Wednesday, March 27, 2019

The gang that couldn't shoot straight...again



Forty-eight years ago a comedy movie about the mafia was made. It was called, "The gang that couldn't shoot straight" (aka The Gang). It was panned by movie critics as well as the mafia that didn't much care for the film's portrayal of real-life mafia gangster, Joe Gallo. I think that enough time has passed and that our memory of this stinker has faded so that the movie can be re-made, this time with a different role for loudmouth Liberal Robert DeNiro. Before we go on to the new plot, have a look at the colorful names of the cast of characters of The Gang: Kid Sally, Big Momma, Big Jelly, Beppo, Water Buffalo and Shots O'Toole. One can only marvel at the screenwriter's creativity - not seriously. Here's the new plot... It's all about the corrupt media and how they plan to take over the country, but first they have to remove the only thing standing in their way - a multi-billionaire real estate mogul who has become President. They are conspirators in perhaps the biggest heist since the Lufthansa robbery at JFK Airport in 1978 (yes, Robert DeNiro was also in the movie that 'immortalized' that heist, 'Goodfellas'). The media villains in the remake chose media assassination instead of physical assassination to accomplish their goal of taking over the hearts and minds of the country. In short, they collude in a massive smear campaign to get the President to step down. (Any similarity to the current situation unfolding as a result of the 'Mueller Investigation' and the last three years of media bias-assassination is purely coincidental - my lawyers made me say that).

Okay, now to the principal shooting sites. Where else can they be except for the Big Apple (NYC) and the Rotten Apple (DC)? The principal characters are, in no special order, the major news and cable networks, the owners of the New York Times and Washington Post AND the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google. All have agreed to play themselves as their egos could not handle some actor actually representing them.

A 'B' list of characters includes two top former intelligence agency heads and a number of once-vaunted reporters (think Woodward and Bernstein) and 'opinion-makers' like media pundits (think Maddow, Matthews, Lemon, Veshi, et. al). To this, add assorted Democratic Party hacks (think Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jerry Nadler and all the Democrat candidates for President) and then throw in a couple totally certifiable types for seasoning (think Maxine Waters and Al Green for example) and the hosts of the major late-night shows. Now THAT'S entertainment!

It's 2016, and the movie opens with a boomed camera wide shot of a massive table where at least fifty people are seated. The lighting is dim and ominous music is being played. The camera pans over to a huge 20-foot tall projector screen on which is a menacing image of the President of the United States (think Donald Trump). The doors to an ante-room open, slowly, and in walks DeNiro (who is playing the central character, I.M. Muerto, who secretly owns controlling interest in all the major networks as well as the Times and The Post). He is accompanied by three men who no one but Muerto knows or recognizes. They are actually top echelon officials from the SVR - the intelligence agency that is concerned with the collection of intelligence outside the Commonwealth of Independent States, the G.U. - the intelligence service of the Russian armed forces and the FSB - counter-intelligence agency that reports directly to the President of Russia. 

Muerto sits down and pours himself a large vodka and offers the bottle to the three who gladly serve themselves. He then stands, looks out at the people around the table and screams, "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." He then chuckles to himself and says, "That was from 'Network,' one of my favorite movies. Believe me, that was tame compared to how we are going to make Americans feel about their President. When we're done with him, he'll wish he'd never been born," and slams his fist on the table for emphasis.

The plot thickens, and more twists and turns and new characters are added, like the Director and Deputy Director of the FBI and the heads of renegade DC companies (think Fusion GPS).

DeNiro hopes that this movie will bring him the adulation he craves and another 'Best Actor' nomination for his portrayal of I.M. Muerto (he's tired of doing stupid movies like 'Meet the Fockers' and wants some respect). Personally, I think America is ready for this re-make of 'The gang that couldn't shoot straight' especially now that we don't have the Mueller Investigation to occupy our every waking minute. I'm only sorry that the producer (think Rob Reiner) rejected Alec Baldwin for the part of the President. He would have been great, but I'm sure that Anthony Hopkins will class up the scenes and give it a British 'bump' that should sell some tickets in the U.K. (God knows they need the diversion given all their Brexit problems).  

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com


Who's the real adult in the room...or voting booth?



The Democrats just can't stop trying to force open the back door to America's voting booths. Their recent suggestions about lowering the voting age to sixteen is just the next predictable step in their efforts to pack the ballot box and stack the vote in their favor. It was July of 1971 when President Richard Nixon certified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution giving 18 year-olds the right to vote. The Amendment was necessary because Oregon and Texas had challenged the constitutionality of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that gave 18 year-olds that right. Looking back, there was a compelling argument for lowering the age: if young men could be drafted at 18 and be sent to war then it was only fair that they could also vote.

The Constitution didn't make any provision for an official voting age, so from 1787-1870 it was basically up to the states to decide who should or shouldn't vote. There are three Amendments  to the Constitution that deal with voting: the 15th 19th and 26th, and lowering the age to 16 would require a new Amendment just as it did in 1971. But that begs several questions about voting in general. Why do we allow people to vote in the first place? Because we believe that people should have the right to influence the laws that affect them and because we're a constitutional republic that sends representatives to Washington to make the laws that affect us and that the citizenry should be allowed to cast votes for them.

Without spending too much time in ancient U.S. voting history, we have always had a lively discussion about who should be able to vote. There's the 'only property owners' argument that basically says that only those who have an investment (property) in America should be able to vote, the thought being that only those with something to lose should be allowed to protect it. Contrast that with the argument popular in some liberal circles today that everyone (even illegal aliens and those who are living here legally but are not citizens) should have the right to vote and you can see that voting still is a volatile issue.

What should the legal age of adulthood be and should it be the same as the legal voting age?

THAT'S the $64,000 question. The 'National Minimum Age Drinking Act of 1984' makes it unlawful for persons under the age of 21 to purchase alcohol, but if you're 18 (the age of 'majority') you can be drafted into the military. At 18 you can also sign a legally binding contract (in most states) and get married (or divorced), but there are exceptions. AND you can vote in local and national elections. At the age of 16, you're considered a minor - a child - not having achieved 'majority.' You can't sign a binding contract, be drafted, drink alcohol, or get married on your own without parental consent. Why, then, should 16 year-olds be allowed to vote when society says they're not ready to be regarded as adults who can be solely responsible for their own actions?

The short answer is that the Democrats want more voters and they know that younger voters will vote their way. Two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds voted for the Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. Only 32% voted for Republican candidates. This is the largest voting gap in the last 25 years, but while the Democrats won the younger vote, they lost the over-45 vote. That says it all. To win future elections will either require more over-45 voters voting Democratic (or hope that many of them who would vote Republican will die) or Dems must stimulate a larger youth voter turnout (or gain more voters if the voting age is lowered to 16).

This is part of the Dems' voter demographic strategy that includes absolving illegal aliens of their crime of entering the U.S. (amnesty) AND then registering them to vote. Should this happen, Republicans would suffer a haymaker to the voter solar plexus: illegal aliens would be allowed to vote PLUS their children would be allowed to vote, too! We all know that those new 16 year-old newly-amnestytized voters would be voting Democrat because their parents will and because the Democrats have historically been perceived as the party of the 'little guy', the downtrodden, the persecuted.No matter that the Democrats' voting record on civil rights legislation has been a blemish on their party. For most people that's ancient history and water over the dam - and long forgotten.

I don't know about you, but I remember what my sixteenth and seventeenth years were like. Politics and civic responsibility weren't even in the footnotes of my teenage lexicon. Had I been able to vote then (in 1960) I probably would have voted for the 'cool' guy, John F. Kennedy. He had the looks, the girl and the money - the political candidate's trifecta. While those things qualified him for celebritydom, I'm pretty sure that nobody should have voted for him because of them. Seen in the rear-view mirror of my life, I'm really glad that my government said that while it valued my opinion I should really keep it to myself and let it ferment a little until I reached the age of reason. Matter of fact, considering how high school and college-age students are acting today, we might even want to consider returning the age to 21. It's just a thought.

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com


Sunday, March 24, 2019

The ultimate weapon of mass destruction: The Democrats

The Mueller Report or "How we managed to survive the DC smoke and mirrors machine" has dropped...with a thud. All the media had their say late on Friday, totally bereft of any hard information whatsoever. It is amazing. To paraphrase Churchill, "never have so many said so much about so little" for over two years. We have witnessed the Left salivate from the starting gate in 2016 and nearly wet themselves when the thought of toppling the Kremlin puppet Donald Trumpski and his band of merry Cossacks danced in their heads. After all, THIS was going to be the smoking gun that would show once and for all that Donald J. was in bed with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (what a terrible image that is) and that an entirely new supermax prison would have to be built to hold all the indictees that Robert Mueller would finger for their Russianizing.

Mueller did snag a few smelt in the net he set for the big fish, but they were for what the Feds call, 'process crimes.' None of them had so much slurped a bowl of borscht. Their crimes were unrelated to Mueller's charge of uncovering Reds under the President's bed or in his campaign. Nyet. Empty handed there, though he did snare Paul (the Ukraine lover) Manafort and Roger (the dandy) Stone and George (but I'm innocent, I tell ya) Papadopoulos along with sixteen Russians who will never answer their subpeonas and leave their dachas to darken our doorstep. Double nyet.


Not all of us are waiting for something more. We're dead tired of all of this. The great Democrat weapon of mass destruction is not waiting, however. Democrat Congressman and Chairman of the powerful House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff of California is not waiting. Like the Blues Brothers, he's on a mission from God to show the world that the U.S.A. has been under bogus management for over two years by a direct descendent of Rasputin. HE will not let go no matter what stubborn facts stand in his way. And he is not alone. The Democrat villagers have their pitchforks and torches at the ready. If need be they will turn on Mr. Mueller and burn him at the stake in Lafayette Park as they scale the fence around the White House to capture the 'traitor-in-chief.'


If all this sounds a bit too dramatic, it's not. It is however, made for TV, and TV is where we've all viewed the sordid rollout of hanging-level information. We've been living in a drip, drip, drip world of selective leaks, political grandstanding, false accusations and media madness that started with the phony 'Steele Dossier' that the mainstream media bought, hook line and sinker along with their co-conspirators over at the Justice Department. What a sterling cast of thespians this play of fools has attracted! From the denizens of the Deep State, to the FBI to former intelligence agency bobbleheads masquerading as political commentators on MSNBC and CNN, the stage is literally packed. 


This scandal had everything, totally worthy of a 'Made in USA' label. Friends, when we scandal in America, we scandal BIG. After all, if you're going there you might as well rope in every gullible sap on the Left you can convince to carry the tainted water. Adam Schiff is busy humming Fagin's "I'm reviewing the situation" while he irons his white robe, dusts off his blindfold (the one with the see-through holes), sharpens up his sword and rigs his scales for his debut as Lady Justice, post Mueller report. He has already written the script for the Capitol Hill docudrama, 'Reds and Feds.' It is bold - Mount Olympus bold - and heroic. He's also made sure there are parts for his committee co-crusaders from California: Rep. Jackie Speier and Rep. Eric Swalwell and others.


Yes, America, there is a Santa Claus and he is Donald Trump. Without him there would be no presents under the Democrats' tree and no earthly reason for them to engage him in a pitched battle for the high ground using their most dangerous weapon of mass destruction - their arrogance-fueled animosity, their disregard for the good of the country and their Chatty Cathy flapping gums. Now that the pre-game entertainment of the Mueller Flying Circus is over, the real game can begin. God help us all.

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com or at his Republican Action Website www.projectpushback.com


Saturday, March 23, 2019

Are Republicans living in a dream world?


While the Democrats are busy recruiting a million new voters to beat President Trump in 2020 are Republicans living in a state of denial about America's ability to survive the onslaught of challenges from the Left?

Those of us who know that anything is possible also know that even a country like ours that has withstood attacks from tyranny and terror cannot remain free if good men and women do not defend it from assaults from within. We cannot live our lives in an insulated protective cocoon, watching Lawrence Welk and reruns of old 1950s sitcoms, pretending that nothing could ever turn our proud country into a faint memory of greatness.

Democrats are convinced that the America of the past is nothing but an empty shell of make-believe and doesn't reflect reality, and that those of us that cling to its core values of honesty, hard work and patriotism are fools living in a fools' paradise. The political Left is also convinced that the only way to save our village is to destroy it, and they are dedicated to its destruction by attacking our institutions and values. What other reason could there be for constantly marginalizing conservative thought, infecting us with identity politics and accusing us of being racists with little or no sensitivity to the weakest in our society?

Their war against life in the womb and repeated attempts to 'help' us end our lives by assisted suicide are but two of their attempts to de-personalize human beings. Decriminalizing drugs is another of their pursuits. They hope to turn the issue of drug addiction on its head while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of people suffering death-by-pusher each year. Legalizing drugs is not the answer to stopping drug abuse. Their newest attack is leveled at our independent judiciary as several of their leaders are now suggesting that our Supreme Court be turned into a political body!

Our country barely survived the last Presidential election. Had the loser won she would have surely guaranteed the country a long but steady decline of our economy and a return to the nanny state of excessive government control. We came close, perilously close to losing our basic freedoms, but if you think that we 'dodged a bullet' for good, you are ignoring a sobering reality. The reality I speak of is the steady march of Progressivism. Progressives are like fire ants that have an insatiable appetite and when smelling a food source will do anything and sacrifice any of their number to reach it. Progressives' food source is power. However, unlike the fire ants that will stop once they reach the food source, Progressives won't. To them power is everything. It is not an end, but a means to achieve their objectives of total hegemony over everything that has made America the envy of the world.

Their journey is a perverse one. They insist on creating equality and a level playing field even if our biology cannot accommodate it. They do not understand one of the basic tenets of life...that while we are all created equal, we are not endowed with the same abilities or talents, and no matter what is done, some of us will fail. To ignore that fact is to ignore human nature. Progressives will not stop at trying to revise and rewrite our history. Now they want us to redress the wrongs of our ancestors by paying reparations to the descendents of slaves brought to this country 300 years ago. It is futile to argue with them about the merits of this and other issues because their standard response is that we are racists - bigots with original sin that can never be washed away. We Conservatives have only a few options at our disposal  if we truly want to defend our liberties from a Progressive takeover in 2020. The first one is to wake up from our self-induced dream. The second is to channel the fervor of the Minutemen of the 18th century and push back...together. 
  
Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com