GOP Dinosaurs

lindsey-graham-john-mccainConstitutionalists around the nation were thrilled to see the recent filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). He wanted an answer from representatives of the current presidential administration regarding their use of drones against US citizens. He couldn’t get that answer, so he took the bold step of staying at the Senate roster, on his feet, for hours. In the end his action probably assisted in putting some pressure on Eric Holder, head of the Justice Department. In direct questioning from Ted Cruz (R-TX), Holder admitted that “we absolutely do not have authority to kill Americans on US soil.”

It wasn’t much of a victory. Representatives of the Obama administration–and even the president himself–have made it clear that they’ll say just about anything necessary to advance their agenda. For them, reality isn’t “out there,” it’s in the mind of President Obama. It’s whatever he and his political allies say it is. He smiles. He speaks. He meets with Republicans. He talks the great talk of a statesman willing to compromise. All of that means nothing in terms of genuine dialogue. He will not compromise. He only speaks the language of compromise–he never walks the walk. Watch him carefully. He always finds a way to avoid compromise while preserving the illusion of compromise.

Add to this the fact that too many in the “mainstream” media are Obama’s willing accomplices and the ridiculous, shrill mantra that “to criticize Obama is to be a racist,” and you have a recipe for continued escalation of the war on constitutional liberties occurring every day in Washington, DC.

The greatest slap of all, of course, is the way that Old-Guard Republicans continue to play the Democrat game. Like poor Charlie Brown who forever falls for Lucy’s promises not to jerk the football away, they come to the table as if their political opponents really intend to bargain in good faith. They don’t. They come for absolute victory. They use scorched-earth tactics, and their intention is to walk away seeming to be the reasonable ones while Republicans are left looking like a bunch of greedy white men who hate women, minorities, immigrants, the poor and the elderly. Over and over they fall for this ploy.

This fact was confirmed this week by former Democrat pollster Pat Caddell, a political contributor to the Fox Network. Speaking as part of a panel at CPAC 2013 (the Conservative Political Action Committee), he showed why Democrats are so successful. It’s because they come to the table to win, not to compromise. “In my party we play to win. We play for life and death. You people play for a different kind of agenda ….”

Here’s a perfect example. While Rand Paul stood on his feet during his filibuster for freedom, establishment GOP senators were dining with President Obama. They included Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The event was hailed as an “outreach dinner,” arranged and personally paid for by President Barack Obama. Reportedly, GOP invitees were hand-picked by Obama and Graham. (How interesting it is that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz weren’t in the group.)

Hailed as a gesture of respect on the part of a generous and reasonable president, the event was nothing more than a gimmick. Obama will not compromise. He wants $600 billion in new taxes and he intends to get it. Taking the GOP dinosaurs to dinner was his way of covering his determination with the smoke of his seeming generosity and fake stance of political cooperation.

By referring to Graham and McCain as “dinosaurs,” I am not alluding to their age. I’m not an age bigot. Nor am I a racial bigot or a sexist bigot. But I am an unabashed bigot for the cause of freedom. I’m a partisan for liberty–not only mine, but that of every citizen in the nation. As Barry Goldwater once said, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Senators McCain and Graham wrongly believe they are dealing with up-front Democrats as they may have done in the past. But the past is the past. The Democrat party of today is more extreme than it has ever been in its political liberality. It is a steamroller headed toward the Republican party and toward any other political entity that may stand in its way. This includes the Constitution. McCain and Graham, and all those of their camp, are political dinosaurs because they don’t recognize that. They sail in the mystifying fog of Washington make-believe, wrongly thinking that what they see among Democrats is real. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they perceive on the American political stage is crafted for their consumption and for the consumption of busy citizens who don’t have time to look deeper.

It’s bad enough that Charlie Brown allows Lucy to fool him every time. At least he never criticized the rest of the cartoon kids for refusing to fall for the trick. The same cannot be said for Graham and McCain. Each of them stood on the Senate floor to denounce the Rand Paul filibuster. Barack Obama certainly got his money’s worth for the dinosaur dinner.

Constitutionalists can only pray that Rand Paul has sparked a new fervor in the GOP. For my money, the only Republican worth his or her salt is a liberty-minded Republican. Obama and the Democrats are driving the steamroller; somebody needs to be constructing a blockade big enough to slow its momentum. That somebody isn’t John McCain, nor is it Lindsey Graham. Nor will it ever be. Obviously, it wasn’t Mitt Romney either. All three of these Republicans have spent too much time agreeing with Obama.

The presidential election of 2012 demonstrated just how demoralized Republican voters are these days. Millions fewer of them voted in 2012 than in 2008. Even I was fooled by how deep the dissatisfaction runs. Now I rejoice that it runs as deeply as it does. It may yet be the power strong enough to put GOP dinosaurs out to pasture.


When a Tea Party Conservative Fights Back

untitledHe has only been in the Senate for seven weeks, but the more I watch him, the more I like Ted Cruz (R-TX). This first-term senator is rattling the windows up in Washington. He refused to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, he didn’t support John Kerry’s nomination to be Secretary of State, he voted against renewal of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and he spoke out forcefully against the nomination of former Republican senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. Pointing to a potential cause of downfall for any high-profile member of the Defense Department, Cruz inquired of Hagel during his hearings if his bank account included any funds from Saudi Arabia or North Korea. He also brought up at the time the fact that Iran is in favor of Hagel’s nomination.

If you want to know what he’s up to, well, it’s fairly simple. He’s doing what he said he would do when he ran for office. Isn’t that refreshing? As he promised the people of Texas, he’s in DC “to shake up the status quo.” 

In response, a whole bunch of folks on the left aren’t happy with him. Pulling out an old favorite from the Democrat playbook, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) accused him of McCarthyism. “In this country we had a terrible experience with innuendo and inference when Joe McCarthy hung out in the United States Senate, and I just think we have to be more careful.” To her and to Chris Matthews at MSNBC, Cruz is just an extremist mistreating a patriot nominated to high office.

Jonathan Weisman at the New York Times bemoans the fact that Cruz is upsetting the sense of “comity,” or courtesy that normally marks relations between senators.  The Hill is a left-leaning tabloid that covers politics in DC and they have blasted Cruz as an embarrassment and a slanderer.  Ed Schultz, another MSNBC commentator, can’t understand why Republicans are filibustering a defense-secretary nominee “for the first time in a century.”   Cruz is painted by the Democrats as a joke at best, and possibly worse, because he’s supposedly endangering the nation’s security.

Politicians on the left don’t like it when Tea Party conservatives fight back, but the moral outrage on the left rings hollow. Is there any nasty political ploy that hasn’t been used by the Democrats in the last year? The truth is that they aren’t morally offended in the slightest.  They’re just shocked that a conservative Republican has decided to join in the fray and stand up for his values and the values of those who sent him to the Senate. Their words don’t come from their honest feelings–they are a script for public consumption. It works like this: they pretend to be offended, then they paint Cruz as an extremist nut job and a “teabagger,” and then wait for the left-leaning media to pick up the mantra.

Unfortunately, this methodology usually works. Why? Because so-called “moderate” Republicans like John McCain take their side and refuse to support the vocal conservatives trying to take the fight back to the Democrat front line.

Where was the moral outrage on the left when Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) accused Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of being a felon and a tax dodger? There was no evidence whatsoever for the accusation (Reid said he had an “anonymous source”), yet at times it continues to be bandied about by Democrats even to this day. Unlike the Hagel situation, where a senator simply asked a question in a public forum with Hagel sitting before him, Reid made his accusation on the floor of the full Senate without Romney being present to defend himself. Where was Sen. McCaskill’s outrage then? Where was Democrat outrage when Nancy Pelosi said she could have GOP advisor Karl Rove arrested, or that she had dirt on former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich?

And let’s not forget the other hypocrisy being perpetrated on the left. Ted Cruz is the son of a Cuban immigrant by the name of Rafael Cruz. He should be a darling of the Democrats. But his crime, of course, is that he’s a conservative. Hispanics and immigrants are praised by the left only when they are liberals.

Keep it up, Ted. Take the ideological battle to the front lines. Stay on the offensive. The only way to falsely paint the Tea Party as a bunch of extremists is to allow the radical left to remain in the mainstream. Don’t give up an inch of territory. They aren’t mainstream at all–but those in that camp have seduced enough voters with their rhetoric against “the rich” and their promises of government benefits to retain power. Playing nice isn’t going to get us any closer to reclaiming our constitutional values.

Honestly, I praise Ted Cruz and I am thrilled with his leadership. At this point the GOP has little to lose–but America has much to lose if Republicans lose their spine.

It’s time to play a new game. Let’s call it “conservative hardball.” It should be played fearlessly, and with a bat of extra-large proportions. Suit up, Democrats. Ted Cruz isn’t the bad boy of the Senate. He’s a conservative Texan who’s tired of playing defense. He has switched to the game of offense and he’s lighting a fire in the halls of the political elites.

Oh, here’s another message for the Democrats: you can stop pretending to be outraged. The needle fell off your moral compass years ago.

Elections Have Consequences

Two weeks and a day.  That’s how long it has been since America made its presidential choice for the next four years.  The prediction of Michelle Obama will continue to unfold as the country’s Democrat leadership works to “change our traditions, our history,” and as we “move into a different place as a nation.”

While I was wrong about how the voting would turn out on November 6th, there were some things I got right.  I wondered aloud back in February if “Anybody But Obama” was enough to defeat the sitting president.  The GOP tried to be excited about this contest, but I’m not convinced that most Republican voters were that enthused about Mitt Romney. Their energy was aimed at removing Obama from the White House rather than putting Romney into it.  That wasn’t enough.

If you compare the electoral maps of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, you’ll see that very little has changed in terms of how the state electoral votes will actually be cast on December 17th.  Romney garnered a few more electoral numbers than McCain (206 to 173), but the overall pool of nationwide voters was down.  Approximately five and a half million fewer voters turned out for this election than in 2008.

One of the biggest mistakes that Romney made in his campaign was to present the economic issue as “us vs. them.”  As I have often pointed out here, the tide of those who receive government benefits is growing rapidly while the number of taxpayers is shrinking. That isn’t the combination for a successful economy; it’s bad news for the future.  But it’s understandable that people vote to keep their benefits coming.  Mitt Romney was right to point this out, but he did a poor job of explaining why it’s such a dangerous situation to be in.

It’s not “us vs. them.”  Nor is it really “the makers vs. the takers” or anything else like that.  It’s about us–all of us.  By describing the free market in a way that divides us (as Democrats often do) we misrepresent its communal nature and we allow ourselves to be duped by the rhetoric of the left.  Simply put, Republicans must make the case for why our current spending is a path of destruction–not for the rich but for the poor and the middle class.  Romney was painted as the wealthy guy who resents the poor and the working classes.  I don’t for a moment think that hey believes that, but the Democrats did a good job of making it appear that he does.

How high will spending go?  Will it get to $20 trillion?  Perhaps $24 trillion?  Economic bubbles eventually burst.  That includes monetary bubbles.  Maybe we’ll be fortunate enough to avoid a complete meltdown.  But must we take the chance?  Can we awaken from this dreamworld of never-ending spending that our political leaders have led us into? The one good thing about Obama’s re-election is that if the double-dip recession does become a reality, there won’t be a Republican in the White House for the Democrats to blame, though they’ll undoubtedly try to blame the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.  (Given the timid nature of Speaker John Boehner and his merry band of big-spending Republicans, that will be especially ironic.)

By the way, that predicted double dip is now a reality in Europe.  We can expect it to move our way in the near future.  As it does, the economic darlings of the left will continue to push for more spending and higher taxes.  This includes the intractable Paul Krugman.  In a recent column he sang the praises of 91% federal taxation.  That’s right.  He seems to like the idea that a wasteful, bloated, overspending federal government should be allowed to return to the days of taking nearly all the money of the very wealthy.  He wants them to pay their fair share.  We hear that often these days, don’t we?  How much is fair?  If they take 100%, will that finally be fair?

As author Dustin Siggins points out, the top 1% of earners make fifty times the amount of money made by the bottom 20% of earners.  But they pay 1500 times the taxes!  It’s not enough to talk about what’s fair–we have to talk about what’s just, what makes sense, and what is hurting everyone.

In the midst of all this, it appears that the GOP has lost its soul.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie got to take a ride on Marine One (the president’s helicopter) and to speak to Barack Obama and Bruce Springsteen while they rode on Air Force One.  Who knows?  Maybe he even voted for Obama.  Now he has made his debut on Saturday Night Live.  His constituents probably enjoyed seeing their governor on TV.  Well, those who have electricity anyway.  These are unfortunate signs of the time.

Don’t look for genuine leadership from most of the GOP.  Instead, you should expect them to stomp their feet and to talk a good game.  All the while they’ll do only what they have to do in order to appear to oppose Obama.  Our nation’s capital is a stage on which the players perform.  Perception is everything.

Even I was surprised on November 6th, but now I’m listening more attentively.  As Republican leaders argue about turning further left and becoming even more like their Democrat counterparts, I wonder if we really have a two-party system anymore.  The Democrats kept the White House and the Senate.  The Republicans kept the House.  The electoral map has barely changed.  That speaks more to me of apathy than an energetic mandate.

Republicans, take note.  Becoming more like Democrats is the wrong lesson to take from this election.  Drinking their Kool-Aid is intoxicating, but it makes you lean left.  It doesn’t look good on you.  Give the voters an alternative vision, one that is inspired by the constitutional values and free-market inventiveness that made this country great.

This vision might be a hard thing to sell to voters who have been poorly educated in these truly American values, but acting more like liberal Democrats isn’t winning the GOP any friends.  In fact, it appears to be losing them the few that they already have.

With Another Four Years, Obama Plans to “Perfect Our Union”

This morning’s early reports indicate that by the slimmest of margins in the popular vote, Barack Obama has managed to be re-elected to the presidency.  Drudge is reporting the numbers as 59,532,820 for Obama and 56,931,709 for Romney.  With such a small lead, is there any question that every votes counts?  Is there any question why voter fraud and intimidation are such detestable practices?

Though my election predictions have been exploded by reality, I’m too worried about the state of our nation to fret about any possible loss of personal prestige.  In formulating my expectations for yesterday’s elections, I leaned heavily upon the insights of other, more experienced commentators like Scott Rasmussen and Michael Barone.  Though I was wrong, state-by-state analysis demonstrates that the race was so tight that minor differences in results would have given us a Romney presidency quite easily.

Still, I was wrong.  And for that I am sorry.

Probably my greatest handicap in formulating predictions was my own hope that America had awakened from the “Benefits-R-Us” dreamland into which it has ventured over the last few decades.  That hope blinded me.  Millions turned out to vote in person yesterday and in early voting during the preceding weeks and for far too many, the turnout was inspired by the hope of keeping the government spigot of cash turned on.  They prefer a bit of comfort now to the long-term stability that can protect their futures and those of their children.

Make no mistake about it:  that future is in peril.  With $16 Trillion of debt (the total we owe as a nation), massive deficit (the loss taken by the federal government because it’s paying out more than it’s taking in), the loss of religious freedom, uniformed thugs standing in front of polling places, foreign policy in shambles inflation on the rise, and government misrepresentation of economic realities, one wonders just how bad it has to get before more of us wake up.

Is the promise of big government and its cash benefits enough to buy us off?  It would seem that in the contemporary American political arena, the “good guys” are the ones who keep the government benefits coming for individuals as well as particular corporations. The “bad guys” are the ones who prophetically remind us that national debt like ours is a monster that will not wait forever to be paid.

As commentator Charles Hurt wrote early this morning, “politicians simply tax those who do not support them and give the money to those who do.  Or give the money to those they would like to have support them.”  He fears that it’s “the end of the line.  Game over.”

“Thou shall not steal,” they say, unless of course it’s by majority vote.  I suspect we turned a corner yesterday in America.  It may be one to which we will never return.  Newly re-elected, President Obama said in his victory speech last night that he intends to help America “perfect its union.”  In light of his work over the last four years and his recent campaign, we can only imagine that Obama’s version of perfection will be more of the same stuff that is robbing us of our liberties and holding back economic growth.

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned us of this folly when he saw the same actions taking place in Europe.  History seems to be repeating itself and the words of Mises are as vital today as they were then. “Government spending cannot create additional jobs,” he wrote in his 1947 book Planned Chaos. “If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.”

Unless Obama and the Democrat majority in the Senate work with congressional Republicans to slash spending and increase business confidence, we can expect more bad news in the coming months.  As if they were sending us a warning, markets opened this morning with a 200-point plunge.  People don’t just talk with their votes.  They talk with their spending.  We must listen to the markets because they tell us a great deal about the future.

Constitutionalists are needed now more than ever, but I’ll stand by my promise.  I give myself a grade of “F” for my presidential election predictions, and I invite my readers to reply (below) and vote on whether or not to keep writing.

Three Big-Name Endorsements for Obama; One for Romney

As we get closer to the presidential election in three days, it’s clear that Barack Obama has secured the endorsement of several big-name supporters on the international stage.  These are heavy hitters; voters should take their recommendations seriously.  They and their families influence millions of people and their endorsements tell us something about their expectations for Mr. Obama’s second term.

In September Obama received the glowing support of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.  Well, I think he’s the Russian president.  He has been playing a game of musical chairs between the presidency and the office of prime minister.  A former member of the KGB (Soviet secret police), Putin continues to exercise his Soviet-style leadership over the Russian people.  He insists that the re-election of President Obama would be best for relations between his country and ours.  One can easily imagine why.  Back in March, Obama told Dmitri Medvedev (Putin’s state puppet) that he would have “more flexibility” dealing with the Russians after his November election.  Whatever it is that he’s planning to give the Putin, one can only imagine that it will be wildly unpopular with American voters.  Otherwise, why hide it until after the election?

From the south, Obama has received the lively praises of socialist dictator and president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.  “If I were American, I’d vote for Obama,” he happily clucked in an interview on Televen, a Venezuelan television corporation.  Once a brave critique of Chavez, Televen has finally succumbed to dictatorial pressure.  It now boasts a “neutral” status when it comes to issues of Venezuelan politics.  Many Venezuelans, whose freedom is threatened by such a decision, have accused the corporation of giving in to the dictator’s threats.  Better to have a job and all your fingers, I suppose.  When the dictator calls, give him all the air time he wants.  Even more interesting, when endorsing Obama, Chavez told his audience that if Obama were Venezuelan “he’d vote for me.”  I find that easy to believe.

The third endorsement comes from a powerful Caribbean family.  During the summer Mariela Castro visited the United States.  She is the daughter of Raul Castro, the dictator of Cuba who took the reigns from his brother Fidel when the latter began to have health problems a few years ago.  “I believe Obama needs another opportunity,” she said, “to move forward with his projects and his ideas.”  Our government granted Ms. Castro a visa and allowed her the privilege of traveling and speaking freely.  She enjoyed the blessings of liberty while she was here, despite the fact that her father’s government has held an American contractor now for nearly three years.  According to his wife, Alan Gross has lost over a hundred pounds, is in poor health, and has a skin growth that needs proper medical attention.  He may be dying, but at least he has free healthcare in Cuba.

And what about Mr. Romney?  He has received the glowing endorsement of Lech Walesa, the Solidarity leader of Poland who led his country from Communism to freedom and who served as that nation’s first freely-elected president beginning in 1990.  Walesa understands that if the United States gives up its position of international leadership there are others who are willing to fill the vacuum.  In a meeting with Romney he told the candidate to “be successful!”  He promised that Poland and other nations would help the US “to restore its leadership position.”  Lech Walesa has dealt with men like Putin, Chavez, and the Castros of Cuba.  He knows that their smiles and hearty handshakes hide a dangerous agenda.

So, America, what will it be?  Which endorsement impresses you most?  Among these big names, which of them represents the world you wish to leave to your children?

The Spanish people have a wise saying:  Dime quienes son tus amigos y te dire’ quien eres.  In other words, “tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.”

Could anything be more true?

The Liberty Professor Predicts 321 Electoral Votes (or More) for Romney

When it comes to liberty, nothing is more important or more sacred than the secret ballot.  People will say all sorts of things for public consumption, but when they cast their votes they can usually be trusted to do what they think is best–whether or not they are fully informed.

Next Tuesday the voters of the United States will elect to the presidency the Republican candidate Mitt RomneyI predicted it back in February.  In September I repeated that prediction but added that his win would bring between 310-320 electoral votes.

Now I’m prepared to be much more specific.

My prediction for Romney’s victory gives him no less than 321 electoral votes to Obama’s 217.  Not only will it be a sizeable victory in the electoral college, it will include at least 52% of the popular vote. To win the election, 270 electoral votes are necessary.

Obama is losing ground quickly, even among many of the groups that firmly supported him in 2008.  Independent voters and women are turning to Romney and voter turnout among some of Obama’s traditional constituencies will probably be down.  Many who voted enthusiastically back in 2008  for a candidate they didn’t know now find themselves disillusioned.  Those who knew the real Obama in 2008 have had our fears confirmed.  Most Americans have paid dearly for his four-year vacation in the White House.  A growing list of newspapers that endorsed Obama in 2008 have chosen Romney for 2012.

Republicans were demoralized in 2008.  They are energized now beyond belief.  GOP turnout will reach record numbers, as will turnout among Romney independents.  In the privacy of the voting booth many a presumed Obama supporter will cast a vote for Romney.

In the so-called battleground states (unless fair elections are thwarted by voter fraud) I predict some exciting surprises:  Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin will be victories for Romney.  Less surprising, at least to my mind, will be his victories in Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and North Carolina.  Even the independent-minded folks of New Hampshire will probably go for Romney.  Michigan is now in play.  I still have it painted blue for Obama, but it could go red for Romney.

This is my baseline position.  The final results could be even stronger for Romney.  In the 1980 presidential election in which Jimmy Carter sought a second term, the media predicted an easy win for Carter.  The final electoral count was only 49 for Carter, with 489 going to Ronald Reagan.

If you’d like to study the Liberty Professor’s electoral map, click HERE.

We’ll return to my predictions on the day after the election.  I promise to give myself a grade based on the actual results.

In the meantime, Romney voters must not be complacent.  If the Romney victory isn’t clear and decisive, increased opportunities for vote fraud will emerge.  In January, with a new president in the White House, constitutionalists can press their insistence on more federal faithfulness to the vision of smaller government demanded by the Constitution.

Constitutionalists should remember these days and savor them.  Millions of Romney supporters are counting on his efforts to roll back the power and expense of the federal government.  If he disappoints us, he can count us out for 2016.

Silly Citizen, The Rules are Different for Democrats!

I remember distinctly the first time after Barack Obama’s election that someone called me a racist.  It was on Facebook.  I posted a comment about the fact that we had a man in the White House who possesses the most concentrated power on the globe, yet we know nearly nothing about him.

Barack Obama, to use a Switzerism, is the “packaged president.” 

He’s not the first elected official to have elements of his past sealed away from prying eyes, but he’s so good at it that I hear Notre Dame might rescind his honorary doctorate to give him a real PhD in “Presidential Packology.” 

For Obama (and many other politicians), the object of a political campaign is to get the most votes no matter what else happens.  One would think that the object of a campaign would be to introduce the real candidate to the people so those people can make a straightforward, informed choice.  Nope.  That’s just not how it works.

Did you or your friend happen to vote for Obama?  Which one?  You see, for every Obama voter there was a different Obama.  He was swept into office because each of his supporters cast a vote for the mystical, cosmic Obama who reigned in their hearts.  He was, to each of them, whatever they wanted him to be.  And he and his campaign carefully orchestrated the effort by preaching “hope and change,” and by chanting endlessly, “yes we can!”

Hmm.  What hopes was he referring to?  What change was he offering?  “Yes we can,” the crowds cried in awe.  Yes, we can what?

Obama is about to lose the White House.  If Dinesh D’Souza’s research is correct, Barack Obama came into office in order to give America its comeuppance.  He has had great success in doing so, at least in my humble estimation.  But now he will receive his own comeuppance–if we can keep the voter fraud committed by his minions to a minimum.  I suspect the average American would be shocked by the amount of election fraud perpetrated by the Democrat party in the 2008 election if it were known.  The tales told by former Obama supporters are astounding.  Here’s one recent example that came to light:  the son of Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) recently resigned from his position as field director of his father’s re-election campaign after a video came to light in which he encourages and offers helpful advice to those seeking to commit election fraud.

In a strange twist, supporters of the Packaged President are now howling with laughter at Donald Trump.  Admittedly, Trump is unpredictable, eccentric, and egotistical.  Earlier this week he offered $5 Million to anyone who can secure copies of Obama’s college transcripts and his passport

Is Trump an odd duck?  You bet.  He’s unusual to the extreme.  But if we put aside his quirky personality and self-promotion for a moment, we might realize that he’s not asking for anything bizarre.  If the so-called “birthers” are nuts, take away their thunder and show us your passport, Mr. President.  If you’re as brilliant as the “mainstream” press says you are, then show us your transcripts.  Remove your grades if you wish, but show us your college records if you have nothing to hide.

An old proverb says that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  When Mitt Romney refused to release as many years of tax returns as the Obama campaign suggested, Democrats unleashed a string of accusations, rumors, suggestions–even that Romney may have broken federal law.  It was all done with no evidence whatsoever.  Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) even made false accusations against Romney on the floor of the Senate.  There was a time when such pettiness was below the conduct of a sitting US senator.  Like kids watching clowns at the circus, the “mainstream” press was mesmerized by it.

With such support, I doubt Obama will release his transcripts or his passport.  But all the while the press will hound Trump, attempting to paint the entire Republican party with the idiosyncratic tendencies of the Don himself.

Should Romney give us years and years of tax returns?  “Yes,” they shout!  “It’s unreasonable not to do so unless he has something to hide.”  Should Obama show us his college transcripts?  “No,” they yell, “don’t be silly.  Obama has nothing to hide.”  Our suspicions, they say, are petty and racist.

Nonetheless, even with the press serving as campaign advisors and special agents for the Obama message, he’s losing ground rapidly. 

Obama’s only hope for success at this point is either through lies or fraud.  He’s not beyond either.  But don’t expect objectivity or equal treatment from most of the press.  As we southerners like to say with a grin, “It ain’t gonna happen.”