Five Facts supporting Biden Inquiry

By Jonathan Turley

With the commencement of an impeachment inquiry this week, the House of Representatives is moving the Biden corruption scandal into the highest level of constitutional inquiry. After stonewalling by the Bidens and federal agencies investigating various allegations, the move for a House inquiry was expected if not inevitable.

An impeachment inquiry does not mean that an impeachment itself is inevitable. But it dramatically increases the chances of finally forcing answers to troubling questions of influence-peddling and corruption.

As expected, many House Democrats — who impeached Donald Trump after only one hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, based on his phone call to Ukraine’s president — oppose any such inquiry into President Biden. House Republicans could have chosen to forego any hearings and use what I called a “snap impeachment,” as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did with the second Trump impeachment in January 2021.

Instead, they have methodically investigated the corruption scandal for months and only now are moving to a heightened inquiry. The House has established a labyrinth of dozens of shell companies and accounts allegedly used to transfer millions of dollars to Biden family members. There is now undeniable evidence to support influence-peddling by Hunter Biden and some of his associates — with Joe Biden, to quote Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer, being “the brand” they were selling.

The suggestion that this evidence does not meet the standard for an inquiry into impeachable offenses is an example of willful blindness. It also is starkly different from the standard applied by congressional Democrats during the Trump and Nixon impeachment efforts.

The Nixon impeachment began on Oct. 30, 1973, just after President Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor looking into the Watergate allegations. The vote in the judiciary committee was along party lines. The House was correct to start that impeachment inquiry, although House leaders stressed that they were not prejudging the existence of impeachable offenses. The inquiry started roughly eight months before any indictments of defendants linked to the Watergate break-in. It was many months before clear evidence established connections to Nixon, who denied any wrongdoing or involvement.

Every impeachment inquiry is different, of course. In this case, there is a considerable amount of evidence gathered over months of methodical investigations by three different committees.

Consider just five established facts:

First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate, Tony Bobulinski, has said repeatedly that he discussed some dealings directly with Joe Biden. Devon Archer, Hunter’s close friend and partner, described the president’s denials of knowledge as “categorically false.”

Moreover, Hunter’s laptop has communications from his father discussing the dealings, including audio messages from the president. The president allegedly spoke with his son on speakerphone during meetings with his associates on at least 20 occasions, according to Archer, attended dinners with some clients, and took photographs with others.

Second, we know that more than $20 million was paid to the Bidens by foreign sources, including figures in China, Ukraine, Russia and Romania. There is no apparent reason for the multilayers of accounts and companies other than to hide these transfers. Some of these foreign figures have allegedly told others they were buying influence with Joe Biden, and Hunter himself repeatedly invoked his father’s name — including a text exchange with a Chinese businessman in which he said his father was sitting next to him as Hunter demanded millions in payment. While some Democrats now admit that Hunter was selling the “illusion” of influence and access to his father, these figures clearly believed they were getting more than an illusion. That includes one Ukrainian businessman who reportedly described Hunter as dumber than his dog.

Third, specific demands were made on Hunter, including dealing with the threat of a Ukrainian prosecutor to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter was given a lucrative board position. Five days later, Joe Biden forced the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor, even though State Department and intelligence reports suggested that progress was being made on corruption. Likewise, despite warnings from State Department officials that Hunter was undermining anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, he continued to receive high-level meetings with then-Secretary of State John Kerry and other State Department officials.

Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. There also are references to deals that included free office space and other perks for Joe Biden and his wife; other emails reference how Joe and Hunter Biden would use the same accounts and credit cards. Beyond those alleged direct benefits, Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family.

Fifth, there is evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Hunter that could be linked to covering up these payments, from the failure to pay taxes to the failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. What is not established is the assumption by many that Joe Biden was fully aware of both the business dealings and any efforts to conceal them.

The White House is reportedly involved in marshaling the media to swat down any further investigation. In a letter drafted by the White House Counsel’s office, according to a CNN report media executives were told they need to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans “for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.” It is a dangerous erosion of separation between the White House and the president’s personal legal team. Yet, many in the media have previously followed such directions from the Biden team — from emphasizing the story that the laptop might be “Russian disinformation” to an unquestioning acceptance of the president’s denial of any knowledge of his son’s dealings.

Notably, despite the vast majority of media echoing different defenses for the Bidens for years, the American public is not buying it. Polls show that most Americans view the Justice Department as compromised and Hunter Biden as getting special treatment for his alleged criminal conduct. According to a recent CNN poll, 61% of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business deals with China and Ukraine; only 1% say he was involved but did nothing wrong.

The American public should not harbor such doubts over corruption at the highest levels of our government. Thus, the House impeachment inquiry will allow Congress to use the very apex of its powers to force disclosures of key evidence and resolve some of these troubling questions. It may not result in an impeachment, but it will result in greater clarity. Indeed, it is that very clarity that many in Washington may fear the most from this inquiry.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.

Recommended Steps to Reduce Mass Killings

Recently, Jacob Hornberger wrote 2 essays about reducing domestic mass killings. Below are some condensed paragraphs from his essays. I have edit some of the paragraphs to make the text shorter.

From the first essay above

Given the recent spate of killings in the United States, the response of the gun-control crowd has been predictable. “These shootings show, once again, why we need gun control in America.”

Never mind that Switzerland is awash in the private ownership of guns and there aren’t regular mass killings there. And never mind that California’s strict gun-control laws have not prevented mass killings there. When it comes to gun ownership, logic and analysis are in short supply within the gun-control crowd.

The real issue is one that the gun-control crowd is loath to address: What is it that is causing so much violence in America? 

There are two major causes of violence in America. 

One is the drug war. Legalize drugs and you immediately terminate all the cartels, drug gangs, turf battles, and drug-war violence. 

The other major cause of violence in America is that the federal government is the world’s biggest killing machine. We don’t know how many foreigners the Pentagon and the CIA have killed in the last 60 years, but it has to number in the millions. Martin Luther King was right when he said that the U.S. government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.

The notion has been that so long as the killings were taking place “over there,” they would have little or no impact here. Americans could go about their daily lives and the Pentagon and the CIA could engage in their mass killing sprees in foreign countries. 

Those mass killings “over there” have seeped into the subconsciousness’s of Americans.

The biggest effect of America’s overseas killing machine has been on the off-kilter people here at home. Ordinarily, they would just be living their lives a little weirdly but without bothering anyone. But now they are engaged in what amounts to copycat killings.

Thus, to end violence in America, the solution does not involve gun control. The solution is twofold:

  1. Legalize all drugs immediately.
  2. Immediately bring all troops home from overseas, cease all military operations in foreign countries, abandon all foreign U.S. military bases, and terminate all foreign aid, including weaponry and money.

From his second essay

A prerequisite to ending the massive violence that afflicts American society is dismantling the federal killing machine. By wreaking death, injury, suffering, and destruction on millions of people in foreign lands for the past several decades, the Pentagon and the CIA have triggered something inside off-kilter people here at home that has caused them to copy the federal killing sprees in foreign lands.

Americans must recognize that the federal government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. Too many Americans are loath to acknowledge the existence of this killing machine, much less call for its dismantling. 

An example is an article “Timothy McVeigh’s Dreams Are Coming True” by Michelle Goldberg that appeared in 5/8/2023 New York Times.  Goldberg states that the popularity of McVeigh’s extreme rightwing ideology is growing and is usually behind ideologically driven mass killings. Goldberg uses her article to make the standard call for gun control.

What is revealing about Goldberg’s piece is the absence of three words: Ruby Ridge and Waco. How can anyone write about Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing without mentioning Ruby Ridge and Waco?

At sentencing, McVeigh stated it was the federal massacres at Ruby Ridge and Waco that motivated him to commit the Oklahoma City bombing. If the feds had not attacked Randy Weaver and killed his wife Vickie at Ruby Ridge and if they had not gassed and incinerated those people at Waco, McVeigh would never have committed the Oklahoma City bombing.

McVeigh was tried for murder, condemned as a ruthless killer, and sentenced to death. Yet, the behavior of federal agents who killed Vickie Weaver and the Branch Davidians was ignored.

Goldberg says that American rightwing groups hail the tyrannical rightwing regime of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet. She leaves out of her analysis that the U.S. government inspired and supported the military coup that violently ousted the democratically elected president and then ardently supported Pinochet when his goons rounded up 60,000 innocent people, tortured and raped them, and killed or disappeared 3,000 of them.

The mainstream media’s response to the 9/11 attacks was no different. Immediately after those attacks, U.S. officials declared that the terrorists hated America for its “freedom and values.” It was a position that the U.S. mainstream press wholeheartedly embraced. 

The rationale was a lie. The terrorists had struck because they hated the federal killing machine, a machine that had contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from U.S. sanctions on Iraq. Everyone condemned the terrorists, but one would be hard-pressed to find any commentary in the mainstream press criticizing the federal killing machine’s sanctions-related murder of those Iraqi children.

The same holds true for U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”

After a foreign terrorist shot several CIA personnel in their cars while they were driving into CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia, in 1993, he was captured, brought to trial, and convicted. At his sentencing hearing, he said he was retaliating for the death and destruction that the CIA and the Pentagon had been wreaking in the Middle East. He was condemned for being a ruthless killer, but there was no criticism of the federal killing machine that had motivated him to act.

In 1993, terrorists struck the World Trade Center. When one of them was brought to trial, he too cited the death and destruction that the federal killing machine had been wreaking in the Middle East as the motivating factor in the WTC attack. He too was condemned as a ruthless killer but there wasn’t a peep of protest against the federal killing machine.

A problem we face in this country is the fact that all too many people are loath to confront the federal killing machine, much less bring it to an end. That’s because they consider the Pentagon and the CIA to be a patriotic god, one whose massive killings, they believe, keep us “safe.” But if we really want to bring an end to the massive violence that afflicts our society, it is necessary to confront what Martin Luther King called “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world,” acknowledge its evil nature, dismantle it, and restore our founding governmental system of a limited-government republic.

Ronald Hedlund – RIP

Ronald D. Hedlund

February 25, 2023

Dr. Ronald D. Hedlund, 81, of Estero, Florida passed away peacefully from complications of Parkinsons on February 25, 2023. Dr. Hedlund was a professor of political science for 50 years. Born in Joliet, Illinois to Reverend Henry G. Hedlund and Betty Marie (Nelson) and brother to the late Doreen Marie Swanson (Herbert), Ron graduated from Clermont (FL) High School, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Augustana College in Rock Island, IL, and his master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from the University of Iowa. His long and storied career in higher education began in 1967 as an assistant professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, where he later rose to associate and then full professor. Within the Political Science Department, he held several administrative positions and, beginning in 1980, served as Associate Dean of the Graduate School. In 1989, he became Vice Provost for Research and Service at the University of Rhode Island. He joined Northeastern University in Boston, MA in 1996 as Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education, retiring in 2016 as Professor Emeritus of Political Science.

Under his leadership, Dr. Hedlund focused on increasing academic and research excellence, which took many forms, including expanding student learning opportunities, encouraging faculty-mentored research projects, providing research support and professional development for faculty, and strengthening academic offerings on campus. He also nurtured relationships between the universities for which he worked and industry, including initiating and supporting research partnerships. Throughout his career, Ron continued his own research on state legislatures (receiving, among others, 4 National Science Foundation grants). Solely or in collaboration with colleagues and graduate students, he published more than 60 professional journal articles, books, and book chapters; and presented his research at more than 120 professional conferences. Supporting his favorite sports teams, hosting get-togethers, and being involved in the lives of family were also priorities for him.

Ron loved living here and especially enjoyed sitting on his lanai overlooking the lake, thinking “deep” thoughts, and watching the birds, ducks and an occasional alligator. His physical limitations precluded his active participation in many activities, but he did enjoy several seasons of bocce, conversations with neighbors and attending Masters get-togethers.

He is survived by his beloved wife of 58 years, Dr. Ellen (Parrish); his daughter Karen Marie, Norton, MA; his son, Dr. David P., his wife Yi Hsin (Chuang), and grandson Jayden of West Hempstead, NY; and 3 generations of nieces and nephews who loved him and thought of him as their family patriarch.

Lincoln Group of Boston Remembers Sam Bachrach

Dr. Samuel Bachrach – Remembered

Prepared and presented by Frank J. Williams at The Lincoln Group of Boston meeting on February 4, 1989 Bridgewater, Massachusetts

The Worcester Telegram of November 28, 1988, reported the death of Dr. Samuel Bachrach the day before. Listed in the long obituary duti­fully describing Doctor Sam’s significant accomplishments and community service was his membership in the Lincoln Group of Boston. We tend to see each other in one-dimensional terms when we join together at our four meetings a year and forget that each of us have other lives beyond our common interest in Abraham Lincoln. Sam’s interest and careers were many and successful. Of course, he was a physician, specializing in arthritis and geriatric medicine, with a practice in Worcester for thirty years. An army veteran of World War II, he re­mained in the Reserves, retiring in 1966 as a lieutenant colonel.

For many years, he was a book reviewer for the Sunday Telegram  and editor-in-chief of the Worcester Medical News. In between all of this, he was the founding president of the Age. Center of Worcester Area as well as the founding president of the Worcester County Poetry Association.

He was the last active member of what was affectionately called the Worcester Contingent, who, with Judge Carl Wahlstrom and Archie St. Onge (and Vern Otterson and Rudy Hallen, sometimes), faithfully drove together to attend almost all of our meetings.

Our Lincoln Group histories do not record when Sam first became a member. It certainly antedated his very apt paper “The Physical and Mental Constitution of Lincoln” which he delivered before the Group on April 13, 1957 at the Worcester Historical Society.

Bright, articulate and possessed of an inquiring mind, he did so enjoy our meetings and found them, in the words of his wife, Lilyan, “intellectually stimulating”. He could always be counted on to ask a question or two after each presentation.

He is not only missed because of his interest in Abraham Lincoln, but because of his genuine friendship and grace which he imparted to all of us.

Early Lilyan Bachrach enamel featured on rubylane

Robert Bachrach found the following link:

https://www.rubylane.com/item/1470117-1360/Unusual-Signed-Original-Vintage-Modern-Enamel

To keep the content much of it is repeated here.

HERE’S AN UNUSUAL SIGNED ORIGINAL VINTAGE MODERN ENAMEL-ON-COPPER PLATE CREATED BY WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS ARTIST LILYAN BACHRACH (1917-2015) THAT DISPLAYS AN ATYPICAL DESIGN BY THE ARTIST OF A SPONTANEOUS ABSTRACTION RENDERED IN PURPLE, PINK, BLACK, AND OFF-WHITE ENAMELING!

Dimensions: The plate measures approximately three and three fourths inches (3 3/4”) in diameter by one half of an inch (1/2”) in height.

Please Note: Bachrach created one of her less frequently found abstract designs on the plate’s interior made up of wavy amorphous black enameled lines set against a variegated purple, pink, and off-white enameled background. When turned to the proper vantage point, the wavy amorphous black enameled lines take on the somewhat representational form of a flying bird with its beak open. The plate’s underside is counter enameled with speckled dark blue enamel that transitions to a bluish-white enamel where Bachrach’s signature is located.

Signature: Signed on the underside bottom in reddish enamel “Bachrach” In addition, there is an original artist’s silver paper label that appears to read: “Bachrach Enamels Worcester”

Condition: Excellent and clean condition – essentially flawless! There is some wear to the artist’s paper label so that it is difficult to read without the use of a magnifying glass. Otherwise, this is an unusual example of Lilyan Bachrach’s abstract enamel art!

Domestic buyer pays calculated shipping for secure packing and USPS priority within the United States. I no longer ship internationally due to the high volume of scams taking place. Sorry.

Lilyan Bachrach’s Autobiography:

I was born 1/7/17 New Haven, Connecticut (and) moved to Lowell, Massachusetts about 1921 with my parents and my sister, Elaine, who was born in 1919.

Through High School, I worked on Saturdays and summers in my parents’ curtain and drapery store in Lowell, MA. My father manufactured curtains and draperies in the basement of that store. From him I learned to appreciate good fabrics and figure out how many yards of fabric were needed to make a certain number of pairs of ruffle curtains. In time I became the designer of the curtains and draperies we made for the three stores that they owned. From my father I learned to inspect what we made, always looking for any faults. His favorite question was, “Can you make it better?” I still look at my own work in almost the same way. If there is a fault, it is the first thing I spot. If the piece holds together, then I know it is acceptable.

After High School, in 1934 I enrolled at Boston University because my father said I had to live at home. A group of us commuted by train five days a week into North Station and shared a taxicab to school. I was studying to be an Interior Decorator. In my second year I made a new school friend from Maynard, MA. She fixed me up on a blind date with her brother’s friend, Sam Bachrach, who was at Tuft’s Medical School. On our first date he bought me a coca-cola and watched me drink it. I didn’t know he didn’t have enough money to buy one for himself. It was later that I learned that he would buy a quart of milk, transfer the milk to a pitcher, take the bottle back for the deposit so he could buy a can of beans. It was still depression days. At the end of my second year, my sister, who was two years younger, was ready for college. Because my parents could not afford to send both of us to school and I was planning to be the decorator for the stores, I offered to leave college. My father let her live at school at the University of Vermont. There she met her future husband and left school after her first year. I continued seeing Sam and we drifted into marriage plans in 1938 when he graduated from medical school. We had two daughters and two sons, born from 1940 to 1959. Sam died in 1988, just after our 50th anniversary.

In 1936 my parents had moved to Worcester, Massachusetts. I lived at home with my parents while Sam was a medical resident and then an intern. Our first child, Barbara, was born in September 1940 just before Sam was called into the Army Medical Corps as a First Lt. He had been in ROTC in college. He thought he would do his year of service and then be a civilian again. Pearl Harbor changed that and his tour of duty stretched to five years. Our son, Robert, was born in June 1940. The four of us traveled first to Fort Adams, then to Fort Dix, to Mitchell Field and to Orlando, Fl where Sam set up the medical school for the Army. At that point he had been to flight surgeon school and was a Major in the Army Air Force. He went overseas and I went home to my parents in Worcester, MA. At the end of the war, he returned and in 1947, Benjamin was born. We now had 3 children, one pre-war, one war and one post-war. Sam set up in private practice in Worcester and in 1959 Elizabeth was born. We called her our “bonus”.

During World War II, my father had closed his stores and retired. To keep my mind off the war when I moved with the two children back to Worcester, I went into the business of making children’s hand smocked dresses. I bought the fabrics , chose the embroidery thread colors, cut out the dresses from size 2 to size 8, stamped the dots for the smocking and trained other wives to do the smocking and some to do the stitching. I remember that my main account was Crawford Hollidges in Boston, MA. With the arrival of Benjamin in 1947, my business came to an end.

After the war, while Sam’s medical practice was growing, I was keeping house and taking care of our three children. I did his bookkeeping at home and became active in non-profit organizations. I always liked to make beautiful things. I studied sewing, tray painting, oil painting, silversmithing and jewelry. Even tried pottery but that did not fit in with my life style…it took too long to clean up. When I discovered enameling in 1955, it was just right. With a smock over dress clothes, I could turn off the kiln and leave my work bench within five minutes.

To go back before 1955, I had been studying silversmithing at our Worcester Craft Center when my instructor decided to teach enameling. My friend, Bernice Morse, and I signed up. I assumed it would be like the oil painting I had been doing. She loved the class. I didn’t. They were copying small pictures or making solid color pieces to set instead of stones. I went back to silversmithing but she stayed with it. Then the craft center raised their classroom fees and my friend thought it would be less expensive to get a group together to set up a workshop in one of our homes. She asked me to help her organize a group. We easily found 8 other housewives, put in $40 each, ordered equipment and supplies and set up a workshop in Miriam Casdin’s basement. Her house was the nearest to Bernice who didn’t drive so that was why we chose Miriam’s. We soon had to add another $40 each to be able to have a larger selection of enamels and copper forms. Miriam lived on Lenox Street, so we called ourselves the Lenox Enamelers. Our husbands thought it was funny and that we would not last together more than a year. We lasted for five years…and by then five of us had our own kilns and workshops in our homes. My first one had an 8” kiln in the pantry off the kitchen.

We were lucky. When the studio was all set up, Doris Hall announced that she would give demonstration lessons. Five of us signed up and drove to Boston to her studio once a week for I think 6 weeks. During the week, we practiced in our workshop and showed the other members what we had learned. Because she handled enamels as a painter’s medium, I fell in love with enamels because of the infinite range of colors and their tactile quality. Shortly after that, Joseph Trippetti arrived at the Craft Center to teach enameling. I studied cloisonné with him for two years. At his urging, I taught enameling for four years to the adult classes at the Worcester Trade School. At that time, physicians were not under Social Security and I assumed that as a teacher there I would be. I was wrong. The city employees were not under Social Security. However, I enjoyed the teaching. The school required that I take the course in Methods of Teaching Adults at the Fitchburg State College. To my surprise, I did very well even though it was a good many years since I had been in a classroom. The first two years I taught beginners and the second two years the advanced group. By then I had had enough even though it was just one night a week.

When Elizabeth our fourth child, was six years old, I had lots of help at home so I applied and was accepted as a full time student at the School of the Worcester Art Museum. My portfolio consisted of my enamels that the director liked. Sam used to get a kick out of saying that we couldn’t go out on a certain evening because his wife had homework to do. I loved art school even though I was the oldest one in the class. There were two other women who were also mothers in that class. I thought I was going to learn to paint like Rembrandt. It was the wrong time in art history. When at the first painting class the instructor told us to just express ourselves, I asked him if he was kidding. To my disappointment, he was serious. However, I had many good teachers and along with learning to see I also learned the vocabulary and the language. I called it shooting the bull, which I couldn’t do then and I still can’t do it.

Throughout the years I studied enameling and/or silversmithing with Bill Kurwacz, Fiometta Shieh, Mary Kretsinger, Charles Jeffrey, Curtis LaFollette, and Tim McCreight, in addition to short workshops with Kenneth Bates, June Schwarcz, Earl Pardon, and Margaret Seeler.

In the 1970’s a group of volunteers organized a craft fair at the ski resort in Stowe, VT. We were 60 in all. From there it moved to Mt Snow, then to Bennington, VT and by the 5th or 6th year to Rhinebeck, NY because we had grown to so many numbers. Then it became a professional show, with a paid director and slides required to be accepted. I do not remember when we went under the wing of the American Craftsmen Council (ACC). It was at Rhinebeck, that we developed wholesale days prior to the retail days. Now the ACC holds “Markets” throughout the United States and accepts about 500 craftspeople from myriads of applications. I showed my one-of-a-kind overglaze painting enamels through Fair #9. For wholesale, I needed to make just an assortment of pieces to show the quality and size of the work. My customers would order the number of pieces in each size and could specify the predominating color or two colors. If they didn’t like what I sent to them, they could return them. Fortunately, there were no returns. When the time came to apply for Fair #10, I realized I was on a merry-go-round. I had just finished mailing out the last order when it was time to plan the next year’s display. I took that year off and never applied again. In the early days, the annual show was like attending a family reunion. It was wonderful. Today, it’s big business and expensive.

Over the years, my enamels were exhibited at the Worcester Center for Crafts, the Worcester Art Museum, Danforth Museum, DeCordova Museum, Fitchburg Art Museum, the Palo Alto Cultural Center – among others. The shops and galleries that handled my enamels included Gumps, Skera, Appalachian Spring, Voltaires, etc. Commission work ranged from cloisonné award pins to processional crosses, doors for an ark, chalice cups and 10ft architectural panels. My records were never up to date for I just didn’t have the time to do them. My husband was active in the community and whenever he served as President of an organization, I became the gal Friday behind the scenes. He started the Worcester County Poetry Assn, The Age Center of Worcester Area, and The Worcester Forum for the Study of Values.

I was fortunate that I grew up in a family with the work ethic and loved to be working at something. My husband, Sam, was my biggest booster and my best critic. I was also fortunate that I was able to purchase whatever I needed or wanted in my workshop. It was an ego trip when I received a check for my work. When Sam had a severe heart attack in 1977 and had to retire, I learned how different the time in the workshop felt when you knew you needed to sell your work. For most of us, it is a difficult way to make a living while doing what you love.

LILYAN BACHRACH (b. 1917-) BIO (courtesy Enamel Arts Foundation website)

Lilyan Bachrach’s work in enamel is remarkably wide-ranging and diverse. In a career spanning five decades she has produced an extraordinary body of work that includes jewelry, functional vessels, decorative plaques, switch plates, mezuzahs, and other religious and ceremonial forms. A superb craftsman, she is equally well-versed at abstraction and representation, cloisonné technique and overglaze painting. The lush floral images she portrays on her decorative plates are perfectly suited to the forms on which they are rendered and her enamel jewelry is invariably bold, inventive, and visually rich.

Lilyan Bachrach was born in New Haven, Connecticut in 1917. In 1921, when she was four, her family moved to Lowell, Massachusetts where her parents established a curtain and drapery manufacturing business and, over time, several retail shops. Through her parents Bachrach learned to appreciate fine fabrics as she developed a lifelong commitment to quality workmanship. After producing several textile designs for the family business, Bachrach enrolled in 1934 as a student at Boston University where she studied to become an interior designer. While there, through a mutual friend, she met her future husband, a student at Tuft’s Medical School. She and Sam Bachrach were married in 1938. While her husband served in the military during World War II, she raised their growing family and, after the War, helped manage Sam’s expanding medical practice.

In the early 1950s, she enrolled in a metals class at the Worcester Center for Crafts where, in 1955, she was introduced to enameling. While she found some of the initial classes limiting, she eventually participated with seven other women in an informal enameling workshop called the “Lenox Enamelers.” There she developed an abiding passion for the medium. As she later stated: “I fell in love with enamels because of the infinite range of colors and their tactile quality.” About this same time, she enrolled in a workshop under the direction of the Cleveland-trained artist Doris Hall, held at Hall’s studio in Boston. While the class met weekly for only six weeks, this experience had a profound influence on Bachrach’s development as an artist. As she observed later in life, Bachrach found Hall’s looser, more painterly approach to enameling refreshing and highly compatible with her own. She later studied cloisonné technique at the Worcester Center for Crafts with the masterful artist Joseph Trippetti and, over the years, participated in workshops led by a wide variety of artists including Mary Kretsinger, Charles Bartley Jeffery, Kenneth Bates, Fiammetta Hsieh, and others. In the late 1960s, Bachrach resumed formal studies at the Worcester Art Museum School where she was awarded a BFA in 1969.

Lilyan Bachrach also produced two important books on enameling technique. The first Enameling with Professionals was published in 2002 and the second, Contemporary Enameling: Arts and Techniques was published in 2006. A testament to the extraordinary work of her friends and colleagues, Bachrach’s publications are comprised of brief essays on enameling by artists working in diverse styles and formats. Her books offer unique insight into both form and process.