Fast & Furious vs. Watergate

What if a cadre of anti-gun leftists in the White House concocted a bizarre plan to curtail the ownership of private firearms? The first step might be to blame all the border mayhem on guns coming from the United States.

Well, let’s look at the record. On April 16, 2009, newly inaugurated President Barack Obama, traveled to Mexico to meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. At that meeting President Obama said…

“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States… more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border. So we have responsibilities as well.”

Really, that’s the source of all the guns on the border? Well if it is the fault of the United States we should curtail gun sales, right? Sure, the facts don’t back up the accusation, but we can fix that. We could arrange for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and US Department of Justice to start a secret program whose ostensible purpose is to catch the Mexican gang members. We’ll make sure hundreds of high powered guns and ammunition make it into the hands of Mexican Drug Lords. We’ll do this by pressuring legitimate gun sellers in the United States to sell these weapons to suspected Mexican gang leaders. Then we’ll trace the guns back to the drug leaders and presto, we’ll stop the killing.

Of course, the real purpose of this secret plan which we’ll call something like “Operation Fast & Furious” is to validate the assertion that it is American gun sellers who are responsible for all the mayhem and bloodshed on the border. We won’t really try to trace the guns or use them to find Drug Lords, we’ll just let the killing increase dramatically and get so bad that there will be a public outcry to shut down the gun sellers along the border and all across the nation. Finally, once and for all, we will start getting guns out of the hands of American citizens. “Operation Fast & Furious” is, of course, just the first step.

We can count on the news media to get on board. They will pick up the chant, “American guns are the cause of violence on the border.” The stage will be set. And so “Operation Fast & Furious” got underway in the Fall of 2009. At first, things were going along swimmingly. A brilliant political plan hatched in the Obama White House to stop gun sales to private individuals was well underway.

But on December 15, 2010, Operation Fast & Furious began to unravel. That’s the day that U.S. Border agent, Brian Terry, was killed by guns sold through Operation Fast & Furious. At first his death was reported as just another killing on the border and for many months thereafter, the ATF and the DOJ were able to keep the lid on the source of the weapon that killed Brian Terry. The killing did not apparently dim the enthusiasm of President Obama for Operation Fast & Furious.

“On March 30, [2011] the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, ‘to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,’ she said.

‘I just want you to know that we are working on it,’ Brady recalled the president telling them. ‘We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.’

You can almost hear the President’s excitement and enthusiasm bubbling over. Years ago the Democrats made a political decision to stop their campaign against private gun ownership. It was a political loser and they could not get elected if they continued their drive to end private gun ownership in America. But that political calculation never set well with those on the far left, like Barack Obama and his pal, Bill Ayres. Like all leftists throughout history, they do not want guns in the hands of private citizens. Power to the people does not include wealth, property or guns. It’s just a slogan to keep their uninformed followers in line. They like having guns in the hands of the police and the army, (both of which they control) but not in the hands of individual Americans.

But the smart politicos in the White House, encouraged by our very smart President, were about to put one over on those country bumpkins who still believed in the Constitution. They were going to create a hue and cry as had never been heard before to end private gun sales. It was almost too good to be true. Surely the death of one border agent couldn’t derail such a magnificent plan. After all, such collateral damage is sometimes necessary to accomplish important political objectives. The good of the masses is far more important than just one life. Just ask Joseph Stalin.

But in December 2011, the dam burst. Speaking to FOX News, ATF Special Agent John Dodson said,

“I am here today because it’s been a year since the first hearing and Brian Terry’s family still doesn’t have answers."

Dodson blew the whistle on Operation Fast & Furious.

Of course the news media jumped right on this story. Sadly, that’s not what happened. They almost entirely ignored the story. In fact, as the story grew and became bigger and bigger, NBC News allocated just 10 seconds of one evening news broadcast to coverage of the story, tossing it aside as “politics.” It wasn’t politics to Brian Terry and his family. Even today, after months of stonewalling by US Attorney General Eric Holder, the media does its best to ignore this story. President Obama did his utmost to keep investigators from getting hold of all the documents related to this story by asserting Executive Privilege, but even this has not awakened the mainstream news media to perhaps the biggest White House scandal in American history.

Let’s see. The Nixon folks called Watergate a tempest in a teapot and “just politics.” President Nixon also asserted Executive Privilege. Even though Attorney General Holder has been held in contempt by a bipartisan coalition of the United States House of Representatives, the compliant news media continues to spin the Fast & Furious scandal as “just politics.” Calls for an independent prosecutor are studiously ignored and the media have joined in the stonewalling.

White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, is right when he says that Operation Fast & Furious is nothing like Watergate. No one died as a result of Watergate. In fact, we may learn when the truth eventually comes out that Watergate was peanuts compared to this bloody scandal.

Meanwhile, every effort is being made to discredit, distort and delay any investigation into Operation Fast & Furious. Is that the shredders running overtime at the White House that I hear, destroying any incriminating e-mails, notes, letters, or other documentation?

The question is, what did the President know and when did he know it? Was he referring to Operation Fast & Furious when he said that he was doing something to get rid of all the guns “under the radar.” If not, what was he referring to? Was the President in on the plan from the beginning, or just an enthusiastic supporter as the plan unfolded?

This is a White House that has repeatedly proven that it has total disregard for the law. They only see laws as an impediment doing whatever they want to do. Or as the President famously said, “I can’t wait for Congress.” Whether it is Congress or the Constitution, both are just obstacles to a White House that finds more to like about dictators such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro than they do the Founders of this nation.

Methinks the President will be fortunate to lose the election and retire to a very nice pension and endless rounds of golf and relaxation, rather than the possibility of facing impeachment and conviction for his role in the cover-up of Operation Fast & Furious. If I were President Obama I’d choose this election year to get out of Dodge, before his house of cards collapses entirely. No one wants to see any President of the United States in the docket. Stay tuned, the whole story is yet to be told.

Misunderstanding Citizens United—Intentional Dissembling or Ignorance?

           After the not-too-surprising victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, there were many excuses for the near landslide loss of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  That’s understandable, denial is usually the first recourse of any losing candidate and in fact the Democrats are still in denial in regard to the outcome of the 2010 elections.  Good.  I hope they stay in denial until November 7^th, the day after another sweeping win by conservatives from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket.

As you may recall, President Obama took the opportunity of his 2010 State of the Union message to cross the line of civility and independence of the judiciary to accuse the Supreme Court of having corrupted the political process through the Citizens United ruling.  He is, of course, entitled to disagree with any Supreme Court ruling, however attacking members of the Court during his State of the Union message was unbecoming, at best.  To put the best possible construction on it, his attack was unfounded.  Specifically, he asserted that Citizens United would allow foreign contributions into the American political process.  Of course, he should know something about foreign contributions since his 2008 campaign illegally accepted a number of them.  In fact, however, his attack was false.  Citizens United does not allow foreign contributions to American political candidates.  I don’t think he should get a pass on ignorance of the law as an attorney, a Constitutional lecturer, or as President with access to many attorneys.  Of course, the media did just that.  They gave him a pass on his completely inaccurate statement. There was no critical review or questioning of the truth of his intemperate and uninformed attack.

More recently the argument has been made that Scott Walker’s victory was made possible by the Citizens United decision.  Is this distortion a matter of intentional dissembling or plain ignorance?  It’s hard to tell, but it’s embarrassing to have men and women who hold themselves up as intelligent and informed to report such an untruth.  It’s either a willful political fabrication, or it is gross ignorance—take your choice.

In a June 10, 2012 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, former federal Judge Michael McConnell set the record straight.  What Judge McConnell reveals is 180 degrees opposite from what the major news media reported following the overwhelming victory of Scott Walker.  To wit, the Citizens United ruling by the US Supreme Court stated that…

“…associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support of or opposition to candidates for public office.”

Contrary to what the mainstream media reported, Governor Scott Walker did not receive a huge outpouring a support from corporations.  It did not happen.  However, thanks to Citizens United the unions were freed up to donate millions of dollars to defeat Governor Walker.  Quoting Judge McConnell…

“Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker.  According to the Center for Public Integrity, the NEA (National Education Association), the nation’s largest teachers union, spent at least $1 million.  Its smaller union rival, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers), spent an additional $350,000.  Two other unions the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, which has more than one million government workers) and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), spent another $2 million.  Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United.”

In other words, the Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court actually aided those trying to oust Governor Scott Walker more than it aided those supporting Scott Walker.  It turns out that the vast majority of support that Governor Walker received came from small donations from those in Wisconsin and all across the nation.  It was truly a citizens uprising in the best sense and best tradition of America.  His support didn’t come from rowdies who defaced and vandalized the Wisconsin State Capitol.  It didn’t come from a mob that tried to intimidate state legislators with whom they disagreed.  It didn’t come from disorderly agitators who harassed the families of state legislators and the family of Governor Walker.  The response to the angry recall effort spearheaded by the union bosses was rebuffed by peaceful, law-abiding citizens who exercised their right to participate in the political process.  They overwhelmingly endorsed the practical, rational, and realistic actions of the Governor and those supporting him to set state finances on a sustainable and balanced course.  Their vote was not only a reflection of the Tea Party revolt of 2010, but also a harbinger of what you and I can expect this coming November.

There are honest liberals.  I know several of them.  What bothers me is their lack of outrage at the unprofessional, one sided approach of the mainstream media.  If you are an honest liberal do you really want news reporters who either cannot understand or intentionally distort legal cases such as Citizens United?  Do you not see anything wrong with that?  Are you not embarrassed to see either ignorance or willful distortion of truth?  Do you not care about the lack of integrity in the news media?  If you are willing to look the other way, the implicit conclusion one must draw is that you believe that the end justifies the means.

Citizens United is a rather clear cut, easy to understand legal decision.  Liberals certainly have a right to disagree with the decision, but do they expect us to take them seriously when educated reporters distort the meaning of the decision?If it was a conservative who was doing such a thing I would turn them off, tune them out, and scold them for bringing dishonor and embarrassment upon the conservative cause.  Where is the embarrassment on the left?  Where are the honorable liberals scolding their brethren for such a breach of integrity or failure of understanding?

Here is the conclusion of Judge McConnell in his Wall Street Journal piece…

“His [Walker’s] opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, got his support primarily from labor unions, whose participation was legitimized by Citizens United.  Without that decision so demonized by the political left, Mr. Barrett would have been at even more of a financial disadvantage.”

“Speaking generally, Citizens United is likely to benefit Democrats more than Republicans.  Corporations rarely make independent expenditures during candidate elections in their own name, because ads offend customers, workers and shareholders.  And direct corporate contributions to candidates tend to be split more or less evenly between the two parties, largely neutralizing their effect.”

I find it to be extremely frustrating that the left is not committed to honesty, fairness, and objectivity in news reporting.  No one expects a reporter to be perfectly unbiased.  We are all affected by our personal history and personal experiences.  No one is perfect and in fact, no one is more perfect than the next person.  However, an attempt to be objective and truthful should be the least we can expect from our news media.  And let me be perfectly clear, I am talking about those who purport to report the news, not opinion columnists and talk show hosts whose publicized intent is to convey their opinions, backed up by facts.  I am referring solely to those charged with making an honest attempt to present the news in a fair, balanced and objective manner.

When there is no attempt to be honest in public discourse and there is an unwillingness to calmly, rationally, and intelligently discuss different points of view, democracy suffers.  Too often the left resorts to name calling when they are unable to defend their political position.  Instead of accepting the fact that the other side has just as good of intentions as they do, is just as smart, and has ideas worth considering, they start slandering their opponents.  They charge racism, sexism, and who-knows-what-else “ism” because they are apparently unable to frame a cogent and persuasive argument on behalf of their opinion.

Until and unless we have liberals willing to stop the slander and instead argue their case on its merits, there will be no civil discourse in America.  The ball is in their court.  If you want to talk about quality education, school choice must be in the discussion.  If you want to talk about providing entry level jobs to the poor, then the elimination of minimum wage laws must be considered.  If you want to talk about restoring and rebuilding families in poor areas, then encouraging nuclear families must be on the table.  If economics is the topic, a rational discussion of the importance of balancing the budget and spending only what you have is in order.  If you want to advance environment issues you must be open to a fair and honest scientific debate.  Whether the issue is safety, child discipline, transportation, welfare, the environment, or any other topic, progress will be made only if the name calling stops and serious discussion begins.  Without intellectual honesty there can be no meeting of the minds.

And as long as honest liberals look the other way when more radical brethren intentionally distort or are intellectually unable to distinguish the truth, our ability to arrive at the best solutions will be permanently impaired.  I suspect it is a fear that their ideas will not triumph in honest debate that drives liberals and radicals to slander their opponents and to discard their sense of justice and honesty.  Vandalism, occupying property, and other disorderly conduct is an indictment of bankrupt ideas, not a sign of “democracy in action” as one leftist teacher at the Wisconsin State Capitol put it. 

You and I both know that the end never justifies the means.  We know that slander is simply wrong.  We know that not telling the truth is simply a lie.  We know that breaking the law or acting as bullies should not be a part of the political process.  We should expect no less from our political opponents.

A Courageous Book

In 2009, shortly after assuming his post as Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder said that Americans are "essentially a nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race issues. While I don’t think the new book by Harry Stein (No Matter What…They’ll Call This Book Racist, Encounter Books 2012) is what Eric Holder had in mind, it is a frank, honest, and courageous discussion of the issue of race in 21st century America. What Holder means by calling Americans cowards is that he expects white Americans to publicly acknowledge the fact that they are racist and the United States of America is a racist nation. He doesn’t seek an honest discussion, but rather he seeks admission of guilt by white folks that they are the sole cause of black problems in America. What he seeks is the wholesale conversion of all Americans to his way of thinking.

Frankly, Eric Holder and Barack Obama can’t afford an honest discussion of the issues facing black Americans. Without the smears and name-calling, black Americans would discover that they have a lot more in common morally, spiritually and politically with conservatives than they do with liberals like Holder and Obama.

As Stein puts it…

“…for the world as they see it to make sense, racism must be ever-present as a root cause, the all-purpose explanation for every problem faced by minorities in America. In fact, the very last thing Holder wants is a serious examination of why, in this freest and most prosperous of nations, so many minorities continue to lag economically and educationally or why rates of criminality in the inner cities are so appallingly high.”

Harry Stein was a liberal until not too long ago. That’s the way he grew up and that’s what he was taught by his parents, school and college. His friends were liberals, he read liberal publications, he agreed with liberal television reporters, and he thought conservatives were nuts. And then he was hit by a bolt of reality that he discusses in his book. That’s when he became a conservative.

I heard several talk show hosts talk about Stein’s new book [his first book as a conservative was How I Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace)]. Stein has a great sense of humor and is absolutely fearless. Obviously he also likes long titles for his books.

When Stein told a colleague that he was going to write No Matter What…They’ll Call This Book Racist he advised him not to. In fact, his friend said they will destroy you. But clearly, Harry Stein is not easily intimidated.

You’ll learn in the book where the title came from. Hint…it has something to do with a Tea Party rally. The book is appropriately dedicated “To black conservatives everywhere, shock troops in the battle for America’s soul.” As Stein documents, the vitriol fired at black conservatives is many, many times worse than the name calling directed at white conservatives. The left is very threatened by black conservatives. Their growing ranks threatens the false narrative of the left that all conservatives are racists and are the enemy of black Americans.

Here are just a few brief excerpts from Stein’s book…

“The idea that it is racism that has millions of underclass blacks mired generation after generation in physical and spiritual poverty is not just false, but the greatest impediment to fundamentally altering that dreadful state of affairs. What must be faced—above all, by its victims—is that the real problem is a culture of destructive attitudes and behaviors that denies those in its grip the means of escape.”

Stein asserts…

“Today the vast majority of Americans, almost all of us, embrace [Dr. Martin Luther] King’s admonition to judge others solely by ‘the content of their character.’”

And…

“…we have embraced true racial tolerance—which is to say, indifference to skin color—more fully than any other people on earth.”

You can almost hear the left howling in agony.

Stein ridicules Morris Dees of the far left Southern Poverty Law Center for labeling the Family Research Council and the Federation of American Immigration Reform as “hate” groups. He also takes on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who he dubs the “the Godfather of Shakedowns.”

With the sharpness of a surgeon’s scalpel he exposes the double standards of liberals and their closed minded approach to real solutions to black poverty. He lampoons them for continuing with the same failed policies that they have followed for the last 50 years, expecting different results.

You may not agree Stein or not, the points he raises in this book deserve a reasoned, non-emotional response, even if liberals believe he is all wrong. Being wrong and suggesting alternate solutions like school choice, the elimination of minimum wage laws, etc. does not make someone a racist. When the term racist is hurled wildly about without genuine evidence or cause, the only purpose is to obfuscate and end a civil discourse on the race issue. One must conclude that the purpose is not to solve problems, but to continue them for personal and political reasons.

What Stein has offered is an honest and frank discussion of the issues that face black Americans mired in poverty. If and only if we can have such an open and candid discussion of alternatives to the past failed policies of the left is there any chance that the desperation and despair of the poor can be turned into real hope and opportunity. The only thing standing in the way of real solutions is liberal opportunists and politicians who benefit from the status quo.

Buy and read this book.

In Denial

We are told that there are six stages in the grief process—shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance of reality. Ever since the 2010 election, liberals and Democrats (a redundancy, I know) have been in denial. First, they were shocked by the outcome of the 2010 election. They couldn’t believe what happened. They said the voters did not understand. They said the uninformed citizens of America had a tantrum. Senator Harry Reid, leader of the US Senate, called tea party members who believe in Constitutional government radicals. Then the news media called the tea party folks racists. They were called dangerous.

Then came the denial stage. It wasn’t a sea change election of voter anger with politicians who had passed Obamacare against the wishes of 70% of the American people, it was just a “throw the incumbents out” election due to the fact that the economy was in the tank. In other words, it was a mindless “throw the rascals out” sentiment that caused Democrat losses. The Democrats and the media studiously ignored the fact that it wasn’t just a landslide victory for the Republicans in the House of Representatives, with the GOP making great gains in the Senate, it was a devastating top-to-bottom Democrat shellacking.

Found on the back pages of the newspapers was the grudging reporting of the fact that the Republicans and especially conservatives gained more than 700 seats in the state legislatures, they captured multiple governorships, and they elected Republican majorities in city council and county government races in long held safe Democratic strongholds. In Buchanan County, Missouri, Republicans had never held a majority of offices. In 2010 they won every contested race. In North Carolina the GOP had never had control of the state legislature until 2010. The scope and depth of the 2010 election victory by the GOP was similar in scope to the 1930 election victory by the Democrats. More important, it wasn’t just a Republican victory, it was a clear conservative victory. In race after race for the US Senate and the US House, liberal RINO Republicans were replaced in primaries by stout conservative Republicans in the mold of Representative Michele Bachmann and Senator Jim DeMint.

To put it into perspective, in 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover was elected in a landslide with 58.2% of the popular vote and 83.6% of the electoral vote. It was a smashing victory, but it was also the end of an era of Republican dominance. For the remainder of the 20th century, with only a few exceptions (most notably the Reagan era) the Democratic Party and the liberal ideology has dominated public policy.

In November of 2008 Barack Obama was elected President with 52.9% of the popular vote and 67.8% of the electoral vote. The Democrats gained 21 additional seats in the House and 7 additional seats in the Senate giving them a super majority and ensuring they could pass whatever legislation they wished, including socialized medicine, under the moniker Obamacare.

There are great parallels to the sea change elections of 1930 and 1932 to those of 2010 and 2012. In October of 1929 the stock market crashed and in 1930 the Democrats gained 52 seats in the United States House of Representatives. In 2010, after Obamacare was passed with some extra-parliamentary maneuvers, the Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives. In 1932, with Franklin D. Roosevelt at the head of the ticket, the Democrats gained more than 100 additional seats in the House of Representatives, putting them almost permanently in the public policy driver’s seat, with control of both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives.

In 1932 the Democrats completed the top to bottom sweep that began in 1930. The Republican Party was rejected by the American people from the courthouse to the White House. Republicans were in full retreat and liberalism was for the first time in American history advancing on every front. It had made a cameo appearance with the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 who won 41.8% of the popular vote thanks to a split in the Republican Party led by Theodore Roosevelt. Wilson’s election was in many ways similar to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, who received just 43% of the popular vote. Like Wilson before him, Clinton benefited by a split Republican vote due to the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.

I believe the liberal ideology and the Democratic Party reached its apogee with the election of Barack Obama in 2008. By overreaching and exposing their redistributionist agenda, the Democrats exposed their true colors as Marxist wannabes. The Democrats spent with abandon, taking the nation to the brink of bankruptcy. For the first time in history, Standard and Poors downgraded US Bonds from AAA to AA+. It wasn’t quite junk bond status, but it was on the road to it.

In response to their poor stewardship, the American people revolted at the ballot box in 2010. But even after the results were in, the Democrats were still in denial about the tea party revolt and the sea change losses of 2010. They rationalized that the downgrade was due solely to the reluctance of tea party members of congress to increase the debt ceiling. By the time 2011 rolled around, the Democrats had convinced themselves that 2010 was just a “change election” and that 2012 would be another “change election” with Nancy Pelosi back in charge as Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats hanging on to their majority in the US Senate. They announced that the tea party was dead and that it had been replaced by the “occupy” revolt that was the true wave of the future. From reading the newspaper and watching TV, the 2010 election never happened, it was just a mirage and things would be back to normal with the Democrats in control again after 2012.

But as grief counselors will tell you, just denying something doesn’t make it reality. The huge victory achieved by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker this week is a harbinger of what’s ahead for the Democrats in November 2012. Remember this is Wisconsin, one of the most liberal states in the nation. This is the state where radicals blew up a building and killed a graduate student in the 1960s, it is the home of Russ Feingold, Tammy Baldwin, and scores of nutty liberal professors. After spending tens of millions of dollars to recall state senators and to recall Governor Walker the liberals are still in denial. It just can’t be true. The Republicans outspent us, it was outside money, etc. They can’t accept the fact that their liberal ideology is unpopular with the American people, even in Wisconsin!

The next step in the grief process will come on November 7, the day after the election. Dick Morris did a study of the uncommitted vote in presidential elections over the past 50+ years. What he found is that with the exception of Ronald Reagan in 1984, there was a consistent pattern. The challenger to an incumbent President received all of the undecided vote in every election. In fact, in one case, the challenger received all of the undecided vote plus 2% of the vote leaning toward the incumbent.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the 2012 election will not follow this same pattern, especially after the results of the Scott Walker recall election in Wisconsin. Using the current poll results and applying this criterion, Barack Obama will win just 10 states plus the District of Columbia in 2012. Mitt Romney will win 40 states in a landslide election gaining more than 55% of the popular vote. Even the 10 state win for Obama is shaky. Amazingly, New York State is in play with Obama having just a .5% edge over Romney.

Following the election pattern of FDR’s sweeping victory in 1932, the Romney victory is sure to have a strong down ticket pull. It will likely to add Republican seats in the US House, achieve a near super majority in the US Senate, pick up seats in state legislatures, elect more Republican Governors, and elect more Republican majorities in city and county governments. More importantly, it will spell the end of the disastrous liberal era in American politics.

And on Wednesday, November 7, the next step in the grief process will begin for the Democrats—anger. Liberals already seem to have a tendency toward anger and unhappiness. Losing an election and losing control may well put them over the edge. In Wisconsin there are online threats to assassinate Governor Walker. The left seems to be comfortable with violence. They rationalize it and excuse it when it is directed at conservatives. The anger will be followed quickly by the next step in the grief process—bargaining. The Democrats and their steadfast allies in the news media will plead that it is the responsible thing for Republicans to do to compromise with the Democrats. It’s never the responsibility of Democrats to compromise, but it’s always the responsibility of Republicans to compromise.

After the bargaining fails, Democrats and liberals will suffer from depression, the penultimate stage in the grief process. Can it really be true that the American people reject our redistributionist philosophy? Do Americans really believe in opportunity, not government guaranteed results? Are Americans really more conservative in their outlook than they are liberal? Do they really reject catastrophic man caused climate change? Do they really believe in God?

Finally, reality will set in. It really is over. The 90 year illusion that citizens can receive something for nothing without losing individual freedom will come to a close. The reality that imperfect people cannot create a perfect society, as our Founders well understood, will penetrate the consciousness of informed Americans. It won’t be a perfect country or an ideal country, but it will be once again a shining city on a hill holding aloft the lamp of freedom to the world. Prosperity, faith, personal compassion, racial harmony, and opportunity for all Americans will have an opportunity to become reality in the new American century.