The Founders’ Worst Fears

As the Founding Fathers met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1778, producing word-for- word the greatest governing document in all of recorded history, they were haunted by a number of major concerns.  Among their most critical concerns was the long term sustainability of the constitutional republic they were creating.  How could they prevent it from being subverted?

General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, read a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  It was just five years and eleven months since Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and Jay was concerned that the administration of our federal government might one day fall into the hands of a man who might find it difficult…  because of divided loyalties… to always do what was in the best interests of the country.  He was especially concerned over what might happen if command of our Army and Navy should ever fall into the hands of such a man.

In his letter, Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”

In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the widely-held concern of foreign influence in the affairs of government.  He wrote, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”

Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a constitution under which only two of the 145,400,000 jobs in the United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.  So, precisely what was it that the Founders found so worrisome about future presidents… so worrisome that they placed such tight restrictions on access to the position?

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the fundamental cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents establishes the direction of his/her future conduct.  Accordingly, what the Founders feared most was the danger that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized in 2009 when Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.

Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States.  However, under the tutelage of her liberal Democrat parents she grew up to be a radical leftist, while his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a devout Kenyan-born socialist.  Obama spent most of his formative years as a citizen of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, where his name was changed to Barry Soetoro and his school records list his religious preference as Islamic.  Then, upon returning to Hawaii at age 10, he was mentored during his teen years by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, Frank Marshall Davis.  It was not the sort of environment conducive to the political and intellectual development of a man who would one day follow in the footsteps of patriots such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Obama went into office promising the most transparent administration in history, and that he would bring an end to the revolving door of lobbyists moving into and out of the White House.  Instead, the revolving door at the White House has been set spinning with lobbyists coming and going, while even the most liberal media outlets insist that his is the least transparent, the least responsive, and the most secretive administration in history.

He went into office promising to depolarize American politics and government and to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans.  Instead, he pokes his thumb into the eyes of Republicans at every opportunity, and what has always been a healthy mistrust between the major parties now approaches bitter animosity.

He went into office promising to reduce unemployment and to spur economic growth.  Instead, he has steadily shrunk the size of the U.S. workforce, increased the ranks of the unemployed, and, with little understanding how the U.S. economy works, stymied economic growth.

He promised to provide healthcare insurance for some 30 million uninsured, while improving the quality of healthcare and reducing the cost of healthcare for everyone… and all of that without increasing the number of doctors, nurses, and hospitals.  Instead, many workers have lost their insurance, doctors are giving up their practices, and employers are reducing the working hours of employees so as to avoid paying the burgeoning cost of healthcare benefits.

He went into office promising to close the budget deficit and reduce the national debt.  Instead, in the six years he’s been in office, he has not produced a single balanced budget and the national debt has increased from $9 trillion to $18 trillion… more than all previous presidents combined.

He went into office promising to reduce poverty and to shrink the income disparity between the rich and the poor.  Instead, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has gradually increased, nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the wage gap between the rich and the poor has steadily widened.

He went into office promising to heal the scars of racism and to bring our people together.  Instead, he has played the race card at every opportunity and race relations are now more tenuous than at any time in the past one-hundred years.

He went into office promising to solve the illegal immigration problem by first securing our borders.  Instead, millions upon millions of illegals from Mexico and Central America stream across our borders, while he uses every conceivable device to insure that the invaders can stay in the U.S. and that they will one day become reliable Democratic voters.

He went into office promising to improve relations with the Russians; to bring peace to the Middle East; to draw “red lines” in Libya and Syria that radical Islamists would not dare cross; to promote friendship and cooperation throughout the Arab world; and to heal any rifts that may have developed between us and our allies.  Instead, relations between the U.S. and Russia are at an all-time low; every nation in the Middle East is either at war or about to be at war; “red lines” were crossed but Obama failed to respond as threatened; our enemies throughout the Middle East are emboldened; the most dangerous purveyor of state-sponsored terror is just weeks or months away from having a nuclear weapon; our Arab allies no longer trust us; and our long-time allies in Israel and in Europe must now face a dangerous world without our leadership.

In short, Barack Obama is precisely what the Founders feared most when they wrote Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, limiting access to the presidency only to those who are natural born citizens.  In just six short years, Obama has become the “poster boy” for national suicide.

Unfortunately, the intellectually lazy in both major parties, representing the entire ideological spectrum from left to right, have failed to satisfy themselves of Obama’s eligibility.  Those on the left were so anxious to recapture the White House, especially with a young attractive black man as their standard bearer, that they paid no attention whatsoever to warnings that he was lacking in qualifications.  While on the right, it is all but impossible to find a conservative commentator or a political leader with the courage to challenge the bona fides of a black Democrat… horrified at the prospect of having to defend themselves against charges of racism.

Hence, what they have done is to create a de facto amendment to the U.S. Constitution without going to the trouble of consulting the provisions of Article 1, Section 3; Article II, Section 1; or Article V of the Constitution.

Now, because of the duplicity of the left and the cowardice of the right, we are confronted with a potential constitutional crisis involving the candidacies of Senator Ted Cruz (D-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)… all prominently mentioned as potential presidential nominees in 2016, but none of whom are eligible for that office because they fail to meet the “natural born” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Will Democrats, knowing that they supported and elected a usurper in 2008 and again in 2012, allow Republicans to do the same in 2016?  Are we to simply accept that two wrongs make a right?  Anyone who believes that Democrats are not so duplicitous as to glorify Obama’s illegal presidency while crucifying a Republican candidate guilty of the same offense, simply does not know Democrats.  Some liberals and Democrats are already clamoring for Ted Cruz’s long form birth certificate.  The wisest course would be for Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio to do what is best for their party and their country by removing themselves from consideration.  The worst fears of the Founders have been realized in Barack Obama.  Republicans should not repeat the outrage.


Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Hands Off the Secret Service

Each time we witness a disaster or a scandal of one kind or another, especially those involving politicians or government agencies, we find Monday morning quarterbacks pounding the table, shouting, “Somebody do something!”  That is certainly true of the latest mini-scandal involving the once-vaunted Secret Service, a government agency with a long and storied history of service to the nation… until recent years, of course.

On November 24, 2009, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, of Warren County, Virginia, crashed a black tie event at the White House honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhon.  Although they were uninvited, the Salahis passed through two Secret Services checkpoints, one of which required guests to provide photo IDs which were then checked against a list of invited guests.  Their gate-crash set off a firestorm of criticism of the Secret Service protective detail.

On April 14–15, 2012, the sixth Summit of the Americas was held at Cartagena, Colombia.  However, the misbehavior of Secret Service agents and U.S. military personnel, members of the presidential advance party, overshadowed the event.  In the days that followed, it was learned that some twenty Colombian prostitutes were suspected of having spent the night with Secret Service agents and U.S. military personnel at the Hotel Caribe in Cartagena.  The episode first came to light when one of the prostitutes complained that, even though she had upheld her end of the bargain, she had been inadequately compensated by one of the agents.  The central theme of the summit was, appropriately enough, “Connecting the Americas: Partners for Prosperity.”

On December 10, 2013, as Barack Obama spoke at a memorial service for former South African president Nelson Mandela, a fake sign-language interpreter joined Obama on stage, standing just feet to his left.  The impostor, Thamsanqa Jantjie, later told the Johannesburg Star that while he was on stage with Obama he heard strange voices and began to hallucinate, causing him to make signing gestures that were pure gibberish.  Obama’s unintelligible remarks left bewildered deaf viewers around the world scratching their heads and wondering, “What the hell did he just say?”

On March 23, 2014, three Secret Service agents were recalled from the Netherlands after one of the agents was found passed out drunk in the hallway of his hotel.  The agents were part of an advance team sent to the Netherlands in preparation for Obama’s upcoming visit to The Hague.  According to a story in the Washington Post, the three agents were members of the elite Counter Assault Team (CAT).  If the president or his motorcade is ever under attack, the CAT’s job is to draw fire, providing an opportunity for Obama and others in his party to escape unharmed.  One of the three agents recalled was a CAT “team leader.”

On September 16, 2014, Obama visited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta to receive a briefing on the Ebola crisis in Africa.  What he and his protective detail apparently did not know was that a local security guard, armed with a concealed handgun, rode on an elevator elbow-to-elbow with Obama, totally unaware of the security breach.

On September 19, 2014, just three days later, a mentally-disturbed veteran, Omar J. Gonzalez, climbed the White House fence on Pennsylvania Avenue, sprinted across the lawn, entered the double doors on the north portico, and rushed into the mansion.  Armed with a folding knife with a 2½ inch blade, Gonzales was well inside the White House, in the hallway leading to the East Room, when he was tackled by an off-duty Secret Service agent.

On March 12, 2015, two senior Secret Service agents, including a senior member of Barack Obama’s protective detail, crashed a car into a barricade at the southeast entrance to the White House following a late-night retirement party for Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.  It was immediately suspected that the agents were under the influence of alcohol.  However, a report in the Washington Post tells us that the agents were allowed to leave the scene after a supervisor overruled uniformed officers who wanted to arrest the agents and conduct sobriety tests.

The two agents, who were on their way home from the retirement party, were responding to a radio report saying that an active bomb investigation was underway on the White House grounds.  It was reported that, shortly before the agents crashed their car into the crime scene barricade, a woman had thrown a package at the security gate, shouting, “It’s a bomb!”  When the intoxicated agents careened onto the scene they reportedly ran their vehicle over the suspect package.  Fortunately, it contained a book, not a bomb.  To the best of our knowledge, the book was not a copy of Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father.

Contrast these uncharacteristic “Keystone Cops” foul-ups by the Secret Service to the conduct of the well-turned-out Marines who stand guard at the White House and at embassies around the globe.  A Marine Corps website tell us, “Missions have changed over the years, but what has remained constant since November 10, 1775 is our unyielding commitment to protecting the lives of our citizens and the interests of our nation.” The website goes on to say, “Honor requires each Marine to exemplify the ultimate standard in ethical and moral conduct… And, above all, honor mandates that a Marine never sully the reputation of the Corps.”

However, when one begins to contrast Marine Corps conduct with Secret Service lapses during the Obama era, it comes down to a question of constancy.  And while Secret Service personnel know as well as the Marines that Barack Obama is ineligible to serve in the office he holds, and that he is totally incompetent as our commander in chief, there is a difference.  While the young Marines, who dutifully salute as Obama steps down from Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, have 240 years of exemplary Marine Corps tradition to sustain them, the same is not true of the men and women of the Secret Service.  Although their duties and their obligation to the security of our nation’s leaders remain the same, the level of respect they hold for  presidents and first ladies undergoes a major transformation every four years.

In his book, In The President’s Secret Service, former agent Ronald Kessler provides insights into the presidents and first ladies of the modern era.  Having interviewed dozens of agents, past and present, Kessler tells us that “Gerald Ford was a true gentleman who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity.  Agents found Ford to be a ‘decent man who valued their service.’ ”

He describes Jimmy Carter as being “a complete phony who had disdain for the Secret Service and was very irresponsible with the ‘football’ nuclear codes… a ‘moody and mistrustful’ person who distanced himself from the agents who were sworn to protect him and his family.”

He describes Ronald Reagan as “moral, honest, respectful, and dignified.  The Reagans treated (the) Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor.  Nancy Reagan was very nice but very protective of the President… he treated the Secret Service agents, the Air Force One Crew, and the staff of maids and butlers at the White House with respect.”

“George H.W. Bush was extremely kind, considerate and always respectful towards Secret Service agents.  The Bushes took great care in making sure the agents’ comforts were taken care of and even brought them meals.”

Kessler writes that, “Bill Clinton’s term in office was one giant party; he was not trustworthy, (he was) adulterous, and was only nice because he wanted everyone to like him.  Hillary Clinton was another phony whose personality would change the instant cameras were near.  She hated with open disdain the military and (the) Secret Service.”

“George and Laura Bush were loved by the Secret Service… The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.  Laura Bush was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest…”

From interviews with current agents, Kessler writes, “Barack and Michelle Obama look down on the Secret Service and hate the military.  He is egotistical, cunning, and untrustworthy, and has temper tantrums.  Michelle… hates anybody who is not black, hates the military, and looks at the Secret Service as servants.”

What is immediately evident is that the last four Republicans presidents are described by the men and women who protect them as being “considerate,”  “decent,” “dignified,” “honest,” “kind,” “moral,” and “respectful,” while adjectives used to describe the last three Democratic presidents include “adulterous,” “cunning,” “hateful,” “disdainful,” “egotistical,” “elitist,” “irresponsible,” “moody,” “phony,” “temperamental,” “untrusting.” and “untrustworthy.”  What it tells us is what we’ve always known, which is that, compared to Republicans, Democrats are, in every respect, an entirely different “breed of cat.”

So let’s not overreact to an occasional Secret Service hiccup.  It is understandable that agents may not be at the top of their game when they’re called upon to lay their lives on the line for men and women who fail to command their respect.  What they suffer from and what makes their jobs so difficult is, more than anything else, a lack of constancy in the personal characteristics and the worthiness of those they protect.

Once the Obamas have packed up and left the White House on January 20, 2017, whether willingly or in handcuffs, the Secret Service will quickly regain its honored and well-deserved reputation.  In the meantime, until we can get the next Republican family moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, let’s keep our hands off the Secret Service.  If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.


Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Pinning the Tail on the Donkey

Two recent outrages following the 50th anniversary “Black Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, require a pointed response to Democrats.  First, a photograph of Barack Obama leading a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma is minus its most distinguished participant, George W. Bush.  The photo appearing on page one of the March 8 edition of the New York Times, above the fold, has been skillfully cropped to eliminate any photographic evidence that George W. and Laura Bush marched across the bridge with Obama and other black leaders.

Then, a black woman named Diane Nash, identified as a Martin Luther King, Jr.“Lieutenant,” proclaimed that she refused to march in the reenactment because George Bush was a participant.  As she explained, the reenactment of the March 7, 1965 march was intended to show support for non-violence, which George W. Bush opposes.  Yet, she and other Democrats appear not to be concerned that Selma’s most visible landmark is named after a known white supremacist, a reputed member of the Ku Klux Klan.  Nor do they seem to find any incongruity in joining forces with the Democrat Party, a party that for nearly a century imposed its will on black people with whips, bullets, fire bombs, and the hangman’s noose.

Each and every year the American taxpayer spends billions of dollars and countless classroom hours on a curriculum called “black history.”  But one wonders exactly what is being taught in those classrooms.  Are the schools and classroom teachers innocently omitting significant truths of black history, or are they purposely lying to black children?  Are black children being taught that it was the Republican Party that was born out of opposition to slavery, and that it was the country’s first Republican president who put an end to the institution of slavery?  Are they being taught that hundreds of thousands of the sons of white Republican abolitionists gave their lives in order to free black men and women from the bonds of slavery?  And are they being taught that it was Republicans who gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, outlawing slavery and giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote?

In the years immediately following the Civil War, southern Democrats found that they could no longer control and oppress their former slaves.  However, just because human slavery had been permanently abolished, Democrats didn’t immediately join the ranks of abolitionists.  Instead, in 1866, they established a paramilitary auxiliary called the Ku Klux Klan to keep the freed slaves in line and to force them to vote for Democratic candidates.  And once they’d regained control of the southern legislatures they set about enacting Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes, dictating where and for whom blacks could work, where they could live, where they could eat and sleep, which restrooms and drinking fountains they could use, and where they were allowed to sit in movie theaters and on trains and busses.  Such inhumane policies were still in effect as late as the 1950s.  As black historian John Hope Franklin has written, “The personal indignities inflicted upon individual whites and Negroes were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”

Herbert Aptheker, in his book, Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, Vol. 2, quotes the November 1, 1871 testimony of John Childers, a black resident of Livingston, Alabama, as recorded in Senate Report No. 579 of the 48th Congress.

Childers was questioned about threats made against him and whether or not he was afraid of what might happen to him if he voted Republican.  Childers replied, “I was sir, because… there was a man that told me he had a coffin already made for me.  Yes, sir, I voted it, and don’t pretend to deny it before nobody.  When I was going to the polls there was a man standing in the door and (he) says, ‘Here comes you, God damn your soul, I have a coffin already made for you.’   I had two tickets in my pocket then; a Democratic ticket and a (Republican) ticket.  I pulled out the Democratic ticket and showed it to him, and he says, ‘You are all right, go on.’ ”

On March 25, 1871, Kentucky blacks sent a letter to the Congress, saying, “The Democratic Party has here a political organization composed only of Democrats – not a single Republican can join them…. We pray that you will take some steps to remedy these evils listed below?”  The letter provided details of 85 murders (hangings and shootings), 18 beatings, 5 fire-bombings, 1 rape, and 10 miscellaneous attacks in Kentucky in the three year period between January 1868 and January 1871.  Although no official records of Klan atrocities, nationwide, are available for the years 1866 to 1882, Tuskegee Institute records indicate that, between the years 1882 and 1951, some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, nearly all Republicans, were lynched by the KKK.

On May 17, 1918, Klansmen committed an atrocity in Valdosta, Georgia that almost defies description.  Mary Turner, a black woman who was nine months pregnant, announced that she would seek the prosecution of the Klansmen who had lynched her husband, Hayes Turner.  A mob dragged her from her home, tortured her, and hanged her.  And while she was still alive, hanging from the rope, they cut open her womb, the child spilled out onto the ground and they crushed the baby’s skull under the heel of a boot… proving only that Democrats, in the history of their party, have been just as ruthless and bloodthirsty as the fighters of Islamic State who have a fondness for cutting the heads off their captives and burning others alive.

Are black children instructed on the evils of the KKK and who they were?  If not, they may be interested in the congressional testimony of former Klan member Thomas W. Willeford.  When questioned about his initiation into the organization and what he was told of the objective of the Klan, Willeford replied: They told me it was to damage the Republican Party as much as they could… burning, stealing, whipping n_ _ _ _ _ s and such things as that.

Unlike blacks of today, 19th century blacks had a well-informed opinion of Democrats.  Herbert Aptheker has written that, on February 18, 1884, Mrs. Violet Keeling, a black woman, testified before a U.S. Senate committee regarding black voting preferences.  She was asked what she would do if she found that her husband had voted Democratic.  She said: “I think if a colored man votes the Democratic ticket he has already sold himself… I would just pick up my clothes and go to my father’s, if I had a father, or would go to work for 25 cents a day.”

And finally, what are black children taught about the Democratic Party’s longstanding fondness for fraud and political corruption?  After Democrats gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 1894, they introduced the Repeal Act of 1894, hoping to repeal all of the major civil rights laws enacted by Republicans since the Civil War, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the First Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (identical to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which today’s Democrats attempt to take credit for).

Just before the final Senate vote on February 7, 1894, Senator George Hoar (R-MA) took Democrats to task on the Senate floor.  He said, in part, “Wherever there is a crevice in our protection of the freedom of the ballot there you will find the Democratic Party trying to break through.  Wherever we have left open an opportunity to get possession of an office contrary to the true and constitutional will of the majority, there you will find that party pressing; there you will find that party exercising an ingenuity before which even the great inventive genius of (the) American People, exerted in other directions, fails and is insignificant in the comparison… …

“If you will produce me a citizen of the United States, a Democrat, who lost his honest vote in consequence of intimidation or impediment, created by these United States marshals, I will find on record here the proof of ten thousand Republicans who have lost their votes by Democratic practices….  Mr. President, the nation must protect its own.  Every citizen whose right is imperiled, if he be but one, when it is a right of national citizenship and a right conferred and enjoyed under the Constitution of the United States, has the right to demand for its protection the entire force of the United States until the Army has spent its last man and the Navy fired its last gun.  Most of us have nothing else than the right to vote….  The urn in which the American cast his ballot ought to be, aye, and it shall be, as sacred as a sacramental vessel.”

And finally, are young blacks taught that, in 1909, four white Republicans issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice for African Americans?  The organization created as a result of that meeting was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)… the once-respected organization whose politics has drifted so far to the left that it has lost all relevance as a force for the social and economic advancement of minorities.

Since the earliest days of the civil rights movement in the 1950s, African Americans have been so thoroughly propagandized by Democrats that most rank-and-file Republicans consider them to be a lost cause.  They won’t even attempt to reach out to blacks because they’re convinced that, if they do, black leaders will only attempt to draw them into a bidding war for the hearts and minds of black voters.  That, Republicans will never do.

Sadly, the spineless men and women Republicans elect to Congress today seem blithely unaware that they are playing an entirely different game than their colleagues across the aisle.  Perhaps one day they will come to understand that Democrats of today are pretty much like Democrats of the 19th and 20th centuries.  The only major difference being that, today, they no longer arrive on horseback in the middle of the night, carrying ropes and torches and dressed in hoods and white sheets.  Today, they fly in private jets and wear Armani suits, silk ties, and Rolex watches.

On March 7th, Ms. Diane Nash refused to participate in the reenactment of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge because she was afraid she might accidentally rub elbows with George W. Bush.  Wouldn’t it be fun to sit down with Ms. Nash just to remind her of all the things black children are not being taught in “black history” class?

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment