New Copy of the Declaration of Independence Brings Out the Crazies

By Alan W. Cohen

There is no doubt that certain people in high places want to cast doubt on anything that is America, particularly our founding. But this latest pronouncement coming from two Harvard professors is over the top nuts.

You may have heard on the news that someone in Great Britain discovered a parchment document purported to be an original copy, meaning a true hand written copy of the Declaration of Independence. Assuming that it is a true document, and no one has explained how it could be a true document, what is different from the original? Are there passages different? No. Does the document contain different words? No. Did different people sign the document? No.

So what is the big deal? It turns out that the order of signatures are different. So what? We all know how the Declaration came to be. Continental Congress met and each colony voted. The Declaration went through the mill until all thirteen colonies voted to consent. So, now two Harvard professors are claiming that there is some special meaning to the order of the signatures. In the original, the signers were organized by their newly founded states. In this new copy, they are randomly signed. Before getting into the weeds of what that difference might signify, lets imagine that this document is authentic. How would it have come about? After signing the original, the Continental Congress needed to spread the word, and that required copies. Since no copy machines were then available, scribes copied the document by hand, and then asked the signers to redo their respective John Hancocks. Therefore, there was no purpose behind the order of signatures for the copies. The scribes probably had to chase down the signors, who just signed somewhere on the page.

But two Harvard professors have declared some hidden meaning behind this difference, that it must mean that federalism is a fiction. Alas, the Founders signed as one nation, not as a collection of states. And,  your point is? Doesn’t the Constitution begin We the People of the United States? Of course, it is from the people. The Declaration itself is about alienable rights and the pursuit of happiness, not of the states, but of the people who live in those states. Those same people divvied up authority between the federal and state governments, reserving those inalienable rights for themselves.  That is what we call federalism.

I am beginning to wonder what they are smoking at Harvard.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

 

 

 

I Have Come to Praise Bill O’Reilly, Not to Bury Him

By Alan W. Cohen

I am now in rehab. Yes, I was a Bill O’Reilly addict. And now I must go cold turkey. But as with all twelve-step programs, I must start with that admission. I have a problem. Almost every day at 7 p.m. my time, or when it repeated at 10, I watched. Bill O’Reilly kept me going. No, I was not a Bill O’Reilly dot com member. No, I was not a reader of his books, although his historical TV series Legends and Lies was amusing and interesting. I did not attend his frequent tours with Dennis Miller.

I often wondered how he did it all. But, as John Stossel wrote yesterday in his blog, Bill O’Reilly got too big for his britches. He was a cottage industry unto itself. Twenty years as the most watched TV show on cable might do that to anybody. True, his shows were becoming more and more about Bill O’Reilly and less and less about anything else. Still, I watched faithfully. And if I missed it because I had something else to do, I searched for his Talking Points on social media. I had to have my fix.

But in my moment of loss yesterday when I heard he was gone from Fox News, I began to consider all of the good things that Bill O’Reilly had done for me. Contrast The Factor with what Megan Kelly’s program had become before she mercifully left to join her fellow liberals at NBC. Megan Kelly would have nothing but for Bill O’Reilly, and rumor has it … Well, I won’t go there, because I have come to praise Bill O’Reilly, not to bury him. Anyway, Megan Kelly’s show was hideous in comparison. She would put on two Republican and Democrat mouthpieces who would spew their daily talking points without challenge. It just gave me a headache to listen to it. Bill O’Reilly refused to as well. He invented the No Spin Zone, the one place on TV (other now on Tucker Carlson’s show) where real reporters ask real questions, hard questions. In this way, Bill O’Reilly exposed the other networks for what they are, left wing hacks. And for that, he was hated.

Bill O’Reilly’s biggest contribution to our nation, however, was his war on political correctness. With the mainstream media in tow, leftists had adopted the view that everyone was a victim of free speech, something that has devolved into safe spaces and campus protests against conservative speakers. Bill O’Reilly recognized it for what it was. A Leftist Power Play. He called it out almost on a daily basis, and we addicts could not wait to get his take on whatever nonsense was spewing out of the crazies that were featured so prominently on the three big networks and CNN. Bill O’Reilly made it OK for his fellow journalists to challenge those that would threaten or ironically call others Nazis that disagreed with the Leftist viewpoint.

Like Julius Caesar, Bill O’Reilly loved his power too much. I often wondered what his life was like, so immersed in work. I know that he was divorced and he never talked about his family. What else did he have to live for? He was all about his job. He thought highly of himself, and perhaps that was a requirement for his success. Those of us who are willing to challenge the existing narrative appreciate him all the more, because he was willing to take on his detractors, and make himself the television icon that he became. Bill O’Reilly, you were and remain and inspiration to hard work and dedication to a core belief. It would have been so easy to get along with your peers, and live your life out as another TV reporter. You chose to be different. But, like Julius Caesar, the knives were ever present, waiting for the opportunity to strike, in search of the tragic flaw that would end you. Early on, I noticed how you chose your peons. They had to be blonde and pretty. I thought it was a contrast, but apparently it was about something more, a casting couch.

But I have come to praise Bill O’Reilly, not to bury him.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and blogger, retired from the practice of law after 25 years. His new book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Read Past Blogs:

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

Is Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal?

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

Hear Me Bernie Sanders: There is No Constitutional Right to Health Care

Tomi Lahren Touches The Soul of the Libertarian on Abortion Question

Does Neil Gorsuch have Libertarian tendencies? One Question Tells Us.

March Madness and the Trump Travel Ban: A Two-minute primer

Why Libertorian?

Three Important Lessons I Learned from Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett

By Alan W. Cohen

The one thing I learned while I was in college was that scholars are pretty much set in their ways, and are rarely open to new ideas, especially if those new ideas challenge their entire way of thinking. At 57, I was pretty set in my ways. I had attended a top journalism and law school, had practiced in my field for more than 25 years, writing and teaching seminars. I thought I knew it all, or at least had a firm grasp. I had just published my book, America Solved, my attempt to reverse the destructive federal  child support policies of the past fifty years.

That was almost a year ago. I had been a converted Democrat, and time had transformed me into a Libertarian, with Reason Magazine as my bible. That is where I learned about Randy Barnett and his new book, Our Republican Constitution, and it was in that book that I learned the three important lessons that would lead me to my book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce.

Lesson One: When in law school, I was taught that the source of fundamental rights was the Constitution. It made sense. We have First Amendment rights to free speech, etc. Yet, as are most Americans, I didn’t quite understand the source of those rights not specifically mentioned, especially the Right to Privacy. Practicing in family law, I relied on two of those rights not enumerated, the Right to Parent and the Right to Marry. I accepted those rights because the Supreme Court recognized them as fundamental, although I held on to the view of Mr. Justice Goldberg that those rights exist in the Ninth Amendment. Randy Barnett taught me, however, that the source of these rights lay not in the Constitution, but what was written in the Declaration of Independence. The People have inalienable rights. They transfer some authority to state government, where their elected servants administer their appointed duties for the public good. The People also transfer some to the federal government, i.e., the Constitution, to protect them from foreign intrusion. But since those rights are inalienable, the People lack the ability to transfer, or give up those rights, and thus any act of state or federal legislatures that violate those fundamental rights is void at is inception. Suddenly, it all made sense. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights. It defends them. Congress shall make no law …

Lesson Two:  Elections are based on majority rule, and it has been drilled into us that the view of that majority that should prevail.  We are constantly bombarded from the left and the right, each claiming that their view is correct because they represent the majority. What I learned from Randy Barnett, however, is it that the Constitution is not We the People as the majority, but We the People as a collection of  individuals. As an amateur historian, I recall the folly of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, based on a theory that one group of people could vote to enslave another.  The same question applies to those majority who would restrict the Right to Marry. In 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court made a finding that marriage in America began as a purely private affair, and then evolved. My book,  Private Vows, answers the question of how that happened. But I could not have accomplished that goal without this lesson that I learned from Randy Barnett. Since We the People is a collection of individuals endowed with inalienable rights, and since one of those rights is the Right to Marry, the People could not transfer to their elected representatives the authority to restrict that right. Therefore, state regulation of marriage and divorce is unconstitutional, as are federal laws that impact the Right to Parent.

Lesson Three: Whether it be the current state action to void the Trump Travel Ban or during the Civil Rights Era, where George Wallace and his fellow segregationists so argued, the idea of State’s Rights always intrigued me. Yet, Randy Barnett taught me that State’s Rights is a fiction. States don’t have rights. The Tenth Amendment recognizes that the people did not give complete authority to the federal government. Elected state officials have authority, and that authority is limited to what is specifically conferred. For Private Vows,  Barnett made me fully appreciate that the Tenth Amendment is not a source of authority for what the Supreme Court as recently as 2013 declared, that domestic relations was traditionally left to the states to regulate. Barnett taught me that tradition is not a Constitutional argument. We have to look to our Founding Documents.  Rather, the Declaration of Independence instructs us that the People have the inalienable right to marry, to parent, and to the Pursuit of Happiness. States do not have the authority to regulate marriage and divorce because the Constitution gives the the People’s elected servants no such authority, and any act to interfere in purely private acts is void at its inception.

Thank you Randy Barnett for teaching this old dog a new trick, and I will be forever grateful. You have given me a greater appreciation of the wisdom of our Founders than I thought possible. My personal goal is to share what I learned from you, and to broadcast it for the better of the people of the United States of America.

Alan W. Cohen is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. Now a full-time author and blogger, he practiced Family Law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years. His books are available on Amazon.

Easter Message: Why Religion is Vital to Maintaining Our Liberty

By Alan W. Cohen

As American Christians near the Easter holiday, it is important to recognize the vital role of religion preserving our liberty. No, I am not talking about our Judeo-Christian heritage. I am talking about all religions.

Our sixth president, and last founding father, John Quincy Adams, once said that religion is nothing more than ethics, and ethics is how we choose to live our lives. Belief in a higher being means recognizing that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are not the center of the universe, a concept that seems lost in many in the younger generation. Religion provides us with the mirror that we truly require to look beyond our own immediate needs, to see our own behaviors, and how it might affect others. I for one am not a religious person, but I live my life by a a credo born of my Jewish faith. I believe that I live righteously, and do what is best for my family, my community and my country. I live everyday thinking how I might accomplish that goal, and my writings, especially my books America Solved, and my February 2017 publication of Private Vows, are my personal evidence of that enterprise. And it is the goal of this blog to better America by seeing it return to the liberty that we lost in the battle over slavery in America as I explained in my introductory post.

Religion teaches us that we must join together for the common good, but it is our personal behavior, our minute by minute interactions with others that is penultimate for freedom to operate. We must have empathy for the rights of others, rights guaranteed to us in the Declaration of Independence. Think about it. Wouldn’t it be nice if those leftist bots that protest the free speech of others on college campuses would grasp that concept? Perhaps, they need to go to church to learn about respect because they certainly hadn’t yet learned it, especially respect for those elders who choose to share their life experiences to better the younger generation.

And so, for my Christian brothers and sisters, enjoy your Easter holiday, and consider how you are working to preserve and protect the rights of others to do practice their faith in the freest nation in the history of the world.

Alan W. Cohen graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia Journalism School and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. He has retired after practicing family law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years.

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

By Alan W. Cohen

In my 25 years as a family law attorney, I witnessed an increasing parade of lost souls seeking happiness, never realizing, as Aristotle tells us, that happiness takes a lifetime to achieve. The Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee it.  As I explain in my book, America Solved, published in 2015, marriage is a learned skill, cultivated over generations, a skill that has been lost to the false promises of government that made them believe that it was the solution that all their ills, and that they would find solace in a compassionate court system that would bring them comfort and joy.

As I explain in my new book,  Private Vows , the court system was never intended to fix anything. It was intended to deter people, mostly men, from failing to meet their legal obligations, knowing that society was well suited to deter women from doing so. It is, and has been for almost two generations, ill-fitted and ill-suited for the times, becoming divorce factories, churning out sausage that, as H.L. Mencken said of legislation, no one of weak stomach should see be made. Family courts have become, as one lawyer-advertiser accurately describes, little fiefdoms, with judges, under the guise of judicial discretion, applying laws arbitrarily and punishing people capriciously, not to achieve some greater public policy of right and wrong, but to fit their personal whims, much to the distress of those litigants that find themselves in the cross hairs.

In a recent article from P.J.Media, provides some hope. It turns out that millennials are fed up with the status of the family unit as it has become today, and yearn for the stability of the past, the Leave it to Beaver world of stay-at-home moms and worker dads. While they agree that women should have a choice to enter the workforce, millennials crave the world where their children come home to a loving parent, not wailing away in some day care.  As I explain in America Solved, young men and women today are completely confused as to what they were supposed to do. Mind you, the post-war generation is a singular time in history. At our founding we were an agrarian society, where husbands and wives worked side by side, and their children were charged with helping out in any way they could. In the Gilded Age, women took on roles in sweat shops alongside their children to supplement the family income.  They knew that for their marriage to work, they must be all in.

As I explain in Private Vows, the Founders never intended for government to have a role in family matters. As the Supreme Court said in 2015, marriage began in America as a purely private affair, and then morphed into what we have today. The Founders intended for people to have the freedom to make their own life decisions without government interference that is both unconstitutional and unconscionable. Thus, those millennials that seek to restore the sanctity of what they see as traditional marriage, they must seek the wisdom of the Founders, and join to rid themselves of the tyranny of government interference in their inalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness.

As I explain in America Solved,  government does not solve the problem; government is the problem. As I explain in Private Vows, everything the courts have said for the past 150 years about marital duties and rights is a blatant misinterpretation of what we call the common law. Nothing in the Constitution gives the state, and especially the federal government, the authority to force their views upon us when it comes to the family. Marriage under English law was a contract, and contracts are about voluntary action, and that is what our Founders prescribed.

Alan W. Cohen is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law. His books are available on Amazon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

By Alan W. Cohen

Presidential adviser Steve Bannon once commented that we Libertarians do not live in the real world. And, from some of the commentary coming out of Cato and other outlets, I can see why he might believe that. More on that later in the week.

Just as we do not believe in the murder of those unfortunate souls that lay beneath those 59 Tomahawk missiles that struck that Syrian airfield Thursday evening, we Libertarians believe in the Constitution first and foremost. Yet, just as murder must be justified in times of war, we must look past our immediate regrets for the President taking unilateral action to send a message to the world.

In 1916, an infamous German chemist convinced himself and the Kaiser that he could end the bloody stalemate at the trenches with a new weapon. The gas attacks that followed were as horrid as they were ineffective, just as the inventor of the machine gun had believed a quarter century before. Yet, while millions of young men died on Flanders Field and all across Europe after blindly going over the wall, it was the gas attacks, not the machine gun that stuck in the world’s collective consciousness. Poison gas was banned by all civilized nations, and it remains so today, just as they have banned torture. Hitler employed poison gas in his Final Solution. It is the weapon of cowards and barbarians, not to be tolerated. Ever.

Thus, when President Trump had a visceral reaction to the pictures of children going through that unspeakable torture, it was understandable. Yet, history is bigger than that. Barrack Obama appeared to morph into Neville Chamberlain in his passive approach to hostile extremism, the Iran Deal being his biggest contribution to receding American power. Just as Chamberlain believed you could make a deal with the Devil, Obama, Susan Rice and John Kerry were convinced they could deal with his minions, and were equally naive. As late as this January, Obama and his acolytes were praising themselves for ridding Syria of chemical weapons.  This is the world that Donald Trump inherited.

Thus, while just as Christians and Jews must go against their religious teachings to wage war, Libertarians must recognize there is an exception to every rule. Evil exists.  It is the job of the President to protect us from that evil. If Trump’s message has a positive impact on protecting our liberty, then we can justify that limited military response. But Rand Paul is right. We must not tread further. Be wary of the war mongers, and remember our past mistakes. Like the Constitution, it is a very delicate balance.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney and author. His most recent book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

With Gorsuch vote McCaskill Confirms She is Not Running for Re-election

By Alan W. Cohen

How would you like to be the Democrat senator in a state that has a veto proof majority Republican legislature, a newly minted Republican governor, and voted for the Republican for President by a double-digit margin?

Welcome to the world of Missouri senator Claire McCaskill. In 2012, McCaskill trounced Republican Todd Akin 54.7 percent to 39.2 percent, while Romney won the state by a margin of 53.8 to 44.4 percent. In an article she penned for Politico in 2015, McCaskill explained how she, in Nixon-est fashion (Richard, not Jay), was able to manipulate the process to run against who she believed to be the weakest opponent:

“I began to consider whether it would be useful to help Akin spread his message, keeping in mind that he was the weakest fundraiser out of the three potential nominees.

Akin’s track record made him my ideal opponent. Many of his votes in Congress contradicted his claim of being a fiscal conservative. While he opposed President Barack Obama’s authority to raise the debt limit, during the Bush administration, in 2004, he had voted to raise the limit by $800 billion. A vocal opponent of the Obama administration’s stimulus efforts, in 2001 Akin had voted in favor of a $25 billion stimulus package that mostly benefited large corporations and the wealthy. And he was a big earmarker: in one fiscal year he sponsored or cosponsored $14 million worth of pork and once sought $3.3 million in a special appropriation for a highway near nine acres he owned and was planning to develop. While opposing spending money for child nutrition programs, veterans’ health benefits, and disaster relief, he repeatedly voted to raise his own salary.

His extreme positions on social issues and ridiculous public statements made him anathema to many independent voters. He sponsored an amendment that would define life as beginning at conception, thereby outlawing common forms of birth control. He voted against repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation. When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, he stood on the House floor and asked for God’s help in keeping the nation from “socialized medicine.””

That was the past. In 2012, voters continued to adore their Democrat governor, Jay Nixon, who balanced out the state legislature that was becoming increasingly Republican. McCaskill, who battled cancer in 2016, will have no such ally this time around. That is why her vote to support the filibuster of Judge Gorsuch was so telling. She could easily have joined Joe Manchin of West Virginia, another Democrat senator from a Trump loving state. Her vote would have been meaningless in the overall scheme. Yet, she chose to join with her Trump hating colleagues to shown disdain for a moderate, highly qualified candidate. And, its not like she is worried about getting “primary-ed.” There is no Democrat that would challenge her, regardless of her vote. Her seat is vital to the Democrats. And, thus, McCaskill doesn’t have to worry about funding.

So Claire McCaskill, facing an embarrassing defeat, must be planning on retiring, leaving the Democrats to draft the once popular Jay Nixon to take on an unknown Republican opponent in a very red state.

Alan W. Cohen practiced law in the St. Louis area for more than 25 years before retiring. He is the author of several books, the most recent being Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce. It is available on Amazon.

Susan Rice and Unmasking: Where is the Democrats’ Moral Compass?

By Alan W. Cohen

My former party has lost its collective soul.

Those that know me know that I was once a Democrat party official at the township level and a Gary Hart delegate to the 1984 Missouri Democratic Convention. I worked on his campaign in both Missouri and Illinois. It was there that I learned of the complete lack of morality of my colleagues on the far left. During the Illinois primary, it was widely known that the Mondale people were buying votes in a very African American area, permitting them to vote for Jesse Jackson in the beauty contest, but voting exclusively for Mondale’s delegates.

I was a Bill Clinton supporter in 1992, but when it was discovered that he had committed perjury, I lost all confidence. I truly believed the impeachment was stupid, but was taken aback by my colleagues’ claims that lying about sex was somehow immune from perjury. By that time, I was a practicing attorney who routinely dealt with perjured testimony. Clinton’s claims, and the support of my former colleagues only fueled the belief of the average citizen that lying about sex, or anything to do with family, was perfectly acceptable. After all, the President did it, and he got away with it.

John Kennedy stood for patriotism. Robert Kennedy stood for fairness and moral thought. Ted Kennedy stood for win at all costs. Since Ted survived his car crash and indiscretion that would have thrown anyone else in jail, his way won out. It was Ted Kennedy who proposed the changes to our immigration policy in 1965 that would open the doors to more and more poor people who would go on welfare and vote Democrat. Never mind what it might do to the country. Win at all costs. Power at all costs. Create a nation of auto bots that will vote us in no matter what we do or say, who will protest whomever or whatever we oppose, and of course, vote us back into office without questioning our character. Pretty sweet.

By 1996, my party left me. That’s when I quit, and eventually became a Libertarian. Twenty years later, the Democrat Party has no soul. It is completely devoid of ethics, of any sense of right and wrong. My former colleagues in the media, who also joined because of Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein, have likewise lost their collective souls. I would urge them all to enter into some commune, or take that trip to Nepal. Or, better yet, seek repose in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

As I stated in my last blog, the media has left all semblance of fairness and jumped back into time a full century to the days of what we call Yellow Journalism. There is no truth, only our convictions. And damn it! Our convictions are right, regardless of the facts that parade before our eyes. Now comes Susan Rice, and serious allegations of civil liberties violations, violations that used to make us quiver and scream for our freedoms, freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. But mercy! It’s one of our own that stands accused, so we ignore the story completely, or better yet, as a CNN anchor claimed, that the story is just fake news. Never mind that Susan Rice admitted to the unmasking of a private citizen. We believe her when she says she routinely unmasked persons, but did not do it for political reasons, completely ignoring that Susan Rice was just a political operative. But so what? It’s just a Republican. Republicans, after all, have no rights. Right? Susan Rice acted for the greater good. Winning. Winning at all costs. Because that is the party that we have become.

Thank God that I no longer consider myself part of that We.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney and author. His latest book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available at Amazon.

 

 

 

Comey Confirms that Hillary the Evil Genius Behind the Trump/Russia Scandal

By Alan W. Cohen

Disgraced former FBI chief James Comey’s testimony confirms what I first posted more than a month ago, that Hillary Clinton is the Evil Genius behind the Trump-Russia Scandal. It was her campaign that paid for the Golden Showers Dossier, and convinced Comey it was authentic, so much so that the Obama Deep State used it to spy on then candidate Trump, Republican congressmen and their associates.

It reads like an old movie script. Many Republicans could not help but compare Hillary Clinton to the power mad Angela Lansbury character in the classic film, The Manchurian Candidate. Democrats, obviously, see it differently. Yet, the back story to the Russia Scandal reads like a movie that Rod Serling might write, similar to his Oscar winning script in Seven Days in May, or as a story line on House of Cards. So, here it is in beat sheet form:

  1. Power mad Secretary of State Hillary commits probable felony as she and her husband accumulate millions in “donations” and develop vast political machine to assure her run for the presidency.
  2. Hillary maintains access to intelligence from friendly administration to keep her abreast of vital information.
  3. Hillary cheats party opponent in primary using insider information, getting debate questions in advance from corrupt party official.
  4. Hillary orchestrates bribe of FBI agent in charge of her probe using loophole in campaign finance laws, having agent’s wife run for minor political office.
  5. Hillary orchestrates (as shown in Project Veritas investigation) dirty tricks to portray Republican opponent as violent by training operatives to infiltrate campaign rallies.
  6. Hillary’s husband has secret meeting with Attorney General in effort to weasel out of federal crimes, successfully avoids indictment.
  7. Hillary’s dirty tricks department creates a false dossier in attempt to imply her opponent is a Russian spy, successfully gets her friends in the FBI to begin an investigation.
  8. Because Hillary still has access to intelligence, she is aware of FBI’s attempts to get warrants to spy on her opponent, but, (as recently reported in Time Magazine), friendly administration  refuses to publicize the investigation, believing it unnecessary.
  9. Instead, Hillary’s allies in the media release an ancient video of opponent acting crudely, believing it would destroy his candidacy.
  10. Incredibly, Hillary’s Republican opponent survives media onslaught, and pulls off shocking upset.
  11. Undeterred, Hillary’s allies push the Russia story into the media, finally getting a disreputable website to publish it, permitting her allies in Congress to quote the false story in confirmation hearings.
  12. Hillary convinces friendly administration to unmask and leak communications of the incoming Republican administration in effort to further Russian story, knowing her allies in the media will ignore civil liberties violations to chase illusive, and false, Russian connection.
  13.  Hillary’s Democrat allies continue to push for investigation into false Russia story, despite a complete lack of evidence to support their claims, and, since they are the minority in Congress, call for special “independent” probe.
  14.  Hillary pushes allies in the media to undermine incoming administration so that she can make an amazing political comeback.  But, alas, that is season two.

Truth is stranger than fiction, but this truth (and trust me this beat sheet outline makes more sense than the current media narrative) will make a great movie someday. Perhaps, they could get Angela Lansbury to star. Now we need to find some 6-8 super wimp to play James Comey.

Alan W. Cohen is an author and former attorney. His most recent book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.

Past Blog Posts:

Islamist Victory in Antisemitic Public Relations Battle Spells Doom for Freedom, Completes Conquest of Europe

75 Notre Dame Students Embarrass Themselves, The University, Their Parents, and Especially America

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Trump Travel Ban Highlights Political Conflicts Inside American Judicial System

Syria Bombing: Why History Trumps Libertarian Beliefs

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

Shocker: Sanctuary Cities Now Claiming Federal Funding is an Entitlement

 

 

Journalistic Ethics is a Myth, Just Like in Any Other Business; Long Live Journalism

By Alan W. Cohen

Conservative commentator Sean Hannity says Journalism is dead. The truth is, however, it was never truly alive, at least not in the sense that journalists want the public to believe. From the beginning of our country, journalism, that is newspapers, were political instruments. Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison published what we now fall the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms in “friendly” newspapers. The election of 1800 was marred with false rumors published in similar friendly outlets. The election of 1824, certainly the most mean spirited in our history, was highlighted with a claim that Andrew Jackson’s wife was a bigamist. The turn of the 20th Century was the era of the muckrakers. These were the original investigative journalists, the high minded that saw the evils of the Gilded Age, with its sweat shops and child labor. Yet, the bottom line was that the business of journalism was to sell newspapers. Circulation increases advertising, and advertising revenue pays the bills.

These high minded ideals were painted on the hallowed halls of the nation’s first journalism school, where I am still a proud to have graduated. There I was indoctrinated in the myth of my new profession, that we were seekers of the truth, where ever that might lead. The real truth was that all publishers, owners of radio and television stations have a political agenda. They hire like minded journalists to preach their agenda to the masses of respective readers, listeners and viewers, not the truth mind you, but their version of the truth. Every story has an angle, a spin. Yet, like any good snake oil salesman, the job of the news outlet is to convince the world that their truth is unvarnished. We see it in their advertising. Channel X, your trusted name in news. The news you can count on. And so on.

Like many of my era. I was once a true believer, drawing inspiration from the muckraking work of Woodward and Bernstein, Yet, when I graduated from Mizzou in 1981, I entered a world completely unprepared for the truth about my new profession. There were no idealists out there, just people trying to make a living, doing anything and everything to please their bosses, including, and especially obeying their edicts as to story choice and placement. Anyone who violated those rules was sent packing.

We have returned to the era of Yellow Journalism, when the very wealthy publishers had no illusions of purity.  Their agenda was to create the news and to shape public opinion. Their goal is to create as many auto bots as possible to carry their message forward. We see that in politics with the likes of billionaire globalist George Soros who finances scores of agenda driven organizations of the far left and the libertarian leaning Koch brothers on the right.  Big Media is nothing more, using past reputation as fodder to convince the masses, attempting to destroy any that would oppose their views. Journalism used to be about protecting free speech. Now it is about protecting only the speech of those that agree and support your message. We see this scenario play out over and over again on the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore, and on college campuses across the nation, as  the media driven auto bots repeat the hate and intolerance while at the same time proclaiming themselves as completely right. At the same time, the media justifies their violence and destruction as protected protest.

Yet, true journalism lives on in the spirit of the muckrakers that did deep to uncover corruption, especially of those in power. Unfortunately, those are few and far between. What remains are the snake oil salesmen that pitch their truths to anyone who will listen. The worst of these are the sanctimonious who actually believe their version is pure. Ironically, if every reader, listener or viewer attended journalism school, they would know how to filter truth from the politically driven garbage that masquerades as news.

Alan W. Cohen is an attorney and author. His most recent book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce is available on Amazon.