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

The Great Soccer Mystery

On Monday, March 8, 2004, in the Colorado Avalanche’s 9-2 victory over the Vancouver Canucks, Todd Bertuzzi of Vancouver “sucker-punched” Colorado’s Steve Moore, driving his head into the ice and breaking his neck.  Bertuzzi was suspended for the remaining 20 games of the season, and although Moore eventually recovered, his professional career was over.  He never played hockey again.

Thinking about the Moore-Bertuzzi incident, it occurred to me that we may have lumped a whole lot of athletic activities into a single category called “sports,” when some contests can only be  loosely described as such.  I’ve always felt that the activities we call “sports” should be divided into four basic categories: perfect sports, imperfect sports, spectacle, and… soccer.

For example, American-style football is a perfect sport.  It is a game of violence, but there are rules to the violence that are strictly enforced.  It is the best, most perfect of all sports.

Baseball is a perfect sport.  The phoniest thing about baseball is the way they argue.  How many people do you know who argue by screaming at each other with their faces just inches apart, throwing spittle all over each other?  It’s disgusting, but no more disgusting than the spitting and crotch-scratching that most baseball players engage in.  With the inflated salaries they make, one would think that they could have their jock itch treated by a qualified dermatologist.

The other problem with baseball is the strike zone.  The rule book says that the strike zone is from the inside edge of home plate to the outside edge, and from the knees to the letters.  So why do the owners allow each and every umpire to have his own version of the strike zone?  It’s almost enough to make baseball an imperfect sport.

Track and field, swimming and diving, gymnastics, lacrosse, volley ball, squash, racket ball, and golf (what did I leave out?) are all perfect sports.  Tennis, too, is a perfect sport, except for its silly scoring system.  If you have no score, you have “love.”  When you score one point you have “15.”  If you score again you have “30.”  And if you score a third time you suddenly have “40.”  Why not “45?”  If at some point both players have the same score… 15-15, 30-30, or 40-40… it’s called “deuce,” which means “two.”  It’s probably a scoring system designed to be unfathomable just to keep the riff-raff off the tennis courts.

Basketball is the best example of an imperfect sport.  Not only is it intensely boring, if you tune in to the last thirty seconds of a basketball game you’ll see all the excitement you’re ever going to see.  So why not have thirty second basketball games?  Given the number of momentum-killing timeouts that coaches call in the closing minutes of a game, they could stretch two or three minutes into thirty minutes of commercial messages.

But the biggest rap on the game of basketball is the scoring for foul shots.  If a player steals the ball and races down the floor for an easy lay-up, chances are some huge 300 lb. galoot will land on his back and crash him to the floor.  When that happens, the player who is “mugged” gets to stand about sixteen feet from the basket and shoot two free-throws.  If he’s lucky enough or skillful enough to make both of them he’s awarded two points, the same number of points he would have made had he not been smashed to the floor.

So where’s the advantage?  Where’s the penalty?  The game of basketball could be improved 1,000 percent by merely making foul shots worth two points each and allowing no timeouts in the last five minutes of a game.

But none of these, perfect sports or imperfect sports, has the long and proud tradition of the “spectacle.”

We don’t know what games prehistoric man invented to amuse himself.  We do know that the Mayans played a game in which the players attempted to throw a ball through 6 in. round holes in stones attached to the front of the first row of spectator seats.  It must have been about as boring as watching a basketball game or a soccer game, but the excitement came at the end of the game when the captain of the winning team was decapitated by the local high priest.  That was “spectacle,” but it’s almost a certain bet that there weren’t a lot of MVP trophies sitting on mantles in Mayan homes.

Then, in the early Christian era, the local town folk in Rome enjoyed some real knee-slappers as they watched the Christians dashing around the arena, trying their damndest to be the last one eaten by the lions.  That was spectacle.

Later, the Spanish found a way to get even with the animal world by arming a whole bunch of guys with spears and swords and turning them all loose on a single bull.  That’s spectacle.

In the modern era, we have professional ice hockey, and its first cousin, professional wrestling.  Ice hockey could, and should, rank right up there with football as one of the greatest of all perfect sports.  It should be a game of beauty and grace, a game of speed, skill and athletic ability, but it’s played as if it were a common street fight.  It appeals to the most visceral side of human nature and attracts fans, most of whom would pay to see an autopsy or a fatal car crash.  It is not sport, it is spectacle.

And finally, there is European-style “football,” the game that we in America call “soccer”… a game that is in a category all by itself.

To understand how Americans feel about soccer, just imagine a football game between the Oklahoma Sooners and the Texas longhorns with 70,000 screaming fans sitting in the stands, but a game in which both coaches call the same “up the gut” offensive running play, time, after time, after time, for the entire game… no passing, no field goals, just a handoff to a running back who hits the middle of the defensive line.  What spectators would see for an hour is three-and-out, punt, three-and-out, punt, over and over again.  The excitement of it would compare well with a soccer match.  Boooring!

On Wednesday, June 25, columnist Ann Coulter, not a soccer fan, expressed herself on the subject of European-style “football.”  She wrote, “If more ‘Americans’ are watching soccer today, it’s only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law.  I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer.  One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.”

Coulter surmises that, if Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia by viewing a taped replay of Argentina vs. Brazil, instead of injecting himself with Propofol, he’d probably still be alive today… but bored.

We can all hope that an American soccer “fetish” will not evolve into the sort of hooliganism associated with European-style “football.”  In Europe, the violence created by soccer “hooligans” became such a problem that British soccer fans were banned from some matches on the continent.

In recent days, at the World Cup finals in Sao Paulo, masked hooligans singled out the British fans who’d hung British flags from the awning of a bar where they were drinking prior to the match between Uruguay and Great Britain.  The anti-British hooligans ran into the bar, smashed glasses, turned over tables, and ripped down the flags.  After throwing missiles at the fans, the attackers fled and tried to board a bus, but were chased down by police.  Fifteen were arrested.

So the question remains, why is it that soccer attracts so many acts of hooliganism?  It probably has something to do with the fact that watching a soccer match is about as exciting as watching paint dry or watching grass grow.  I suspect I’d be angry too if the only major sporting event available to me was soccer and the only beer I had to drink was Guinness Stout.  Sitting through ninety minutes of watching a bunch of guys running up and down the field, kicking a ball, not touching it with their hands, while swilling that evil-tasting concoction would be enough to drive anyone insane.


Never before has such a boring event been the root cause of so much violence.  That it should stir as much excitement as it has among so many American millennials is a complete mystery.  If we could figure what it is that has caused so many of them to go absolutely bonkers over World Cup soccer, we could probably also understand why so many of them voted for Barack Obama.







Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment