On the Road to Dictatorship



In a speech before the City Club of Cleveland on March 18, 2015, Barack Obama put into words what, until now, he has only allowed himself to dream about.  In his remarks, he launched into a diatribe on how he would choose to run U.S. elections… if only he could dictate his own terms.

According to the Associated Press, when he was asked about the “corrosive” influence of money in U.S. elections, he digressed into the related topic of voting rights, suggesting that “the U.S. should be making it easier… not harder… for people to vote.”

For those who may doubt the wisdom of mandatory voting, he suggested, “Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote.  If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”  As Obama sees it, universal voting would counteract the evil influence of money in politics more than anything else.  This from a man who raised $750 million against John McCain in 2008 (much of it from illegal foreign sources), and $1.12 billion in his reelection bid against Mitt Romney in 2012.  So, if money in politics is “corrosive,” as Obama suggests, then he is the most thoroughly “corroded” politician in U.S. history.

He went on to note that, disproportionately, those who fail to vote on Election Day are younger, lower-income, and more likely to be immigrants or minorities.  Translated, what Obama yearns for is a nation in which the most ignorant and uninformed people (his base) are required to vote.

On Election Day 2008, in an attempt to learn how much Obama voters knew about politics and current affairs, Zogby International interviewed more than 500 Obama voters outside polling places across the country, asking the same fourteen questions in each location.  One of those interviews with self-proclaimed Obama voters was caught on film and circulated on the Internet.  They were asked:

1.  Which party currently controls Congress?

2.  Do you know who Barney Frank is?

3.  Do you know who Nancy Pelosi is?

4.  Do you know who Harry Reid is?

5.  What do you think of Bill Ayers?

6.  Which candidate was given $150,000 worth of clothes by a political party?

7.   Which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?

8.  Which candidate said they could see Russia from their home?

9.  Which candidate said they’d campaigned in all 57 states?

10.  Which candidate won their first political campaign by having all the other candidates of their own party kicked off the ballot on technicalities?

11.  Which candidate had to quit a previous campaign because of a plagiarized a speech?

12.  Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket?

13.  Which candidate said that the government should redistribute wealth?

14.  where do you get most of your news?

Those  interviewed were two white females, aged 20-25; three black females, aged 20-25; one black female, aged 40-45; two white males, aged 35-40; one white male, aged 55-60; and three black males, aged 40-45.

When asked which party controlled Congress in 2008, and what they thought of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Bill Ayers, one black woman thought Pelosi was a “fair” woman, but none knew that Democrats controlled Congress or had any idea who Frank, Pelosi, Reid, or Ayers were.  However, when questioned about which candidate received a $150,000 clothing allowance from a political party, which candidate had a pregnant teenage daughter, and which candidate was charged (falsely) with having said that she could see Russia from her home, nearly all were able to name Sarah Palin.

When asked which candidate claimed to have campaigned “in all 57 states,” which candidate won their first political campaign by having all of their opponents kicked off the ballot, which candidate claimed that their policies would bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to  skyrocket, and which candidate said that government should redistribute wealth, most of those interviewed attributed those statements to either Sarah Palin or John McCain… none named Barack Obama.

And when asked which candidate had to withdraw from a previous campaign because he had plagiarized a speech, none knew that it was Joe Biden.

Not surprisingly, when asked where they got all of their information, the respondents mentioned ABC, CBS, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the New York Times, Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart, and the Colbert Report.  So is it any wonder then that they knew nothing about current affairs but took yellow journalism from network news and yellow propaganda from Democrats and television comedy skits as fact?

If the Zogby poll tells us nothing else, it tells us that a lot of people are voting who shouldn’t be because they are not representative of the sort of informed voters necessary to the maintenance of a constitutional republic.  By relying on yellow journalism and yellow propaganda as their primary sources of political information, they cast themselves, in fact, as enemies of the republic.

In the best of all worlds, voter registration should be open only to those who could provide evidence of property ownership, and their immediate family members, while on Election Day prospective voters should be required to score at least 60% on a simple fourth or fifth grade level civics exam, with multiple choice questions drawn at random from a pool of questions.

Unfortunately, it is precisely the type of voter interviewed by Zogby that Obama and other Democrats are interested in herding into the voting booths.  They make up a large enough segment of the Democratic base to sway most elections.  Without them, Democrats could never win control of any legislative body, nor could they elect a president or a vice president.  Such voters are the life blood of the Democrat Party.

As matters now stand, the Democrat Party is totally dependent on the availability of a large pool of ignorant and uninformed voters, such as those produced by the public education system and our colleges and universities.  It represents a “devil’s bargain” between the teachers’ unions and the Democrat Party in which the teachers’ unions churn out millions of ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed voters in exchange for the right to dictate education policy and funding to Democrats in Congress and in the state legislatures.         

In a series of widely circulated remarks, former Clinton operative James Carville is quoted as saying, “Ideology isn’t all that important.  What’s important is psychology.  The Democratic constituency is like a herd of cows.  All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running.  That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats.  With Democrats, all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole’ cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.  Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

“What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the opposite of their own personal convictions.  Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want…

“Truth is relative.  Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth.  That’s why I’m a Democrat… I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Although Carville’s remarks are unsubstantiated and may, in fact, be bogus, the truth of those sentiments is undeniable and represent what Republicans have always known about Democrats.  Put those sentiments together with an ethically-challenged politician, motivated by a foreign ideology, and what do you have?  We have the United States of America under Barack Obama.

In the March 22, 2015 edition of the New York Post, Michael Goodwin says of Barack Obama: “First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt, and nationalizes the Internet.

“He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican ‘enemies.’  He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries, and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.  Now he’s coming for Israel…  Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest.  He is transforming the whole world before our eyes…”

In a recent townhall meeting I suggested to our second term congressman that he ask those in attendance if they knew who Valerie Jarrett was and what role she plays in the Obama White House.  Only four of us in the room, all Republican activists, knew the answer to the question.

Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett have put us well down the road to a fascist dictatorship.  What remains to be seen is whether or not rank-and-file Republicans will be concerned enough and wise enough to turn their backs on establishment Republican candidates in 2016, nominating, instead, conservative leaders with the backbone to lead us back from the abyss.  2016 may well be our last opportunity to save ourselves.


Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

A Manchurian Candidate?

In the early 1960’s Hollywood released an intriguing movie about the then current fears of a socialistic (Communistic) take over of our government called “The Manchurian Candidate.”  The movie had a first-rate cast that included Frank Sinatra, Angela Lansbury, Laurence Harvey and Janet Leigh.  The plot portrayed a platoon of former Korean War POW’s that had been “brainwashed” by a committee of Communist acolytes, from both communist countries and the US, who were part of a plot to take over the US presidency.  A Manchurian general had conditioned, in a Pavlovian way, Laurence Harvey to respond to a conditioned stimulus in any manner that his American operative wished … namely to kill the president.  In the movie the Communists had arranged to make Harvey’s character very respectable … namely, he was a Congressional Medal of Honor winner.  The movie was gripping and believable … much better than its 2004 politically correct sequel … but what it showed was how a foreign enemy, a foreign ideology could take over our political system.

Is it possible for a foreign interest, or more insidiously, a foreign ideology to take over our government?  The Framers of the Constitution thought so … that is why they inserted the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution.  As Paul, our esteemed co-blogger, has pointed out, that clause was inserted so that no president could be under the control of a foreign national or ideology during his (or her) formative years.  Of course, the fear in 1787 was that the thousands of property owning Tories who vacated the colonies during the Revolutionary War by going to Great Britain would return, bringing their English (foreign) spouses along with their highly prejudiced … “brain washed”… young children.  Since these children’s parents had actively opposed the revolution, in many cases having fought it, and had, at the very least, “consorted with the enemy,” did we want the children raised under those influences eligible to be president?  The Framers forbid it in the Constitution.

OK, but that was in the 18th Century … what does that have to do with today?

Let’s look at a theoretical situation.  Suppose that an impressionable young woman who was raised by a family of committed socialists from mid-western America, say Kansas, goes off to college and meets a soul-mate, a committed handsome young Islamic Communist from Africa, say from Kenya, falls in love, becomes pregnant and marries him.  The child, a little boy, is named with a traditional Islamic name, that of his father as is customary in his father’s religion.  He is not “natural born,” because although he is born on American soil, in Hawaii, to an American mother, and because of that is certainly an American citizen, he is not “natural born” because his father is a foreign national.  His father most certainly has anti-American prejudices and, as a Communist, is deeply committed to an ideology that is the antithesis of American freedom and to the advancement of the struggle of international socialism.  His father is committed to the overthrow of the American way of life.  In this scenario do we detect some of the antecedents to the fears of the Framers?

So let’s carry this on a little further.  Say the father tires of his immature young bride and his responsibilities to her.  He leaves her destitute in Hawaii,  and returns to his tribe in Kenya.  The terrified girl, with her baby, still consorting with the only people that she knows, the socialists and communists at her school, finds a young Islamic communist from Indonesia who falls in love with her, marries her and takes her to his homeland.  Our little boy is now enrolled in a “madrasa” where he is taught to hate, among other things, the “great Satan,” America.  So our little boy, during his all important formative years is being taught to hate not only America, but the American way of life.  He is becoming an expert at hating a country that he has never seen … a country of which he is a citizen.  But going on … chances are that the impressionable young girl has grown up quite a little because she is “not in Kansas anymore.”  It is difficult comprehend how a modern American woman (or any modern woman) could subordinate herself to a misogynistic religion that reduces women to something less than a chattel.  It is probable that our imaginary girl would have left our Indonesian Muslim after 8 or 10 years to return to the island paradise of Hawaii.  Our boy would have been thrust into a foreign “Christian” society  and would probably had a lot of trouble adjusting.  Let’s say that our girl’s father, the one that had taught her about the glories of Communism, had retired to the island and our boy and his mother, having no other place to go, moved in with him and his wife.  Our boy can’t get along in public school, where the bible is read and the “Pledge of Allegiance” is given daily.  Grandpa embarks upon home schooling our bright boy, but is soon in over his head, but he has an ace in the hole.  Because of his activism in the movement, he has wide acquaintance with the Communist intelligentsia.  One of his favorites is the editor of the “Daily Worker,” the communist newspaper.  Grandpa eventually persuades the editor to tutor our bright boy.  After much success and many years our tutor, using the monetary resources of the communist party, hatches a plan to drive our boy into the apex of political society.  He sends the boy all over the world to help his education; he gets our boy into the best schools;  he sees to it that the boy gets the best grades;  he sees to it that our boy is a BMOC (big man on campus);  when our boy leaves school, he places him in a political environment that will provide a voting block to elevate him into politics;  he introduces him to successful political and religious radicals;  he teaches him how to speak, how to be a gentleman;  he surrounds him with radical thinkers, money men, campaign managers and … eureka … the first thing we know our boy is in the state and then the US Senate, one step away from the presidency.  First thing you know, our little boy, a Muslim and Communist is President.

What do you think our boy would do if he became President?

I am guessing that you can easily figure it out … and it would not be good for the traditional American system … but it would be “fundamental change.”

Were the Framers correct?  Should we make it impossible for a foreigner to become president?

Could we have a “Manchurian Candidate” become President?  … my answer is YES … and I think that we may have already done it!

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

Some Basic Economic Truths

During the summer of 1985 my oldest son, Mark, decided to leave his job as a chemistry teacher in a Silver Spring, Maryland, Catholic Boy’s High School to complete his Master’s thesis and his Doctoral work in Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Oklahoma.  With little money to finance the move, he was looking for ways to transport his wife; his five-year-old stepson, Chris; and his four month old infant son, David, from Washington, DC to Norman, Oklahoma.

Having recently retired from my job with a major oil company in suburban Philadelphia, I offered to help with the move.  So, on the appointed day I drove to Silver Spring and loaded every cubic foot of my trunk and my rear seat with some of their belongings.  As we headed west on Interstate 70, my son took the lead in a borrowed Mercury station wagon, with every cubic foot filled to capacity; my daughter-in-law followed close behind in their worn-out old Toyota, the baby strapped into a car seat beside her; and I brought up the rear with five-year-old Chris riding “shotgun” in the passenger seat beside me.

The trip across the country was not up to my usual standard for cross-country driving.  Since the Interstate highway from Indianapolis to St. Louis was completed, but unposted, I had always taken that to mean that they wanted me to use my own discretion.  As a result, I was accustomed to driving the 1.030 miles from Philadelphia to St. Louis in just under fifteen hours.  But on our trip in August 1985, from the D.C. area to St. Louis, it was drive two hours, nurse the baby, drive two hours, nurse the baby, and on and on.  Then, after a night’s rest in St. Louis we set out again the next morning for the last leg of our trip from St. Louis to central Oklahoma.

As we had lunch in a roadside restaurant in Joplin, Missouri, I remarked that we were just a few miles north of Camp Crowder, Missouri, where I spent the first week of my U.S. Army military career, and that I’d like to revisit the place sometime just to see if it was the same as it was in the summer of 1953.

That was the last word on the subject until we crossed the Missouri/Oklahoma state line fifteen or twenty minutes later.  It was then that young Chris said, “Grandpa, tell me about some of your war wounds.”

Not wanting to go into detail on how I was machine-gunned by a group of South Koreans in a “friendly fire” incident during basic training, I decided to tell him some stories about wounds I received when I was a boy, just a few years older than he.  So I proceeded to describe a long ugly scar I have on my right knee that I received when I was just ten or eleven years old.  When I had described the scar, Chris said, “Grandpa, how did you get that wound?”

I said, “Well, as I recall, my friends and I were at the local ballpark in my hometown, crawling around under the bleachers, when I knelt on a broken soda bottle.”  To which he replied, “What were you doing crawling around under the bleachers?”

I said, “We were looking for small change, nickels and dimes that people had inadvertently dropped while watching a softball game.”

“Why were you looking for nickels and dimes?” he asked.

To which I replied, “We wanted to buy some sodas.”

He thought for a moment, a puzzled look on his face.  Then he said, “Grandpa, you can’t buy a soda for five or ten cents.  Sodas cost sixty cents.”

Not when I was your age,” I replied.  “When I was your age we could by a soda for five cents.”

That came as a big surprise to him.  He said, “How did that happen, Grandpa?”

I said, “The Democrats did it.”

“The Democrats did it?  Why did they do that?”

Thinking I’d impart a bit of economics wisdom, I said, “Well, the Democrats discovered many years ago that if they passed a law taking money away from people who have jobs and who work for a living, and give it to people who don’t have jobs or who don’t want to work, the people who get the free money will always vote for them on election day.  That helps to create what we call inflation and that’s why a soda costs a lot more than five cents today.”

This was obviously a new concept for him and I could almost hear the wheels turning in the seat beside me.  Finally, he said, “Grandpa, could the Democrats pass a law that would make candy free?”

I replied, “Sure they could.  But think about it… if the Democrats made a law saying that candy would be free, how long do you think the people who make candy would continue to make it?”

New concept; I could hear the wheels turning again.  Then he said, “Grandpa, am I a Democrat?”

I said, “Well, it’s too early to tell.  We’ll have to wait a few years to find out.”

Then he asked, “Grandpa, could the Democrats make a law that some candy would cost money and some would be free?”

I replied, “Yes Chris, the Democrats could make some candy free and others that would cost money.  But are you asking whether the Democrats could make a law saying that the kind of candy you like would be free and all the rest would cost money?”

A big smile crossed his face.  He nodded his head and said, “Yeah!”

I said, “You’re a Democrat.”

I’m happy to report that my step-grandson has turned out just fine, in spite of his Democratic leanings as a five-year-old.  He graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Economics and is now a successful executive with a major Oklahoma City bank.  But now, thirty years later, there is evidence that many who were as ignorant of basic economic principles as my grandson was at age five, are still burdened by the same economic illiteracy.

The proof of what I say can be found in the television commercials of a company called Lear Capital, Inc.  In their most recent TV ads they tout the current low price of silver, showing a two dimensional graph in which the abscissa, or x-axis, represents time, and the ordinate, or y-axis, represents the fluctuations in the price of silver.  If one were to believe the graph, the market price of silver during a significant time period represented on the graph dipped to less than the price of production.  In fact, that claim is made quite clearly in the Lear Capital voice-over.

When I saw the ad I couldn’t help but be reminded of my grandson’s attitude toward the candy market when he was just five years old.  The fact that a precious metals marketing firm would continue spending big bucks attempting to convince television viewers that mining companies are continuing to mine silver when the market price is less than the cost of production, is proof that there are some adults out there in TV land who still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

When I posed the hypothetical question to my grandson thirty years ago, asking him how long he thought candy manufacturers would continue to make candy if there was no profit in doing so, it never occurred to me that, some thirty years later, silver miners might be doing just that.

However, there is some empirical evidence that there are fewer consumers who might fall for that advertising scheme than we might think.  Another Lear TV ad that has run on a daily basis for many months proclaims that the first one-hundred callers to their 800 number will receive up to $500 worth of free silver… just for calling their number.  If, in fact, callers to that 800 number are actually given silver coinage, they could be given a silver ten-cent piece, just for their taking the time to listen to a sales pitch, and the marketer could still claim truth in advertising by hanging their hats on the words “up to.”

Nevertheless, it is frightening to think that Madison Avenue advertising firms have such a low opinion about the economic smarts of the American people that they would air such an insulting advertisement.  My step-grandson has discovered some important economic truths.  Apparently, some in the corporate world and on Madison Avenue have not.



Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment