Monthly Archives: September 2016

Voting Fraud Encouraged by Left

The news, first reported by NBC’s Seattle affiliate, that the perpetrator of the Cascade Mall mass shooting, an immigrant from Turkey who was not a citizen but voted anyway, is the latest detail highlighting the massive voter fraud crisis facing the 2016 election. It also raises questions why the Democrat Party continues to fight against reasonable and appropriate measures to address the problem.

According to the news station “The Cascade Mall shooting suspect, Arcan Cetin, may face an additional investigation related to his voting record and citizenship status. Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary. While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system.”

The news comes in the aftermath of a report by Colorado’s KCNC-TV,  a CBS affiliate,  that “exposed multiple instances in recent years where dead Coloradans were still voting.

True the Vote adds that mail ballot fraud is on the rise, as well.

These reports are only the very latest in repeated studies and analyses (previously reported in detail by the New York Analysis of Policy and Government) by objective sources that voting and voter registration fraud is rampant.

What may be an intentional refusal to update voter registration rolls allows the significant amount of fraud to be perpetuated. A Washington Times examination  of voters who moved out of the Nation’s capital to Prince George County in Maryland found that “The list of voters with names so unusual that there has been only one in the District and one in Prince George’s and who are listed as voting in both jurisdictions in the 2012 election is in the thousands. In an examination of 85, The Times confirmed through interviews and other public records that 15 were in fact the same person…Indeed, the list of Prince George’s voters with unusual names that match those on voter rolls in the District was far longer, at 13,000…The biggest risk of having nonresidents listed on the rolls is not the risk of people voting twice themselves, but of others appropriating their names by the hundreds…They are easy targets for those who would cast votes in other people’s names in bulk, often by absentee ballot, after scanning the list for names of people who hadn’t voted in years and would therefore not show up to hear that their vote already had been cast.”

True the Vote reports that despite nationwide-wide instances of voter fraud, Democrats continue to oppose reasonable measures to insure the sanctity of the ballot. After the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature passed a bill requiring phot ID for voting, Democrat governor Jay Nixon vetoed the measure. Governor Nixon’s partisan move was unsuccessful, since the legislature mustered sufficient votes to override the veto.

State measures still face opposition from federal courts, dominated by Democrat appointees. A recent DC Circuit decision placed an injunction prohibiting several states from requiring proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms.

The Clinton campaign has been particularly active in recruiting non-citizens into the election process. An August  Washington Examiner article noted that the Democrat nominee initiated an program to use undocumented aliens as a “voter registration army.”

Julia Porterfield, writing in National Review notes that “Marc Elias, the lead lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was among those who filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin challenging the state’s voter-ID law. … Following widespread voter-registration fraud in the 2008 presidential election, many states led by Republican governors quickly moved to pass voter-ID laws in an attempt to ensure the integrity of future elections.” There is an association between the Clinton Family Foundation, Porterfield reports, and ACORN, which has been accused of rampant voter registration fraud. The Clinton Family Foundation donated $10,000 to the group.

Roger Vadum, writing in Polizette, notes that “Voter fraud is commonplace in elections in America today. It has always been around to varying degrees because completely eliminating this kind of crime is impossible. The most policymakers can do is create laws and policies that attempt to minimize it. But this is where people on the Right and Left differ. Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care …The Left promotes voter fraud by fighting electoral integrity laws in the courts, often enjoying great success… some officials are hostile to election observers from nonpartisan good government groups like True the Vote monitoring their polling precincts. The Left labels such attempts to keep elections honest ‘voter intimidation.’

The Democrats no-holds barred approach to the 2016 election can also be seen in the legislation recently signed by California Governor Jerry Brown allowing felons waiting to be released the right to vote from their jail cells.

Wrong on Crime

There is an inclination on the part of many to characterize law enforcement in the United States as unnecessarily harsh or overbearing. The reality is quite different.

Hillary Clinton incorrectly stated during her September 26 debate that violent crime was down in the United States. FBI statistics indicate that she has her facts wrong. Murder rose 10.8% from 2014 to 2015, and violent crime in general rose about 4%. Ms. Clinton also incorrectly alleged that murders in NYC were down. The FBI reports, however, that homicides increased by 6% in the Big Apple from 333 in 2014 to 352 in 2015.

Ignoring the very recent increase in violent crime, or overlooking the strategies that led to the success achieved against violent crime two decades ago, could lead to a return to the dark days that plagued the nation with far too many murders and other vicious acts. Far too often, ideological agendas lead advocates to ignore the facts.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)  speaking at New York’s Hudson Institute, noted:

“We’re currently reaping the benefits of one of the great public-policy achievements in modern times: a dramatic, generation-long drop in crime… this drop in crime followed a decade-long spike in crime arising out of the drug epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s. That epidemic turned streets into literal battlefields, teenagers into foot soldiers, and too many citizens into casualties of the drug wars. It may seem like a distant nightmare now, but make no mistake: 30 years ago, our cities were slowly dying. At the peak of New York’s crisis, the city had 2,245 murders in one year-that’s over six murders every single day. In Los Angeles, a city half the size of New York, there were 1,094 murders. Nor was the crisis limited to the biggest cities….At one point, Little Rock had the highest per capita murder rate in America…

“We turned our society around and we made our streets safe again…it happened because of policy changes like broken-windows policing techniques, mandatory-minimum sentences for violent criminals, 3-strikes laws, and other reforms…Too many people, it would seem, have forgotten these hard-learned lessons. They take our historically low crime rates for granted, acting as if safe neighborhoods are the natural state of man. They often speak and act as if criminals are victims, too.

“This disturbing amnesia also comes with a policy agenda as ambitious as it is wrongheaded. Some members of Congress would reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers and other violent felons, while giving liberal judges more discretion in sentencing again. Others want to prohibit employers from inquiring about criminal history in job-application forms; some states have already done so. Just last month, one governor restored voting rights to more than 200,000 felons, regardless of the offense committed or evidence of rehabilitation. And, of course, a nationwide movement is afoot to stigmatize law enforcement and the proven policing strategies of the last 25 years.”

The U.S. Department of Justice is on the incorrect side of this debate As noted in a recent New York Post editorial,  Attorney General Loretta Lynch wants courts to replace fines and jail time for some offenses with “community service” and “amnesty days,” (whereby outstanding arrest warrants are cleared for nominal fees.)

There is truth to the argument that the U.S. has a large prison population. Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, writing in Prison Policy notes that The American criminal justice system holds more than 2.3 million people in 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,259 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails, and 79 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, and prisons in the U.S. territories.

There is, however, no accuracy in the claim that low-level drug offenses or racism are the reason. Stephanos Bibas, writing in National Review  reports: “As Fordham law professor John Pfaff has shown, more than half of the extra prisoners added in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s were imprisoned for violent crimes; two thirds were in for violent or property crimes. Only about a fifth of prison inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses, and only a sliver of those are in for marijuana. Moreover, many of these incarcerated drug offenders have prior convictions for violent crimes. The median state prisoner serves roughly two years before being released; three quarters are released within roughly six years. For the last several decades, arrest rates as a percentage of crimes — including drug arrests — have been basically flat, as have sentence lengths. What has driven prison populations, Pfaff proves convincingly, is that arrests are far more likely to result in felony charges: Twenty years ago, only three eighths of arrests resulted in felony charges, but today more than half do. Over the past few decades, prosecutors have grown tougher and more consistent.”

The reality that violent crime threatened the very existence of far too many American cities just a few decades ago should not be forgotten. The solutions to that crisis, including tougher sentencing and larger and more involved police departments (now too frequently incorrectly labelled as racist or oppressive) should not be undone if the nation is to avoid a return to the unwanted conditions of the past.

Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month

September is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Here are some facts about ovarian cancer that you may not be aware of:

  • There is no effective screening test for the early detection of ovarian cancer. It is often difficult to detect because its symptoms–such as bloating and appetite changes–are similar to those of other non-cancerous conditions. The pap smear test is for cervical cancer, not ovarian cancer.
  • An estimated 22,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year and about 15,500 will die from the disease.
  • Most patients are diagnosed at advanced stages, when the disease is harder to treat. Only 20 percent of cases are caught before the cancer has spread.
  • Ovarian cancer accounts for more deaths than all other gynecologic cancers and is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among American women.

To learn more about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, visit the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance’s Web site at, which also discusses the methods used to diagnose and treat ovarian cancer. Show your support in the fight against ovarian cancer by making a donation to OCRFA online or by contacting the organization P.O. Box 32141, New York, NY 10087-2141 or by calling 212-268-1002.

2016 Election Unlike Any Other

The oft-repeated cliché that “the current election is the most important of a lifetime” may finally be an accurate description of the 2016 contest.

The stark and vast gap between moderates, traditionalists and conservatives on the right and liberals, leftists and progressives on the left extends far beyond specific controversies. The massive difference this year is not attributable to individual questions; it involves the entire framework of how America should be governed, and its place in the world.

Formerly sacrosanct concepts such as freedom of speech, which some on the left, led by progressive Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) see as an obstacle to the implementation of their agenda to change the nature of political campaigns, are in contention. During his tenure, President Obama has sought (unsuccessfully) to place FCC monitors in newsrooms, and is currently seeking to hand over control of the internet from American hands, with its First Amendment protections, to an international body consisting of many countries that practice censorship.

Bedrock principles such as the separation of powers are also being challenged, as President Obama has continuously ignored this foundational Constitutional premise. To an extent not seen in generations, the question of states’ rights has also become a flashpoint.  2016 will be a referendum on the rise in both presidential supremacy over the legislative branch, and the ability of states to manage their own affairs.

The rapid demise of America’s national security will be a flashpoint. During the past eight years, the U.S. descended from its role as the world’s most powerful nation to one which is rapidly becoming weaker than the Russian-Chinese axis.

Beyond the issues, cultural differences have divided the nation to a much greater extent than even during the tumultuous ‘60s.  Questions such as the nature of America’s nationhood and the entire framework of its Judeo-Christian ethic are in play.

Concepts such as open borders clearly separate the left from the rest of the nation. Controlling the immigration process for the good of the American people rather than the needs of those seeking to enter is a basic indicia of sovereignty, and one which progressives have rejected in their belief that the U.S. and the benefits it provides to those residing within it should be available to almost all who seek entry.

Another clear example of the massive difference between most Americans and those on the left is their differing views on patriotic symbols and practices. Most Americans revere their flag, and enjoy rituals such as reciting the pledge of allegiance or singing the National Anthem before sporting contests. The left is so enmeshed in their view that the U.S. experience has been a negative one, that they find these practices unacceptable.

The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. from adopting an official religion. However, during the past several years, secularism has become the de facto state creed.  The fury and the passion of the secularist sect, a byproduct of the progressive movement, in their relentless drive to erase any vestige of traditional religion from schools and public life in general, has further divided the electorate.

An unspoken but very real part of the 2016 campaign is the fear on the part of the progressives that their recent victories over the Judeo-Christian ethic could be reversed if they lose the White House, because a more traditional-oriented Supreme Court, which will probably see several justices appointed by the next president, may revert to a more accurate reading of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.  Those on the right accurately note that the Constitution only prohibits favoring one religion over another; many (but not all) on the left believe that all traces of faith must be eliminated from public activity.

There is far more than just cerebral jousting over ideology that makes the 2016 contest far different than its predecessors. The results could have a direct personal impact on those involved unlike anything experienced before in America.

The Obama Administration has co-opted federal agencies for partisan purposes far beyond anything his predecessors ever attempted. Unprecedented acts by the Department of Justice in speculating on the criminalization of opposition to the President’s climate change views, the use of the IRS to harass Tea Party organizations, and other examples create a precedent that should make those opposing Clinton’s candidacy shudder.  On the other hand, if the controlling hand of the left is removed from the White House, criminal prosecutions for those misdeeds and the host of other ethical and Constitutional misdeeds by Clinton and Obama, respectively, should keep those two up at night.

2016 presents a campaign unlike any other. Expect it to be one of the most contentious in history.

War on Religion, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of anti-religion actions within the United States

Rachel Lu, writing in The Federalist reports: “Christians are turning into the sort of minority it is socially acceptable to despise and marginalize. Ordinary rules of civility and social inclusion don’t seem to apply to them. We believe in free speech, except not for Christians. Freedom of association doesn’t necessarily apply to them. Rules of civility and decency are more optional when Christians are involved. Shall we even pretend that freedom of religion is a cherished American commitment in our day? When a group is ‘approved’ for this kind of marginalizing treatment, it’s hard to predict where it will stop.”

The other portion of America’s Judeo-Christian ethic, Judaism, is facing equal challenges. Conservative Review  notes: “The far-left has in fact long been a breeding ground for anti-Semitism.”  The National Interest notes that “mainstream liberals in America have been reluctant to call out the anti-Semites wreaking havoc within the ranks of the Left…why have they allowed the cancer to metastasize this long?”

The problem is particularly acute in schools.  Even the normally liberal ACLU has criticized the excessive restrictions on religion in public schools, explaining: “The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools ‘religion-free zones’ or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong.”

Examples of the ridiculous degree to which religion is treated with hostility in public schools are provided by the Catholic League:

“A student at [Florida’s] Yulee High School ended the school’s morning announcement with ‘God Bless America.’ This caused the American Humanist Association to contact the school and the Nassau County School District to warn school officials that saying ‘God Bless America’ over the school’s public address system was ‘inappropriate and unlawful.’

“The California State University Stanislaus chapter of Chi Alpha, a Christian student organization, was deactivated because the group insisted that its leaders be Christians. The university said it would no longer recognize the group due to a non-discrimination executive order that prohibited student organizations from excluding anyone, including in leadership roles. ‘What they cannot be is faith-based where someone has to have a profession of faith to be that leader” said university vice president Tim Lynch.’Students argued that everyone was welcome to attend their meetings, regardless of their religious belief, but that group leaders were expected to lead prayers and perform other faith-based duties that it would be impossible for someone of a different faith to complete.”

Religious schools are also being attacked.  Holly Scheer, also writing in the Federalist,  describes an eventually withdrawn attempt in California that would have attacked religious schools:

“People used to expect that attending something sponsored by religious organization required abiding by mores and behavior that religious body professes. There was a simple option for avoiding the ideas or practices of a belief system you don’t agree with: don’t frequent their space. This courteous expectation naturally applied to all religions and expressions of faith. California [attempted] to end this system of free association that allows people to define their local and religious cultures. California Senate Bill 1146 (SB 1146)…[sought] to limit the religious exemptions from federal Title IX regulations that colleges and universities use for hiring instructors, teaching classes, and conducting student services in line with their faith.”

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life  reported “Despite that long series of court decisions, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor looser, not tighter, limits on religion in public schools. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Americans (69%) agree with the notion that “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of the schools and the government.”And a clear majority (58%) favor teaching biblical creationism along with evolution in public schools.”

There is a profound belief on the part of the Progressive left that that freedom flows not from the inherent rights of the people, as clearly stated in America’s founding documents, but from the government. Anything that limits government’s influence, in this view, must be reduced. That is why totalitarian states frequently attack religion.


War on Religion

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part review of what many perceive to be a war on religion within the United States.

Are progressives conducting a war on those who follow traditional religious beliefs within the United States?

The evidence is becoming so overwhelming that it is difficult to ignore.

Martin Castro, an Obama appointee serving as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has released a report (Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties)  on nondiscrimination protections. In doing so, he erroneously equates the principles of religious freedom, (as first reported in the Wall Street Journal) as “nothing except hypocrisy.” He equates the concept of the right to follow one’s conscience on religion as hiding “discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.” He essentially echoes comments by the President that disdain those who, in his words, bitterly cling to their bibles or guns, and by Ms. Clinton, who disparagingly described those differing with her views as having “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases [that] have to be changed.”

The report notes: “Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights…The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause constricts the ability of government actors to curtail private citizens’ rights to the protections of non-discrimination laws and policies.  Although the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act limit the ability of government actors to impede individuals from practicing their religious beliefs, religious exemptions from nondiscrimination laws and policies must be weighed carefully and defined narrowly on a fact-specific basis.”

Progressives have used numerous excuses to attack freedom of conscience, essentially using non-discrimination laws as a spear to attack religious freedom, rather than as a shield to protect those who have been truly discriminated against due to race, creed or gender.

Lt. Gen. (US Army-Ret.) William Boykin has written “I am concerned that instead of instilling leadership or imparting warfighting skill, our U.S. military training apparatus is now focused on editing out the religious practices of its cadets.” There are significant examples to back up General Boykin’s concern. Fox News  recently reported that one group has demanded that “an Air Force major be ‘aggressively punished’ for having an open Bible on his desk at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.”

Needlessly, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act forces employers, including religious groups, to ignore their own scruples. The Alliance Defending Freedom notes: “The HHS Mandate poses an extremely serious threat to our First Amendment freedoms and has come to also be known as the ‘abortion pill mandate.’ The Mandate:

  • Forces citizens to pay for other people’s life-ending abortion drugs.
  • Uses devastating fines to punish religious employers who refuse to pay for abortion-causing drugs and chemical birth control through their employee health insurance plans.
  • Demands that early life-ending drugs be provided free of charge by religious employers and religious people in business, while the cost of other life-saving medical care continues to cost you. “

The issue isn’t about abortion or assisted suicide. It’s about forcing employers who may have long held and deeply felt religious objections to choose between violating the law or violating their conscience.

Individuals have been fired for merely following their conscience based on traditional values. An example is  former Mozilla C.E.O. Brendan Eich. Stunning acts of overbearing governmental intervention in religious matters have taken place, such as that by the Houston City Council which subpoenaed the sermons of pastors to check for political correctness.  Religious social service agencies have been harassed for following the precepts of their philosophy.

Donald Critchlow, writing in the National Review, correctly asserts that “There has been a well-organized campaign against Christianity, making use of new interpretations of the concepts of…civil rights and social justice.”

Mary Eberstadt, in her new book, It’s Dangerous to Believe, Religious Freedom and its Enemies, outlines how the media has ignored this very real problem.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Cruz’s Trump Endorsement Affects both Clinton and GOP leadership

Senator Ted Cruz’s endorsement yesterday of Donald Trump may be a watershed moment in the 2016 campaign, and in the life of the Republican Party as well.

While Trump retains several positions that some Republicans, conservatives in particular, are uncomfortable with, two factors compel increasingly widespread support for the GOP nominee.

The first, of course, is the extraordinary fear Republicans have of a continuation of President Obama’s policies.  There has never been an administration further to the left than Mr. Obama’s, and Clinton has not only promised to continue in the course he set, but to expand upon it.

While not a full-fledged conservative, Trump’s endorsement of key conservative positions on defense, taxes, immigration, free speech preservation and Supreme Court nominees are more than sufficient to gain right-wing support.

Indeed, even New York State’s Conservative Party, which has its own ballot line and has been credited with influencing the national GOP on numerous issues, has given its line to Trump. While that line only appears in New York State, it is a clear indication throughout the nation that a Trump endorsement is appropriate for conservative voters.

In his endorsement, Cruz outlined the conservative reasons for supporting Trump:

“Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

“For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

“Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

“Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

“Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

“Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

“Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.”

The second reason both GOP moderates and conservatives are growing in enthusiasm for the party nominee is more nuanced.

In 2014, Republicans captured the Senate and retained the House of Representatives.  Despite this strong position, GOP leaders were largely ineffectual, and in many cases insufficiently confrontational with the hard-left White House.  Both conservative and many moderate Republicans became incensed at the laid-back attitude, and House Speaker John Boehner was removed as a result.  But the outcry over the non-combative attitude of party leadership didn’t stop there. The two leading contenders for the nomination were outsiders Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The message was clear: business as usual would no longer be tolerated.

The growing list of GOP endorsements for Donald Trump is both a reflection of Republican concern about Clinton’s plans to continue Obama’s radical policies, as well as a warning to GOP leaders that their laid-back attitude is unacceptable.

Hollywood’s Persistent Bias

The new television season has opened with yet another entry perpetuating the repeatedly disproved leftist myth that the U.S. military is led by warmongering generals eager to start conflicts at any cost, including overthrowing the civilian leadership.

The drama “Designated Survivor” features Keifer Southerland as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who, after a devastating attack on the Capitol during the State of the Union address, is the only one left alive in the chain of succession, and therefore becomes President.

Immediately, of course, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seeks to initiate, without solid evidence of culpability, a war with Iran, while at the same time secretly plotting to overthrow America’s civilian government. This is a replay of a mindless and groundless bias that, like all irrational prejudices including those based on race or gender, persists despite a complete lack of evidence to substantiate it.

Despite an unbroken string of being disproved by facts, Hollywood’s ridiculous bias against America’s military leadership, those that support it, and anyone with a dedication to keeping the nation safe persists.  Reality plays no role in this prejudice.

Consider how so many talked up the “Nuclear Freeze” movement. It turns out that it was the exact opposite of that type of thinking that stopped the Cold War. Quite the contrary. It was President Reagan’s push to vastly expand U.S. military might that was a crucial factor.

Remember the nonsense about (either) Bush going to war with Saddam Hussein in order to take over Middle Eastern Oil, at the behest of the “Military-Industrial Complex?” The fact that it never happened hasn’t resulted in any apology by the media moguls who helped propagate that whopper.

How about the gibberish still pushed by the thespian class that the Pentagon consumes the lion’s share of the federal budget? If they deigned to read Washington’s budget, they might actually learn that it consumes only about 14% of spending.

Of course, there is Hollywood’s ongoing plot line, resurrected again in “Designated Survivor” and in films such as “Seven Days in May” that the military (in some scripts, the CIA) is just itching to take over the country, despite the fact that the past eight years have certainly derailed that plot line.

The Obama Administration, throughout its two terms in office, has presented leadership so dangerously feckless—or worse—during its time in office that even if a shred of inclination existed on the part of the defense establishment to engineer a coup, it certainly would have done so by now.

From his first days in office, Mr. Obama and Secretary Clinton (who, during her tenure as First Lady, openly displayed contempt for the armed forces and even the civilian Secret Service, had staff sneeringly dismiss Lt. General Barry McCaffrey by saying “I don’t talk to military,” as reported by the Washington Post) overturned the policies and practices that helped win the Cold War and had kept the U.S. safe since the end of WW2.

The two, in their “Reset” with Russia, surrendered America’s lead in nuclear weaponry, and betrayed key intelligence assets of our closest ally, the United Kingdom. They cut the Pentagon budget. They implemented the dismissal of key military personnel, including not just top leaders but also some Army colonels even while they were serving in Afghanistan, and Navy chief petty officers as well.

The Obama Administration, despite overwhelming and persistent evidence, continues to ignore or underplay the reality of Islamic extremism’s attacks on American soil.

The President and his two Secretaries of State reacted with callousness when the Ukraine and the Philippines were attacked by, respectively, Russia and China. The U.S. (and assailant Russia) had a treaty commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but Mr. Obama ignored persuasive nonviolent means at his disposal, opting instead for little more than symbolic sanctions. In the case of the Philippines, the White House didn’t even lodge a firm diplomatic protest.

Mr. Obama and Secretary Clinton’s nonchalance and deception in the face of the terrorist assault on the American facility in Benghazi that resulted in the assassination of several Americans including Ambassador Stevens was a thorough display of their lack of regard for those who serve in either a civilian or uniformed capacity. The lack of any attempt at a rescue was followed by outright lies about the motive for the attack. The day after the assault, the President flew off to Vegas for a fundraiser.

When Russia militarized the Arctic, the President did nothing.  When the Russian Navy began to visit Cuba again, Mr. Obama actually rewarded the Cubans by reopening diplomatic relations. When Russia began landing its Tupolev nuclear bombers for refueling in Nicaragua after their patrols of the U.S. coasts, the President did nothing.

When his first Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton, was found to have aided the transfer of uranium (the key ingredient for nuclear weapons) to Moscow, the President did nothing.

The list goes on. If there ever was any intention on the part of American military leadership to interfere with civilian government, it would have occurred during the past eight disastrous years. But they did not because, unlike Mr. Obama and his crew, they are dedicated to the Constitution.

But don’t expect that reality to stop the mindlessly biased Hollywood crowd from propagating more and more slanderous nonsense about the men and women who lead and serve in our armed forces.

The Debates: Who Should Be Included?

The first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take place on Monday, September 26, at Hofstra University in the suburban community of Hempstead, New York. Two third party candidates, including Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party, are seeking to be included in the main event.

There is a level of dissatisfaction within both parties with the winners of their respective primary processes.  However, a more substantial case can be made that due to both important questions about the legitimacy of Clinton’s nomination and ongoing uneasiness about her ethical and possibly medical fitness for office, left-wing Stein may eventually accrue a greater level of support from Democrats than libertarian Johnson will gain from Republicans.

Both Clinton and Trump are well aware that a substantial amount of support for Stein or Johnson could affect their chances. While hurt egos from the bruising primary season impact both Democrats and Republicans, Clinton faces the greater danger from voters.

Opposition to Trump within the GOP is centered on the “old guard” leadership, led by the influential Bush family.  Jeb Bush, despite having extraordinary advantages in dollars and contacts, succumbed to Trump, defying expectations.  But an examination of recent intramural Republican squabbles should have made Bush’s loss an expected event.  GOP, conservative, and libertarian voters became enraged at the lack of success Republican leaders had in countering President Obama’s hard-left agenda, which produced significantly negative results in both domestic and foreign affairs, even after securing both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2014 election.  House Speaker John Boehner became the first victim of that fury, and Donald Trump, an outsider, eventually profited.

Independents, tired of business as usual in Washington, also were drawn to Trump’s candidacy.

Clinton, on the other hand, was always the candidate of the party bosses, and genuine questions exist about the fairness of her victory. Serious, unsettled queries exist about her campaign’s actions in Iowa, and about a nationwide primary system rigged to virtually insure that the choice of party leaders would succeed. Add to that the fact that the Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had to resign in disgrace after it was revealed that she tilted the primary process in Clinton’s favor (she immediately took a position with the Clinton campaign.)

Ongoing revelations about Ms. Clinton’s sale of the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons to Russia, the use of her position as Secretary of State for her personal profit, her mishandling of classified emails, her refusal to conduct press conferences, and concerns about her physical health and mental condition expand the level of uneasiness about her candidacy.

Clearly, those factors have produced a reservoir of dissatisfaction that Jill Stein, who shares many positions with Bernie Sanders (who inspired enthusiasm from many Democrat voters) can gain from.

Gary Johnson, on the other hand, cannot expect to pose a significant danger to Donald Trump, although the pro-Democrat media continues to attempt to purvey that impression. There is no question as to the legitimacy of Trump’s primary victory, and rank and file voters, generally dissatisfied with politics as usual, don’t see Trump as part of the Beltway crowd that hasn’t succeeded in addressing the nation’s diminishing economic and national security dilemmas.

Part of Johnson’s problem is that, unlike Stein, his positions simply don’t have a core constituency. While the Green Party has a natural following among progressives, key portions of Johnson’s message turn off those in the center and the right. His general call for a reduced role of government overall is popular, but, when broken down into specific, individual issues, he loses vast numbers of voters.

His positions on national security and foreign affairs are, essentially, very similar to President Obama’s, a sure loser when it comes to attracting Republicans and independents who are increasingly frightened at the quickly growing threats America faces.

Critics have pointed out that Johnson’s positions are not truly libertarian, nor do they follow the beliefs of Republican, conservative or independent voters. Liberty Hangout emphasizes that “There Is No Logic in Voting for Gary Johnson…he agrees with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time…he supports a carbon tax (which is ironically the type of policy responsible for bankrupting coal)…he supports TPP…he supports a basic, government subsidized income.

The central question of whether Stein or Johnson should be allowed to participate in the televised debates along with Trump and Clinton depends less on their positions on the issues than in whether they have sufficient support to warrant it.  The key questions are: what is the appropriate level of support? And if the door is opened to Johnson or Stein, who else should be allowed to participate?

In addition to Johnson and Stein, Darrell Castle is running on the Constitution Party line, Evan McMullen represents the Independent Party, Gloria LaRiva is on the Party of Socialism and Liberation line, Rocky de la Fuente is the candidate of the Reform Party, Emidio Soltysik represents the Socialist Party USA, and Alyson Kennedy is on the Socialist Workers Party line.  Add to that a significant number of candidates who are on the presidential ballot on five or fewer states.