Throw the Bums Out

In a recent broadcast of Fox News’ newly-launched panel show, Outnumbered, the five panelists discussed recent opinion polls measuring congressional job approval.  And although the four female panelists… Sandra Smith, Harris Faulkner, Kirsten Powers, and Kimberly Guilfoyle… are not only much easier to look at than the dowdy and tiresome Obama cheerleaders on ABC’s The View, they are, individually and collectively, light-years brighter.

It is even fair to say that the token liberal on the panel, Kirsten Powers, is a rarity among liberals and Democrats… she is thoughtful and almost always fair-minded.  Unlike the ladies of The View, she is not an ideological lapdog for Democrats and the far left.  However, having tossed out that paean to the ladies of Outnumbered, it is also fair to say that they did no better at dealing with the subject of congressional job approval than any other group of talking heads.

In the course of their discussion they cited several recent polls.  Among the congressional job approval polls cited were CNS News at 12%, Fox News at 16%, The Economist at 10%, and Gallup at 15%.  They also cited a Field Poll which showed that some 44% of voters approve of the job their own congressman is doing, while 33% disapprove.  But in the unkindest cut of all, demonstrating how poorly congressional Republicans advocate for Republican principles, one poll showed that 46% said it made no difference which party controlled Congress.

But these results take on real meaning only when we look inside the numbers.  Taking a closer look at voter attitudes toward their own congressman, 57% of registered Democrats said they were likely to vote to reelect their current member of Congress, while only 33% of Republicans would vote to reelect their current member.  What this seems to indicate is that Republicans, in general, are far more thoughtful, far more discriminating, and far less likely to be influenced by “cult of personality” than Democrats.

These numbers also tell us is that people generally have a low opinion of Congress as a whole… always willing to speak ill of those who represent others… but a generally favorable attitude toward their own member, whoever he or she might be and regardless of his or her ideological stance.  Why?  Apparently because they are anxious to reconfirm what they consider to be their own perceptiveness in their voting booth decisions, while those who elected all those other dolts are dumber than bricks.  The only fair way to rate the Congress would be to add up the winning margins of every member and divide the total by 435 for House members and 100 for Senators.

Yes, it is fair to say that Congress does a very poor job of writing the laws and looking after the interests of the people, but that’s not due to any serious flaw in the way Congress is constituted.

The principle shortcoming of the Congress is to be found in the quality of its leadership.  To prove the point, I might mention just four names:  Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi.  Need I say more?

In Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi we have leaders who are truly evil and who care about nothing beyond what is good for the Democratic Party and its candidates.  Their only real concern is that, if the ship of state is to sink beneath the waves, they insist on being at the helm when it happens.  In John Boehner and Mitch McConnell we have two well intentioned men, neither of whom have the foggiest notion of how to deal with the truly evil people on the Democrat side of the aisle.  Taken together, these mutually incompatible characterizations spell nothing but total gridlock.

Can it be fixed?  Yes, Congress can be fixed, but only in the event of a politically astute and well-informed electorate.  So long as 57% of Democrats believe that their own representatives are acting in the best interests of the country and deserve to be reelected, the problems of governance that we now experience can never be fixed.  If Democrats continue to believe that a man the caliber of Hank Johnson (D-GA) deserves to be in Congress, then there is little hope for us.  (It was Johnson who worried openly in a public hearing that the Pacific island of Guam might capsize if the U.S. Navy stationed an additional 8,000 Marines on one side of the island.)

But time is of the essence because reform is possible only so long as we still have a majority of voters who are property owners and/or wage earners, but it won’t be easy because a growing proportion of the Democratic Party base is comprised of uninformed non-producers, under-achievers, and the disinterested… those who are not property owners or who live off the labors of others.

Three significant reforms are sorely needed: First, we must amend our criminal laws to require mandatory prison time for those who engage in vote fraud.  Second, the right to vote should be limited only to those who are property owners and taxpayers.  And finally, before they are handed a ballot, voters should be required to score at least 60% on a simple ten-question exam, with topics chosen at random from current affairs and from the list of 100 questions used in examining immigrants who apply for American citizenship.

But can we expect Democrats to ever agree to stricter penalties for vote fraud?  Not likely.  Vote fraud is, and always has been, the “bread and butter” of Democratic politics.  In fact, Democrats are so wedded to the notion of vote fraud, so opposed to requiring photo IDs at polling places, so addicted to double and triple voting, that they would be unwilling to adopt a system in which voters would be required to dip a “pinkie” into a vial of indelible ink after voting, much like the  proud first-time voters in emerging democracies of the Third World.  So what does that tell us?

Next, we need to take a serious look at who is allowed to vote and who is not.  It makes no sense at all to have those who live off the public dole to participate in the election of the politicians who then vote to create bigger and better free lunches.  And while some may believe that voting is and always has been a universal right, such is not the case.  During the early years of the republic, only white males who owned at least 50 acres of land or had taxable income were allowed to vote.  Un-propertied men and women, slaves, and ex-slaves were prohibited from voting.  However, by the mid-19th century, most white males were allowed to vote, regardless of income or property ownership, and in the ensuing years the right to vote was further expanded.

The 15th Amendment (1870), extended voting rights to all citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude;” the 19th Amendment (1920) extended voting rights to all female citizens; the 23rd Amendment (1961) extended the right to vote in presidential elections to residents of Washington, DC; the 24th Amendment (1964) struck down poll taxes and other taxes as barriers to voting; and the 26th Amendment (1971) extended voting rights to 18-year-olds.

Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Instead, it leaves the question of voter qualifications to the states to decide.  In short, the right to vote is not an explicit right under the Constitution.  States may deny the right to vote for reasons other than those explicitly addressed in the Constitution and subsequent amendments.  In addition to barring non-taxpayers and non-property owners, the Congress should also deny voting rights forever to those who obtain citizenship after illegally sneaking across our borders or by overstaying a visa.

Finally, it stretches credulity to suggest that the vote of an individual who cannot demonstrate the most rudimentary knowledge of current affairs or of the U.S. Constitution, should be valued as highly as the vote of the best-informed and most knowledgeable citizens.

The “man in the street” interviews popularized by late-night comedian Jay Leno and Fox News producer Jesse Watters tell us everything we need to know about the quality of the American electorate.  If we were fortunate enough to have a better educated and more informed electorate we would have a far more effective Congress and, once again, a president who would merit the respect and the admiration of the American people.

The U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service administers a test to all those who wish to become U.S. citizens.  The test contains 100 questions from which questions are chosen at random and 60% is a passing grade.  A typical multiple choice test might appear as follows:

1.  What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence?

2.   What are the first three words of the U.S. Constitution that define self-government?

3.   What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?

4.   How many justices serve on the United States Supreme Court?

5.   Who served as President of the United States during the Great Depression and World War II?

6.   What nation is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East?

7.   The Taliban is a radical Islamist group operating largely in which country?

8.   Who currently serves as Attorney General of the United States?

9.   How many time zones cover the U.S. from New York to California?

10.  Which major river is the longest river in the United States?

Ten questions of this caliber, chosen at random and posed in a multiple choice format on a touch-screen monitor, could be used to screen out those with an insufficient knowledge of current affairs and our system of government to merit the privilege of voting.  Completing such a test would take less than two minutes per voter and would not in any way impede the voting process.

If we’re going to get serious about “throwing the buns out,” maybe we should begin with those voters who cannot demonstrate that they deserve to be seen as members of an “informed” electorate.




Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Cracks in the Democrats’ Foundation

In a WorldNetDaily column of July 16, titled, “Why they won’t let us talk to the illegal kids,” talk radio pioneer Barry Farber suggested that, “the reason we in media are not allowed to talk to the children is that the conversation in every honest interview will get around to, ‘What made you all risk so much to get here?’  The answer will be, ‘Oh!  Mama and Papa heard it many times.  Your President Obama has found many little ways to say, ‘Come on up!  We won’t send you back!’ ”

Barry’s very ominous prediction was that, “The minute that awareness reaches critical mass, Obama, his works, his team, and the Democratic Party will suffer a rejection that will make the Republican years in political purgatory seem like a quick tour-bus jaunt through hell.”

One of my major regrets is that, barring divine intervention, I will not be around to see how historians will chronicle America’s post-constitutional period: the last half of the 20th century and the first 16 years of the 21st century.  These are the years during which one of our major political parties, the Democrat Party, created an ideological plantation on which they cynically attempted to imprison an entire ethnic minority.

Rarely in human history has any civilized nation so offended basic human decency than did the United States during the era of slavery, between 1619 and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in1861.  In fact, many Americans found the institution of slavery to be so morally repugnant that a new political party, the Republican Party, was spawned out of the abolitionist movement.

The Republican Party was founded in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, on March 20, 1854.  Anti-slavery sentiment was so strong in some northern and border states that the party was able to elect its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, just six years later.  In the ensuing 104 years, Republicans fought what seemed an endless battle against Democrats who longed for the return of slavery and who opposed basic human rights for former slaves and their descendants.

A Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

It was Republicans who drafted and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, outlawing slavery and giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote.

It was Democrat-controlled legislatures across the South who enacted the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws.

In 1866, it was Democrats who created the Ku Klux Klan as a paramilitary arm of their party.  Its purpose was to intimidate, terrorize, and murder black people.  In the years between 1882 and 1951, some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, nearly all Republicans, were lynched by the KKK.

It was Republicans who authored the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

It was Democrats who wrote and passed the Repeal Act of 1894, repealing much of the civil rights legislation passed by Republicans in the years since the close of the Civil War.  In other instances, a Democrat-dominated U.S. Supreme Court declared elements of the Republican civil rights legislation to be unconstitutional.

It was a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who authored the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960.  Later, it was the strong support of Republicans that made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 possible… a law that was almost identical, word-for-word, to the Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1875, overturned by a Democrat-dominated U.S. Supreme Court.  And finally, it was a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who signed the Equal Employment Act of 1972.

It was not until the Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the mid-1950s that Democrats finally decided that, if they could no longer control blacks through violence and intimidation, they would have to buy their hearts, their minds, and their votes with an endless variety of social welfare programs.  Since that time, and to their great discredit, blacks have turned their backs on the Republicans who worked so tirelessly and so valiantly on their behalf.  Instead, they now cast more than 90% of their votes for white Democrats, those who were their oppressors for more than three centuries.  Never in the history of man has a race of people shown such ingratitude toward those who were their principal benefactors.

But now it appears that a schism is beginning to develop in the black man’s love affair with the Democrat Party.  For the past sixty years, Democrats have been laying sloppy, slobbering kisses all over our black population.  But what blacks are now learning is that, what they took to be undying love and devotion, was nothing more than a prelude to a cheap one-night stand.

Bernadette Lancelin, a black mother in Houston, apparently a former Obama supporter, recently found herself being interviewed by a Houston TV station.  She said she was furious that Barack Obama wants to spend nearly $4 billion on Central American kids who’ve entered the country illegally.  She said, “What about the kids here?  What about the kids here in our neighborhood?  And not just in our neighborhood, but in our country?  All these (illegal immigrant) kids, really?  Why can’t they go back?”  She said, “I’m sorry that their parents are in poor living conditions or surroundings or whatever’s going on out there.  I don’t care.  I care about what’s going on right here in my own back yard, my neighborhood.”

Mychal Massie, a black writer and talk show host in Los Angeles, has said, “I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate (the Obamas) as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are.  There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color… Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.”

She went on to say, “He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed.  Even by the low standard of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled.  Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.”

In a July 14 editorial for Minuteman News, titled “Democrats’ New Trophy Wife,” attorney A.J. Delgado writes, “Democrats have built a brand as the party willing to stand up for black Americans, but the amnesty push (for illegal Hispanic immigrants) shows what a false promise that was.  The message to black voters is: ‘Yes, your ancestors endured unimaginable hardships and helped build this country, and we said we’d help you out.  But now we have a new trophy wife.’  Meanwhile, the harm to African Americans is not limited to reduced wages, greater competition for jobs, and declining household incomes… now even the black history of suffering is being diluted.  Liberal columnist and CNN pundit Sally Kohn penned a column last week arguing that the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is the same as the N-word.”

If there is a silver lining in the current immigration crisis along our southern border, it is that a great many previously disinterested or complacent Americans are being awakened to the evils of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.  William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC predicts that, on the weekend of July 19-20, more than 300 protest rallies will take place in cities all across the country.  He said, “Our goal is to unify Americans of all races, political parties, and walks of life against the Obama-inspired illegal immigrant invasion.”

What is finally beginning to dawn on African Americans is that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats have long taken them for granted… assuming that, once a black man is bought, he will stay bought.  It is apparent that what Democrats are hoping is that Hispanics will become the most sought-after minority voting bloc.  Add those votes to the black vote, the labor vote, and the public employee vote, along with the votes of trial lawyers, radical feminists, radical environmentalists, gays, lesbians, and transvestites, and they expect to have a winning coalition that will maintain them in power until the end of time.

Delgado likens the Democrats’ current attitude toward blacks to the husband who leaves his wife after 30 years of marriage, saying, “We’ve had a good run, honey, but I’ve found someone new.”  He says, “Yes, black America… it’s closing time and there’s a younger, hotter version of you out there on the dance floor, and the Democrats are laying on the charm, slick one-liners, and cash to buy her affections… and votes.”

But now, in a stroke of irony that not even Hollywood screen writers could have visualized, we find that it is a black president and a black attorney general who are most responsible for the fissures that are beginning to appear in the once-solid Democrat base.  Yes, cracks are beginning to appear in the Democrats’ foundation.  For the good of mankind, let’s all hope that Barry Farber’s prediction comes true and that Obama and his criminal conspirators will be soon be accorded the ignominy they so richly deserve.


Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Iraq War Revisionism

In his June 26, 2014 column for Investors Business Daily, titled “Revisionists Have A Field Day On Why We Invaded Iraq,” writer Victor Davis Hanson exposed much of the revisionism that is now occurring as Democrats lay the groundwork for a Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2016.

Liberals and Democrats continue to lay the blame for the Iraq War at the feet of George Bush and Dick Cheney.  So, instead of buying into leftist election season propaganda, it’s time we set the record straight.  Let’s look at the facts.  A 2002 Bush White House document, titled “Saddam Hussein’s Defiance of United Nations Resolutions,” reviewed the outcome of U.N. Security Council resolutions, stating that, “Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security.” 

The document went on to detail each of those sixteen Security Council resolutions.  However, when it became clear that Saddam Hussein had not fully complied with the substance of these resolutions by November 8, 2002, the Security Council adopted, unanimously, Resolution 1441, a “final opportunity” for Saddam to comply with his disarmament obligations.

Hanson points out that, “Prior to our invasion, the Kurds (in northern Iraq) were a persecuted people who had been gassed (with WMD), slaughtered, and robbed of all rights by Saddam.  He reminds us that, in 2003, the New York Times estimated that Saddam Hussein had killed as many as 1 million of his own people… translating to about 40,000 deaths for each year he led Iraq…”

Hanson tells us that George Bush’s 2007-08 “surge” ended much of the violence.  By Obama’s second year in office, American fatalities were reduced to far less than the monthly accident rate in the U.S. military… a record which Obama referred to as “an extraordinary achievement,” leading to a “stable” and “self-reliant” Iraq… which he inherited and later abandoned.

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in “material breach” of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687.  U.N. inspectors were allowed to reenter Iraq and on December 19, 2002, the U.N. chief inspector, Hans Blix, reported that the Iraqis had made “false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to (Resolution 1441) and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations.”

In anticipation of the report by U.N. inspectors, coalition forces of more than 30 countries, led by the United States and Great Britain, continued to deploy in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East.  It was during this period of time that the Bush administration requested the necessary war powers from the U.S. Congress.

The Iraq war powers act, P.L. 107-243, passed the Republican-controlled House on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133, and the Democrat-controlled Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.  Twenty-eight Democrats, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, and Biden, voted in favor of the proposal.  Finally, on March 20, 2003, with all coalition forces in position, the invasion of Iraq commenced.  That represents the conventional wisdom, the “cover story,” which liberals and Democrats continue to use to try to convince the American people that George Bush and Dick Cheney lied to launch the Iraq War.  But there is much more to the story.

In early March 1990, I received a telephone call from my friend Chuck de Caro.  He was calling from Tucson to say that he needed my help.  Chuck was a former special assignments reporter for CNN.  In that capacity he received many of the most dangerous foreign assignments.  During the Nicaraguan civil war, he parachuted into the Nicaraguan jungles to live with Contra guerilla forces for weeks at a time… eating snakes, rodents, and other jungle varmints and bringing out dramatic news film of guerilla engagements.

Then, during the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada, when Ronald Reagan sent American troops to rescue American medical students trapped when communist forces took control of the island, Chuck was the first American newsman to break the news embargo on the battle zone.  At one point, as he “ate dirt,” lying flat on his face in the no-man’s-land between U.S. and Cuban ground forces, he concluded that there had to be a better way of covering such conflicts.

I first met Chuck in 1987 when I worked as a consultant to the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington.  During the months that I shared a beautiful estate in Great Falls, Virginia, Chuck occupied an RV parked in the woods behind our garage, developing a concept of Information Warfare called SOFTWAR, the centerpiece of which was a Lockheed L-188C Electra aircraft with “long legs” fuel capacity, and with a network-quality newsroom built inside the fuselage.  He spent the next three years promoting his SOFTWAR concept to the major networks and finding the necessary funding for the project.  His telephone call in March 1990 was to tell me that he had his flying newsroom nearly completed and that he needed my help to complete it.

When fully equipped, the aircraft featured side-looking, forward-looking, and rear-looking gyro-stabilized, FLIR zoom-lens color TV cameras; side-looking airborne radar (SLAR) with a range of 100 miles on either side of the aircraft; a gyro-stabilized KU-band satellite up-link and C-band down-link; five redundant radio-telephone transmission systems; two complete edit stations, and two remotely piloted drones… small  unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with gyro-stabilized color TV cameras that could be flown over distant venues, any place where it was too dangerous for humans to go.  Aerobureau-One was the most sophisticated communications aircraft in the world.  No one had anything like it, not even the U.S. Air Force with their C-130 COMMANDO SOLO-II aircraft.

Unfortunately, the major networks were in the process of shrinking their international footprint, so Aerobureau-One went into mothball status in Canada.  It was not until the summer of 2002, twelve years later, when the Republican-controlled House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) decided that de Caro’s SOFTWAR concept was the perfect solution for deposing Saddam Hussein without the necessity of putting “boots on the ground” in Iraq.

Under the theory that no dictator can remain a dictator unless his people believe him to be both omnipotent and omniscient, HPSCI authorized the necessary funding for an intense Information Warfare campaign designed to remove one or both of those advantages from Saddam Hussein… thereby hastening the day when he would be overthrown by his own people.  Saddam’s ability to communicate with the Iraqi people via radio and television would be fully degraded by U.S. air power and replaced with radio and TV transmissions from a coalition broadcast platform, our Aerobureau-One aircraft, stationed in either Kuwait or Turkey.

However, the U.S. Senate, comprised of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, changed from Republican to Democrat control when Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) left the Republican Party to become an Independent, aligning himself with senate Democrats.  As a result, when the HPSCI authorization arrived in the U.S. Senate as a supplement to the 2002-03 Defense Appropriations bill, senate Democrats decided that it was more important for them to have a political issue to use against George W. Bush in his 2004 reelection campaign than to avert a ground war in Iraq.

In early September 2002, de Caro called to say that the HPSCI authorization was stalled in the U.S. Senate and that he needed the assistance of an experienced lobbyist to help convince senate Democrats to stop playing politics with the impending invasion.  I arrived in the Washington, DC area on September 9 and we began immediately to map out our lobbying strategy.

On September 12, we spent our first full day in the U.S. Senate, briefing aides to Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dick Shelby (R-AL) vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator John Warner (R-VA) the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  In the days and weeks that followed we received solid support from senior Senate staffers, but their interests and the interests of the Democratic senators they served were clearly not in sync.

While Democrats made impassioned speeches on the floor of the senate, insisting that the Congress could not give George W. Bush the war powers he sought, and that a way had to be found to remove Saddam Hussein through non-violent means, they were busy in the Capitol basement instructing the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee to kill the HPSCI SOFTWAR authorization… our last best hope of averting a ground war in Iraq.

de Caro and I spent most of September and October 2002 attempting to get senate Democrats to authorize and fund the SOFTWAR initiative, but to no avail.  And when we asked that they fund the project for a single dollar, just to get it “in the pipeline,” with supplemental funding to be added during the 108th Congress, they refused even that.  They wanted an issue to use against George Bush, even if it meant ignoring a non-violent means of averting a ground war in Iraq.

In that war, some 4,500 American men and women, and countless Iraqis, paid with their lives.  Clearly, their blood is on Democrat hands, not on Bush and Cheney.  I know; I was there.  As radio icon Paul Harvey was fond of saying, “And now you know… the rest of the story.”

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment