Have you ever watched the Rev. Al Sharpton’s television show on MSNBC and wondered what you’d get if you combined his ignorance of American history with James Carville’s inability to quit speaking? If so, you’ve probably concluded, as I have, that you’d get someone who sounds a lot like Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. (Yes, the same Congresswoman Lee who, while visiting NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratories in 2005, infamously asked whether the Mars Pathfinder had taken a photograph of the flag Neil Armstrong planted on Mars in 1969.)

And as I listened to Lee speak recently, February 8th, on Ed Schultz’s radio show, it dawned on me anew that responsibility for many of our nation’s current woes can be directly traced to the fact the we’ve placed congressional members and senators in power who know little to nothing about recent American history, much less events surrounding our nation’s founding.

For example, when Schultz asked Lee why anyone would think Congressional Republicans wanted to better the economy when their chief focus appears to be defeating the president, Lee concurred, in a round-about way, then said:

As I have scanned the annals of history, during the tenure of many presidents, obviously the recent presidents of JFK and Lyndon Baines Johnson, of Richard Nixon who was impeached, and subsequently Ford and Carter. I cannot find in the statement of a message of a minority leader, majority leader, or speaker, whose message has been defeat the commander-in-chief.

Wow. The “recent presidents” Lee referenced were JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. JFK died in 1963 and Carter left office in January of 1981. In other words, “recent” to Lee is somewhere between 31-to-49 years ago? Moreover, Lee said Nixon was impeached. Seriously folks, Nixon made history by becoming the first president in U.S. history to resign the office, and of course he resigned before charges of impeachment were brought against him.

(more…)

In last week’s essay, we quoted Winston Churchill’s memorable statement that “Democracy is the worst system there is except for all the others.  We also restated Churchill’s observation by noting that we need to revise our delegate selection process and “the sooner the better.”

This observation is most particularly true for the nominating process of either party seeking to replace an incumbent President or the party of an incumbent who is not running for re-election.

With Iowa’s caucus and the New Hampshire primary finished, we should pause and look at a little history to illustrate how our current process, in effect, disenfranchises a majority of voters.

In 1952, Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois (perhaps one of that state’s last governors who did not go on to a career of making license plates)  was selected as the nominee at the Democratic convention through a series of state primaries and won the 1952 nomination at the Democratic convention on the third ballot.  Today, nominating conventions have no real purpose to them except for the public learning the nominee’s vice-presidential choice.  Bringing party professionals into the mix might spare us another Sarah Palin debacle.  Perhaps there is a role for smoke filled rooms, even though smoking would be banned!

In 1952 the process produced Senator John Sparkman as the democratic Vice-Presidential choice, an obvious sop to party bosses who did not trust the candidate Estes Kefauver, who went into the convention with the most pledged delegates. After the first two ballots Kefauver led but was overtaken on the third ballot when Stevenson was nominated.  The 1952 presidential race had earlier been thrown into disarray when President Truman announced that he would not seek re-election.  As we all know, General Eisenhower was elected President in November 1952. In 1956 Kefauver ran again and won the New Hampshire and Minnesota primary over Stevenson.  Although Stevenson was again nominated, this time around the party chose Kefauver as his running mate.

Fast forward to 1968 when President Johnson made his surprise announcement to a nation bitterly divided by the Vietnam War that he would not seek another term.  Senator Robert Kennedy won the California primary in June, defeating anti-war Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota.  Kennedy in his final words said “on to Chicago” before being shot by a lunatic, Sirhan Sirhan.  In the end, Senator Hubert Humphrey received the nomination, but lost the general election to Richard Nixon, who had stated in 1962, after losing the California governorship, that we wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.

(more…)

In a stunning worldwide move, the U.S. Federal Reserve in coordination with the European Central Bank, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank and China’s Monetary Authority agreed to temporarily “dollarize” the euro. Facing a vicious bank liquidity crisis and a political nightmare; the German dominated European Central Bank (ECB) agreed to the virtual outsourcing of Europe’s monetary policy to the U.S. Federal Reserve. Although described as a precautionary arrangement for political cover; the “dollarization” of Europe has re-established the U.S. dollar as the world’s only reserve currency.

Twenty years ago, European nations sought to form their own reserve currency to limit the power of the United States in controlling their economic destiny. Following World War II, the U.S. took control of European monetary policy by pouring over $50 billion of cash into the war shattered economies. Over time, sovereign currencies were re-introduced; but the U.S. maintained dominance over each nation’s monetary policy through its reserve currency status.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon exercised this domination in a trade dispute with Europe and Japan by suspending the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, setting wage and price controls, cutting taxes, and placing a 10% surcharge on all imports in an effort stimulate the U.S. economy by devaluing the exchange rate of the dollar. U.S. stock markets had their largest one day rally in history; while foreign stock markets crumbled. Four months later; the United States forced agreements for currency appreciation by Japan of 16.9%, Switzerland of 13.9%, Germany of 13.6%, France of 8.6%, and Britain of 8.6%. This effective devaluation of the dollar is credited as creating 700,000 American jobs and cementing President Nixon’s reelection in 1972.

Having suffered from such manipulation under America’s control over European financial affairs; in 1992 the nations of Europe began creating an economic integration that would lead to the introduction of the euro currency on January 1, 1999. Overnight, Europe became the largest trading block in the world and the euro with €890 billion in circulation became the world’s second reserve currency.

Prior to the introduction of the euro; the southern European nations of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (PIGS) regularly devalued their currencies to remain competitive with the highly industrialized and sophisticated northern European countries. The introduction of the euro permanently fixed exchange rates for all euro members; but gave the PIGS access to loans from northern banks at less than half their prior interest costs.

(more…)

Forty seven years ago this week, Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in the biggest landslide since 1936. Today, both left and right see in Goldwater’s defeat the beginnings of the conservative revolution that would bring Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. Missed in this thesis, though, is how 1964 was a prime example of modern Democratic campaigning with its allies — the mainstream media — that we suffer under today. It was also a historic turning point that might have been avoided.

It is fashionable for the Left to co-opt Barry Goldwater as they have Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton called him a “patriot” and James Carville characterized him a “principled conservative,” at odds with today’s “loony right.” But this was not so in 1964. The mainstream media, not called that then, labeled him a fascist. Walter Cronkite said of him that “Goldwater was going places, among them Nazi Germany.” Psychiatrists lined up behind the Johnson campaign, declaring Goldwater “emotionally unstable.” Reporters were aware that LBJ was heightening the conflict in Vietnam, but said nothing while LBJ promised not to send “American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”

Journalists on the campaign trail saw Johnson drunkenly board a plane armed with nuclear weapons and then accidentally drop them on the United States. Luckily, by the grace of God, they did not go off. None of this was reported, while newspapers editors worked in overdrive to portray Goldwater as eager to push the button. Today, pundits argue that dirty tricks by Carville and Begalia were something new on the horizon for Democrats and were borrowed from decades of Republican campaigns. But Johnson was a pioneer of the Clinton War Room. He used the FBI to wiretap the candidate, bought political information from Goldwater defectors, and in an eerie foretaste of Watergate, put domestic CIA chief Howard Hunt on the White House payroll to infiltrate, even burglarize, Goldwater headquarters (with Democratic blessing, Hunt filtered his findings and received cash through a dummy corporation called National Press). What is striking about these tactics was how unnecessary they were. Johnson beforehand knew he was going to win, but he wanted “to crucify” Goldwater nonetheless.

(more…)

In late April 1970, the Vietnam War was raging, the draft for that war was still extant, and President Richard Nixon was describing our invasion into Cambodia as means of gaining the upper hand on the Viet Cong. The counter culture, which had already erupted violently at various times in the previous months and years, began to show signs of erupting once more. On and around the campus of Kent State in Ohio, the possibility for trouble was especially keen: protestors marched, fights broke out (both on campus and off), and police and National Guardsmen (who had been called in to keep the peace) were pelted with rocks. On the campus, the ROTC building was set on fire as “war protestors” unleashed their venom on what was the most recognizable symbol of our military they could find (apart from the National Guardsmen whom they were pelting with rocks, that is). Those first four days of May 1970 were crazy.

A month ago, Wall Street protesters revived the kind of protests we witnessed in the late 60s and early 70s. These soon became occupations (Occupy Wall Street) and, like those at Kent State so many decades ago, proved to be but a small part of a larger counter culture movement around the country. Sadly, the protests occupations also proved disrespectful, and frequently downright dangerous, to police officers, as those at Kent State proved to be during those first four days of May. From defecation on police cars, to graffiti on the same, to throwing objects at policemen, occupiers in cities around the country have literally gone after the police with an abandon that begs for relation yet criticizes any. Through it all, the police have somehow restrained themselves.

(more…)

While Obama tours the country promoting his personal donation plan, the Republican Presidential hopefuls are in a pitched battle for the nomination and arguing which tax simplification plan is best. Threatened with the possibility of rate cuts, the Media and politicians trot out the usual suspects of lies about tax hikes and tax cuts.  This is a battle Republicans must win and, to do so, they need to expose those lies.

Keep in mind that the battle between those who create wealth and those that want to redistribute it, mainly politicians, is as old as civilization itself.  We read of tax battles and even reform in every age, like Urukagina’s tax reductions in Babylonia/Sumer in 2350 BC.  Equally venerable are the constant set of demagogic lies by those against tax cuts and simplification.  It is important to note that politicians like complicated tax codes and high tax rates because they control those rates and dispense the loopholes and regulations that complicate the tax code.  Tax simplification means they lose power.  As a result, resistance to tax reform is more often the rule than reform. As for the lies, they abound, so let’s consider just a few:

Lie # 1: Tax cuts cause deficits/Tax hikes balance the budget.  The Media and the Left often say that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts led to deficits while Clinton’s tax hikes led to a balanced budget. In truth, according to the IRS, federal tax revenues rose dramatically after the overall Reagan tax cuts/reforms (98%) and the Bush tax cuts (a record $700+ billion). This is just as they did after the Harding/Coolidge cuts (61% revenue increase) and after the Kennedy/Johnson cuts (62% revenue increase).  Those are the four major income tax reductions we have had since the inception of the income tax in 1913 and every time revenues rose after they were in place – every time.

So did the tax rate cut cause a deficit? The lie, of course, is to blame the revenue gathering mechanism (tax code/rate cut) instead of the revenue spending mechanism, i.e. Congress/Presidents.  The spenders kept spending – often at an accelerated rate when they saw the new revenues.  Thus, the fault for continuing deficits lies not with tax rate cuts, which produced higher revenues, but with politicians who spent too much.

(more…)

As a student of history, I’ve always wondered what must have gone through Richard Nixon’s mind when he was ordered to turn over the secret recordings that blew the covers of Watergate in 1974.

What degree of consternation must he have felt when the court order for those tapes sealed his doom?

For that matter, what was going through Bill Clinton’s mind when “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” no longer sufficed? I’ve wondered what he must have thought when the game was uncovered, and he knew he was going to have to come clean (for a change).

Now, with the rapidity of events surrounding the investigation of “Fast and Furious,” and the extremes to which the current administration seems willing to go in order to cover its tracks, I’m actually wondering what’s going through President Obama’s mind right now?

And what is Eric Holder thinking?

In my opinion, with every release of new documents in the Fast and Furious investigation and every discovery of new aspects of the cover-ups related to the operation, Obama and Holder are inching closer to the days when they’ll be forced to admit their roles in a scandal that dwarfs Watergate and makes the crimes for which Clinton was impeached seem like misdemeanors.

(more…)

Much has been made of the Jimmy Carter-like malaise that Barack Obama has placed this country in. With good reason, comparisons are being made of the fact that they’re both weak and that neither demonstrates a working knowledge of the military or how foreign policy and energy solutions should be pursued. (Concerning the latter, Carter gave us Gasohol and Obama has given us the Chevy Volt.)

Thus, we’ve been inundated with comparisons to the 1980 presidential elections and predictions of how the right GOP candidate, say Gov. Palin or Gov. Perry, will ring up Obama in November 2012 the way Ronald Reagan rung up Carter some 31 years ago.

But when I recently visited with guest hosts Cameron Gray and John Popp on the NRA’s “Cam & Company,” and we discussed the mobs that betray a seething rage just below the surface in many parts of America, it dawned on me that the comparison to 1980 may not be apropos. Instead, what may be needed is to turn back the clock a bit further to when the counter-culture was in full swing and another Democrat who knew nothing about the presidency was making a fool of himself.

The year was 1968, and the president was Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ).

A Democrat’s Democrat, LBJ spent us into oblivion (and continues to long after his death) via the “War on Poverty.” He watched as the counter-culture went from somewhat peaceful to somewhat violent to completely out of control. And he didn’t take the Vietnam War seriously because he was so intent on passing his domestic agenda (“The Great Society”) and he didn’t want anything to distract from it.

Just think about it folks: Obama has spent us into oblivion (he added more money to the national debt in his first 19 months “than all presidents from Washington to Reagan combined”).  He has not only watched the mobs break loose in certain cities, but has instigated them via his ongoing habit of pitting one group or class of people against another. And while our soldiers are being shot and killed overseas, Obama is angling for a way to pass a second stimulus bill and to raise more taxes in his ongoing bid to “spread the wealth around.”

(more…)

After The Washington Post broke the news of the Watergate break-ins in 1972, the Nixon administration circled the wagons. And in 1997 – a full 25 years after the fact – Katherine Graham, who was with The Post in 1972, vividly recalled how “Nixon began making threats of economic retaliation against the paper.”

According to Graham, Nixon bullied the paper, sought to silence it, and launched a “campaign to undermine public confidence in [it].”

Judging from what Graham said, it appears that Nixon wanted to be sure people understood that if they continued to pry into Watergate or talk about Watergate or break news about Watergate as it unfolded, there would be harsh ramifications. (Keep in mind – Nixon had nothing to do with planning Watergate. Only with covering it up once he learned of it after the fact.)

Honestly folks, Watergate provided the Left with such a singularly sweet opportunity to bring down a Republican president that they’ve never gotten over it. As recently as 2004, MSNBC sent reporters to the streets to be sure up and coming generations had not forgotten what Nixon had done. (I don’t want to belabor the point, but Nixon had nothing to do with planning Watergate. Only with covering it up once he learned of it after the fact.)

So for covering up something up, Nixon was crucified by Left: to the point that by the summer of 1974 it became evident the House of Representatives was going to bring up impeachment charges against him. But he nipped those plans in the bud by resigning office on August 9, 1974, and flipping the “V” for victory to the hippies and the war protestors as he boarded the chopper that carried him away from the White House.

No one died during the Watergate break-ins or as a result of Nixon’s cover-up.

Switch gears and jump to 2009, and the ATF’s special operation “Fast and Furious.” An operation with which you’re all familiar by now, where upwards of 2500 guns in Arizona were sold to “straw purchasers” under the assumption that those guns were going to end up in the hands of Mexican cartel members who could then be arrested.

Talk about an embarrassingly ignorant plan.

(more…)

Well, here we go again. Republicans scratching their heads, watching the Democrats run circles around them. It seems The Grand Old Party is always waiting for the chance to turn tables on the Democrats, and, it just never works out. When Democrats were in the Majority, the Press Loved the Democrats, so it was assumed when Republicans took over in 1994, that they would have the same close relationship. (Whoops.) Such naive trust is the kind, that loses great fortunes to Nigerian Princes.

When Republicans held the majority, they were civil with Democrats. They would give them important seats, seek their council on policies, and pass through every Democrat judicial nominee with respect; hoping that when they were in the minority again, they will be shown the same respect. (Whoops again.) No wonder Conservative ideas never gain any traction. They are as helpless as red-coated soldiers marching into the forest with pipes and drums blaring.

Now that Republicans have the majority back, and the President has initiated force in Libya, there was a futile hope that a Democrat President will respect the War Powers Resolution. (Whoops cubed. Fool me one time, shame on you; fool me twice, let’s go for three!) It was a mistake of perception. Despite the antiquated notion of equal treatment under the law, the War Powers Resolution wasn’t written for Democrat Presidents –it only applies to Republicans.

It all boils down to our differing views of law. While we see the Constitution as an inflexible document that outlines the sole authority under which the Federal Government can legally exist, the Democrats see it as six pages of enormous loopholes. To us, laws are inflexible orders that apply to everyone, regardless of their position in society; to Democrats they are nothing more than handy tools for leveraging a campaign donation out of a stingy donor. The Health Care waivers are good examples of this double standard; another is Al Gore’s private jet.

(more…)

He used to be known as “Richard Nixon’s favorite Mayor” when he was Mayor of Indianapolis and while the New York Times says he’s a “conservative” there is little in his record to indicate this. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar has always been a “moderate” Republican and has drifted further left as time goes by.

The Times also speaks of Lugar’s “affection” for Ronald Reagan which wasn’t reflected in his Chairmanship of Senator Howard Baker’s campaign for President in 1980. While there is no doubt that Lugar is a decent man and dedicated public servant, thirty years in the Senate is enough. The election of Dan Coats to the Senate from Indiana is proof the state can sustain the election of a real conservative.

Lugar is defying his party on an earmark ban, a bill that would create a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, a military spending authorization bill and an arms control treaty with Russia, the Times noted on Sunday. He even declined to sign a brief supporting state lawsuits against President health care law.

Talk of a challenge from Governor Mitch Daniels are false.

(more…)

Phase one for restoring the republic is over: the House is now in Republican hands, thereby assuring nothing radical will sail through the Congress in the next two years (although it would be wise to be on the alert for unconstitutional executive orders intended to accomplish that purpose). If the electorate remains informed and stays on task, 2012 will see the Senate flip as well since the majority of seats up for reelection are currently in Democrat hands.

Phase two may be more difficult. How likely is it that an incumbent president will be stripped of his position? What will it take? Some say it’s a very difficult task, yet it has occurred rather often. Under what circumstances? A short survey of twentieth-century presidential politics may offer some clues as to the feasibility that Barack Obama will be a one-termer.

We can begin with William Howard Taft, Republican winner of the 1908 election as the handpicked successor to Theodore Roosevelt.

(more…)

While browsing the “Antiques” category on eBay today, I came across a most remarkable ad. I had to do a double-take at first but on second glance I saw it really was true. Someone is actually auctioning off Gloria Allred, famed so-called victims’ rights attorney, on eBay. Incredible.

Here’s the verbatim listing, taken directly from the online auctioneer’s website:

“Item:  Sleaziest Lawyer in America

Current Bid: $2.50

Buy Her Now! price: $9.50

Condition: Slimy but still working

Item description:

Item is a 69-year-old American female attorney named Gloria Allred (nee Bloom), date of birth July 3, 1941. Item is a member of the California Bar Association.  Item has a long and checkered history of inserting itself into high-profile or controversial cases (O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, Roman Polanski, Tiger Woods) and—as events of this past week demonstrate—even at current long-in-the-tooth stage, item has lost none of its effectiveness at cheap publicity stunts.

(more…)

When, in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton writes that “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” he refrains from asserting that energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government. He is right to deploy the indefinite, rather than the definite, article. Had he chosen the latter, Thomas Jefferson’s accusations would have been on the mark: our first Secretary of the Treasury really would have been a monarchist of sorts.

What Hamilton had in mind, however, when he insisted on the necessity that the new nation be endowed with an energetic executive is the fact that a government in which the laws are not vigorously executed and in which emergencies are not confronted and handled with decision and dispatch is hardly a government at all. He knew that wisdom, prudence, and moderation are also required for a government to be good, and he recognized as well that the ends and sphere proper to government are limited. He was no less committed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence than was the man who had drafted it.

Hamilton was also aware that that Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell had been energetic executives, and to their number we can now add such luminaries as Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot. The executive temperament necessary for good government is not, alas, sufficient to guarantee its achievement.

If, as I argued in mid-June, it is now abundantly clear that Barack Obama lacks the temperament requisite in an executive, if, as I contended, he is inclined to shirk responsibility, shift the blame, dither, and punt, his administration is beyond question a government insufficient for our needs. This does not mean, however, that – merely by demonstrating energy, vigor, and dispatch in shouldering the responsibilities of executive office – Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Jeb Bush of Florida, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, or any of the other potential presidential aspirants in the Republican Party who have been effective governors has demonstrated that he possesses all of the qualities called for in the grave crisis we now face.

All of the individuals I have named are impressive – as are, for example, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. The moment has not yet arrived, however, for a thorough assessment of the qualities and outlook of each. There will be plenty of time for sorting through the candidates after the midterm elections.

(more…)

Rand Paul’s controversial remarks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act illustrate what I have been saying for years, that Republicans would benefit tremendously from knowing and appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party.  That landmark legislation was the culmination of a century of efforts by Republicans to protect African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors.  Let’s look at the facts.

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill.  Don’t let it fail.”  In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever.  A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations.  Sound familiar?  Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

During the twenty years of the FDR and Truman administrations, the Democrats had refused to enact any civil rights legislation.  In contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which had been written by his Attorney General, a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee.  The original draft would have permitted the federal government to sue anyone violating another person’s constitutional rights, but this powerful provision would have to wait until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The bill had to be weakened considerably to secure enough Democrat votes to pass, so violations would be civil, not criminal offenses, and penalties were light.  Vice President Richard Nixon helped overcome a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.  The GOP then strengthened enforcement with its 1960 Civil Rights Act.

(more…)

“Since you, Mr. President and you, the members of the American administration, believe in this (a two-state solution), it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution (emphasis added) — impose it!“ demanded Fatah and PA Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a speech to leaders of Fatah just last week. “But don’t tell me it’s a vital national strategic American interest … and then not do anything,” he continued.

And so there you have it. Washington’s tongue lashing of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Administration’s breath-taking statements that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is endangering the lives of American troops seems to represent a fundamental shift in America’s strategic thinking.  Abbas’s demand will undoubtedly be remembered as the first of what will most assuredly be a chorus of international support for President Obama’s newly emerging, Mideast policy…a conference at which the terms of peace will be crafted by the United States and imposed on Israel and a new state of Palestine. Over sixty years of Arab intransigence are finally paying off.

And so, we see another ill-fated peace conference on the horizon. Certainly, there have been many American-sponsored peace conferences (both direct and indirect) before.  There was the shuttle diplomacy of the Nixon Administration during which Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shuttled back and forth between Israeli leaders and Arab leaders.  The very dedicated and hard-working Dennis Ross found himself on the same merry-go-round during the Clinton years. Those were known as proximity talks (sound familiar?).  No Arab official or Palestinian leader would sit at the same table with an Israeli representative. The idea was to secure enough concessions from Israel to coax an actual face-to-face meeting into reality.

Then, of course, there was the first Camp David conference, which was made possible by Anwar Sadat’s readiness to permanently end Egypt’s long- standing, state-of-war with Israel in return for Israel returning to Egypt the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had captured in the 1967 six-day war and retained following the so-called Yom Kippur War of 1973.  Sadat, a courageous and honorable soldier and statesman, was assassinated for his bravery …for his willingness to bring to an end the long-standing, state- of-war between Egypt and Israel.  No Arab or Palestinian leader has since been willing to enter into any agreement with Israel if such an agreement required a clear statement that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would then be resolved and that no further demands were to be made by either party against the other. The Madrid conference brokered by President George H.W. Bush, the Wye River conferences brokered by President Clinton, the second Camp David conference and the failed Annapolis peace conference sponsored by President George W. Bush, all failures because peace, permanent peace, was never on the Arab agenda…not then, and not now.

(more…)

David Weigel, at The Washington Post, asked me to comment on Michael Steele’s view of  the so-called Southern Strategy.

Speaking at DePaul University on April 20, RNC Chairman Michael Steele urged Republican leaders to work with the Tea Parties.  He has the right approach, to which I would add the fact, per my article on BigGovernment.com, that The Republican Party began as a Tea Party Movement.

Steele then went on to say:

“We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans.  This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass.  The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship.  People don’t walk away from parties.  Their parties walk away from them.  For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.  Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.”

Chairman Steele makes an interesting point, but he is accepting as true the Democrat version of events.  The theme of Back to Basics for the Republican Party is that celebrating our party’s heritage is not just for minority outreach but for all Republicans to appreciate that the GOP has been a great force for good ever since being founded in 1854 to oppose the Democrats’ pro-slavery, anti-freedom agenda.  I drew on that record of achievement in writing the historical information on the RNC website, also posted as Heroes and Heroics.

(more…)

These may well be the times that try the souls of Democrat politicians.

In the year since Obama took the oath of office, the fortunes of the Democrat Party have changed substantially. Voters, especially Independent voters, now favor Republicans on many issues and in Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot by 9%. Entrenched Senate Democrats like Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan are retiring and now – in no small irony – in the election heard ‘round the world, Scott Brown, campaigning against ObamaCare was elected to “Kennedy’s seat.”

It has been a remarkable turnaround – yet the worse is yet to come for Democrats in office.

Keep in mind that voters turned out the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 in large part because they spent too much, reformed too little and ran up the deficit into the $400 billion range. By the end of the Bush Presidency, economic troubles were mounting and the Republicans had no clear plan for a national recovery.

Today, the incidence of buyer’s remorse for voters over Barack is mounting for all the same reasons and more. Unemployment is at double digits, government reform has been abandoned in favor of unprecedented government spending and the deficit is in the $1.5 trillion range. All of that, with no meaningful recovery in site.

Beyond that, the President has his Party in the stickiest of wickets known to you as the Health Care debate. By allowing Pelosi and Company to write the bill, Obama lost control of the process and now public opposition to the bill is at an all time high.  Even so, the Democrat leadership still promises to push it – whether we like it or not.

(more…)

Everything about Sarah Palin is magnified, as the current book tour demonstrates. The book was number one the day it appeared for sale on Amazon. All public figures have a larger than life appearance, but it is far more pronounced with Palin. She is an almost unprecedented media phenomenon. Yet few present her as a truly serious person. Democrats attempt mockery and Republicans damn with faint praise. Those who themselves praise her strongly are cast in a similar light. The great paradox is, on the one hand, the media is driven to her like a moth to flame, yet, on the other hand, they treat her as if she were not worthy of all the attention.

This attitude comes from the same media which takes or has taken Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, and Joe Biden seriously. Admittedly, these are low hurdle comparisons, but that is exactly the point. Yet, to anyone who looks beyond the superficial coverage, it is obvious that Palin knows exactly what image she wishes to portray. Sarah Palin may or may not be a legitimate presidential candidate, (she is, in my opinion); her tactics on this book tour may or may not be helpful regarding future political ambitions (remains to be seen); but she is completely and naturally in command of herself. Yet this seemingly goes unobserved and flies in direct contradiction to the dominant narrative.

(more…)