Triad Today

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.
 
 

In one of his many inarticulate malapropistic moments, former President George W. Bush remarked, “[F]ool me once…shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.” No one knew exactly what he was trying to say, but the operative word here is “fool”. Bush was a fool who could be easily fooled, but that’s not saying much. The problem is that when Bush was fooled and manipulated by advisers, the American people then got fooled into thinking that what the President believed was actually true. This was especially true following the 9/11 attacks when neither the press nor the public questioned anything that the Foolin-Chief said.

At first we were told that al Qaeda terrorists acted alone on 9/11, and that no single nation was behind the attacks. Meanwhile behind the scenes, Bush was being advised that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown because he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and because he had supported the 9/11 terrorists, and was now ready to use his WMDs against America. Of course none of that was true, but even more disturbing is that one of the men advising Bush to invade Iraq was his close family friend, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States and later, the head of Saudi Intelligence. Bandar was so close to the President’s family that W. nicknamed him “Bandar Bush.” I’ll come back to Bandar in a moment.

And so, in 2003, Bush bombed, invaded, and occupied Iraq, and Hussein was deposed and eventually executed. But soon after the invasion began, Bush learned that Saddam never possessed any WMDs, nor did he ever pose a threat to anyone other than regional terrorists groups who he had ruthlessly kept at bay. Instead of halting the bombing raids and admitting his mistake, Bush doubled down, and expanded the war effort, saying that terrorists were operating in neighboring countries. The war continued in one form or another throughout the Bush Presidency, at which time over 6,000 American soldiers were needlessly killed, along with over one million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who the “Fool Me” man considered collateral damage. I considered it genocide, and called for Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes. That never happened. What did happen was a war that lined the pockets of Cheney’s former company and cost American taxpayers nearly$3 trillion to wage.

As if all of this is not disturbing enough, last year we began to hear about how 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report had been classified by Bush, and was not to be released under any circumstances. Only a handful of people, including North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, knew what was contained in those 28 pages of redacted material, and now they are calling for President Obama to de-classify the entire report. Sometime next month Obama, Congress, and perhaps the Courts will determine whether it’s in the best interest of America to make public the missing 28 pages. So what’s the big deal? Why did George Bush keep the 28 pages secret? The answer is “Bandar Bush”.

According to an article by New York Post writer Paul Sperry, a CIA memo that was leaked in 2013 found, “incontrovertible evidence that Saudi government officials… and intelligence officers employed by the Kingdom …helped the hijackers both financially and logistically…and implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington.”

Lawrence Wright of the New Yorker expanded upon that report when interviewed by Bill Maher on HBO’s “Real Time” last month. Said Wright, “That 28 pages is about the Saudi support network for the hijackers who came to America… and Prince Bandar and his wife are implicated in the report.”

Sperry is more specific about their support, writing, “Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Saudi agent Osama Bassman while he was handling two of the hijackers (after they landed in America).

“There are two reasons why those pages haven’t been released,” says Wright.

“One is it’s going to embarrass the Saudis, and the other is it’s going to embarrass the American intelligence community… the CIA found out about these hijackers when they arrived in Los Angeles in March of 2000.”

If analysis of the leaked memo and redacted pages is correct, then that means Prince Bandar was effectively acting as a double agent, pretending to be a friend of President Bush and advising him on military matters, while helping to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. VeteransToday.com goes one step further, writing that, “Bandar is believed to have been chief of operations for al Qaeda.”

This is shocking information on many levels. First it means that a foreign terrorist leader had unfettered access to the President, his family, and the White House. Second it means that Bush was responsible for the deaths of over a million people because his “godfather” Prince Bandar, had his own agenda, which included deposing Saddam and destabilizing the region. Third, the families of 9/11 victims were told there was no one they could seek reparations from, since the 9/11 attacks were not state-sponsored. If the 28 pages are made public, those families will finally be empowered to seek damages. Fourth, it means we should revisit the possibility of a war crimes trial of Bush, Cheney, AND Bandar.

And just to rub salt in our wounds, the flights that Bush arranged on September 13 for the bin Laden family members and other Saudi officials, now take on a whole new meaning. Just before those flights were authorized, Bandar was seen meeting with Bush in the Oval Office. After that meeting, coincidentally 142 Saudi officials and family members were allowed to leave America, while a ban on travel applied to everyone else. In 2004, Sen. Chuck Schumer told Judicial Watch, “It’s awfully strange that on September 13, the only plane allowed to fly was a plane with many high ranking Saudi nationals who might have known something about terrorism.” Not so strange when you consider that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

George Bush might have been fooled by Bandar and Cheney, but the rest of us can’t afford to “get fooled again.” It’s time to release the 28 pages.
 
 

In December of 2012, ESPN fired Rob Parker, a respected African American sports journalist, for relaying an observation he had heard about Redskins QB Robert Griffith III. Here’s what happened. It seems that RG3 had been asked by USA Today about being a black quarterback, and Griffith said, “You don’t have to be defined by the color of your skin…you want to be defined by your work ethic, your character, your personality.” The next day, while appearing on ESPN’s First Take show, Parker said, “The guys I talk to at the barbershop say he’s black, but that he’s not really down with the cause…he’s not the guy you’d want to hang out with. He’s a cornball brother.” That remark got Parker suspended for one month, during which time he made a public apology, and planned to return to work after his suspension was over. Instead, ESPN fired Parker, saying, “Rob Parker’s contract expired at year’s end. Evaluating our needs and his work, including his recent RG3 comments, we decided not to renew.”

As I pointed out in my January 19, 2013 column, ESPN’s decision to fire Parker was arbitrary and misdirected. Back then, First Take’s motto was “embrace the debate,” and that’s what Rob had done by offering two sides to the RG3 issue, specifically the old-fashioned, conservative black side. Rob’s older, barbershop cronies were none too impressed with RG3 being all about his brand, and not so much about his team, thus their “cutting” remarks (no pun intended). Also, not only did Parker do what he was supposed to do (debate), he was fired over a remark he didn’t even make. He simply repeated what he had heard in an African American barbershop.

The same day Parker was fired, ESPN’s PC Police also took aim at legendary broadcaster Brent Musberger. Why? While doing play-by-play for the Alabama/Notre Dame game, Brent noticed that the director had trained his cameras on Katherine Webb, girlfriend of Bama’s QB A.J. McCarron, and a former Miss Alabama beauty queen. Musberger said, “You quarterbacks get all the good-looking women. What a beautiful woman!” Musberger’s comment made an instant celebrity out of Ms. Webb, whose Twitter following went from 526 to 150,000 within minutes. The next day, ESPN’s Mike Soltys said, “We apologize that the commentary in this instance went too far, and Brent understands that.” The 73-year-old Musberger was made to apologize for doing nothing wrong. Even Ms. Webb came to his defense, saying, “It was kind of nice…for a woman to be called beautiful, I don’t see how that’s an issue. I don’t see why any woman wouldn’t be flattered by that.” Her message was lost on the ESPN brass.

And so what did we learn from the Parker and Musberger incidents? We learned that if you’re black, you can’t offer a conservative view of a black player, and if you’re a white man, you can’t call a white woman beautiful. Sounds ridiculous, but sadly, it appears to be indicative of how ESPN metes out justice.

In the intervening years, ESPN has continued to police the speech of its employees, including an attempt to make former Red Sox hero Curt Schilling drink their PC Kool-Aid. Last year, Schilling was suspended for writing the following comment on his personal Twitter page, “It’s said that only 5 to 10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?” Schilling’s comment was factual, and shouldn’t have stirred any controversy. In fact, his words would have been celebrated in Europe. According to Slate.com’s William Saletan, in Germany, for example, it is a crime to make comments that “minimize” Nazi atrocities. But here in America a sports announcer can get suspended for actually recognizing those atrocities. In any event, Schilling apologized, served his suspension, then returned to the broadcast booth—at least for awhile.

Last week, ESPN fired Schilling for posting a comment about North Carolina’s transgender “bathroom bill”. Tweeted Schilling, “A man is a man, no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, the men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.” Accompanying the quote was a photo of an overweight man dressed in women’s clothing, with the caption, “Let him into the restroom with your daughter, or else you’re a narrowminded, judgmental, unloving, racist bigot who needs to die!” Again, Curt did not create that photo, he only shared it. Ironically, though, his firing by ESPN only validated the humorous narrative that accompanied the photo.

On April 28, Schilling fired back at his former employer, telling SI.com that, “some of the biggest racists” he knows work at ESPN, but that they get by with it because their opinions reflect a liberal slant. He cited Stephen A. Smith, who once said that RG3 wasn’t playing QB because he was black. Smith still has a job at ESPN, but Rob Parker doesn’t because his RG3 comment reflected a conservative view. Schilling, Parker, and other broadcasters have learned that there’s a difference between free speech and fired speech.

Unfortunately the US Constitution only guarantees us the right of free speech insofar as governmental redress is concerned. In other words, the Feds can’t arrest Curt Schilling for his tweets, but ESPN is free to muzzle him while he’s in their employ. Let me be clear. I abhor hate speech, even to the point of calling for criminalization of internet defamation. But so long as what you say is factual and not malicious, then no employer should have the right to fire you for expressing an opinion on your own time, at least not without having first clarified their limited speech policy prior to hiring you. Otherwise termination becomes arbitrary. In this politically correct society of ours, it seems that only a powerful employer is allowed to utter hate speech, so long as it consists of just two words: “You’re fired!”
 
 

An article in last week’s Wall Street Journal suggested that if Bernie Sanders has any chance at all of securing the Democratic nomination, he must win over black voters in large numbers, and that’s something he hasn’t been able to do thus far. It’s a perplexing problem for a man who has spent his entire adult life fighting for civil rights.

The lack of African-American support in this year’s primaries has also baffled the senator’s leading black supporters, among them Spike Lee, Senator Bill Perkins of Harlem, Senator James Sanders of Queens, Representative Clem Smith of Missouri, former NAACP head Ben Jealous, Professor Cornel West, New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, and super delegate David Bowen. These and many other influential black leaders have worked hard to remind their constituents what Bernie has meant to the minority community, but their message has mostly fallen on deaf ears. Despite their efforts, it’s Hillary Clinton, not Bernie, who has sewn up the African-American vote in every primary to date, including in states like South Carolina where she out gained Sanders 74 percent to 17 percent.

Political pundits suggest that Hillary enjoys solid support among African-Americans because she and her husband have been perceived as civil rights advocates for over two decades. Moreover, the Clintons have been lifelong Democrats, and are politically savvy when it comes to nurturing their liberal base and raising money for fellow Dems. Having said that, however, I believe the main reason for Hillary’s lead over Bernie among black voters has more to do with political histrionics than it does political history. Simply put, Bernie has rarely sought out the cameras whenever he worked for the African-American community, while Hillary has made a career out of public pandering and posturing. Had Bernie been Bill Clinton’s running mate in 1992 and 1996, and had he been skilled at media relations, then Hillary would be the one trailing in black votes today.

But so much for theories as to why Ms. Clinton enjoys overwhelming minority support. Let’s turn now instead to some facts that Spike Lee and others are desperately trying to drive home to black voters.

In 1963 Bernie Sanders marched to Washington to hear Dr. King give his historic “I Have a Dream” speech. Afterwards, Bernie was inspired to activism, not the kind you talk about, but the kind you actually do. In fact, on one occasion Bernie found himself being assaulted and arrested by Chicago police because he participated in a protest against segregated schools.

In the 1980’s Bernie, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, opened his state’s first public day care center, reduced electric bills for low-income families, and was responsible for increasing voter participation by 250 percent.

When running for Governor of Vermont in 1986, Bernie was asked to speak to an annual meeting of Reverend Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, where Sanders inspired that group to pursue an aggressive political agenda. Then, in 1988 after Jackson announced his candidacy to become America’s first African-American president, Bernie invited Rev. Jackson to Vermont, and is credited with handing Jesse a victory in that state’s primary. It was no small feat considering that Vermont’s population is nearly all white.

Yet despite Bernie’s track record on civil rights, Hillary has managed to convince most African-American voters that she is their best hope, and she has done so by re-writing history. One example is Clinton claiming that she and President Barack Obama are BFFs. In fact Hillary and Obama were bitter enemies in their 2008 run for the white House. During that campaign Mrs. Clinton repeatedly called into question Obama’s experience and readiness to lead our nation. And when asked why black voters should choose her over a man of color, Hillary said that it took LBJ to enact Dr. King’s vision. It was Hillary’s way of saying only a white president can enact the black agenda. At another 2008 rally, Hillary told a mainly white crowd that she, not Obama, had the support of “hard working Americans—white Americans.” (source: HotAir.com, September 2015) And as if it’s not bad enough that Hillary now pretends to be President Obama’s closest ally, she is also re-writing history when it comes to her stand on important issues. This year she has painted Bernie as a shill for the gun lobby, while stating that she has been consistently for gun control. But back in 2008 Mrs. Clinton was so anti gun control that Obama referred to her as “Annie Oakley”. Now fast forward to 2016 and Hillary is telling her African-American supporters that most of the violent crimes committed in New York in 2014 were committed with guns from Vermont. But CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s fact check revealed that only 1.2 percent of the violent crimes in New York involved guns from Vermont. Also, in addition to lying about crime statistics, Hillary also doesn’t mind pandering to crime victim’s families, such as suggesting that Bernie’s refusal to make gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths is the reason for the Sandy Hook massacre.

It’s no wonder that Wendy Sejour, an African-American woman who grew up in inner-city New Orleans said, “I’ve never understood the appeal of the Clinton charm with the black vote.” Ms. Sejour isn’t the only one. Unfortunately, the truth about Bernie’s advocacy and Hillary’s pandering just isn’t resonating with minority voters. Professor West told Bill Maher that once black folks meet “brother Bernie”, learn about his activism, and listen to his message, they will gravitate to him. But time is running out, and Hillary is within striking distance of the nomination.

If the majority of African-Americans start voting for Bernie in the remaining primaries, then Bernie could pull into a virtual tie with Hillary for pledged delegates.

At that point, it would be incumbent upon Hillary’s super delegates to re-think their loyalty to the Party machine, and instead support the man who can best beat Trump or Cruz in November.

While speaking to an African-American audience recently about income inequality, Bernie paraphrased Dr. King, saying, “What good does it do to have civil rights and voting rights, if you can’t afford the price of a damn hamburger!” Clearly right now Hillary gets black votes, but Bernie actually gets black voters. It’s a shame they don’t get him.
 
 

A couple of weeks ago, an irate reader emailed me to say that I was a “moron” for suggesting that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump might run as Independents this fall. Well, I might just be half a moron because last week, Bernie’s wife Jane said that should Hillary get the Democratic nomination, the Sanders clan would support the Clinton clan. If that’s really a done deal, then I wasted my vote in last month’s primary, and I’ll be very disappointed in Bernie for abandoning his reforms in favor of party politics. Nevertheless, if Bernie loses the nomination and goes home to Vermont, there’s still one other candidate who might break ranks and run as an independent. If Donald Trump has the GOP nomination stolen from him, I still think he’ll bolt the party, and continue his quest for the White House as an independent.

In the meantime, and prior to Mrs. Sanders’ announcement, I spent some time researching what happens if we have three or four major presidential candidates running against each other in the general election. The scenario I suggested in my earlier column has Hillary and Ted Cruz winning their party’s respective nominations, and Bernie and Donald running as independents. I then studied all of the primary results to date, and assigned winners to the remaining states. Of course, each primary had a winner from each party, so I had to extrapolate my simulated vote margins based on which party winner had the stronger showing, and how that vote might be split four ways if two independents are factored into the equation on November 8.

Using this unscientific method, I awarded the states to candidates thusly:

• Clinton: Arkansas, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
• Cruz: Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
• Trump: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, and New Jersey.
• Sanders: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

That translates to roughly 178 electoral votes for Bernie, 154 for Hillary, 140 for Trump, and 66 for Cruz. Clearly, under this scenario, none of the four would amass the requisite 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. If that should happen, the matter of choosing our next president would fall to the House of Representatives. And so I consulted with two Congresspersons and their staffs, and asked them to explain the process that would be involved in this hypothetical dog fight. Here, then, in a nutshell, is what would happen.

According to the 12th Amendment, the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes would advance to the next round. Using my model, that would eliminate Ted Cruz. The House of Representatives would then order all 50 states to poll their electors and select the candidate they want for president out of the remaining three.

The catch is, each state would have only one vote regardless of their population, so whichever candidate gets 26 votes, would win the presidency. Here’s where it gets really interesting because with Ted Cruz out, then the six states who allocated their vote to him, would have to select from the remaining three candidates. Again, based on previous primary results, I think Trump would pick up Texas and Kentucky, while Bernie would grab Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. A review of the math would then give Bernie 25 state votes, Trump gets 14, and Hillary receives 11 (D.C. cannot be counted as a state in this round). At this point, the 12th Amendment isn’t clear on what happens next, so we have to assume that a second state vote would be taken and, in the interim, electors in one of Trump’s states would be persuaded to change their vote. If Trump persuaded all 12 of his states to switch to Hillary, she still wouldn’t have the requisite 26 votes (states) to win. But if just one Trump state switched to Sanders, then Bernie’s total would be 26, and he would win the White House. Trump loves to brag about his importance and influence, so that leads me to believe he would swing one or all of his states over to Bernie.

I know this scenario is convoluted, but it would actually be a more democratic way of selecting a president than what we usually settle for, i.e., larger states having more say than smaller states, the imperial Electoral College overriding popular vote totals, and, in some instances, the Supreme Court overruling everyone. So here’s hoping we all get to have a 3-way this fall, or maybe even a 4-way. It would be kinky, but fun.
 
 

Teddy Roosevelt did it. So did George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Ross Perot. So why not Bernie Sanders? I’m talking, of course, about men who have run for President on a third party ticket. True, none of them were successful in their bid, but there were a couple of close calls.

After having served two terms as President and hand picking William Taft as his successor, Teddy Roosevelt later felt betrayed by Taft’s politics and policies, so he challenged his former friend for the Republican nomination in 1912. Then, in a scenario that only Donald Trump could appreciate, Teddy won the majority of primaries, but fell just short of the delegates needed, opening the door for Taft and his party hacks to control the nominating process. Teddy and his delegates stormed out of the convention and TR ran as a third party candidate. In the end, Roosevelt finished second, and succeeded only in siphoning votes from Taft, thus assuring Wilson of the win.

In 1992, billionaire businessman Ross Perot launched a third party campaign for President because he felt neither incumbent George H.W. Bush nor his Democratic challenger Bill Clinton were committed to solving the country’s economic problems, particularly with respect to reducing the deficit. In the early going, Perot found himself in a virtual three-way tie with Bush and Clinton, even leading the pack in some polls. But after dropping out of the race, then re-entering it again, Perot’s numbers fell to about 19 percent. So why then, if he fails to win the Democratic nomination, would Bernie Sanders fare any better as a third party candidate than did Roosevelt or Perot? I’ll give you several good reasons.

First of all, Bernie is better funded than any other third party candidate has ever been, and will continue to be so. When he wins a primary he raises lots of money, but when he loses, he raises even more money. He constantly outpaces other candidates in terms of fundraising ($140 million total as of last week), and there’s no indication that the well will run dry if he launches a third party bid this summer.

Second, Bernie has an unprecedented following among young and first time voters. His message resonates with those supporters, and they, in turn, present him with a unique ability to attract thousands of people at his rallies, while reaching millions through social media. Bernie’s army will also come in handy should he need to collect petitions in order to get on the ballot in all 50 States.

Third, Bernie has time on his side. He can continue to participate in the rest of the primaries without depleting his war chest, while raising his popular vote totals to as many as 13 or 14 million by July. Then if party bosses and Hillary’s super delegates toss him aside at the convention, Sanders can bolt the hall, and formally launch his third party campaign with a well organized, loyal, and hard working operation already in place.

Clearly there are many reasons why Bernie would fare better than other independent Presidential candidates have throughout history, but the question is, why should he even try? The answer is because once Hillary is crowned in Philadelphia, Bernie’s forward thinking policy proposals will never be incorporated into the party platform. Instead, issues like Medicare for all, free tuition, and repeal of NAFTA will be swept aside like so much torn bunting and burst balloons. When that happens, I can’t see Bernie just giving up and going home, as if everything he’s worked for never counted for anything. That’s why I believe he will be compelled to continue his quest.

OK, so let’s say Bernie announces a third party run immediately after the Democratic convention. Does he then have a clear path to the White House? Absolutely. For one thing, Americans no longer fear outsiders, they celebrate them. In fact, a 2011 Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of us support the idea of a third party president. For another thing, Bernie wouldn’t just be a Hillary spoiler in a three-way race. Remember, he already beats Trump and Cruz in head to head match-ups by a wider margin than Hillary, so it’s more than probable that he could muster 34 percent of the vote in a three-way contest, and win the election by a simple majority. Of course, there’s always the possibility that Bernie won’t be the only major party defector this fall. If Republican bosses broker a candidate other than Trump, then the brash billionaire might launch his own independent run for the White House. With Clinton, Sanders, Cruz and Trump comprising a four-way contest, Bernie would again have an easy path to the Oval Office by winning just 26 percent of the vote. I’m not delusional, it could actually happen, and if Bernie makes history, he would fittingly do so the same way that he’s won other elections – as an Independent.

I sincerely hope Bernie will vow to stay in the race not just through July, but onto November. We need his vision, compassion, and conviction, not just as a media prop for the primaries, but as a template for real reform.