA, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, and others feared Labour was Socialist and Labor Organizing had to be stoopped.
In short the Teamsters were big and and strategicly placed, and they had Mafia assisted leaders take control and be the lean-towards Republicans labor versus more radidals that would strike, etc.,
It was in the Mafia Army Raising year of 1946 that Nixon recruited and backed Jimmy Hoffa, Jack Rubenstien (Yidish Mafia La Kosher Nostra Chicago) and other resources who would be front-organzizations for the CIA and FBI.
World War II and the post-war period[edit]
By the beginning of World War II, the Teamsters was one of the most powerful unions in the country, and Teamster leaders were influential in the corridors of power. Union membership had risen more than 390 percent between 1935 and 1941 to 530,000.[10] In June 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed IBT President Daniel J. Tobin to be the official White House liaison to organized labor, and later that year chair of the Labor Division of the Democratic National Committee.[10][40] In 1942, President Roosevelt appointed Tobin special representative to the United Kingdom and charged him with investigating the state of the labor movement there.[41] Tobin was considered three times for Secretary of Labor, and twice refused the post—in 1943 and 1947.[42] On September 23, 1944, Roosevelt gave his famous “Fala speech” while campaigning in the 1944 presidential election. Because of Roosevelt’s strong relationship with Tobin and the union’s large membership, the President delivered his speech before the Teamster convention.[10]
Nonetheless, Teamsters members were restive. Dissident members of the union accused the leadership of suppressing democracy in the union, a charge President Tobin angrily denied.[43] Over the next year, Tobin cracked down on dissidents and trusted several large locals led by his political opponents.[44]
During World War II, The Teamsters strongly endorsed the American labor movement’s no-strike pledge. The Teamsters agreed to cease raiding other unions and not strike for the duration of the national emergency. President Tobin even ordered Teamsters members to cross picket lines put up by other unions. Nevertheless, the national leadership sanctioned strikes by Midwestern truckers in August 1942, Southern truckers in October 1943, and brewery workers and milk delivery drivers in January 1945.[30][45] The Teamsters did not, however, participate in the great post-war wave of labor strikes. In the two years following the cessation of hostilities, the Teamsters struck only three times: 10,000 truckers in New Jersey struck for two weeks; workers at UPS struck nationwide for three weeks; and workers at Railway Express Agency struck for almost a month.[46]
Teamsters leaders strongly opposed enactment of the Taft–Hartley Act and repeatedly called for its repeal. President Tobin, however, was one of the first labor leaders to sign the non-communist affidavit required by the law.[47]
The great wave of organizing which the union engaged in during the Great Depression and the war significantly boosted the political power of a number of regional Teamsters leaders, and the leadership of the union engaged in a number of power struggles in the post-war period. By 1949, the union’s membership had topped one million.[48] Dave Beck (elected an international vice-president in 1940) was increasingly influential in the international union, and Tobin attempted to check his growing power but failed.[10] In 1946, Beck successfully overcame Tobin’s opposition and won approval of an amendment to the union’s constitution creating the post of executive vice-president. Beck then won the 1947 election to fill the position.[29] Beck also successfully opposed in 1947 a Tobin-backed dues increase to fund new organizing.[49] The following year, Beck was able to demand the ouster of the editor of International Teamster magazine and install his own man in the job.[50]
In 1948, Beck allied with his long-time rival Jimmy Hoffa and effectively seized control of the union. He announced a raid on the International Association of Machinists local at Boeing. Although President Dan Tobin publicly repudiated Beck’s actions, Beck had more than enough support from Hoffa and other members of the executive board to force Tobin to back down.[51] Five months later, Beck won approval of a plan to dissolve the union’s four divisions and replace them with 16 divisions organized around each of the major job categories in the union’s membership.[52] In 1951, Tom Hickey, reformist leader of the Teamsters in New York City, won election to the Teamsters executive board. Tobin needed Beck’s support to prevent Hickey’s election, and Beck refused to give it.[53]
On September 4, 1952, Tobin announced he would step down as president of the Teamsters at the end of his term.[54] At the union’s 1952 convention, Beck was elected General President and pushed through a number of changes intended to make it harder for a challenger to build the necessary majority to unseat a president or reject his policies.[55]
Influence of organized crime[edit]
Beck was elected to the Executive Council of the AFL on August 13, 1953, but his election generated a tremendous political battle between AFL President George Meany, who supported his election, and federation vice presidents who felt Beck was corrupt and should not be elected to the post.[56][57] Beck was the first Teamster president to negotiate a nationwide master contract and a national grievance arbitration plan,[58] established organizing drives in the Deep South[59] and the East,[60] and built the current Teamsters headquarters (the “Marble Palace”) in Washington, D.C. on Louisiana Avenue NW (across a small plaza from the United States Senate).[61] But his intervention in a construction and a milk strike (both centered on New York City), and refusal to intervene in a Northeastern trucking strike created major political problems for him.[62] Perceiving Beck to be weak, Jimmy Hoffa began challenging Beck on various union decisions and policies in 1956 with an eye to unseating him as General President in the regularly scheduled union elections in 1957.[63]
Infiltration by organized crime dominated the agenda of the Teamsters throughout the 1950s. The Teamsters had suffered from extensive corruption since its formation in 1903.[12][13][14] Although the more extreme, public forms of corruption had been eliminated after General President Cornelius Shea was removed from office, the extent of corruption and control by organized crime increased during General President Tobin’s time in office (1907 to 1952).[10][13][22][64] In 1929, the Teamsters and unions in Chicago even approached gangster Roger Touhy and asked for his protection from Al Capone and his Chicago Outfit, which were seeking to control the area’s unions.[65] Evidence of widespread corruption within the Teamsters began emerging shortly after Tobin retired.[66] In Kansas City, corrupt Teamsters locals spent years seeking bribes, embezzling money, and engaging in extensive extortion and labor rackets as well as beatings, vandalism and even bombings in an attempt to control the construction and trucking industries.[22][67] The problem was so serious that the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the issue.[68]
Hoffa’s attempt to challenge Beck caused a major national scandal which led to two Congressional investigations, several indictments for fraud and other crimes against Beck and Hoffa, strict new federal legislation and regulations regarding labor unions, and even helped launch the political career of Robert F. Kennedy. Believing he needed additional votes to unseat Beck, in October 1956 mobster Johnny Dio met with Hoffa in New York City and the two men conspired to create as many as 15 paper locals[a] to boost Hoffa’s delegate totals.[70][71] When the paper locals applied for charters from the international union, Hoffa’s political foes were outraged.[63][72] A major battle broke out within the Teamsters over whether to charter the locals, and the media attention led to inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations.[73] Beck and other Teamster leaders challenged the authority of the U.S. Senate to investigate the union,[74][75] which caused the Senate to establish the Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management—a new committee with broad subpoena and investigative powers.[76] Senator John L. McClellan, chair of the select committee, hired Robert F. Kennedy as the subcommittee’s chief counsel and investigator.[77]
The Select Committee (also known as the McClellan Committee, after its chairman), exposed widespread corruption in the Teamsters union. Dave Beck fled the country for a month to avoid its subpoenas before returning.[78] Four of the paper locals were dissolved to avoid committee scrutiny, several Teamster staffers were charged with contempt of Congress, and union records were lost or destroyed (allegedly on purpose), and wiretaps were played in public before a national television audience in which Dio and Hoffa discussed the creation of even more paper locals.[79] Evidence was unearthed of a mob-sponsored plot in which Oregon Teamsters unions would seize control of the state legislature, state police, and state attorney general’s office through bribery, extortion and blackmail.[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][excessive citations] Initially, members of the union did not believe the charges, and support for Beck was strong,[90][91] but after three months of continuous allegations of wrongdoing many rank-and-file Teamsters withdrew their support and openly called for Beck to resign.[92] Beck initially refused to address the allegations, but broke his silence and denounced the committee’s inquiry on March 6.[93] But even as the committee conducted its investigation, the Teamsters chartered even more paper locals.[94] In mid-March 1957, Jimmy Hoffa was arrested for allegedly trying to bribe a Senate aide.[95] Hoffa denied the charges, but the arrest triggered additional investigations and more arrests and indictments over the following weeks.[96][97][98][99] A week later, Beck admitted to receiving an interest-free $300,000 loan from the Teamsters which he had never repaid, and Senate investigators claimed that loans to Beck and other union officials (and their businesses) had cost the union more than $700,000.[100] Beck appeared before the select committee for the first time on March 25, 1957, and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 117 times.[101] The McClellan Committee turned its focus to Hoffa and other Teamsters officials, and presented testimony and evidence alleging widespread corruption in Hoffa-controlled Teamster units.[71][102]
Several historic legal developments came out of the select committee’s investigation. The scandals uncovered by the McClellan committee, which affected not only the Teamsters but several other unions, led directly to the passage of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act) in 1959.[103] The right of union officials to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights was upheld and a significant refinement of constitutional law made when the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of union officials to not divulge the location of union records in Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (1957).[104]
Rank-and-file anger over the McClellan Committee’s revelations eventually led Beck to retire from the Teamsters and allowed Jimmy Hoffa to take over. Immediately after his testimony in late March 1957, Beck won approval from the union’s executive board to establish a $1 million fund to defend himself and the union from the committee’s allegations.[105] But member outrage at the expenditure was significant, and permission to establish the fund rescinded.[106] Member anger continued to grow throughout the spring,[107] and Beck’s majority support on the executive board vanished.[108] Beck was called before the McClellan Committee again in early May 1957, and additional interest-free loans and other potentially illegal and unethical financial transactions exposed.[109] Based on these revelations, Beck was indicted for tax evasion on May 2, 1957.[110]
Beck’s legal troubles led him to retire and Hoffa to win election to the union presidency. Support for Beck among the membership evaporated.[111] Beck announced on May 25 he would not run for re-election in October.[112] The announcement created chaos among the union leadership,[113] and despite additional indictments Hoffa announced he would seek the presidency on July 19.[114] Rank-and-file support for Hoffa was strong,[115] although there were some attempts to organize an opposition candidate.[116] Hoffa’s opponents asked a federal judge to postpone the election, but the request was granted only temporarily and Hoffa was duly elected General President of the union on October 4, 1957.[117] Beck offered to retire early to allow Hoffa to take control of the union in December.[118] A federal district court barred Hoffa from taking power unless he was acquitted in his wiretapping trial.[119] The ruling was upheld by a court of appeals, but the trial ended in a hung jury on December 19, 1957, and Hoffa assumed the presidency on February 1, 1958.[120]
Jimmy Hoffa served as President from 1957 to 1971.
The worsening corruption scandal led the AFL–CIO to eject the Teamsters. AFL–CIO President George Meany, worried that corruption scandals plaguing a number of unions at the time might lead to harsh regulation of unions or even the withdrawal of federal labor law protection, began an anti-corruption drive in April 1956.[121] New rules were enacted by the labor federation’s executive council that provided for the removal of vice presidents engaged in corruption as well as the ejection of unions considered corrupt.[122] The McClellan Committee’s investigation only worsened the dispute between the AFL–CIO and the Teamsters.[123] In January 1957, the AFL–CIO proposed a new rule which would bar officers of the federation from continuing to hold office if they exercised their Fifth Amendment rights in a corruption investigation.[124] Beck opposed the new rule,[125] but the Ethical Practices Committee of AFL–CIO instituted the rule on January 31, 1957.[126] The Teamsters were given 90 days to reform,[127] but Beck retaliated by promising more raids on AFL–CIO member unions if the union was ousted.[128] Beck’s opposition prompted a successful move by Meany to remove Beck from AFL–CIO executive council on grounds of corruption.[129] After extensive hearings and appeals which lasted from July to September 1957, the AFL–CIO voted on September 25, 1957, to eject the Teamsters if the union did not institute reforms within 30 days.[130] Beck refused to institute any reforms, and the election of Jimmy Hoffa (whom the AFL–CIO considered as corrupt as Beck) led the labor federation to suspend the Teamsters union on October 24, 1957.[131] Meany offered to keep the Teamsters within the AFL–CIO if Hoffa resigned as president, but Hoffa refused and the formal expulsion occurred on December 6, 1957.[132]
The 1960 Showdown – Nixon Mafia United Fruit International Trade Mart verus JFK RFK
Senate 1960 LBJ, Prescott Bush, John F. Kenndy, Senate Council RFK, President of the Senate Richard Nixon, also VP.
Get Hoffa Get Nixon did not work in the hearings, but it did work in the 1960 general election when Nixon ran against JFK for President.
JFK defeated Nixon at the polls, but had LBJ as VP. LBJ was tied to the long term CIA mafia JFK and RFK were trying to stop, that mafia built by Richard Nixon.
THe Appaling Cabal Facilitated by Rockefeller Flunkie Richard Nixon 1946-1960
A NEW BIOGRAPHY TRACES THE PATHOLOGY OF ALLEN DULLES AND HIS APPALLING CABAL
November 2 2015, 12:24 p.m.
AS I READ The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, a new book by Salon founder David Talbot, I couldn’t help thinking of an obscure corner of 1970s history: the Safari Club.
Dulles — the Princeton man and white shoe corporate lawyer who served as CIA director from 1953 to 1961, still the longest tenure in agency history — died in 1969 before the Safari Club was conceived. And nothing about it appears in The Devil’s Chessboard. But to understand the Safari Club is to understand Allen Dulles and his milieu.
Any normal person would likely hear the Safari Club saga as a frightening story of totally unaccountable power. But if there’s one thing to take away from The Devil’s Chessboard, it’s this: Allen Dulles would have seen it differently — as an inspiring tale of hope and redemption.
Because what the Safari Club demonstrates is that Dulles’ entire spooky world is beyond the reach of American democracy. Even the most energetic post-World War II attempt to rein it in was in the end as effective as trying to lasso mist. And today we’ve largely returned to the balance of power Dulles set up in the 1950s. As Jay Rockefeller said in 2007 when he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “Don’t you understand the way intelligence works? Do you think that because I’m chairman of the Intelligence Committee that I just say ‘I want it, give it to me’? They control it. All of it. All of it. All the time.”
In February 2002, Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until September 1, 2001, traveled to Washington, D.C.
While there, Turki, who’d graduated from Georgetown University in the same class as Bill Clinton, delivered a speech at his alma mater that included an unexpected history lesson:
In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies, it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran … so, the Kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe when the United States was not able to do that. That, I think, is a secret that many of you don’t know.
Turki was not telling the whole truth. He was right that his Georgetown audience likely had never heard any of this before, but the Safari Club had been known across the Middle East for decades. After the Iranian revolution the new government gave Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, one of the most prominent journalists in the Arab world, permission to examine the Shah’s archives. There Heikal discovered the actual formal, written agreement between the members of the Safari Club, and wrote about it in a 1982 book called Iran: The Untold Story.
And the Safari Club was not simply the creation of the countries Turki mentioned — Americans were involved as well. It’s true the U.S. executive branch was somewhat hamstrung during the period between the post-Watergate investigations of the intelligence world and the end of the Carter administration. But the powerful individual Americans who felt themselves “literally tied up” by Congress — that is, unfairly restrained by the most democratic branch of the U.S. government — certainly did not consider the decisions of Congress to be the final word.
Whatever its funding sources, the evidence suggests the Safari Club was largely the initiative of these powerful Americans. According to Heikal, its real origin was when Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, “talked a number of rich Arab oil countries into bankrolling operations against growing communist influence on their doorstep” in Africa. Alexandre de Marenches, a right-wing aristocrat who headed France’s version of the CIA, eagerly formalized the project and assumed operational leadership. But, Heikal writes, “The United States directed the whole operation,” and “giant U.S. and European corporations with vital interests in Africa” leant a hand. As John K. Cooley, the Christian Science Monitor’s longtime Mideast correspondent, put it, the setup strongly appealed to the U.S. executive branch: “Get others to do what you want done, while avoiding the onus or blame if the operation fails.”
The Vice President Nixon Cabinet aka Standard Oil and United Fruit Company CIA.
David Dean Rusk (February 9, 1909 – December 20, 1994) was the United States Secretary of State from 1961 to 1969 under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the second-longest serving Secretary of State after Cordell Hull from the Franklin Roosevelt administration. He had been a high government official in the 1940s and early 1950s, as well as the head of a leading foundation. He is cited as one of the two officers responsible for dividing the two Koreas at the 38th parallel.
Born to a poor farm family in Cherokee County, Georgia, Rusk graduated from Davidson College and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, where he immersed himself in English history and customs. After teaching at Mills College in California, he became an army officer in the war against Japan. He served as a staff officer in the China Burma India Theater, becoming a senior aide to Joseph Stilwell, the top American general.
As a civilian he became a senior official in 1945 at the State Department, rising to the number three position under Dean Acheson. He became Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950.
In 1952, Rusk left to become president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
After Kennedy won the 1960 presidential election, he asked Rusk to serve as secretary of state. Rusk was a quiet advisor to Kennedy, rarely making his own views known to other officials. He supported diplomatic efforts during the Cuban Missile Crisis and, though he initially expressed doubts about the escalation of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, he became known as one of its strongest supporters. He was a favorite of President Lyndon Johnson after the Assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. He left the secretary role in January 1969, and taught international relations at the University of Georgia School of L
Dean Rusk Personal Papers, Series I: Rockefeller Foundation
| Descriptive Summary | |
| Title: Dean Rusk Personal Papers, Series I: Rockefeller Foundation | |
| Creator: Rusk, Dean, 1909-1994 | |
| Inclusive Dates: 1952-1961 | |
| Language(s): English | |
| Extent: 3 box(es) (1.25 linear feet) | |
| Collection Number: RBRL/055/DR_I | |
| Repository: Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies | |
| Abstract: The Rockefeller Foundation series consists of Rusk’s office files while he was president. These files contain correspondence, reports, newspaper clippings, transcripts and press releases. There is correspondence between Rusk and then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, former President Harry Truman, Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller Foundation Director of Special Studies, and Rockefeller family members Nelson, Laurance, David and John D. Most of the files deal with the foundation’s work in the area of foreign relations, as well as Rusk’s confirmation hearings when he became Secretary of State. |
Collection Description
Biographical Note
Dean Rusk was born on February 9, 1909 in Cherokee County, Georgia. He attended Lee Street Elementary and Boys’ High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Rusk obtained an A.B. degree from Davidson College, North Carolina in 1931, and a B.S. (Rhodes Scholar) and M.A. in 1933 and 1934 from St. John’s, Oxford, England. He returned to the United States to become Associate Professor of Government and Dean of Faculty at Mills College, Oakland, California, from 1934 to 1940 and studied law at the University of California, Berkeley, class of 1940.
Rusk served in the United States Army from 1940 to 1946 in the China-Burma-India theater. At first he served with the Third Infantry Division, then later with the Military Intelligence Service. Rusk was released from duty with the rank of colonel.
After his military career ended, Rusk joined the Department of State from 1947 to 1952, as Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs and for Far Eastern Affairs. From 1952 to 1960 he was president of the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Rusk to the office of Secretary of State. He remained in this position until 1969, through the administrations of Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Rusk was in office during the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, when East Germany began constructing the Berlin Wall, and as the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was also Secretary of State during the height of the Vietnam Conflict.
In 1970, Rusk came to the University of Georgia’s School of Law as the Samuel H. Sibley Professor of International Law, and he later established the Dean Rusk Center for International and Comparative Law. Rusk served the University of Georgia until his death on December 20, 1994.
Rusk married Virginia Foisle in June, 1937. They had three children together, David Patrick, Richard Geary and Margaret Elizabeth. In 1990, As I Saw It , the book he co-authored with his son, Richard, was published.
Scope and Content
The Rockefeller Foundation series consists of Rusk’s office files while he was president. These files contain correspondence, reports, newspaper clippings, transcripts and press releases. There is correspondence between Rusk and then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, former President Harry Truman, Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller Foundation Director of Special Studies, and Rockefeller family members Nelson, Laurance, David and John D. Most of the files deal with the foundation’s work in the area of foreign relations, as well as Rusk’s confirmation hearings when he became Secretary of State.
Organization and Arrangement
This series is in alphabetical order by subject.
Administrative Information
Preferred Citation
Dean Rusk Personal Papers, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia, 30602-1641.
Processing Information note
Clippings have been copied onto bond paper for protection of content. Photographs, audiovisual material and artifacts have been removed from the papers for preservation purposes and inventoried.
User Restrictions
Library acts as “fair use” reproduction agent.
Copyright Information
Before material from collections at the Richard B. Russell Library may be quoted in print, or otherwise reproduced, in whole or in part, in any publication, permission must be obtained from (1) the owner of the physical property, and (2) the holder of the copyright. It is the particular responsibility of the researcher to obtain both sets of permission. Persons wishing to quote from materials in the Russell Library collection should consult the Director. Reproduction of any item must contain a complete citation to the original.
Finding Aid Publication
Finding aid prepared on: 2008.
Related Materials and Subjects
Subject Terms
United States — Foreign relations — 1945-1989.
United States — Politics and government — 1945-1989.
United States. Dept. of State.
Related Collections in this Repository
Dean Rusk Oral History Collection
Richard B. Russell, Jr. Collection
William Tapley Bennett, Jr. Papers
D.W. Brooks Oral History Collection
Related Collections in Other Repositories
Dean Rusk Papers, Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, New York
Dean Rusk Oral Histories, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum, Austin, Texas
Dean Rusk Files, Department of State Records, National Archives
I Edward Paul Donegan assert Rockefeller interets as Standard Oil and Dulles interests as United Fruit Company were the Industrialist Secret Team run by James Jesus Angleton The Ghost and many others including Knights of Malta, Free Masons, the Vatican, and other world interests including British imperialism and protecting the size and sweep of the Commonwealth of Great Brittian by its historical means of East Inda Tea Company trading tactics, using State Espionage to subvert other nations into favorably leaing puppet governments.
VP Nixon Cabinet and allies 1952-1960
John Foster Dulles was appointed Secretary of State by President Dwight Eisenhower on January 21, 1953. serving as The Eisenhower-Nixon cabinet member.
Alan Dulles 5th Director of Central Intelligence In office February 26, 1953 – November 29, 1961 General Charles Cabell Deputy DIrector CIA Richard Bissle Spy Program
President Dwight D. Eisenhower (appointed)
John F. Kennedy (fired)_
Richard M. Bissell Jr. In July 1947, Bissell was recruited by W. Averell Harriman to run a committee to lobby for an economic recovery plan for Europe. The following year he was appointed as an administrator of the Marshall Plan in Germany and eventually became head of the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA). Bissell worked with the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) in diverting counterpart funds of the ECA to OPC operations in Europe.[6]
This was basically the work of the Rockefeller Founation, OECD groups acting under Richard Nixon as he toured post war Europe to form the plan and work against USSR Inteligence Agencies prosecuting Alger Hiss.
Avell Harriman is tied to the Bush Walker Families and robber barron train lines that setup United Fruit Company CIA operations, most coordinated through James Jesus Angleton.
Bissell moved to Washington, D.C., where he associated with a group of journalists, politicians, and government officials that became known as the Georgetown Set.[7] Originally formed in 1945–1948 by Frank Wisner, Stewart Alsop, Thomas Braden, Philip Graham, David K. E. Bruce and Walt Rostow—a group of former Office of Strategic Services veterans from World War Two—the grouping would expand its informal membership around the Georgetown section of Washington, D.C. The group would grow to include Ben Bradlee, George Kennan, Dean Acheson, Desmond FitzGerald, Joseph Alsop, Tracy Barnes, James Truitt, Clark Clifford, Eugene Rostow, Charles “Chip” Bohlen, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, William Averell Harriman, John McCloy, Felix Frankfurter, John Sherman Cooper, James Reston, Allen W. Dulles, and Paul Nitze.
Many wives accompanied their husbands to these gatherings. Members of what was later called the Georgetown Ladies’ Social Club included Katharine Meyer Graham, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Antoinette Pinchot, Anne Truitt, Sally Reston, Polly Wisner, Joan Braden, Lorraine Cooper, Evangeline Bruce, Avis Bohlen, Janet Barnes, Tish Alsop, Cynthia Helms, Marietta FitzGerald, Phyllis Nitze, and Annie Bissell.
Work with CIA[edit]
Bissell worked for the Ford Foundation for a while but Frank Wisner persuaded him to join the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
U-2 ‘spy plane'[edit]
In 1954 he was placed in charge of developing and operating the Lockheed U-2 ‘spy plane’. Bissell and Herbert Miller, another CIA officer, chose Area 51 in 1955 as the site for the test facility for the U-2, and Bissell supervised the test facility and its build up until he resigned from the CIA.[8] The U-2 spy plane was a great success and within two years Bissell was able to say that 90% of all hard intelligence about the Soviet Union coming into the CIA was “funneled through the lens of the U-2’s aerial cameras”. This information convinced President Dwight D. Eisenhower that Nikita Khrushchev was lying about the number of bombers and missiles being built by the Soviet Union.[9] The photographs debunked the allegations of a “bomber gap,” the belief that the Soviets had an advantage over the United States in the number of strategic bomber aircraft that could reach the other country. However, because of the great shroud of secrecy erected by the CIA around the source of the information, the U-2 spy plane program, the hysteria in some American circles based on the allegations of the bomber gap was not publicly put to rest.[10]
In 1956, after the Soviet Union protested the first U-2 overflights, Bissell initiated Project RAINBOW to develop radar camouflage for the aircraft. When this was unsuccessful, he initiated GUSTO to develop a follow-on aircraft. This evolved into Project OXCART, under which the CIA developed and operated the Lockheed A-12.[11]
Vision for the CIA[edit]
Bissell delivered an address at the CIA entitled “The Stimulation of Innovation” in 1957 that called for funding the research and development of groundbreaking new technologies for intelligence gathering and surveillance. He acknowledged that such surveillance may entail “gray activities” by the CIA, surveillance that the CIA may not have the legal right to undertake. But he urged that the dubious legal status of such activities should not preclude the CIA from pursuing them. He also advocated that the CIA implement covert political actions in target countries.[12]
CIA Deputy Director for Plans[edit]
After Frank Wisner suffered a mental breakdown in September 1958, Bissell replaced him as the CIA’s Deputy Director for Plans (DDP). Bissel officially assumed the office on 1 January 1959.[13] Richard Helms stayed on as Bissell’s deputy. The Directorate for Plans reportedly controlled over half the CIA’s budget and was responsible for covert operations. (DDP oversaw plans to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Patrice Lumumba, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Ngo Dinh Diem, and others. Bissell’s main target was Fidel Castro.)
As DD/P, Bissell also oversaw the early stages of Project OXCART, the development of the Lockheed A-12.[14]
He also played a key role, as CIA Program Manager, in the development of the Corona program.[15]
In March 1960, President Eisenhower approved a CIA plan to overthrow Castro. (See Operation 40).[16] The strategy was organized by Bissell.[citation needed] Sidney Gottlieb of the CIA Technical Services Division was asked to come up with proposals that would undermine Castro’s popularity with the Cuban people.[citation needed] (Gottlieb also ran the MK-ULTRA project from 1953–1964.) These schemes were rejected and instead Bissell decided to arrange Castro’s assassination.[citation needed]
In September 1960, Bissell and Allen W. Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), initiated talks with two leading figures of the Mafia, Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana. Later, other crime bosses such as Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante Jr. and Meyer Lansky became involved in this first plot against Castro.[17] The strategy was managed by Sheffield Edwards; Robert Maheu, a veteran of CIA counter-espionage activities, was instructed to offer the Mafia $150,000 to kill Fidel Castro.[17][18] The advantage of employing the Mafia for this work is that it provided CIA with a credible cover story. The Mafia were known to be angry with Castro for closing down their profitable brothels and casinos in Cuba. If the assassins were killed or captured the media would accept that the Mafia were working on their own. The Mafia played along in order to get protection from the FBI.[original research?][citation needed]
Bay of Pigs Invasion plans[edit]
Main article: Bay of Pigs Invasion
In March 1960 a top-secret policy paper was drafted entitled: “A Program of Covert Action Against the Castro Regime” (code-named JMARC), “to bring about the replacement of the Castro regime with one more … acceptable to the U.S. in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention.” This paper was based on operation PBSuccess, the policy that had worked so well in Guatemala in 1954. In fact, Bissell assembled the same team as the one used in Guatemala: Tracy Barnes, David Atlee Phillips, Jacob Esterline, William “Rip” Robertson, E. Howard Hunt and Gerry Droller (aka “Frank Bender”). Added to the team were Jack Hawkins (Colonel), Desmond FitzGerald, William Harvey and Ted Shackley.[19]
President-elect John F. Kennedy was given a copy of the JMARC proposal by Bissell and Allen W. Dulles in Palm Beach, Florida on 18 November 1960. According to Bissell, Kennedy remained impassive throughout the meeting. He expressed surprise only at the scale of the operation.
In March 1961 John F. Kennedy asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to vet the JMARC project. As a result of “plausible deniability” they were not given details of the plot to kill Castro. The JCS reported that if the invaders were given four days of air cover, if the people of Trinidad, Cuba joined the rebellion and if they were able to join up with the guerrillas in the Escambray Mountains, the overall rating of success was 30%. Therefore, they could not recommend that Kennedy go along with the JMARC project.[citation needed]
At a meeting on 11 March 1961, Kennedy rejected Bissell’s proposed scheme. He told him to go away and draft a new plan. He asked for it to be “less spectacular” and with a more remote landing site than Trinidad. It appears[vague] that Kennedy had completely misunderstood the report from the JCS.[citation needed]
Bissell now resubmitted his plan. As requested, the landing was no longer at Trinidad. Instead he selected Bahia de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs). This was 80 miles from the Escambray Mountains. What is more, this journey to the mountains was across an impenetrable swamp. As Bissell explained to Kennedy, this meant that the guerrilla fallback option had been removed from the operation.[citation needed]
As Allen W. Dulles recorded at the time: “We felt that when the chips were down, when the crisis arose in reality, any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”[20] In other words, he realized that the initial invasion was likely to fail, but believed that Kennedy would agree to any additional military support required to prevent this outcome.[citation needed] According to Evan Thomas (The Very Best Men): “Some old CIA hands believe that Bissell was setting a trap to force U.S. intervention.”[citation needed] Edgar Applewhite, a former deputy inspector general, believed that Bissell and Dulles were “building a tar baby.”[citation needed] Jake Esterline was very unhappy with these developments and on 8 April attempted to resign from the CIA. Bissell convinced him to stay.[citation needed]
On April 10, 1961, Bissell had a meeting with Robert F. Kennedy. He told Kennedy that the new plan had a two out of three chance of success. Bissell added that even if the project failed the invasion force could join the guerrillas in the Escambray Mountains.[citation needed] Kennedy was convinced by this scheme and applied pressure on those like Chester Bowles, Theodore Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger who were urging John F. Kennedy to abandon the project.
On April 14, Kennedy asked Bissell how many Douglas B-26 Invaders were going to be used. He replied sixteen. Kennedy told him to use only eight.[citation needed] Bissell knew that the invasion could not succeed without adequate air cover. Yet he accepted this decision based on the idea that he would later change his mind “when the chips were down”.
Invasion fails[edit]
| This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: “Richard M. Bissell Jr.” – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2022) |
The operation tried to rely on Radio Swan, broadcasts being made on a small island 100 miles off the Honduran coast by David Atlee Phillips, calling for the Cuban Army to revolt. They failed to do so.[citation needed]
At 7 a.m. on April 18, Bissell told Kennedy that the invasion force was trapped on the beaches and encircled by Castro’s forces. Then Bissell asked Kennedy to send in American forces to save the men. Bissell expected him to say yes. Instead he replied that he still wanted “minimum visibility.”[citation needed] The invasion failed.
That night Bissell had another meeting with John F. Kennedy. This time it took place in the White House and included General Lyman Lemnitzer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Admiral Arleigh Burke, Chief of Naval Operations. Bissell told Kennedy that the operation could still be saved if American warplanes were allowed to fly cover. Admiral Burke supported him on this. General Lemnitzer called for the Brigade to join the guerrillas in the Escambray Mountains. Bissell explained this was not an option as their route was being blocked by 20,000 Cuban troops.[19]
Within 72 hours all the invading troops had been killed, wounded or had surrendered. Bissell had a meeting with John F. Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs operation. Kennedy admitted it was his fault that the operation had been a disaster and added, “In a parliamentary government, I’d have to resign. But in this government I can’t, so you and Allen (Dulles) have to go.”[citation needed]
As Evan Thomas points out in The Very Best Men,[full citation needed] “Bissell had been caught in his own web. ‘Plausible deniability’ was intended to protect the president, but as he had used it, it was a tool to gain and maintain control over an operation…. Without plausible deniability, the Cuba project would have been turned over to The Pentagon, and Bissell would have become a supporting actor.”[citation needed]
Post-CIA[edit]
As a face-saving exit from the CIA, John F. Kennedy offered Bissell the post as director of a new science and technology department. This would leave him in charge of the development of the Lockheed A-12, the new spy plane that would make the U-2 obsolete. Bissell turned down the offer and in February 1962 he left the Central Intelligence Agency and was replaced as head of the Directorate for Plans, by Richard Helms.
Bissell became head of the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) in 1962. IDA was a Pentagon think tank set up to evaluate weapons systems. Later he worked for United Technologies in Hartford, Connecticut (1964–74), which supplied weapons systems. He also worked as a consultant for the Ford Foundation.
In February 1994, Bissell died at his home in Farmington, Connecticut.[4] His autobiography, Reflections of a Cold Warrior: From Yalta to the Bay of Pigs, was published two years later.
Managing up and managing down
Managing Up and Managing Down is a part of management that details how middle managers or supervisors should effectively deal with their managers and subordinates. Promotion to management comes with additional responsibility of managing down. With the additional responsibility for managing their team while remaining accountable to their management teams, managers require additional skills and training to effectively influence up or down. Management levels within large organizations are structured from a hierarchal organization and include senior, middle, and lower management roles.[1][2][3][4]
Skills Required to Manage Up and Manage Down Effectively.[9][6][10][11][edit]
Certain skills must be employed to Manage Up and Down successfully. These include:
- Organization skills – Having strong organizational skills allows for proper coordination of staff and resources within the company.
- Communication skills – The ability to express wants and needs related to work allocation sets a clear and coordinated roadmap and reduces the likelihood of misinterpretations.
- Time Management
- Motivation – Effective managers often use different types of motivation to influence subordinates and tailor assignments to suit them.
- Leadership skills – These skills offer the ability to understand and communicate the company’s needs and inspire others to work diligently toward goals
- Behavioral acknowledgements – Recognizing the behavior and perceptions of others enables managers to resolve conflicts, manage stress, improve themselves as well as others, and increase efficiency.
- Authentic Leadership – Describes the ability to behave genuinely, regardless of hierarchical position or influence over subordinates.
- Cross-cultural leadership – Pertains to the ability to understand the effects of culture on leadership style.
- Setting clear expectations – By setting clear expectations, and vocalizing exactly what actions are required, the risk of misunderstandings and missed deadlines can be mitigated.
- Consistent feedback -Soliciting and providing feedback ensures the performance rebalancing or acknowledgment of a job well done.
- Accepting Limitations -The ability to accept limitations and work off or around them is an important skill that is beneficial to problem solving.
Managing up[edit]
Managing up[edit]
Turk suggests several different guidelines for managing up, including being loyal and committed; understanding the boss’s perspective, agenda, and preferences; providing solutions instead of problems; and understanding one’s own management style. Each of the different guidelines Turk provides serves an important benefit for both sides.[12]
The Careers Group recommends “[understanding] where your work fits in with your manager’s goals and the wider goals of the organization”, which is applicable when managers have their own projects to work on in addition to managing subordinates. Considering the challenges that managers face with their projects and working to either assist or stay out of the way when those projects require more attention is recommended. Putting oneself in the position to be recognized as someone who can handle the work they were assigned and assist the manager in their work can be particularly beneficial when advocating for one’s own projects. Figuring out where the work one wants to accomplish fits into the overall goals for the company is crucial to getting approval on those projects as well.[13]
According to Badowski, good managing up requires going above and beyond the tasks assigned to enhance the manager’s work. Making the manager’s job easier will not only help them do their job, but they will consider one to be a valuable asset to them and the organization.[14][15]
Something to remember is to “be very clear about what job you were hired to do – and do it.”[2]
Communication[edit]
Understand how the manager likes to communicate. Price suggests appealing to the managers’ communication styles: “If he or she likes to communicate face-to-face rather than through email updates, then set up short meetings.” Communicating with the manager in a way that they are receptive to feels as though time spent is well utilized and they will associate one with productivity.[16]
Influencing up[edit]
Bradford introduces the idea of “influencing up” where it may be possible for a subordinate without authority to influence those with authority. [17]
Managing down[edit]
Tendencies that negatively affect employees[edit]
- Always giving and never receiving feedback. Receiving, analyzing, and applying feedback from a managers perspective is just as important as giving it. Neglecting to give employees the opportunity to evaluate one’s performance does not allow them to feel like their voice matters to the person directly overseeing their work.
- Micromanaging employees. Constantly checking the progress of employees can be uncomfortable and prove to be unproductive for both sides.
- Being inflexible. Neglecting to acknowledge circumstances affecting employees outside of work when making decisions can frustrate people and create a hostile work environment.
- Not taking responsibility for the team as a whole. When managing a group the failures and successes can be attributed to the team’s leader/manager, forfeiting the responsibility when the team fails is not good leadership.
- Lack of personal motivation. People pick up on the habits of the people managing them. A negative attitude towards one’s work can spread to subordinates and create a lack of motivation in the company.
Tendencies that positively affect employees[edit]
- Providing challenging work to stimulate employees. When employees are stimulated by their work they have more of an incentive to actively try to complete it versus mundane tasks that do not have any benefits.
- Supporting employees’ decisions. Encouraging and supporting the decisions that employees make can motivate employees who have low self-esteem and do not find motivation in the same things as their peers.
- Coaching and developing employees’ skills. Taking the time to coach and develop the skills of the people one works around benefits both sides: one gets to learn these skills and the other has the opportunity to master these skills.
- Encouraging good relationships. Encouraging employees to be vocal with each other about concerns and compliments promotes a culture where frustrations do not build up and cause delays in work.
- Recognizing conflict and dealing with its causes. Recognizing the roots of employees’ frustrations and working to fix them before they become a company-wide issue alleviates workplace tension and can establish a good morale with employees.
Skills required for managing down[edit]
It is claimed that good managing down requires the following attributes:[18]
- Organization skills. Having strong organizational skills allows for proper coordination of staff and resources within the company.
- Communication skills. The ability to express wants and needs to employees in a clear and coordinated manner eliminates any misinterpretations.
- Motivation. Managers who understand that different people require types of motivation and cater their assignments toward them prove to be particularly effective.
- Leadership skills. The skills that managers and leaders require heavily overlap and the main focus in both sets is creating mutual trust and respect between one and one’s subordinates.
- Utilizing the right management style. Recognizing what one’s management style is allows one to utilize it in a way that matches employees’ motivation styles.
- Being authentic. Most adults can recognize a genuine person, and being a trustworthy person who is reliable earns respect.
- Safe environments. Promoting a workplace culture that encourages everyone to feel comfortable with themselves and the work that they do reaps benefits for everyone.
- Setting clear expectations. Along with communication skills comes clear expectations, vocalizing exactly what needs to be done and when leaves little room for misunderstandings and excuses for things not to be done.
- Consistent feedback. Constantly reporting back to employees on their performance allows one to work with them on problem areas before they become a habit and to analyze and applaud a job well done. Receiving feedback reaps the same benefits for managers as well.
- Accepting imperfection. The ability to accept limitations and work off of or around them is an important skill that is beneficial in learning how to problem solve in a bind.
More so than anyone else JFK had to answer to the world as president of the City on the Hill.
He wanted to lead by example of being a free and just state that was the leader of a hemsiphere of other free and just states.\
Like a King Aurther of Knights of a Round Table (no head to the table) The Knights of the Round Table (Welsh: Marchogion y Ford Gron, Cornish: Marghekyon an Moos Krenn, Breton: Marc’hegien an Daol Grenn) are the knights of the fellowship of King Arthur in the literary cycle of the Matter of Britain. First appearing in literature in the mid-12th century, the Knights are an order dedicated to ensuring the peace of Arthur’s kingdom following an early warring period.
JFK wanted UN style view of the world, Alan Dulles and James Jesus Angleton and others wanted a United Kingdom Coommonwealth exploitation of satelite countries that could be overthrown.
In 1960 JFK was elected (some doubt that – it was close) and he and RFK clearly tried to create a law abiding view of the world and the USA in place that was not a Mafia Don run criminal enterprise of fat cat businessmant and mafia hit men.
The Deep State cabal was too deeply rooted and too powerfull for the few firings (General Cabell, Alan Dulles, Richard Bissle Jr) to put a dent into.
IT is likely the remenat cabal (J. Edger Hoover and others) simply allowed former CIA to hit Kennedy and them bumblinglgy not solve the crime, letting the Three Hobbos be released; for instance.
Dynastic Successions Book 
