Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

Dead Men Walking

August 11, 2003

By Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2003 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink

he upcoming campaign for the White House in 2004 is beginning to look a lot like the Democratic race of 1984. During that race, incumbent president Ronald Reagan devastated his opponent, former Vice President Walter Mondale and his running mate, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. Aside from the fact that Mondale was Jimmy Carter’s vice president, and Carter resided over the worst economy of the 20th century, Mondale also promised the American people that he would raise taxes if he was elected. Mondale, a socialist, believed the only way to boost the economy was to more heavily tax the middle class and give more welfare money to those who did not want to work.
     Several of the “Dead Nine” (who actually think they have a chance to win the Democratic nomination next year), have opted to adopt Mondale’s strategy (which got him nominated but cost him one of the two worst political losses since the Election of 1820) when John Quincy Adams, the Federalist, snagged only one electoral vote in his battle to win the presidency against James Monroe.
     Mondale argued that Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics would destroy the nation. What he meant was that many of the current liberal entitlement programs were in jeopardy if taxes were not raised immediately and several new ones planned by the Democrats could not be implemented if there was no increased tax base to pay for them.
     History confirmed that the economic principles of Reaganomics were sound. When Jimmy Carter left office on January 20, 1981, the American economy was devastated by a 28% inflation rate and 15% unemployment. Reagan’s “trickle down” economics worked. Reaganomics produced the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the United States (a period of growth that Bill and Hillary Clinton--and the Democratic Party today--tried to claim was the result of their soaking the American taxpayer with the largest tax increase in the history of mankind). The Democrats, who are predominantly socialists at heart, still haven’t learned the two most basic rules of economics: [1] the economy works best when interfered with the least; and [2] lower taxes generate more tax revenue for the government than higher taxes.
     All of the “public” Democratic hopefuls (and the three “non-candidate” candidates who will likely be the only ones still standing when the contestants enter the home stretch next summer) not only favor revoking the Bush tax cuts and imposing stiffer taxes on the middle class, but are campaigning on that very platform. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean (who is only a little less of a socialist than four-term Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich) advocates rolling back all of the Bush tax cuts. “Most Americans,” he said recently, “would gladly pay the same taxes they paid under President Bill Clinton if they could just get the Clinton economy back.”
     First, the economic growth Dean referred to was not Clinton’s--it was Reagan’s. Second, that growth mushroomed not out of increased taxes and increased financial hardship on middle class Americans that forced even more of America’s family caregivers into the job market, but from lower taxes and increased employer investment in job creation (something an employer can do only when he has the capital in his pocket to do it). Lower tax rates actually creates more tax revenue at the local, county, State and federal levels because lower taxes leaves more money in the hands of the small business owners who generate almost 70% of all of the jobs in America.
     Yet, the Democrats have chosen to travel the road Mondale forged in 1984 by pledging to raise taxes if elected. Bill Clinton, who saddled the American people with the most regressive tax increase in the history of mankind, had the political sense to lie about it. He promised the middle class a tax cut even though he knew he would seek a tax increase to fund Hillary’s grandiose socialist welfare schemes.
     Kerry, a 4th term liberal Senator from Massachusetts, who is trying to appear centrist by distancing himself from the socialist rhetoric expounded by Dean and Kucinich is using a Clinton campaign ploy--suggesting that he would not dream of touching the tax cuts Bush gave to the middle class even though he would revoke the tax cuts to the rich who can afford to pay more. “Real Democrats,” he said in a political speech to a working class audience in Dover, New Hampshire, “don’t walk away from the middle class. They don’t take away a tax credit for families struggling to raise their children, or bring back a tax penalty for married couples who are just starting out, or penalize teachers or waitresses by raising taxes on the middle class.” While Kerry seemed to be saying he would not roll back the Bush tax cuts, when you watch his lips move on both sides of his face at the same time, you realize he was saying that he would not eliminate Bush “tax credits” or the elimination of the marriage penalty on those he perceives as hard working “middle class” families, which the husband of the Heinz ketchup fortune then specifically clarified as waitresses, young couples just “starting out,” and school teachers. Middle class, in Kerry’s nomenclature, appears to be a phrase that is politically interchangeable with “low income” for welfare credit purposes. Kerry, and the other dead men walking to 2004 primaries, still believe the true middle class taxpayer needs to pay more. The question is, in the mind of those politicians, what income level classifies you as middle class and at what income level are you suddenly perceived as being rich?
     Frankly, it’s pretty much open to interpretation depending entirely on the audiences to whom they are speaking. Liberals seem to think that the term middle class describes those with an annual income around $35,000. The taxable rich appears, in their mind, to represent those earning pretax incomes of $60,000 or more. Two-income families in high-cost suburban areas around America’s largest metropolitan areas, struggling to make ends meet on $100,000 (in order to make their $2,500+ monthly mortgage payments on their overpriced 2,000 square foot homes as they strive to pay off student loans and, at the same time, feed and clothe their families) are, in the view of the Democrat elitists, the obscene rich.
     Most of the Congressmen and Senators who believe the middle class is, for tax purposes, America’s rich, are actually part of America’s aristocratic “invisible rich.” Most of them are millionaires or billionaires whose generational personal wealth has been adroitly concealed from public scrutiny, and also adequately shielded from the IRS through the use of tax-exempt trusts. So when these politicians talk about making the rich pay their fair share, they mean everyone else since their fortunes are exempt from taxation.
     Moseley-Braun and the Harlem civil rights huckster, Al Sharpton both believe the Bush tax cuts should be repealed and the money used to refinance the welfare entitlement programs of the Great Society.
     While it is unclear why Sharpton is in the presidential race other than to satisfy his ego (since everyone knows he couldn’t get nominated if he was the only person running), Moseley-Braun is in the race because she desperately needs media exposure to rekindle her public identity in Illinois. She told the Associated Press that she would “evaluate” her position later this fall and decide whether or not to continue her one-legged race for the White House. Expect her to change the focus of her political direction to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue later this fall. Moseley-Braun will likely announce her intention to seek the Senate seat held by Peter Fitzgerald [R-IL] who defeated her in 1998. Moseley-Braun will claim, at that time, that she can better serve America by serving her constituents in Illinois, and she will run like a martyr who gave up her shot at the White House for her constituents in Illinois. Pointedly, however, it must be noted that Moseley-Braun never truly served the people of Illinois nor did she adequately serve the American people.
     As a member of the U.S. Senate, Moseley-Braun (who recently described herself as a fiscal conservative) voted against the anti-terrorism bills in 1995 and again in 1996. She also voted to cut funding to the CIA. She voted to freeze all defense spending for seven years. When that effort failed, she voted to cut $10 billion from the defense budget in order to divert that money to welfare entitlement programs. She voted to cut spending on a ballistics missile defense program and voted, in 1996, against approving any defense appropriations at all for the year 1997.
     In 1993 when she first arrived in the Senate, Moseley-Braun voted three times to hike social security taxes--and she voted twice to implement a Clinton plan to tax the benefits of social security recipients. Three years later, when the GOP tried to repeal those taxes on the elderly, Moseley-Braun voted twice with the Democrats to keep the tax on the meager incomes of America’s aged.
     Since every parade needs a clown, and every court a jester, someone like Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich will always show up whenever a crowd gathers. However, even though Kucinich looks impishly innocent, he is a very dangerous court jester. Kucinich was the most socialist politician to join Tinseltown’s Muslim-backed “Not In Our Name,” “Not In My Name” campaign. It was Kucinich who coined the phrase “Regime change begins at home,” shortly after the Bush Administration announced that if Saddam Hussein did not voluntarily leave Iraq that the United States would implement a “regime change” in that country. During that period when America was seeking support from the international community for its initiative in Iraq, Kucinich declared America’s war games in Iraq were illegal because they were being implemented by “...an unelected president and his unelected vice president.”
     After the devastating losses of the Democrats during the midterm elections, several socialist and ultraliberal websites touted Kucinich as the Democrats best choice for 2004 because they felt the Democrats, who were stymied by George W. Bush’s popularity, were playing “me, too,” with the GOP. Kucinich, whose writings are prominently displayed on the website of the American Communist Party, and on every communist website in the world, declared that America was pretty even for September 11 when it bombed innocent civilians in Afghanistan. “The blood of innocent people who perished on September 11 was avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.”
     Kucinich, who insists that military options are never appropriate, said he would create a Department of Peace if he was elected. Kucinich would divert the defense budget into the DoP to promote social justice throughout the world. Nothing, Kucinich said, not even an event like 9-11, justifies war. “In the finest example of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.,” Kucinich said, “we can learn to confront our enemies with ahisma [unconditional love].” I wonder if unconditional love for our enemies would have stopped the Japanese from attacking Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941? Dennis Kucinich makes Jimmy Carter look like an astoundingly competent president.
     Kucinich and 31 of the most socialist members of Congress filed a lawsuit to stop the Bush Administration from pulling out of the defunct Salt II Treaty in 2001--a treaty that Russia had not signed up to that time, nor had they ever honored. America was reducing its nuclear missile inventory according to the Treaty, but the Soviets continued to increase theirs. Worse yet, Salt II prevented America from developing any type of missile defense system that would render the Soviet missile arsenal worthless. That was the treaty Kucinich wanted to enforce. Kucinich also authored a bill that would ban any president from deploying a missile shield to protect America from attacks from China, Russia, or any rogue terrorist state.
     It’s clear why Kucinich appeals to the communists and the radical environmentalists. He’s one of them. And, because he is so far outside the mainstream of America, he will remain the court jester of the Democratic left (who makes the leftist extremists like Kerry and Dean appear almost mainstream).
     While ambulance chaser John Edwards [D-NC] likes to believe he is the reincarnation of the populist Bill Clinton, Vermont governor and medical doctor, Howard Dean more closely fits the Clinton stereotype--right down to the hyphenated wife. If he somehow got elected he would raise taxes to a backbreaking level, and he and Judith Steinberg, his wife, have pledged to create a universal health care system that would make Dick Gephart’s planned health care system look like a Band-Aid on a scratch.
     Dean, who almost makes Hillary Clinton look moderate, became a sweetheart of the ultra-left in Vermont (a State known for ultra- liberal ideologues like Patrick Leahy, political turncoat Jim Jeffords, and communist Bernie Sanders) when he signed a bill recognizing same sex civil unions in order to grant homosexuals and lesbians the same “marriage” protections as heterosexuals in Vermont.
     Dean has become the sweetheart of the liberal media. At the present time he leads the pack in popularity, with 28% of likely Democratic New Hampshire primary voters admitting they would vote for him. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry followed with 25%. Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephart controls the endorsement of the Teamsters Union (and is close to gaining the endorsement of the AFL-CIO), but only 6% of the New Hampshire voters have said they will cast their votes for him. Senator Joe Lieberman, the most moderate Democrat, would take 10% of the projected vote. Edwards trailed with 2%, and Florida Senator Bob Graham, who is anxiously seeking the number two slot on anyone’s ticket, registered 1%. Sharpton and Braun, to no one’s surprise--not even their own--were no shows.
     Lieberman addressed the media at the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, August 4. The frustrated Senator called Howard Dean’s campaign “...a ticket to nowhere.” Referring to Dean, Kucinich, and Kerry, Lieberman told the assembled press that he was “...not going to stand back and let [the Democratic Party] be taken over by people who will take [it] back to the wilderness.” Speaking specifically of Kerry, Lieberman said the Massachusetts senator was a big spending liberal who was out-of-touch with the realities of today.
     John Edwards the millionaire liability lawyer from North Carolina, like Florida Senator Bob Graham, is in the race only because they had enough personal wealth to jump into the fray. Neither has the staying power to run the course. Edwards, who is simply muddying the water for Lieberman, has not been able to get his campaign off the ground. Most of the political pundits who are watching the Democratic walkathon, believe Edwards and Bob Graham will be the first casualties. (The first to be forced out will likely be Sharpton and Braun since neither of them are viewed by anyone as real candidates anyway. Kerry wants them out because the support from America’s black community would go to him.) While Kerry feels that Dennis Kucinch’s supporters would likewise back him if the Ohio socialist was not in the race, it is more likely that the more radical element would back Dean--or Ralph Nader when the Green Party candidate announces his own candidacy next spring (even though the Democrats are trying to buy him off since they believe Nader cost Gore the Election of 2000).
     Even though Dean’s most recent fundraiser netted his campaign $400 thousand, there has not been an oasis of contributions flooding any of the Democratic candidates. It is the amount of contributions from outside sources that indicate to the media which of the candidates are viable and which are not. George W. Bush, for example, has already amassed a $200 million war chest for his reelection campaign. (His campaign war chest in 2000 was $108 million.) The size of Bush’s war chest tells the media boys and girls that the president is all but unbeatable. For any Democrat to win in 2004, Bush has to fall on his picarad all by himself.
     When Edwards entered the race, his spinmeisters suggested that the Senator had the personal wealth needed to launch a serious run for the White House without any special interest money. That’s good, since other than money from lawyers’ groups, Edwards’ well has pretty much run dry, leading to media speculation that by January Edwards would be out of the race. The Edwards’ Campaign insisted on July 25 that would not happen, and that the Senator was “...in this for the duration.” Defending his lack of contributors, Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said it would take some time for someone “...who does not have high name recognition” to raise money, adding that “...its too early to suggest that some of the candidates should get out of the race.”
     Gephart understands Palmieri’s statement very well since he’s been suffering from that same problem since 1988. Neither man seems to understand that you don’t become president because you want the job, you become president because David Rockefeller and a handful of powerful, all but invisible transnational businessmen and bankers want you to have the job. The national election every four years is merely a required formality that makes the process appear constitutional. The campaign season is an elaborately contrived sham that was designed to give the illusion that we, the people, pick the man who will lead the nation. We don’t.

     The current slate of contenders don’t seem to realize that there must be an “anointing” before any coronation can take place. The leadership of the Democratic Party knows all of the current slate of wanabees are virtually dead men walking because the key players for the Democratic nomination have not yet entered the race.
     The fact that the big money boys haven’t flooded any of the current slate of candidates with money should have been a clue to all of them that the “anointed” candidates had not jet joined the fray. Clearly, that fact was not lost of John Kerry who has been trying to narrow the field by forcing Edwards, Gephart and Lieberman out of the race because he is convinced their supporters would flock to his campaign, giving him an edge over Howard Dean who is the closest thing to a front-runner in the Democratic walkathon to the convention.
     Kerry’s been in national politics long enough to know that if he can sprint far enough ahead--and hold the lead through the early primaries--he will make it hard for late bloomers to enter the fray. Kerry, of course, is expecting former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. who lost a photo finish election in 2000, to enter the fray. And, it may very well be that, in the end, Gore will do just that--even though he has already privately sampled the waters of the “money well” and he knows, like the other announced candidates, that sufficient contributions from legal sources will be tough to raise.
     Nevertheless, Gore is the first of the three final candidates who is expected to join the Campaign of 2004 later this fall or shortly after the first of the year--particularly if Bush’s star becomes tarnished by an economic, political or military misstep. If Gore joins the campaign (his “major speech” on Iraq fueling speculation that he will jump into the fray soon in an effort to diffuse Hillary’s plans to do the same), he will select Bob Graham as his running mate. Gore is still convinced he lost the Election of 2000 in Florida and not in Tennessee--which repudiated him; or in Arkansas, Clinton’s home state, which also repudiated him. Had Gore won either of those States earlier in the evening of November 5, 2000, by the time America went to bed that night, Gore would have been the 43rd President of the United States regardless what happened in Florida.
     The liberal money will be forced to back Gore if Hillary doesn’t jump into the fray because, frankly, neither Dean or Kerry can win and the Democrats know it. As Gore has already discovered, all of the meaningful campaign money to date has been sucked into non-candidate Hillary’s coffers. That’s why none of it, in amounts needed to sustain a winning campaign, have found their way into the war chests of the Walking Dead.
     Hillary is not anxious to jump into the fray in 2004 because if she loses, she will join the Walking Dead and become vulnerable in 2006--particularly if Rudy Guiliani reenters the race for the US Senate (something he has to do in order to position himself for his own run for the roses in 2008).
     Hillary would much rather wait for 2008 since that will be a safer presidential contest for the Democrats. Bush can’t run and Dick Cheney’s health is not good enough to tackle the rigors of a tough election campaign as the presidential candidate.
     Hillary knows if she runs in 2004 and loses, she will have lost her only chance to win the presidency. The Clinton Era will end and she will remain Senator Clinton forever--unless the climate in New York changes and the voters realize that there are fewer jobs in New York because Bill and Hillary Clinton pushed NAFTA through Congress and Bill Clinton, knowing NAFTA was a jobs-drain bill with a revolving door that allowed former American products back into the country without tariffs, signed it into law anyway.
     If Hillary makes the leap into the race--which she has to do if she ever expects a shot at the White House, she will have to attract the undecided 20% of the electorate called the Reagan Democrats. They are the patriotic blue collar dues-paying union working stiffs who vote their paychecks first and the American flag second. By herself, Hillary will never pull that vote from George W. Bush. She is antigun, antifamily and, most of all, she’s a strident anti-national defense globalist.
     Hillary who, as a presidential candidate, needs to be viewed as a symbol of patriotism to win, has proudly worn the globalist label squarely in the middle of her forehead for the past decade for all the liberals to see and admire. While Dennis Kucinich thinks a communist can win the presidency, Hillary is smart enough to know that the American people want their presidents draped in red, white and blue--not just red.
     Because she and Bill successfully duped enough of the people over the past decade to win three elections (two for the White House and one for the US Senate) Hillary knows if she can fool 50.1% of the people, she will win the White House.
     If Bush doesn’t stumble hard enough for that to happen, Democratic strategists are prepared to “hire” a third party candidate who can pull the Reagan Democrat votes from Bush. As Bill Clinton discovered when he ran against Bush-41, you can steal the White House with less than 49% of the vote if you get the right man to run against both of the primary party candidates. The “right man,” of course, must pull more votes from your opponent than he pulls from you.
     In Hillary’s case, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark is the “right man.” If she is forced to run in 2004--and she will--she will use Clark in one of two ways.
     If George W. Bush’s falls on--or can be adroitly impaled with--his Iraqi policy picard by the Democrats on Capitol Hill or by the media, or if the jobless rate climbs much higher and the economy nosedives, Hillary will use Gen. Clark as her patriotic running mate--just as draft dodger Bill Clinton aligned himself with pro-military Al Gore (who was one of only two or three politicians’ sons who were actually in Vietnam). If, on the other hand, Bush’s star continues to shine--or is at least not tarnished enough to cause his fall from grace--or if Hillary is forced to cut a deal with one of the current candidates to secure the nomination, she may need to use Clark to pose as a disgruntled “patriotic Democratic centrist” who will publicly denounce the liberals in the Democratic Party and run as an “independent” third party candidate to pull the conservative Democratic union votes away from George W. Bush just as Ross Perot did against Bush-41 in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996--and as the Democratic strategists did in 1960 when they used Dixiecrat Harry Byrd to keep the anti-Catholic Democrats from voting for Richard Nixon.

     Gen. Wesley Clark is the ideal politician’s soldier--particularly if the politician is a liberal globalist, since Clark is both. For that reason Clark appeals to Hillary.
     Clark became a media sweetheart during the Serbian war when the Clinton Administration joined the European Union to support the Albanian Muslim terrorists against the Orthodox Christians of Serbia in order to shatter Slobodan Milosevic’s totalitarian grip on the Balkans.
     Gen. Clark, who was sarcastically referred to as “the Supreme Being” by his underlings, has also been described by his subordinates as a vain, pompous, political brown-noser. Privately, those under him believed the general was the ideal poster child for everything that is wrong with the General Officer Corp of the US military. One army colonel (who served under Clark as a major when Clark commanded the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division) described Clark as a man “Who regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his [own] career.” Where Clark was always suspicious of the motives of his junior officers, he was arrogantly contemptuous of the enlisted men who served under him. Clark was disliked by everyone under him and he was contemptuously used as a willing pawn for personal gain by those above him. His subordinates at Fort Irwin, California nicknamed Clark “Section Leader Six” because of his obsessive-compulsive micro-management style.
     In 1994 when Clark was a major general seeking his third star, he was scheduled to participate in a war game exercise known as the Battle Command Training Program. Clark’s opponent was a general known for his tactical prowess--and the fact that he routinely demolished the forces which opposed him during the war games.
     Defense Secretary William Perry reportedly “mentioned” to the right people under him that the President would be disappointed if Clark lost the exercise since Clark was up for a third star. The forces of Clark’s opponent were mysteriously cut by 50%, assuring that not even the most brilliant military tactician in the world could win with the cards stacked so badly against him. For that reason Clark, who supposedly employed mediocre, ill-conceived and outmoded textbook tactics, was still able to overcome the weaker force of his opponent by sheer numbers. Bill Clinton rewarded the tactical genius with his third star a few weeks later.
     To the Clinton White House, it wasn’t how well the generals played the war game that mattered, it was how well they played the inside-the-beltway parlor game of political butt-kissing. And Clark was a player who came to Washington with knee pads and puckered lips.
     Because the Clintons were so anti-military it never occurred to them that the purpose of the Battle Command Training Program is to test the strategic and tactical planning skills of the senior grade and general officers who will assume command of America’s fighting forces abroad, and to determine how well they are able to strategize under fire. The National Training Center was designed to test the commander’s ability to execute his plans “under fire” (which shows their command talents as well).
     The antiwar hippies who ascended on the White House in 1993 and assumed control of the American military believed the term “civilian control of the military” meant since they were finally in charge, they could manipulate the hated American military machine to best serve the interests of socialist pacifists who never understood that the best deterrent to war is a strong, unbeatable military.
     When Clark assumed command of the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California (the military’s most advanced training center for command officers), he discovered a new career dilemma. Clark’s “native” troops, using unconventional tactics, were supposed to surprise and humiliate the “visiting” opposing forces (who were at Fort Irwin to be trained in unconventional warfare in order to prepare for unconventional hostilities when they came under actual fire from guerilla forces). Clark realized that some of the senior general officers whose troops were engaged by Clark’s unconventional forces at Fort Irwin might resent being humiliated in the mock battles. Some of them, Clark also realized, were senior enough that they could help his career--or, if they were resentful enough at being humiliated by Clark’s troops--damage his chances for future promotion.
     To incur the gratitude of certain key generals, Clark’s troops were forced to lose the engagements with the troops of visiting generals just to make the generals appear more adept at developing strategies to counter unexpected guerilla tactics. This practice by Clark (although expedient for his career) actually endangers the troops since those soldiers would not be adequately trained to handle real-time unconventional situations they encountered in the real world of guerilla warfare.
     But, those were precisely the qualities the Clintons sought in their generals--loyalty to their superiors was far more important than their ability to perform their job. For that reason once again, Clark appeals to Hillary.
What also appeals to her--and to the Democratic hierarchy as well--is that Gen. Wesley Clark is intelligent, articulate, and he will come across to those who don’t know his political credentials, as an honest, patriotic soldier who headed NATO, won the war in the Serbia--and hates liberals.
     Gen. Wesley Clark is the third Democratic non-candidate who will pop up as a player early next year--only Clark may, or may not, show up as a Democrat. Since Hillary must engage in guerilla warfare to win, she will select the former commander of the army’s guerilla warfare training center to help her win the White House.



Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved