The American Way

Greetings and salutations, it has been quite some time since I have been active in this blog. For the last two years, I have been working full time, going to graduate school full time and staying happily married fulltime. As funny as it may seem, keeping up an active blog and having three full time commitments did not “jive.” It was a difficult decision to put this project on hold, especially knowing that the conservative movement was growing rapidly. Please take a moment to review my resume and note that I am looking to find a new position in the conservative movement. Although I do not graduate until this August, I am committed to slowly bringing the blog back online!

Sincerely, Alex

My Resume PDF

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association & AARP have endured and thrived over time. Other organizations such as the Christian Coalition and AFL-CIO have had trouble.

What are some of the major considerations as to why some organizations are successful over time and others reach a threshold then fail?

There are many key reasons why organizations like the NRA, NAACP, and the AARP are so successful. One of these reasons is the “amendment foundation.” This is when an organization can claim an amendment as its own “jurisdiction.” Rescuing those whose rights the law attempts to circumvent, with respect to that amendment. There are twenty-six amendments and these three organizations claim many of the first ten.

The NRA is based on second amendment privileges but more than that and wrapped all around that is the NRA’s interests in protecting, promoting, and observing the first ten amendments otherwise known as common law. There are other keys factors in the continuing power of the NRA; the Second Amendment rights affect all people all of the time, whether they are supporters or critics each enjoys the rights.

The NAACP also relies on several amendments for its popularity, for its position, for its ongoing success, primarily amendment thirteen that abolished slavery in 1865, the eighth amendment; also include the equal protection clause of the Constitution found in the fourteenth amendment. The fifteenth amendment also comes in to play as it prevents the denial of rights based on race. Another key success factor for the NAACP is that it directly affects 30% of the population and indirectly involves everyone.

The AARP does not have an amendment stance, but does have major legislations and entitlements and promises made by politicians over the last 60 years. Oddly enough, the very people who benefit from these entitlements today are the people who passed the original documents, entitlements, etc. under the “New Deal.” The AARP, beginning in 2016, will directly affect over 50% of the population as far as receiving benefits and entitlements, because that is how many people will be eligible for these benefits. The other 50% of people are indirectly affected, policy wise, but directly in a very serious way, tax wise. In 2016, less than 50% of the people of the United States will be supporting more than 50% of the other people, so each worker must support one additional retiree. Can you live on half of what you earn now? Can your parents survive on half of what they make right now? After taxes, not before, after and it is coming in just six years.

Overall, these three organizations, and NRA, the NAACP, and the AARP have one other unique aspect and key factor in their success and longevity. These organizations did not have a central figurehead. Although many began with great champions, they continue to operate based on the historical memory, constitutional backing, and the direct and indirect influence of all citizens of the United States.

How can Christian worldviews help in sustaining such an organization?

The Christian worldview is strong in America; the will to use one’s Christian worldview in the accomplishing and in sustaining another organization is what Americans are unable to come to grips with. The success of any worldview requires sustained thought. The Americans, who do not share a Christian worldview, often feel threatened by a strong Christian and immediately moved to discount, isolate, or redefine that person in such a way as to make him or her powerless. Most Americans believe that politicians and politics are anti-Christian positions, so it shuns Christians from running for office and for those who would run for office their faith called into question. This is a very successful tactic for immoral America. Often the cry of the left, who are always Democrats, you cannot “legislate morality” therefore accept our legislation of immorality. They may not state it that succinctly, but it is what they mean and intend.

The Christian Coalition weakness begins with a population that will shun Christian politicians and activists based on previously discussed items. According to John C. Green, 38% of the population in the United States in 2004 was Republicans, and of those only 76% believe that “organized religious groups should stand up for beliefs” (American religious landscape, John C. Green, 2004). That equates to 29% of the population, and then only 39% of those people believe that there is “an importance of religion to political thinking” (Ibid). So less than 12% of the population might think it is okay to get involved in politics. What brings success to the Christian Coalition is its ability to play on the “heartstrings of Americans,” (appeal to the moral majority) this approach overshadowed by two main components. The Christian Coalition will accomplish either their goal or fail, and then, either way, the coalition falls apart. The second factor of failure occurs when a figurehead of the Christian Coalition falters, experiences a corrupted event, or in some way has some moral indiscretion. Many factors can bring down a figurehead and that it is one of the big weaknesses of any organization that strives to promote a living person. Once the leader is dead, they are incorruptible! (Think Jefferson, Lincoln, Marx, FDR, Kennedy, King, and so on)

The AFL CIO is a blue-collar industrial workers union for the most part, and definitely a Democrat machine. It represents a very small percent of workers. What brings success to these unions is only what the members’ dues turned into political capital can buy. Although these organizations have moved to keep any one living figurehead from rising to power, their tactics and relationships have negative connotations that most Americans find distasteful. In fact, the people who support unions are union members, family members, or indirectly benefit from unions (Democrats scratching the backs of Democrats). The debate on unions would require further research to stave off the “union label” lovers, so I will suspend further analysis at this time.

What solutions offer strength to organizations such as the Christian Coalition? When the next conservative movement builds, as the passions and issues form, champions must embrace that cause, so that should a particular individual fall from ranks, any other individual can step in and carry on. If the organization creates a bureaucracy of power and influence such that only key members know how to use that power and influence, then this cause is doomed from the start. Remember less than 12% of all Americans with a Christian worldview think its okay to get involved in politics! Redefining Christian perception and participation leads to a renewing of America.

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Amendment XI [Suits against a State (1795)]

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification, and Debt (1868)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied because of Race (1870)]

Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)

Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]

Amendment XIX [Women’s Right to Vote (1920)

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two-Term Limit on President (1951)]

Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]

Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]

Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]

Labor Unions are the special interest groups for the extortionists and racketeers of the 21st century, as such; they interact with political bosses that can increase their power or their coffers. The union’s political power is in direct proportion to its ability to shut down production.

Civil Rights Organizations are the special interest groups of the “oh, woe is me” crowd. As politically incorrect as it is to say, Civil Rights Organizations has nothing to do with everyone’s civil rights and everything to do with “certain groups” rights over individual rights. Their political power is in direct proportion to the amount of demonstrators they can raise to make a publicity event. This continues to play on the “America’s century old slavery guilt.” Those who enjoy this power often extort money from businesses and individuals with threat of public displays and protests of slander. Without political protection, this militant approach would be unacceptable.

Business Associations are the special interest group of stockholders and the wealthy; they develop political capital through donations of money and promises of private sector position once an elected official has carried out their task. Nothing more than political mercenary-ism for people who find being involved beneath themselves. Paying others to carry out the task, and thus masking identity, most of the funding of these associations is by the “George Soros” type.

These three groups are all legal entities that battle for superiority over one another. Often used as tools in a toolbox, these organizations fail the public in their original intent. Labor Unions were to turn back the tide of personal injury and brutality of industrialization, and it did, forced to evolve or become extinct we have the modern day thugs at the union halls. Civil Rights Organizations were to bring about racial equality in life and the work place and now uses a wedge and a thorn to keep the issue alive, for when the society completes the blending process (interracial marriage, racial healing, and coexistence in times of mutual suppression) the Civil Rights leaders will be without power. Business Associations are even more notorious, for they have anonymity with power, which lends itself to anarchy. Business Associations can fund people to burn cars in the name of the environment, chain themselves to logging equipment, drive boats in front of oil tankers, or force banks to give loans to unqualified people. These particular associations can move and change with a stroke of a pen, where as Labor Unions and Civil Rights Organizations have a passion of the heart that is not easily moved nor mended.

All three groups structured with the top down method of leadership. What is unusual, and more troubling than anything written above, is that these groups are all legacy structures established to be passed on to the heirs of its leaders, rather than to the people with the passion for the cause. This also indicates the desire to continue the cause and not resolve it. Each of these organizations has had its time and place. Each argues to live and not die; each argues for the others demise and its own right to live, but how many people see the benefit in dissolving them all. Everyone cries for democracy, but none wants to make it so, for the threat of the unknown overcomes their clear thought and turns the clouds in their minds into storms of resentment.

What do you think are the most important considerations when developing an organization that will function as a special interest advocacy group that will seek to influence policy and legislation? What strategies would you employ to attract members to this organization?

The purpose, action plan, and willing participants are the most important considerations. Developing a vision and a passion is one thing, putting it on paper and breathing life to it is another. Attracting members is critical and competing in the public sector is crowded and difficult, especially when someone else is doing the work, and others still benefit from the cause, whether they participate or not. This person is a “Free Rider,” (in the private sector it is welfare). Applying economic principles will help increase membership, in spite of “Free Riders,” but there is only X dollars to go around, so not every special interest is going to get the dollars. How do we compete for those special interest dollars?

First, the actors:
The Target is the decision maker; once the cause is successful, it forces a response and a result,
The Audience is the participants that will influence The Target to make a decision,
Voyeurs are free riders and just want to watch the excitement,
Bloggers are free riders and want to talk about the excitement,
Members will buy and support in small monetary ways (T-shirt, Mug, etc),
Donors will give money and typically avoid an outward display of interest,
Doers are the activists, some want to be paid, but all want to create the excitement,
Thinkers are the brains behind the scheme and are the ones who truly benefit from the cause in a form of huge dollars, influence, power, or all of these, and
Players are often big names that will join your group once you reach certain notoriety. These are the paid actors (whether direct cash or tax deduction) whose occupations may include film acting, directing, producing, TV, Radio, Congress, Politicians, Trust-babies, sports celebrities, other celebrities, etc).

Building a business plan around the cause would be paramount to success, because drawing in the Thinkers is critical. Thinkers appreciate and respond to a plan, not chaos, not tears, and not because the cause is “the right thing to do.” In addition, Thinkers want to win; they do not want to jeopardize their reputation when losing appears imminent. Thinkers want to associate with Players, so they have an additional motivation for the business plan to be solid in hopes of attending a “classy” dinner party. In conclusion, focusing on purpose, action, and willing participants (actors) are the first steps in identifying a viable special interest group.

This information delivered by Steyn is disturbing news at best. The trends identified by Steyn run in parallel with my own studies of the “social” and political changes commanded by “The Great Society.” All of these pieces of the puzzle show an “intelligent coincidence.” What some people see as coincidence, I see as “intelligence.”

The defeat of communism in the days prior to and following FDR may actually have been seeds of destruction. Our enemy learned that direct combat would not work on America and thus it began the slow road to ruin. Erosion will kill us. The ever-patient enemy has found our weaknesses; exploiting our prosperity to bankruptcy. Once the monetary system fails, with moral decay at an all time high, the blame America powers with have done their job. The media will proclaim, “See, I told you, America is rotten, corrupt, and its Christian morals and capitalist system are the reasons. We should embrace the French and Europeans approach.” Meanwhile, our 50.5% “dumb-ed” down population will buy it completely.

The federalization of education is perhaps the single most effective way to overthrow a republic. Even President Reagan was unable to de-regulate the Department of Education. The solution is complex and requires patience, will, and a forty-year plan. In essence, we need to return the 10th amendment to its rightful status, push power back to the governors of the states, decentralize education, taxes, and add an amendment for term limits on Senators, Congressman, and other positions of power in the civil service.

If America knew what was in the constitution perhaps she would defend it with the hearts and minds and passions of her founders. As guaranteed, the freedom of religion espouses no “federal” religion, but the states and territories at the time, perhaps as many as 22, had state religions. This allowed people of like mind and belief to gravitate to one another and live in peace and prosperity. Instead, America thinks that we have freedom from religion. My mom accuses me of wanting to “legislate” morality, and I respond by saying if we do not legislate morality then we are legislating immorality by default. (We have a three-day visitation limit.)

God will not be mocked! These are prophetic times that we live in. We are chosen by God to live here and now, so therefore, we have a purpose and a role to play. Let us play it with all are heart and will.

It’s the Demography, Stupid
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction. by MARK STEYN
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01 A.M. EST

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

RSS Feed is available on this site. This feature allows you to see an indicator in your browser telling you the status of the site. It is a great time saver. Locate the “favorites” section of your browser, and click on RSS Feed or ATOM.

Alex

Hello Friends & Family,
I have posted some of my favorite links from which I gather information. Please feel free to suggest additional Blogs or News sites to post. As the number increases, I will categorize these links, but for now, it is a free for all.
Enjoy, Alex

INTRODUCTION

Dick Morris states that “The New Prince” is based on a single premise: “If American politicians were truly pragmatic (interested in practical consequences when determining meaning, truth, or value[1]) and did what was really in their own best self-interest (regard for one’s own advantage, especially with disregard for others[2]), our political process would be a lot cleaner, more positive, nonpartisan (no bias, no emotional allegiance), and issue oriented.”[3] What if Morris’ premise were Machiavellian (subtle cunning, deceptive, and dishonest[4])?

TRULY PRAGMATIC

What is best for America? Not all politicians are good for America. Look at the corruption of Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, and William J. Jefferson to name a few. Don’t politicians already act with disregard for others? Aren’t they already behaving in a “self-interest” way? How are they re-elected? These men are full of “self-interest” and fully understand the consequences (there are none), and yet their political process is not “cleaner, more positive, nonpartisan, and issue oriented.”[5] Perhaps that is part of the problem, politicians becoming unemotional about their allegiances, so they change them at will, it matters not to them. This is the current state of affairs in Washington, DC.

America needs people who are emotionally allegiant to their cause, whether Democratic or Republican. When leaders step forward with purpose and a cause that is greater than them, the people will gather. Generating popularity “in and of itself” is deceptive; as that popularity will be used to manipulate “self-interests,” ideas, and programs that contradict the electorate. Implementing popular policy to bolster polls in response to unpopular policy is Machiavellian cover-up. To Morris, this premise means “eschewing ideologically faithful members of one’s own party to craft deals with the opposition, adopting your opponent’s most popular positions as your own, and taking care at all times to maintain a 50-percent approval rating. (”When [the president] dips below 50 percent,” Morris asserts, “he is functionally out of office.”)”[6]

Are American politicians expected to represent everyone’s interests? If so, then nothing would get done. “The most credible argument for Morris-style politics is half-a-loaf pragmatism: sure, you can stand by your beliefs in their purest form, but then you’ll lose, and the policies that result will be worse than compromise.”[7] Politicians are supposed to represent those who elect them; therefore, the “majority” of voters should influence the direction of America every voting cycle. Unfortunately, politicians do represent their own “self-interest,” staying in power, and that is why they succumb to the pressure of special interests, PACs, lobbyists and not to their electorate. The country moves in the direction that the money flows, and Morris is giving permission to politicians to go with the flow.

Are politicians ready for the practical consequences of truth? If so, they are already aware of the pragmatic effects and affects! Their strategy is Machiavellian in response to pragmatism.

How can anyone’s “self-interest” lead to a nonpartisan process? It defies its own definition. “As one proceeds through this small sausage of a book, it becomes horrifyingly clear that Morris believes his kind of politics is idealism because he cannot even conceive of any purpose for governing beyond power as an end in itself. He is not writing against the conventional notion of idealism; rather, he is writing in complete ignorance of it.”[8] If politicians only regard their own “self-interest,” a disregard for others, then how can they be unemotional with their beliefs? Once again, the secular world, in this case Morris, asks all Americans to shelf their worldview and replaces it with Morris’ Machiavellian view.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

With this book’s ten-year anniversary, come the revelations about the Clintons, their administration, and the truth behind the lies. Speaking of the Clinton Administration, of which Morris served for at least four years, it was said of Morris that he “seems to represent everything that’s wrong with our politics—lack of principle, disloyalty, obsession with polls, and sleazy personal behavior.”[9] Morris is hardly the example of The New Prince, or to be writing about one.

It comes as no surprise that this book has never been revised. Morris is rewriting history, skewing historical events, and redirecting our attention from the truth of matters in his own Machiavellian way. In his 1999 syndicated column, Morris defends Hillary suggesting that she was “raising money in NY for a campaign somewhere else.”[10] Why trust Morris, is it because he was successful? Does winning mean so much that Americans would turn from truth?

THE MEDIA’S ROLE: ILLUSIONIST

Do not ignore the media, foreign money, PAC money, special interests, zealots, right-wingers, left-wingers, and the human ego. These elements all contribute to American politics and always will. The fallen nature of man weighs in heavily here. The Bible says that “the tree is known by its fruit.”[11] The media’s agenda is control through propaganda, king-maker. For example; selective coverage, focusing on Obama’s strengths, combined with specific attacks on the oppositions’ voters, like with Joe the Plumber, shows the media’s partisanship, yet the public believes them to be nonpartisan.

Morris says that the “media doesn’t get it.”[12] No, they do get it. Morris conveniently ignores what he already knows. He states that “voters want to know more about how a candidate’s policies will affect them (and) are more interested in substance and issues.”[13] Yet poll after poll show just how misinformed voters are, and their attitude shows they don’t care.[14]

Even in 1999 the internet was overwhelmed with information on the candidates, but the focus has universally been to destroy the right: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Read Morris’ lists, page 47, of how Morris says Republican candidates won, and compare them with the tone and language Morris uses to describe how Democrats won.[15] Talk about partisan! For whom do Morris and the media provide coverage (an umbrella of protection): Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama? The media may not create the initial image of the candidate, but it sure can elevate one and destroy the other.

THE MACHIAVELLIAN WAY

The bias and partisanship in this book makes it a troubling study for an uninformed reader. Each of Morris’s chapters has a palpable partisan bias leading the reader to a less than truthful conclusion. Morris begins each chapter with a premise and then supports that premise with misinformation to draw its conclusion. The premise may be worth learning about and its conclusion is in theory accurate; however, the deliberate use of partisan bias as data is unforgivable, especially when teaching about being “pragmatic.” How Machiavellian?

INDEPENDENT BOOK REVIEW

The following excerpts are from a well conceived book review by Noemie Emery in 1999 on Morris’ The New Prince (1999). The words and analysis are telling, and it would be an injustice to “rewrite” them.

NICCOL MACHIAVELLI, expert, it seems, on all things political, is having a revival of late. He has received the attention of two current courtiers: Michael A. Ledeen, former advisor to President Reagan; and Dick Morris, the political consultant whose most notorious former client is the sitting president.

Both have written books that evoke Machiavelli–at least on their covers. Ledeen’s book is actually about Machiavelli, whose precepts he explains to a new generation. Morris’s book is all about Bill Clinton, and not incidentally about himself. Ledeen and Machiavelli care about governing, while Morris and Clinton care for campaigns. Ledeen cares about genuine strength, as measured in morale and in armies. Morris cares for its appearance, as measured in polls. To Ledeen, and to Machiavelli, the role of the leader is to secure the long-term interests of the state and its people.

Ledeen maintains, quoting Machiavelli. “It is wrong to behave ethically if in doing so you open the door to enemies who will destroy all possibility of an ethical world.” Thus Ledeen cites the decision of Jimmy Carter to rule out assassination as a method of dealing with terrorists, because Carter thought singling out one man for death was immoral. But then, the only tactic left becomes bombing raids, which kill many innocent people.[16]

(Ironically, Clinton made the same choice in response to Osama Bin Laden! The more analysis given to The New Prince, the more analysis is needed. Emery continues her brilliant review below.)

To Clinton and Morris, at least from the evidence of The New Prince, morals are relative, and war is simply politics by other means. Thus one can bomb to try to distract from a personal scandal; start a half-war in an effort to postpone an impeachment; and go to war because it may look, or feel, good. To Ledeen, one must strike an enemy with all the force needed to obtain the objective; to do less than that is immoral.

In the Washington Post of May 27, Morris outlined a Bosnia strategy, based on poll data. Instead of bombing from 20,000 feet or sending in ground troops, he suggested sending in helicopters at 400 feet, a strategy he thought more dangerous but also more effective. “The President made the sine qua non of American involvement that there would no casualties. But that’s misguided. Polls and past experience suggest the American people would accept 25 to 50 deaths.” And what are these “acceptable deaths”? Apparently the number the public is ready to swallow without starting to turn on the president. Even the master might retch. (So much for Pragmatism)

Nothing divides the Machiavelli of Ledeen’s understanding from the Machiavelli of Morris’s as much as corruption in office itself. To Ledeen and his mentor, it is an insidious poison, capable of dissolving the government enterprise. “Free enterprises … must relentlessly fight corruption,” Ledeen tells us, “and when improper actions are found, the malefactors must be quickly demoted or dismissed.” Morris, on the other hand, cares little if his Prince is waist-high in perdition. After all, “Once a politician is indicted … voters turn away from him, but not before.” (It’s nice to know that people may still have some standards.)

To the Machiavelli envisioned by Ledeen, the administration given to us by Clinton is the very model of the sickened state. To this Machiavelli, foreign and defense policies are of the highest importance, keys to the safety of the national enterprise. To Clinton, and apparently to Morris, they are mere extensions of domestic politics, and serve the same purpose: to rev up one’s ratings in the polls.

Clinton, on the other hand, has no adequate sense of a national interest and so thinks predominantly of his own. (And this is Morris’ point, be self-interested.) The only end to which he has ever been apt to use fear and power has been his political survival, and then so that he may go on to seek more approval. He is the epitome of the Ledeen-Machiavellian idea of the impotent leader, who wants to be loved, not feared.

Machiavelli would not be surprised. Start out wanting to be feared, by all the right people and you may well end up being loved in the bargain. Start out seeking love, even from enemies, and you wind up with nothing at all.[17]

CONCLUSION

We can see that since 2000, Morris has distanced himself from the Clintons, and even drifted back towards his origins in the Republican Party. Perhaps The New Prince was really a farewell, please don’t assassinate me book. The title should have read A Farewell to Pragmatism: How to avoid a funeral Machiavellian style. American politics becomes pragmatic and Christ-centered, only after Heaven arrives on earth.

American politics does not serve constituents; but rather, it serves special interests. American politics is corrupt, negative, and power oriented. The “best interests” of politicians have never been “their voters,” it has always been “their constituents” (those who empower, donors); what has changed about that? Nothing.

[1] www.Dictionary.com

[2] Ibid.

[3] Dick Morris, The New Prince (Los Angeles: Renaissance Books, 1999), xv.

[4] www.Dictionary.com

[5] Dick Morris, The New Prince xv.

[6] Jonathan Chait, review of The New Prince, by Dick Morris, American Prospect, v11 no. 1 (November 23, 1999) p. 76-7.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jonathan Alter, review of The New Prince, by Dick Morris, The Washington Monthly, v31 no. 7-8 (July/August 1999) p. 52-3.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Matthew 12: 33-37 NRSV

[12] Dick Morris, The New Prince, xv.

[13] Dick Morris, The New Prince, 46.

[14] Zogby Poll Questions at exit poll, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&feature=related

[15] Dick Morris, The New Prince, 47.

[16] Noemie Emery, review of The New Prince, by Dick Morris, National Review, v51 no. 14 (July 26, 1999) p. 54-5.

[17] Ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alter, Jonathan, review of The New Prince, by Dick Morris, The Washington Monthly, v31 no. 7-8 (July/August 1999) p. 52-3.

Chait, Jonathan, review of The New Prince, by Dick Morris, American Prospect, v11 no. 1 (November 23, 1999) p. 76-7.

Dictionary.com

Emery, Noemie, review of The New Prince, by Dick Morris, National Review, v51 no. 14 (July 26, 1999) p. 54-5.

Frank, Barney, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

Jefferson, William J., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson

Matthew 12: 33-37 NRSV

Morris, Dick, The New Prince (Los Angeles: Renaissance Books, 1999), xv.

Sharpton, Al, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

Zogby Poll, Questions at exit poll, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&feature=related