Triad Today

Last week I addressed the threats that have been made upon Donald Trump’s life, or what we might call, “The Dangers TO Donald.” However, given the Republican nominee’s recent gaffes, and a rash of articles that call into question his mental stability, it seems appropriate to also address the threats that Trump himself might pose to the rest of us. In other words, “The Dangers OF Donald.”

Mr. Trump’s outrageous behavior has included: mocking a disabled reporter; suggesting that FOX anchor Megyn Kelly was a hostile debate moderator because she could have been having her menstrual period; saying that women should change jobs if they are sexually harassed in the workplace; attacking the Gold Star family of a fallen hero, then claiming to have made an equal sacrifice (“I’ve hired thousands of people”); saying that the world would be a safer place if more nations acquired nuclear weapons; referring to a black man at his rally as “my African American”; doubling down on his claim that POWs are not heroes; claiming to have seen a video of an Iranian cash drop, when no such video existed; flippantly accepting a Purple Heart from a veteran; and, most recently, implying to a crowd of supporters that if Hillary is elected, they might take a shot at her.

The preponderance of these Trumpisms has caused some leading Republicans to denounce his candidacy, and question his fitness to occupy the White House. Soon after President Obama’s declaration that Trump is “unfit to be Commander-in-Chief”, fifty former Republican security officials and cabinet secretaries issued an open letter saying that if Trump is elected, he would be the most reckless president in our history. That letter followed a public statement by former CIA Director Michael Morell, who said Trump, “may well pose a threat to our national security… and would be a dangerous Commander-in-Chief.” The timing of these criticisms coincided with the announcement that both Trump and Hillary will soon begin receiving security briefings. Pundits of all political stripes have suggested that neither candidate should be trusted with classified information. But while Hillary’s lack of credibility in that regard is based on her mishandling of emails, Trump’s lack of trustworthiness seems to be tied to his mental fitness. Libertarian vice-presidential candidate William Weld, who has served as a governor and in the Justice Department, didn’t mince words, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump has, “a screw loose.”

But last week, the American Psychiatric Association issued a warning to journalists and partisans who are suggesting that Trump is mentally ill. Said APA President Maria Oquendo, “The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.”

Ms. Oquendo also reminded us that such armchair analysis of presidential candidates is nothing new. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign ran a TV ad that suggested Senator Barry Goldwater was unfit to be president because he (Goldwater) was likely to drop an atomic bomb on Russia. The media and others jumped on the “Goldwater is dangerous” bandwagon, and the senator lost in a landslide to Johnson, who turned out to be the real military aggressor of the two candidates. Fifty-two years after the hatchet job on Goldwater, Trump has also come under fire from his opponent and from the media. But unlike Goldwater, Trump’s own words and actions have contributed to the perception that he is somewhat unstable. In fact, one need only to read the Mayo Clinic definition of “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”, to see that Donald Trump displays nearly all of the clinical symptoms of NPD, which include:

• Having an exaggerated sense of self importance
• Expecting to be recognized as superior without achievements that warrant it
• Taking advantage of others to get what you want
• Having an inability to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Having a lack of empathy for others

It is important to note, however, that one can be narcissistic without having NPD. In fact, the Pew Research Center recently released a ranking of U.S. Presidents according to their level of narcissism (LBJ was #1, JFK #5, Nixon #6, and Bill Clinton #7). Regardless of their ranking, none of those men were diagnosed as having NPD, and none were precluded from doing their job effectively because of their narcissistic traits. The question then remains, if in fact Donald Trump suffers from a clinical disorder, can he be an effective commander-in-chief?

Unlike other diseases and disorders (like depression or bi-polar) whose chemical imbalances can be controlled with medication, NPD is purely behavioral in nature, thus not so easily checked or treated. Clearly Donald Trump can function effectively as a TV host and real estate developer, but his extreme narcissistic behavior would seem to preclude the kind of clear thinking and diplomatic restraint needed to be the president of 350 million people, and commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military.

In his defense, Trump assures us he will act presidential once he’s become president. Translation? His goofy behavior is all just a carnival act designed to energize disaffected voters and close the deal. The problem is that his act is wearing thin, and every day he falls further behind in the polls. That means we may never get to see him act presidential. Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Years from now, historians writing about American politics will surely mention a firebrand idealog who once ran for president.

They will recall that his rallies attracted thousands of followers who were treated to speeches filled with outlandish demagoguery. They will say he also attracted large numbers of protestors who accused him of being a racist. And history will record that this candidate was a lightning rod of controversy, so much so, that he became the target of death threats. They will be describing Donald Trump, but they’ll also be describing his bombastic soul mate from a half-century ago: George Wallace.

As a third-party candidate in 1968, Wallace made prejudice and bigotry the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. But the tone for that campaign had been set in 1963 when, during his inaugural address, Alabama’s new governor proclaimed, “Segregation today! Segregation tomorrow. And segregation forever!”. In 1968, Wallace’s slogan was “Stand Up for America”. That’s the year he shocked Washington insiders by running on a third-party ticket and winning five states while collecting 46 electoral votes. He ran again for President in 1972, this time as a Democrat, and was on a clear path to winning his party’s nomination, when he was gunned down at a rally in Maryland. Wallace was paralyzed for the rest of his life.

Unlike Wallace who had held elected office, Donald Trump is a newcomer to politics. Yet both men managed to position themselves as Washington outsiders. Trump has also made prejudice the centerpiece of his campaign, not so much against blacks, but against immigrants, especially Mexicans and Muslims. Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again”, channels Wallace, and is, to some people, code for “Make America White Again”. We already know that Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric has lead to violence by and against protestors, but the question is, will it also lead to violence against Trump himself? Could he suffer a similar fate as Wallace? There is evidence to indicate that the unthinkable is a possibility.

Last September, a private jet carrying five Saudi nationals was forced to land in Lebanon where the passengers were detained for questioning. During their investigation, Lebanese authorities seized one of the Saudi’s laptops, and attempted to read its contents. But the information was encrypted, so the computer was flown to Moscow where Putin’s tech team was able to unscramble the secretive material. In the process they uncovered documents containing Donald Trump’s entire travel itinerary and private security plans for the month of October. According to USA Today, Putin then warned Trump of what was believed to have been an assassination plot against the future Republican nominee.

Fortunately the Saudi attack was thwarted, but the candidate has faced at least two other attempts on his life that we know of.

At a rally in Ohio, Tommy DiMassimo made it up onto the stage to attack Trump, but Secret Service agents stopped him. According to CNN, the man later told authorities that he was prepared to become a martyr by killing Trump.

Then there was 19-year-old Michael Sandford, a citizen of the UK and current resident of New Jersey, who traveled to Las Vegas in hopes of assassinating Trump. While attending a Trump rally at Treasure Island Hotel, Sandford approached the candidate as if he was seeking an autograph or a handshake, in much the same way Arthur Bremer had done with Wallace back in 1972. Suddenly, Sandford lunged for a security officer’s gun, but was subdued and taken into custody. He told police that he had tried to take the gun, “to shoot Trump.” The young man wasn’t acting on impulse. Not only had he followed Trump around the country, but the day before the Vegas incident, Sandford went to a nearby shooting range to practice his marksmanship.

In addition to the Ohio and Vegas attacks, Trump is also the object of countless death threats on social media. “BigSpoon” (@schmuck_u) tweeted, “I’m anti-gun, but I’m thinking of buying one just to assassinate Trump”. “Kayne” (@thjnketh) said, “I’m gonna kill Trump. If I go to jail, I’m saving America”. Tianna McHenry (@metizzlefashizz) wrote, “Someone, anyone assassinate Trump and his offspring. I don’t care if this gets me on the FBI watch list. I f#*%ing hate the man”. And Henry Del (@ohhsnapitsdel) tweeted, “Who wants to go with me on a mission to assassinate Trump?”

Trump and his security team take these and other threats seriously. According to InfoWars.com reporter Paul Joseph Watson, the candidate always wears a bulletproof vest at public events.

“You just can’t go around preaching hatred however you cloak it, however you dress it up, and somehow or another, it will not come back to bite you.” That statement was made by civil rights activist J.L. Chestnut. He was commenting for a PBS documentary about the Wallace shooting, but he might as well have been referring to Donald Trump. Chestnut went on to recall the reaction by African Americans to the attempted assassination. “Black folks in Alabama did not rejoice that Wallace had been shot, but there was a feeling that, ‘Well, the chickens have come home to roost'”.

There’s something to be gleaned from Mr. Chestnut’s observations, because the kind of rhetoric that led to George Wallace being shot in 1972, could also threaten Mr. Trump in 2016. It’s time for Trump to tone down his rhetoric, refrain from personal attacks, and resist the temptation to post childish, inflammatory tweets.

In many ways George Wallace and Donald Trump are already linked by history. I just hope there’s one thing they won’t have in common when all is said and done.

When I was finally old enough to play outside, my Mom would say, “look both ways before crossing the street, and watch where you’re going.” I just assumed everyone’s mother served up that same kind of sage advice, but I’ve since come to learn different. Today it seems like common sense is a scarce commodity, and nowhere is that more evident than in how we use so-called mobile devices.

It used to be that cell phones had one purpose. They allowed us to place and receive calls. It wasn’t long, though, before everyone was using their cell phones to text instead of talk. The logic of this phenomena still escapes me. If I want to tell someone something, I CALL them on my cell phone. It’s fast, it’s convenient, and there’s no chance that my message will be misinterpreted by typos or bad grammar. On the flip side, proponents of texting say that if the person you wish to speak with is in a meeting and can’t take your call, they can still communicate via text. But if you’re in a meeting, chances are someone is paying you to be there, so you shouldn’t be texting. You should be focused solely on that meeting, and on doing the job you’re being paid to do. Remember, multi tasking is not necessarily a badge of honor. Mostly it’s just rude behavior.

In addition to fostering rudeness, texting also causes accidents, some minor, some fatal. I can’t tell you how many times a text-head has walked right into me because he never looked up to see where he was going. And nearly every week, we hear of a car crash that was caused by someone who was texting while driving. Let’s face it, people with mobile devices often endanger themselves and those around them. Unfortunately, texting while walking or driving is no longer the worst of our worries.

Last month, careless behavior reached new heights with the advent of Pokemon-Go, an augmented reality game based on the 1990s cartoon, which can now be downloaded onto most mobile devices. The point of the game is to hunt animated monsters. However, Pokemon players have become so obsessed and focused on the game, that they are not watching where they’re going. For example, a 15-year-old Pennsylvania girl was recently hit by a car while crossing the street. She was playing Pokemon Go, instead of paying attention to traffic. Meanwhile, a Baltimore man was engaged in the game while driving, and he slammed into the back of a police car. And in North San Diego County, two men fell off of a 75-foot cliff because Pokemania had them looking into their mobile devices instead of straight ahead. These Pokemorons are also finding themselves victims of other kinds of related mishaps. In O’Fallon Missouri, four teenagers used the game to lure a dozen other Pokemon players into a remote area, where the clueless gamers were robbed. Sgt. Bill Stringer explained the scheme. “Using the geo location feature of the Pokemon Go app, the robbers were able to anticipate the location of unwitting victims.” Sadly, these are not isolated incidents.

I keep coming back to Mom’s warning, “Look both ways before crossing the street, and watch where you’re going.” It’s the kind of advice that keeps you from bumping into cars, walking into traffic, falling off cliffs, and being lured into alley ways. Of course there are Pokemon Go apologists who say that the positives of hunting digital monsters far outweigh the negatives. For one thing, they say playing the game gets kids out of the house, and that helps to reduce our obesity epidemic. I say all they’re doing is shifting the fat from their bellies to their heads.

Sure I know that not all Pokemon Goers are irresponsible, but injuries and incidents will continue to increase exponentially, and that should concern parents. According to Fortune.com, the game was downloaded ten million times in its first week, and is now on more Android phones than the highly successful dating site Tinder. That means some people would rather chase cartoon characters into moving traffic than have social interaction with a member of the opposite sex. Moreover, many Pokemorons are obsessed with the game even when they’re not even playing it. Evidence of that occurred two weeks ago during a press conference at the State Department. While briefing members of the fourth estate about the escalating threat of ISIS, State Department spokesperson John Kirby was distracted by a reporter who was doing something with his mobile device instead of taking notes. “You’re playing the Pokemon thing right there, aren’t you?” asked Kirby. “I’m just keeping an
eye on it”, replied the reporter.

I think Greensboro Police Officer Ben Wingfield said it best when he told a local TV station, “When you’re involved in a game and not paying attention to what’s going on around you, your situational awareness can go down.” Translation? If you’re chasing cartoon characters and fail to look both ways and watch where you’re going, then you are by definition a Pokemoron. It’s just too bad there’s not an App for common sense.
 
 

For the past ten months, independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has led a revolution to reform government, and eliminate the staggering disparity in wealth between the one percent and the rest of us. He was the real deal. He talked the talk and walked the walk. Bernie didn’t accept PAC money. The average donation to his campaign was $27, yet he constantly outpaced fundraising by the Clinton campaign. He proposed a “Medicare for all” system and free college tuition which would be funded by a slight tax increase, along with fees charged to Wall Street speculators. He railed against bad trade agreements which had cost us millions of jobs. Everywhere he went, he drew capacity crowds. The new mantra for millions of young and first-time voters, independents, and economically strapped Americans was, “Feel the Bern!”. But last Tuesday at a rally in Portsmouth New Hampshire, that slogan changed to “Feel the Burn”. On that day, Bernie endorsed and embraced Hillary Clinton, a career politician who lied to Congress, was careless with national secrets, and became a multi-millionaire from making speeches to the same Wall Street big shots who caused the great recession. In one brief moment, Sanders and Clinton hugged, and a promising reform movement died.

My conservative friends tell me that I was a fool to think Sanders could deny Clinton the Democratic nomination, but as I pointed out in my April column, Bernie had a clear path to the White House throughout most of his campaign.

Week after week, Sanders kept winning primaries and caucuses. Week after week he kept pace with Hillary for pledged delegates. And each week, his war chest grew considerably. All along, Clinton’s ace in the hole was the 500 super delegates who had pledged their support to her long before primary voters even went to the polls. These super delegates were comprised of Democratic elected officials and party hacks who, to some degree or another, curried favor with the Clintons. But even accounting for those super partisans, Bernie was making a case for a brokered convention so long as he passed Hillary in actual pledged delegates. That scenario remained a distinct possibility until the Sanders campaign was eventually derailed by a series of closed primaries where independents were barred from voting. Yet even as Hillary closed in on the nomination, Bernie still had a clear path to the White House. Here’s how it would have played out.

Bernie would show up at the convention with 13 million votes and roughly 47% of the pledged delegates. As soon as Hillary was nominated, he would bolt the party and launch an independent run for the presidency, either on his own, or as the Green Party nominee. His doing so could deprive Hillary and Trump of the requisite 270 electoral votes needed to win the general election. Should that happen, the contest would have been turned over to the House of Representatives. According to the 12th Amendment, the Speaker would then direct all 50 states to cast one vote each for the candidate who received the most popular votes in their state. The House would tally the 50 votes, and whichever candidate collected at least 26 votes would be the new president. This might seem like a convoluted scenario, but it is plausible, and still could have occurred had Bernie accepted Dr. Jill Stein’s offer last week to assume her mantle as Green Party nominee. He refused, and by endorsing Hillary, Bernie turned his back on the movement he once ignited.

Some pundits have said that Sanders forced Ms. Clinton to the left, and forced the DNC to adopt several of his proposals into their party platform. But as Dr. Stein tweeted to Sanders following his endorsement, “I wish Hillary believed what you believe, but it just doesn’t pass the laugh test”. Translation? If elected, Hillary will not push for Bernie’s reforms. One former Bernie supporter blogged, “For the past ten months Bernie said Hillary was in bed with Wall Street, has questionable judgment, and was not qualified to be president…suddenly he asked his supporters to forget all that, and endorse Mrs. Clinton.” After ten months of hard work, an entire movement had ended with a hug between two rivals with very disparate beliefs.

That hug also gave hope to greedy Wall Street bankers and health insurance companies. It meant that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in America would continue to be from unpaid medical bills, and it meant that millions of people would keep on struggling to pay their monthly health insurance premiums. It also meant that college students would continue to be saddled with debt. The hug meant that our tax dollars would continue to be spent on sending our soldiers into harm’s way every time warring factions couldn’t solve their own problems. And the hug meant that we would continue to honor trade agreements which have thrown millions of Americans out of work, with more of the same to come (can you say TPP?).
In all fairness to Bernie, some observers at last week’s endorsement rally say that the now infamous hug was actually initiated by Hillary, and that Sanders had only wanted to shake hands. Nevertheless, Sanders embraced the embrace. It was a seminal moment in American politics. Mainly, it was a moment in which Hillary felt the Bern, and the rest of us felt the effect.
 
 

Transparency is important these days, so in the spirit of full disclosure let me confess that I am a 62-year-old unaffiliated white man, and a card-carrying member of the NAACP. As such, I am particularly troubled by the rising trend in what I call WCBC, or “White (Cop) on Black Crime”.

2014 was marked by the shooting deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland. Both were unnecessarily killed by white police officers. In 2015, Walter Scott of North Charleston met a similar fate. And if just being black and unarmed isn’t enough of an offense, earlier this year, white cops in Los Angeles shot and killed an African-American homeless man who resisted arrest. Then, earlier this month, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were gunned down by white cops in Baton Rouge and St.Paul respectively. In addition to the way they were killed, these victims shared something else in common—transparency regarding how they were killed.

Increasingly over the past decade, just about anyone with a cell phone can capture just about anything, and post it just about anywhere. Whether the officers who committed recent shootings knew it or not, their brutality went viral, and, in some cases almost in real time. Of course, that kind of techno transparency isn’t exactly new. In 1991, Los Angeles resident George Holliday looked out his balcony door, and saw four white police officers savagely beating a black man. Digital, mobile cell phones were not in common use back then, so Holliday grabbed his camcorder and videotaped the incident. The man being beaten was Rodney King, and despite Holliday’s video evidence of police brutality, the officers were acquitted. That miscarriage of justice sparked violent riots throughout the city in which over 50 people were killed and another 2,000 injured.

But here’s where we should acknowledge an important difference between the Rodney King era and the Black Lives Matter era. For the most part, protests and riots used to be staged after the criminal justice system had produced a verdict. Back then many African-Americans, though distrustful of police, judges, and juries, still held on to some hope that justice could still be served. After all, O.J. was acquitted in 1995 mainly because a key witness revealed himself to be a racist, and that derailed the prosecution’s case.

But today, thanks to the 24-hour news cycle, and to BLM’s ability to mobilize quickly, protestors no longer wait for grand juries or judges to even hear a case of police brutality, much less wait for a verdict. While the Sterling and Castile families were just beginning to mourn, BLM was staging protests across the nation. In Oakland they reportedly vandalized a police station, breaking glass doors and spray painting the word, “Murderers” on the building. Meanwhile protestors in Minnesota shouted “pigs in a blanket” (a call for cops to be killed). And in New York City, they chanted, “What do we want? Dead cops!”

On July 7, less than 72 hours since the Baton Rouge and St. Paul shootings, BLM took to the streets of Dallas shouting “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”, and carrying placards accusing police of being racists, and worse. The Rev. Jeff Hood, a white pastor helped to organize the BLM rally. He dressed in African garments and spewed hate speech to the crowd. “I’m going to channel Rev. Jeremiah White, and I’m going to say, ‘God d#*n White America”. He also told the protestors that police were their enemy, and that they needed to get a “fire under their (butts) and do something”. Ironically Hood and others were free to speak and march unmolested only because they were under the protection of the same officers he was unfairly indicting by association. Nevertheless, Hood’s heated remarks continued until suddenly, shots rang out from an upper deck of a parking garage. The barrage of gunfire seemed endless, and was interrupted for a time while police negotiated with 25-year-old Micah Xavier Johnson, an African-American former Army reservist who served a tour in Afghanistan. During those negotiations, Johnson told authorities that he was angry about black people being murdered by white cops, and that he wanted to kill as many white officers as possible. Negotiations eventually broke down and Johnson was killed. In the end the sniper had executed five officers and wounded seven others. At least two civilians were also wounded, including a 37-year-old African-American mother of four children.

From the moment the assault began, those same Dallas police who had been assigned to protect BLM protestors, and were forced to listen to aspersions cast upon their fellow officers, were suddenly putting their lives on the line to move the hate speaking marchers out of harm’s way. It is important to note that the Dallas PD is considered a model organization when it comes to diversity and community policing. Over 46% of the force is comprised of minorities, and the Chief himself is African-American. That begs the question, Why was Black Lives Matter marching in Dallas to protest isolated incidents in Louisiana and Minnesota? Solidarity is one thing, but protesting in a city that prides itself on excellent race relations not only seemed inappropriate, but was an insult to the men and women in blue who died protecting those very same protestors. It is even likely that the last words some of the slain officers ever heard were words of hate aimed at them. Words that stereotyped them as racists and murderers.

I’m not blaming Black Lives Matter directly for the Dallas massacre, but the kind of hate speech spewed by Rev. Hood and others certainly served to inflame and incite those who sought to protest against two recent officer related shootings in other States. It also inspired the deranged Mr. Johnson to act on his anger, which had been fueled by BLM’s inflammatory rhetoric. When asked by FOX News anchor Meghan Kelly if he regretted the language he used at the BLM rally, Rev. Hood said, “If I had it to do over again, I think I would have chose different words.” Unfortunately there are no do-overs for the five slain officers.

Today there are about 30 million blacks living in America, and their lives matter. There are also about 700,000 police officers living in America, and their lives matter too. Rodney King once asked the rhetorical question, “Can we all get along?” The answer is “Yes”, so long as we advocate for reforms that include more diversity of hiring in local police departments, implementation of more community policing programs, more thorough screening of police academy applicants, and a commitment from BLM to dial down the hate speech associated with their protests. We will never be totally safe from deranged lone gunmen, but enacting these kinds of reforms might help to diffuse the anger that torments such troubled souls. We all live under the same flag, let’s just make sure we’re not always flying it at half staff.
 
 

Somehow when we weren’t looking, Washington DC was apparently gerrymandered into North Carolina’s 13th Congressional district. I know this because last month, a DC-based super PAC decided the outcome of a high-profile Republican primary in our own backyard.

The old 13th district was represented by veteran incumbent George Holding of Raleigh. But a federal court ordered the NC General Assembly to redraw the 1st and 12th districts, and those new lines affected the boundaries of the 13th. The new 13th excludes Holding’s home base of Raleigh, and now includes part or all of Guilford, Davidson, Davie, Iredell, and Rowan counties. Holding decided he would stand a better chance of returning to Washington if he ran in the new 2nd district against fellow Republican incumbent Renee Ellmers. Holding was right. He handily defeated Ellmers for the nomination.

Meanwhile, absent an incumbent in the new 13th, candidates came out of the woodwork to run in the GOP primary. A total of 17 Republicans were on the ballot, including a number of veteran public servants like Davie Commissioner Dan Barrett, 14-term state Senator Julia Howard of Mocksville, state Senator Andrew Brock also of Mocksville, eight-term state Senator John Blust of Greensboro, High Point Commissioner Hank Henning, Rep. Harry Warren of Salisbury, and Iredell County’s popular register of deeds Matt McCall.

The original primary had been slated for March 15, but the court order forced a move to June 7, with no provision for a run-off. That meant any of the 17 candidates could win the nomination with a simple majority. And since Republicans outnumber Democrats by about 53% to 46% in the new district, whoever prevailed in the GOP primary would be favored to win the general election as well.

Political pundits were predicting that Barrett, Blust, or Howard would take the prize, but a funny thing happened on the way to the primary. According to my sources, and to reports on TheDailyHaymaker.com, state Republican party chairman and former congressman Robin Hayes got together with long time party donor Richard Budd, and the pair convinced Budd’s son Ted, a conservative gun shop owner, to run in the GOP primary. Hayes also reportedly held a fundraiser for young Mr. Budd, and helped to arrange for a DC Super PAC, the Club for Growth Action, to pledge up to one million dollars to Ted’s congressional campaign. By some accounts, Ted spent $500,000 on the primary, but it might as well have been 500 Billion, because the other 16 candidates couldn’t come close to matching Budd’s booty, especially on such short notice. WXII reported that by mid-May, Ted had already spent over $150,000 just in local TV ads, and that was three times the amount either Barrett or Howard spent, and 100 times more than the rest of the field could muster.

In a media market like ours, megabucks on TV translates to name recognition, and name recognition translates to votes. People who had never heard of Budd, suddenly thought they had, because his name and image kept emanating from their TV screens at regular intervals. Not surprisingly Budd won the primary, leaving his GOP veteran opponents stunned and frustrated. Next up for Ted is a fall contest with Democratic nominee Bruce Davis for the chance to represent some 700,000 Piedmont residents in the halls of Congress.

Davis, like many of the Republican candidates who were vanquished by Budd’s PAC money, is a long-time public servant, having served as chairman of the Guilford County commissioners. He is a Marine Corps veteran with bronze and silver stars to his credit. And he runs a successful business in High Point. But Bruce does not have a DC PAC behind him, and unless he can convince tens of thousands of Democrats to move into the district by November, he’s starting out in a huge hole.

If ever there was a case for overturning Citizens United, it’s the 13th district Republican primary that allowed Ted Budd to lap the field, not based on his legislative bona fides or a cohesive platform to deal with major issues, but on his powerful connections, and the money they poured into his coffers.

In addition to having an outside super PAC controlling an election, It is troubling that Hayes was so involved with and supportive of Ted, and even reportedly held a fundraiser for the political novice. A party chairman should never take sides in a primary. It is also troubling that Ted, who by all accounts is a nice guy and a dedicated family man, isn’t allowed to make his own decisions. Immediately following the June 7 primary, I invited both Ted and Bruce to appear together on my Triad Today television program. Bruce immediately agreed. Ted said, “I’ll have to get my guy to call you.” The next day Ted’s “guy” called me and said that Ted wasn’t interested in being on Triad Today. Having been at this for over 40 years, I’ve learned that when a handler turns down free TV exposure for his candidate, that generally means he thinks the candidate already has the election won, and doesn’t want to risk having him say anything stupid on air that might derail the campaign. I hate to think that Ted will continue to hide rather than engage in discourse, but that remains to be seen.

For now, it’s not likely that Citizens United will be overturned any time soon, and certainly not before November 8. But it would send a powerful message to Congress if the sixteen also-rans and other notable Republicans took a stand against unlimited campaign donations. They could call a joint press conference and refuse to endorse Budd if he spends any more PAC money in his contest against Davis. It might look like sour grapes, but such a united front could open a crack in the political wall that stands in the way of reform. Until that happens, Ted Budd will go on thinking that the primary voters chose him because he had a lot of character, when in truth they chose him because he just had a lot of money.
 
 

To borrow from Dickens, June has been the worst of times for Orange County. Within a period of just several days, this central Florida community experienced not one, but two tragic attacks. First came the massacre of 49 nightclub patrons at the hands of an American citizen and deranged Islamic terrorist. Next came the horrific death of 2-year old Lane Graves, whose family was vacationing at Disney World when he was killed by an alligator.

Last Tuesday at approximately 9:30pm, Melissa and Matt Graves, their son Lane and his two siblings were frolicking on a narrow strip of beach at the Grand Floridian resort, which fronts a large lagoon. Lane’s parents were fully aware of the warning signs that said “No swimming, Steep Drop-Off”. Still they allowed little Lane to wander away from the family, and wade a foot or so into the lagoon.

Suddenly an alligator (estimated at between four and seven feet long) emerged from the dark waters and grabbed the boy. Efforts by both parents to wrestle their toddler away from the gator were unsuccessful, and within seconds, the creature had taken Lane under. It was the last time they saw their son, until being called to identify his body nearly two days later.

Social media platforms were abuzz with cruel comments about Melissa and Matt, and how they should be charged with criminal negligence. Those criticisms began to subside, however, as more was learned about Disney’s role in the attack.

Disney World staffers were quoted as saying that patrons had been feeding pretzels and other snacks to alligators for years, causing more of the giant reptiles to wander onto the beaches more often. Those employees reportedly told their bosses that a protective fence should be erected to keep gators away from guests and vice versa. Those requests were repeatedly ignored. And just as Orange County officials were boasting that this was the first gator attack in the history of Disney World, a New Hampshire man came forward to tell about how he was also attacked many years ago while his family was staying at Fort Wilderness. Within days of Lane’s death, Disney came under fire for not having posted signs that specifically warned of alligators. By the next weekend, signs to that effect were visible throughout the lagoon area, and protective barriers were being erected.

Clearly Disney bears some responsibility for the fatal gator attack, and at least one legal expert says a massive law suit could be forthcoming. Attorney Joseph Balice told TheWrap.com that the Graves family, “could sue Disney for wrongful death and possibly negligent infliction of emotional distress.” But before we all jump on the “let’s get Disney” bandwagon, it might be prudent to take a step back and, with all due respect for their loss, examine the parents’ role in this tragedy.

Twelve years ago my wife Pam and I stayed at the Grand Floridian resort, and we walked the same narrow stretch of beach where last week’s attack occurred. Signs were posted in several places, warning us not to swim, and notifying us that the lagoon had a steep drop-off. Because of those signs and the visible drop-off, no one in their right mind should let a toddler wander into even the shallowest part of the lagoon. Had little Lane taken a few more steps, the water would have been over his head, and he could have drowned. And so, even absent the gator attack, Lane’s parents were grossly negligent. I’d like to say that their negligence was an isolated problem, but the truth is, if you believe that even one useless death is one too many, then child abuse and neglect is reaching epidemic proportions.

According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), over 1,500 children die each year from either abuse or neglect. The majority of cases involve children from infancy to age three, and while many of those deaths are the result of physical abuse, an increasing number are due to drowning, fires, and other mishaps which occurred because of neglectful or inattentive parents.

Back in 1993, the US Fire Administration reported that in one year alone, eleven children died in fires while left alone by their parents. Today that number has increased to around 300. In 2013, a Canadian couple left their two small boys in the same apartment with a 14 foot pet python. The giant snake broke out of its cage and killed the boys. Two years ago, a three year old boy, his Dad and Grandfather were observing jaguars at the Little Rock Zoo in Arkansas, when the grandfather lifted the toddler onto the top rail overlooking the jaguar enclosure. The boy fell into the enclosure, was mauled, but fortunately survived. Then there was last month’s Cincinnati Zoo fiasco in which a young Mother failed to keep an eye on her 4 year old son who fell into a gorilla enclosure. Again the boy survived, but parental negligence almost cost him his life. And also earlier this year a two-year old Dearborn girl drowned in a neighbor’s pool. No adults were anywhere to be found, including her Mother. Apparently, though, justice is harsher in Michigan for negligent parents because the Mother was arrested and charged with her daughter’s death. Said Wayne County prosecutor Lynn Worthy, “Once again we are left with a child whose death was completely preventable.”

Perhaps that approach to justice is spreading, even to cases where no actual harm befalls the child. Recently a New Jersey judge ruled that a Mother was guilty of neglect for leaving her 19 monthold child in a car unattended while she ran into the store for a few minutes. Said Judge Clarkson Fisher, “A parent invites sustained peril when leaving a child of such tender years alone in a vehicle, no matter how briefly.” Lane Graves was only a few months older than the New Jersey child who had been left in a car, yet Lane’s parents won’t be charged by Florida prosecutors for contributing to his grizzly death. And, in addition to the human loss they suffered, the Graves’ negligence also resulted in
financial losses for the City and County, whose combined 60 rescue personnel worked night and day to search for their child.

No doubt Disney should have had signs in place warning of alligators, and their guest relations staff should have been required to educate visiting parents about the dangers of the lagoon and local predators. But increasingly it seems that parents also need basic parenting education, along with a dose of common sense.

When and where that instruction takes place is up for debate. The need to better protect the lives of our children is not.
 
 

At about 2:00 a.m. this past Sunday, 29-year-old Omar Mateen walked into the Pulse nightclub in Orlando armed with an assault rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. As an Islamic radical who had pledged his support to ISIS, Mateen was also armed with an extreme hatred for gays, about 300 of which were inside Pulse on Sunday morning. After initial shots were fired by Mateen, he exchanged gunfire with a police officer on duty at the club, as well as with two other officers who were nearby. Mateen then bottled up the building and local police, believing that Mateen might also possess a bomb, engaged in hostage negotiations. A hail of gunfire followed, and by 5:00 a.m., 49 people were dead, including Mateen. Another 53 were injured.

Time and again following a tragic shooting or bombing, politicians from one political party or another tell us, “this is not the time to affix blame.” Obviously in such situations, our priorities must include securing the crime scene, investigating the possibility of additional attackers or attacks, caring for survivors, and comforting families of victims. But assessing constructive blame is also a priority, because it helps us to understand cause and effect, and hopefully, prevent the same thing from reoccurring.

Following 9/11, some pundits and historians proffered that we had brought the attacks on ourselves because of decades of government interference in Middle East culture wars. Instead of learning from and heeding those warnings, Bush doubled down, and invaded Iraq, who he blamed for the Twin Towers tragedy. After learning that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush escalated the attacks, and over a million innocent Iraqi civilians were killed in the process. Over time, Bush, then Obama, destabilized the region by helping to depose several dictators, but that destabilization gave birth to ISIS, and a free hand to other extremist groups.

So why, then, do our leaders continue to act shocked and surprised when domestic terror attacks occur? Why do we not have a more secure immigration policy? Why is there not an effective system of information sharing between the FBI and ATF? And why for God’s sake is our President in denial about the most frightening and dangerous enemy our nation has ever faced? The raising of these questions not only seek to affix blame, but to find solutions that will prevent further massacres and save thousands of innocent lives.

In his press conference immediately following the Pulse shootings, Obama identified the incident merely as “an attack of terror and an attack of hate.”

That’s true. But that’s like saying the sinking of the Titanic was an act of frozen water. Certainly Mateen was a terrorist who hated gays, but he hated all Americans. One of his fellow high school students recalled that Mateen cheered, “Praise to Allah” while watching footage of the Twin Towers collapsing.

He had also been in communication with foreign terrorists, which he was questioned about by the FBI on three separate occasions. He wasn’t just a terrorist who killed 50 gay people in Orlando. Mateen was an Islamic terrorist, whose beliefs demanded that he execute infidels and homosexuals.

Donald Trump lashed out at Obama, saying the President should resign if he refuses to properly identify the threat we face. But Trump isn’t alone in his concern. Speaking to FOX News, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, a noted Muslim scholar, explained what our President fails to understand. Said Ahmed, “This attack had all of the hallmarks of Islamic jihadist attacks. This was targeting vulnerable minorities. This was targeting people of gay and alternative lifestyles in this country. This lifestyle is a feature of a secular society, and Islam jihad makes war on secularism. So this was Islamic, it was radical Islamic.”

But while failing to identify our true enemy, Mr. Obama himself engaged in the blame game. He blamed lack of gun controls for massacres at schools, theatres, and nightclubs, then posed the rhetorical question, “Is this the kind of society we want to live in?” No doubt we need stricter gun laws. We need a 90-day waiting period for purchase of any gun, and we need to require that the FBI share all investigative information with the ATF, so that gun shop owners and local sheriffs will know that a guy like Mateen had been questioned. But even with those reforms in place, we wouldn’t be solving the problem of Islamic Terrorism. Said Dr. Ahmed, “This attack would have happened with or without guns…if there were no guns available, there would have been bombs…the weapons of Mateen is not the center of this discussion.”

President Obama’s refusal to identify and wage war on Islamic radicals, represents a failure to use his bully pulpit for rallying us against a common, definable enemy. As it is, most Americans won’t report on or complain about Muslims who display disturbing traits for fear of being branded politically incorrect. In fact, even the security firm Mateen worked for refused to fire him despite numerous complaints by co-workers, because they knew he was a Muslim. This PC environment also serves as an obstacle for our government agencies who are hamstrung to wage an effective war on Islamic radicals.

Gary Bernstein, a former CIA officer observes, “The administration is underselling the nature of the threat in the United States. The FBI has stated that there are over 900 open investigations of Muslim extremists, and that over 10 times that number, or about 15,000 American Muslims have communicated with ISIS.”

Bernstein also offers a solution. “We need a domestic intelligence service here in America like the British have with MI5, and I would hire many Muslim Americans who know the culture to help us fight these (radicals). We need new authorities, and it’s time for a change.”

Sometimes blame is necessary in order to bring about change, especially the kind of change Mr. Bernstein is talking about. And yes, there’s always plenty of blame to go around. If there was a back door to Pulse, there’s no telling how many more patrons could have survived Mateen’s rampage. If Mateen’s co-workers and employer had gone to the authorities, perhaps that would have allowed the FBI to take him into custody. If more law abiding citizens were allowed to carry guns, perhaps several Pulse patrons could have taken Mateen down. Perhaps if Mateen’s ex-wife, who says he was mentally ill, had tried to have him hospitalized, he could have received treatment. Spilled milk. 50 more people are dead at the hands of an Islamic radical, and right now, it’s up to President Obama to do more than just send condolences and talk about gun control. He needs to implement a strategy for defeating Islamic terrorists here at home. First he needs to call them by name.
 
 

In the election of 1968, GOP vice presidential candidate Spiro Agnew coined a phrase to describe a new brand of conservatism. He called it “The Silent Majority” and that moniker resonated with millions of Republicans, Southern Democrats and Independents who thought their views and values were being discounted by Washington insiders and ignored by the press. For many, “The Silent Majority” was also code for “pissed-off white people.”

“The Silent Majority” movement was kept alive by right wingers well into the 1980s and 1990s by people like columnist/candidate Pat Buchanan, and by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who resuscitated Agnew’s cause to create “The Contract with America.” But somewhere along the way, Republican movers and shakers realized that “The Silent Majority” needed to be more inclusive of minorities. They also began to recruit “acceptable” black candidates to run for president. Men like Alan Keyes, Herman Cain and Dr. Ben Carson were, from time to time, the face of black conservatives in America. Still the needle wasn’t moving for African American membership in the GOP. Ironically that dynamic may now be changing, thanks to a bone-headed power move by our nation’s first black president.

Last month, Barack Obama sent a letter to 13,000 school districts, telling them to allow students to use the bathrooms and showers according to the gender to which they identify, or else face losing federal funding. Not only did conservative whites resent the president’s action, so did conservative blacks, many who belong to “Project 21”, an organization which was spun off from the National Center for Public Policy Research in 1992. “Project 21” has since become the conservative voice of color for what I believe is a growing “Silent Minority” of African Americans who feel like they have been disenfranchised by liberals of both races.

A recent check of NCPPR’s website reveals a broad cross section of black professionals who are speaking out against Obama’s ill-advised social experiment with transgenders.

Stacy Washington, a former school board member and now radio host in St. Louis writes, “The edict issued by the Obama administration is just another reason for parents and legislators to support school choice.”

Joe Hicks, a political activist from California said, “Obama ran his leftist social justice flag even higher up the flagpole by threatening every public school district in the nation with punishment if they don’t allow all transgender students to use any bathroom or locker room they want…only 0.3 percent of the nation’s population identifies as transgender, but now we are expected to accept the notion that the privacy concerns of ‘straight’ students is simply not as valuable as the claimed rights of transgender youths.”

Reverend Steven Louis Craft of New Jersey writes, “How does Obama get the authority to decree that men can use women’s restrooms, or (else) be denied federal funding? This is nothing less than legalized blackmail.”

And Horace Cooper, a professor of Constitutional Law at George Mason University says, “The White House is pushing a radical agenda … and they are pursuing it by threatening to punish the most vulnerable students in public school, withholding lunch and remedial teaching assistance from poor and minority students. This is cruel and divisive.”

But black conservatives aren’t just angry about Obama’s left wing government over reach and threats. They are also deeply offended by his Administration’s equating the transgender movement of 2016 with the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.

Derryck Green, a doctoral candidate from Los Angeles writes, “…attaching this insanity to the legacy of civil rights, specifically that of Jim Crow segregation, trivializes everything the brave men and women experienced and sacrificed in the pursuit of social, economic and legal equality…Obama brazenly disrespects the tradition of the black Civil Rights Movement.”

And Emery McClendon, a political activist from Indiana says, “This is not a civil rights issue. It is a blatant abuse of people’s personal rights, and a tradition that almost every culture holds dear.”

These and other black conservatives are starting to make their voices heard this year, and if the Republican Party acknowledges those voices, then African American affiliation in the GOP could increase enough to affect election outcomes in some states this fall. Meanwhile, Democrats should be concerned about “The Silent Minority” because there is evidence that conservative blacks within their own ranks are none too happy with liberal politicians pushing a transgender social agenda.

Last week, Maya Dillard Smith, an African American and lifelong Democrat quit her job. But it wasn’t just any job. She resigned as head of the Georgia chapter of the ACLU because her organization supported Obama’s threats to our nation’s schools. “The rights of non-transgender women are not being considered,” she told FOX’s Meghan Kelly during a June 2 interview. Smith also recalled an experience she had in California recently. “I took my young daughters into a public women’s rest room, and in came three transgender adults who were obviously men. My children were visibly frightened, and I was very uncomfortable.”

Maya Smith’s departure from the ACLU is a sad commentary on how society continues to discount and disparage the views of black conservatives. But it is also a wake-up call to Democrats who have always taken the black vote for granted. “The Silent Minority” matters. Black ire matters. The question is, just how much will it matter on November 8 and beyond?
 
 

Back in the dark ages when I was in elementary school, we used to play a game called musical chairs. Since many of my readers weren’t alive back then, here’s how it works. Let’s say there are 20 kids in the class. The teacher arranges 19 chairs in several orderly rows, and asks the students to begin the game by standing near or in front of a chair. She then drops the needle on a record and music starts playing, at which time the boys and girls are told to walk around and through the rows of chairs. Suddenly the teacher lifts the stylus, the music stops, and everyone is supposed to scramble to find a chair and sit down. The person left standing is SOL. As it turns out, musical chairs is the perfect metaphor to describe the congressional re-districting in North Carolina that has led to next week’s primary.

Congressional districts are supposed to be drawn in such a way as to insure that each district has about the same population. Here in North Carolina, that’s about 700,000 people per district. So far, so good. The problem is that many southern states used to gerrymander their districts so that mainly white candidates could win. In other words, when the music stopped playing, the black guy was left without a chair. The Supreme Court then stepped in and ordered that we re-draw our districts to give black voters a chance to elect black representatives. The Supremes put us on a sort of probation so they could monitor our progress, and for a while, candidates of color were able to grab a chair every two years when the music stopped playing. But once the probation was over, our General Assembly re-arranged the chairs again, so once again we ended up with gerrymandered districts. This year’s primaries were scheduled for March 15 and candidates started lining up in front of the chair they wanted to occupy. But on February 5, before the music could begin, the US Court of Appeals ruled that our 1st and 12th district borders were unconstitutional. State lawmakers were ordered to re-draw those boundaries, and that, of course, affected the adjoining districts. Votes cast for Congress on March 15 were invalid, and June 7 was set aside for us to vote in the newly formed districts.

The problem is that dozens of candidates were suddenly thrown into newly re-drawn districts, many of which they no longer resided in, or wanted to run in because of stiff competition that hadn’t existed when they first filed to run.

Incumbent Alma Adams of Greensboro for example, was a shoo-in to recapture her seat in the old 12th district, but her home was moved into the new 13th that would not favor a Democrat. And so Alma moved to Charlotte to run in the newly drawn 12th, which serves Mecklenburg County. Incumbent George Holding of Raleigh had represented the old 13th District, but decided to try his luck in the 2nd when his district was re-drawn to include Greensboro, High Point, Lexington, and other Piedmont voting areas. Former Guilford County Commissioner Bruce Davis and newcomer Jim Roberts had both filed to run in the old 6th district, and challenge Republican incumbent Mark Walker. But when the music stopped, Davis ended up running in the new 13th, and Roberts is now running for a chance to unseat Virginia Foxx in the 5th. Not surprisingly, most Republican incumbents faired pretty well when the chairs were re-arranged this time. Foxx remained in the 5th, and Walker, who was going to be displaced from his old district, was saved by the good old boys in Raleigh who made a last-minute change to the map in order to keep Mark’s residence in the 6th.

Of all the newly drawn districts, the 13th is the most wide open. With Holding deciding not to stand for re-election there, a total of 22 candidates filed for his seat, including 5 Democrats and 17 Republicans. Still, the Republicans are favored to win this race thanks to how our General Assembly drew the lines. The question is, which Republican will lap the field? The stakes are high because there will be no run-off allowed in any of the June 7 primaries. That means you only have to win by one vote to secure the nomination in any race. Until recently I would have expected Sen. Andrew Brock of Mocksville, Sen. John Blust of Greensboro, Davie Commissioner Dan Barrett or Rep. Julia Howard (also of Davie), to win their primary. But recently Ted Budd of Advance has become the odds-on favorite to capture the 13th, both in the primary and in the general. That’s because a PAC named “Club for Growth Action” is expected to pour nearly a half million dollars into Budd’s campaign coffers this year. As of last week, they had already bought $150,000 worth of TV ads for Budd, which is three times the amount spent by Barrett or Howard. It’s also 100 percent more than any other candidate of either party has spent on TV advertising. Of the Democrats running in the 13th, Bruce Davis stands as good a chance as anyone to get the nod. But it will be difficult for any Democrat to win in November unless they raise a ton of money, and pay GOP voters to stay home.

Josh Brannon will most likely win the Democratic nomination in the 5th, but it won’t matter because Virginia Foxx (who is opposed by Patty Curran in the primary) is unbeatable in that district. Just ask her last opponent in 2014…Josh Brannon. Pete Glidewell is unopposed in the 6th district Democratic primary, and, in any other election year could give Mark Walker a run for his money. But Trump has surged ahead of Clinton in North Carolina, and if that trend holds, Walker will benefit from the Donald’s coattails.

Despite the confusion over who is in which district, I encourage everyone in the 5th, 6th and 13th to get out and vote next Tuesday. If nothing else, it will be a lot of fun to watch 30 adults scrambling to occupy six chairs once the music stops.
 
 

Throughout history, a number of presidential candidates have had personal baggage which, in modern times, might have ended their political career.

For example, it was lucky for Thomas Jefferson that FOX News wasn’t around to grill him on his affair with his slave Sally Hemings. And Lincoln probably wouldn’t have been elected had TMZ reported that honest Abe had once shared a bed with his male roommate. What would CNBC have said about Andrew Jackson being married to a bigamist? And I’m certain that had CNN been around in the 1950’s and ’60’s, they would have derailed the political aspirations of JFK and LBJ, both who were serial philanderers. But scandals are not nearly so common as are verbal gaffes, which, today, can sometimes do just as much damage to candidates as can a sexual indiscretion.

In a 1976 debate with challenger Jimmy Carter, President Ford (who assumed that mantle after Nixon resigned) remarked that Poland was not under Communist influence. That single comment cast doubts on Ford’s ability to deal with foreign affairs, and together with his pardon of Nixon, lost him the election. In 1988, George H.W. Bush made a pledge of “No new taxes”, then proceeded to break that pledge after being elected. It cost him a second term. In 2012 Texas Governor Rick Perry boasted that he had a plan to cut the budget by eliminating three federal agencies. However, during a televised debate, he forgot the name of the third agency. “Oops”, he said. And just last month, Ted Cruz tried to impress the voters of Indiana by re-creating a scene from the movie “Hoosiers” and referring to the basketball hoop as a “basketball ring.” It was the beginning of the end for “Lyin’ Ted.”

In a sense we’ve come to expect such missteps from presidential candidates, and that’s why network and cable reporters follow them around 24/7, just in case they might say something that could end a campaign. But what we don’t expect is for candidates’ wives to make the kinds of gaffes that might do serious damage. Yet, 2016 is replete with such spousal slips.

Anita Perry, wife of former Texas Governor Rick Perry, earlier this year announced that she was pro-choice. Rick, a born again Christian, hoped to put his 2012 “oops” moment behind him, and demonstrate to the Party faithful that HE was the most conservative candidate in 2016. Naturally he had to apologize for Anita’s remark, but the damage had been done.

Chris Christie’s wife Mary Pat never actually SAID anything to hurt her husband’s 2016 run for the White House, but if looks could kill, then Chris’ new BFF Donald Trump would have been dead last month. That’s when the Donald told a campaign rally that Hillary is playing the woman card, and that if Clinton were a man, she wouldn’t even get 5 percent of the vote. Mary Pat, who was standing directly behind and to the side of Trump, and was in plain view of the cameras, was visibly pissed by Donald’s sexist slur. It was a look of disdain that seemed to say, “I can’t believe my husband sucks up to this boar.” Her disapproving glance has done nothing to slow down the Trump train, but she was big news for a week, and Donald doesn’t tend to forget things like that.

Perhaps Heidi Cruz has had the roughest campaign season of all the candidate spouses. First her wacked-out husband Ted had his minions release a photo of a near nude Melania Trump, and implied that Americans can’t afford to have that sort of woman as First Lady. Trump countered by releasing a split screen image containing an unflattering photo of Heidi on the left, and a sexy photo of Melania on the right. The message was clear. Ted the wacko married an unattractive woman who wouldn’t make a very good impression as White House hostess. Poor Heidi was the victim of an internet war, but it wasn’t her fault. Nevertheless, it thrust her into the limelight, so naturally the news media started hanging on her every word. That turned out to be a bad thing for Ted because Heidi is a gaffe machine.

After spending more than a year trying to convince the public that his Cuban heritage and Canadian birth still made him a natural US citizen, Heidi told a gaggle of reporters that her husband “is an immigrant.” Ouch! Then, last week, Heidi compared Ted’s campaign to Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. By this time, Cruz had already suspended his campaign, but Heidi’s idiotic analogy only reinforced to voters that Ted’s life partner was as wacky as he was.

And finally we come to Jane Sanders, wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders. With all due respect to Bernie, Jane is a friggin’ big mouth buzz kill. Until a few weeks ago, Bernie’s movement was unstoppable. In addition to attracting thousands of new voters to his rallies, he was raising money to the tune of $45 million per month, all from average donations of $27. If he continued on that pace, he would become the first independent to have a real shot at the Democratic nomination, because Hillary’s super delegates would have to acquiesce to Bernie’s steamroller campaign. But all that came crashing down last month when Jane decided she wanted some face time on the networks. She opened her pie hole and out came these fatal words, “Bernie will not be a spoiler, and he’s definitely not going to run as a third party candidate.” In less than 30 seconds, Jane Sanders had done what Clinton couldn’t do in 10 months… she destroyed an entire movement. Days later, campaign contributions fell off, and the following week, Bernie announced he was laying off over 100 campaign workers. He also admitted that he would not be able to advertise as planned in most of the remaining primary states in order to save up for California. Thanks a lot Jane ! You broke the sacred rule of poker and politics. Never show your cards while the hand is still in play. If Mrs. Sanders had just kept quiet until the convention, it would have given Bernie more time to consider a third party run while he continued to keep his army engaged, and donations flowing. At the very least, he would have had much more leverage to influence the Party platform.

According to Libby Copeland of Slate.com, UVA political science professor Larry Sabato tweeted the following during the 2012 election, “Spouses please voters, but don’t change votes.” Maybe that was true four years ago, but in 2016, candidate spouses HAVE changed votes, just not in a good way. In any event, the primary season is almost over, and soon it will be up to Melanie Trump and Bill Clinton to do their worst. Maybe the pair will hook up in a debate. Or perhaps they will just hook up. Either way, I predict one or both of them will have an effect on the outcome of this year’s election. It remains to be seen just how.
 
 

Ever since HB2 was passed, the transgender lobby and the national news media have succeeded in bringing dishonor to our state by misleading and misinforming the public. Now, President Obama and his drama queen Attorney General have made matters worse by misapplying two historic acts to this controversy, and by circumventing two other branches of government in order to dictate policy to states and schools.

It is no coincidence that this mess sprung up just as Gov. McCrory’s approval ratings were rising from his leadership in passing a bi-partisan, $2 billion bond that will strengthen the very schools that Obama now seeks to harm. It is also no coincidence that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is running to unseat McCrory this fall, was MIA during the bond campaign, while fellow Democrats like former Lt. Governor Walter Dalton actively supported McCrory.

And it is no coincidence that Cooper has tacitly approved of companies and entertainers who have boycotted North Carolina over HB2. Cooper’s political motives can be addressed in another column. For now, it’s more important to review how and why the so-called “Bathroom Bill” came about, and what happens next.

Earlier this year, Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts pushed through an ordinance that would require all private businesses to accommodate transgender demands for access to bathrooms according to their gender identity. In doing so, Charlotte City Council overstepped its authority under the State Constitution, and by threatening to put their ordinance into effect on April 1, forced the Governor and General Assembly to respond with warp speed to block the illegal act. The result was House Bill 2. Unfortunately a handful of far-right-wing Republicans hijacked the bill and inserted discriminatory language and nut job provisions into it (like denying fired civil employees the right of redress in state court). McCrory, who only wanted to preserve privacy rights, was outflanked and outnumbered, so he signed HB2 figuring that a federal court would eventually clarify the privacy issue for all 50 states. Nevertheless, McCrory, a former seven-term consensus-building Mayor of Charlotte, and architect of the aforementioned education bond, was now painted by transgenders and the media as an intolerant villain. Meanwhile, a parade of hypocritical companies and entertainers began to boycott North Carolina. They threatened not to do business in our state until HB2 was repealed, even though they do business in other states with the same law as ours, and in foreign countries where gays and transgenders are routinely imprisoned and worse. Eventually this mess would have been sorted out, but instead of waiting for the courts to resolve the matter, President Obama poured fuel on the fire by directing his Attorney General to start issuing threats.

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, an African-American prosecutor born in Greensboro, threatened to rescind billions of dollars in federal funding for North Carolina schools if McCrory tried to enact HB2. It was a cruel threat which, if carried out, would impact most on students who could least afford the loss of funding. She gave the governor three days to bow to her threat, and the governor responded by suing the Department of Justice. Lynch who “identifies” as God, then countered with a lawsuit of her own. Obama humanely promised not to cut off any school funding while litigation was pending, but last Friday he, Lynch, and the Department of Education, fired another salvo. They issued a letter to 13,000 school districts across the country, telling them, in effect, to start allowing transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower areas in accordance with the gender to which they identify, OR ELSE. In doing so, Lynch overstepped her authority. The Attorney General is the President’s top cop, but cops don’t get to interpret the law. That’s the role of a judge. And cops don’t get to change laws. That’s the job of Congressmen. Speaking with FOX News, Judge Jeanine Pirro said, “The White House threat does not have the force of law. They cannot force the schools to do this. This is a local issue. This is a state issue. This is not about discrimination, it’s about accommodating students.” But Lynch thought she had legal standing by hiding behind Title VII and Title IX. In fact, she has no such standing.

The language in Title VII (Sec 703 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) is crystal-clear. It deals with discriminatory employment practices, not bathroom rules. It also does not extend protections to anyone who merely “identifies” with a particular race, color, religion, or sex. If it did, then why didn’t the Obama administration prosecute the Spokane NAACP for forcing out Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who “identified as black”? Moreover, Lynch should be ashamed of herself for comparing HB2 to the same kind of state-sponsored discrimination that blacks faced when whites were denying people of color, equal access to schools, restaurants, and housing. Her misplaced and selective outrage over civil rights rings hollow, including with members of the law enforcement community. While interviewed by Greta Van Susteren, David Clarke, an African-American sheriff from Milwaukee County remarked on “the cop-hating Department of Justice, led by a racist Attorney General.”

HB2 also does not violate Title IX, a law enacted in 1972 primarily to ensure female students that they would have access to educational and athletic programs on par with those of male students. The late Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana who led the charge for Title IX, was specific about the intent of the law, saying it would provide “an equal chance (for women) to attend the school of their choice…and to have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work.” Clearly transgender folks are already afforded those rights under Title IX, but they are not afforded the right to use gender-specific facilities according to whichever gender they identify with.

Apparently Ms. Lynch didn’t bother to actually read Title IX, or the ten criteria it established for determining if equal treatment existed among the sexes.

Criteria #7 deals with locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms which are defined as being “competitive facilities”. That means a transgender person is only guaranteed an equal facility, not the SAME shower as a student whose biological gender is one with which the transgender student “identifies.”

Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama are out of control and out of bounds by threatening to sue or cut funding to states who recognize biological gender as the rule of law. And they are out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who simply expect the right to privacy in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. If by some miracle our public schools are ever forced to let teenage boys shower with teenage girls, then I would urge all parents to pull their children out of public schools, and enroll them in private schools. I would then advise them to join a class action suit against the DOJ and DOE to reimburse them for the cost of private school tuition. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Last week a Virginia Beach pizza parlor erected a sign that says, “We have a men’s room, and we have a ladies’ room. If this confuses you, we can help.” Right now Obama and Lynch need a lot of help.