The Founders and General Welfare

Lawrence attorney William Skepnek, who also taught Honors Western Civilization at the University of Kansas from 1991 to 2010, took to the op-ed page of the Lawrence Journal-World today to "inform" readers about the Founders' views about the government helping people.

According to Skepnek, "From what some politicians are saying you’d think the makers of our nation were a bunch of bare-knuckled libertarians. A nation of hardy individuals and the Founding Fathers, this narrative goes, thought government an evil — the politicians say — because Americans don’t want help and feel no particular obligation to give it to others."

Where would politicians get the idea that the Founders believed government is evil? Maybe from reading The Federalist Papers. Or perhaps from reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense. "Society in every state is a blessing," Paine wrote, "but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

Skepnek then goes on to discuss "general welfare." "Article 8, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for 'the general Welfare of the United States,'” he wrote.

Given that the U.S. Constitution has just seven articles, it's obvious that neither Skepnek nor the editor caught the "Article 8" error. Skepnek meant Article I, Section 8. However, he deserves credit for referring to Article I, Section 8, which uses the verb "provide," instead of the Preamble, which uses the verb "promote" regarding the general welfare. "Provide" goes further than "promote."

However, Skepnek misinterprets the meaning of "general welfare." That term does not refer to programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and education (the word "education" does not appear in the Constitution). 

Webster’s Dictionary in 1828 offered two definitions for the word “welfare”:

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons. 2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

The words of the Founders make it clear that, by “welfare,” they meant the second definition, i.e., “applied to states.” By “general,” they meant “national.” According to Article III of the Articles of Confederation (1777), “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.” 

Note the similarities between the words used in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and Article III of the Articles of Confederation. In fact, in a January 21, 1792 letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, noted that the general welfare clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was copied from Article III of the Articles of Confederation. In that same letter, Madison wrote, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

The enumerated powers of Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Note that nothing resembling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, public education, farm subsidies, No Child Left Behind, or Obamacare can be found amongst those powers. There is also nothing in there about the federal government spending money on roads (with the exclusion of “post roads”) and bridges. In fact, the Constitutional Convention rejected an explicit attempt to authorize spending by the federal government for internal improvements.

As president, Madison vetoed a bill that authorized funding “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses.” In a June 16, 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, former President Thomas Jefferson expressed his support for Madison’s veto:

You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the Constitution which authorizes Congress “to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,” was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. I think the passage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident.

Would a strict and proper interpretation of the general welfare clause mean that no government can spend taxpayers’ dollars on bridges, roads, education, and social welfare programs? No. According to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that a state such as Massachusetts could enact Romneycare, on which socialists claim Obamacare was based, while other states would be free to go in other directions. As U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, “A single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel and social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

No biased media? Think again, Journal-World

According to a January 18 editorial entitled “Biased media? Think again” in the Lawrence Journal-World, “media haters” need to get over the notion that there is a liberal bias in the media. Their evidence to support this contention? “There is a president named Trump.”

The Journal-World suggests the media could have prevented a Trump presidency If they had released a dossier compiled by someone claiming to be a former British intelligence official alleging that the Russians had compromising information about Donald Trump. “If the mainstream media’s goal was to see Hillary Clinton elected, why didn’t the mainstream media report voraciously about the dossier and its allegations?” the editorial asks.

There’s a good reason the media didn’t do that: The media, which had access to the dossier for months prior to the election, failed to verify the allegations. Even Buzzfeed, which released the dossier after the election, acknowledged the dossier contained errors.

Imagine if the mainstream media had released an error-riddled dossier full of unverified information just before the election. Would the voters have elected Clinton, as the Journal-World suggests? Or would they have been further angered by yet another example of the media working to help Clinton? The Journal-World has apparently forgotten WikiLeaks showed us how members of the media were assisting Clinton and the Democrats behind the scenes. The many examples of this collusion include the following:

• As a contributor to CNN, Donna Brazile emailed members of the Clinton campaign to tip them off about a debate question concerning the death penalty.
• CNBC correspondent and New York Times contributor John Harwood, who, as a moderator in one of the Republican primary debates, characterized Trump’s campaign as “a comic-book version of a presidential campaign,” emailed John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, several times to offer advice. “Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general [election],” Harwood wrote in a May 8, 2015, email.
• New York Times reporter, Mark Leibovich, emailed Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri parts of an interview he did with Clinton, and then asked permission for the “option to use the following” portions. Palmieri offered editing suggestions, including that he cut a reference Clinton made to Sarah Palin and remove Clinton’s quote, “And gay rights has moved much faster than women’s rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon.” Palmieri ended one email: “Pleasure doing business!”
• In a January 13, 2015, email, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill wrote the following to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and others: “As discussed on our call, we are all in agreement that the time is right to place a story with a friendly journalist in the coming days that positions us a little more transparently while achieving the above goals. For something like this, especially in the absence of us teasing things out to others, we feel that it’s important to go with what is safe and what has worked in the past, and to a publication that will reach industry people for recruitment purposes. We have had a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed.”

 The Journal-World also notes the “mainstream media is not made up of political strategists but rather of journalists.” That’s not always true. Many “journalists” have been political strategists or are closely related to one. For example, George Stephanopoulos, anchor with ABC’s This Week, was a political strategist with Bill Clinton's 1992 U.S. presidential campaign and, later, a member of the Clinton administration. He has no degree in journalism.

Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's Meet the Press, is married to Kristian Denny Todd, "a veteran of numerous successful Democratic campaigns." After serving as senior communications strategist to U.S. Senator Jim Webb’s 2006 victory in Virginia, she "joined Steve Jarding and Jessica Vanden Berg in creating Maverick Strategies and Mail providing direct mail and consulting services for Democratic candidates and progressive causes." Chuck Todd himself worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). He didn’t earn a degree in journalism (or any other subject).

Chris Cuomo, co-host of CNN's New Day, is the brother of Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York. Their father, the late Mario Cuomo, was also a Democrat who served as governor of New York. Cuomo, who has no degree in journalism, used his family’s name to get into journalism, and often parrots Democratic Party talking points.
Last month CNN hired Laura Jarrett to report on the Trump Justice Department. Jarrett has little experience in journalism. However, her mother, Valerie Jarrett, was a senior adviser to Barack Obama.

The Journal-World itself is not free of liberal bias. It ran few, if any, pro-Trump opinion pieces during the weeks leading up to the November 8 election. Even its regular conservative writers, Charles Krauthammer and George Will, attacked Trump on a regular basis. The Journal-World made little effort to seek out and publish pro-Trump voices.

The Journal-World recently began running Connie Schultz’s syndicated column. Schultz regularly attacks Trump and Republicans in general. So does her husband, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who is a member of the Democratic leadership in the Senate. This relationship is not noted in her tagline, and few readers are aware of the fact that Schultz was forced to resign from The Cleveland Plain Dealer because of this conflict of interest.

This is not the first time the Journal-World has overlooked a conflict of interest. For years, Scott Rothschild served as the newspaper’s statehouse reporter. He simultaneously served as the president of a liberal organization in Topeka. Rothschild kept his job at the Journal-World even after he delivered a political message to the very lawmakers he was paid to cover.

The Journal-World also demonstrates a liberal bias by failing to report on certain stories or reluctantly reporting on these stories after national media did so first. For example, in April 2009 the Lawrence school district decided not to renew Tim Latham’s contract with the district. According to Latham, a history teacher, the director of human resources said he was not a good fit for the district. 

Why wasn’t Latham a good fit? According to Latham and several of his students, Latham’s conservative views had something to do with it. Jan Gentry, then assistant principal at Lawrence High School, seemed to have had several problems with Latham. According to Latham, Gentry called him into her office and said that his school-affiliated website was "too patriotic." The site had links to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the Air Force, the U.S. Army, and other military- and history-related sites. His site also said he wanted students to love their country.

Gentry also allegedly asked Latham about his “McCain-Plain” bumper sticker. "She said, 'I don't know how you could support that woman,'" Latham said. "That was the beginning of what was going on. They were trying to find a reason to get rid of me."

Latham appeared on the Fox News Channel on June 15, 2009, with two of his former students.NewsBusters, a website of the Media Research Center, included an item on Latham’s story four days earlier. Latham was also interviewed on Kansas City’s KCMO. However, the Journal-World didn’t report on Latham’s story until June 18, after the district reversed course and renewed Latham’s contract.

In early October 2013, I shared evidence with the Journal-World concerning an Obamacare “navigator” in Lawrence who had legal issues. I didn’t hear back from a reporter, so, after several days, I sent the evidence to The Daily Caller, which is a conservative website. The Journal-World didn’t report on the navigator’s outstanding arrest warrant until after story headlined The Drudge Report.

Another story currently being ignored by the Journal-World is the controversy associated with the San Francisco-based Pacific Educational Group (PEG). Since 2009, the Lawrence school district has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with PEG with the goal of closing the achievement gaps between white and minority students. (The Topeka school district more recently began working with PEG). This is a laudable goal. However, in addition to other school districts throughout the country finding PEG’s program to be ineffective, some commentators have argued that PEG promotes socialism and even racism. The Journal-World has yet to report on these negative aspects.

"Most journalists, I have found, aren't that bothered that the typical newsroom is so liberal," Dr. Timothy Groseclose, whose research has quantified the general leftward bias of the media, wrote in Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. "One reason is that they often don't realize how liberal they are. As Bernard Goldberg has noted, journalists are like fish.  Having lived their entire lives in water, they don't realize they're wet."

No biased media? Think again, Journal-World. You’re all wet.

Liberal Racism

I recently had  letter to the editor about Hillary Clinton published in the Lawrence Journal-World. As usual, liberals offering comments attacked the messenger instead of dealing with the message. One attack came from Bob Forer, a Lawrence attorney: "he is just pissed off because his boy trump is getting a huge ass whooping."

I sent Forer a message through Facebook to let him know that I am not a Trump supporter. My Facebook profile photo is of me with my wife, who happens to be Asian. Seeing that photo, Forer offered the following comment: 

I know guys like you who marry woman [sic] from other countries because of insecurities with woman from the modern world. Bug [sic] just because she is subservient to you gives you no right to abuse her. I hope the rumors i have heard are not true.

Now if a conservative offered such a comment, he would be immediately accused of racism. Forer knows nothing about my wife, yet saw that she is Asian and concluded that a.) she is not from the "modern world," b.) she is"subservient," and c.) I married someone from another country because of "insecurities."

Regarding a.), I was in my wife's country in October 2002, and saw that texting from more widespread there than it was here. In addition to cellphones, they have television, computers, and many other modern conveniences. Forer apparently has the idea that folks in my wife's country live like the Tasaday tribe.

Regarding b.), Anyone who knows my wife would have a good laugh over her being characterized as "subservient," i.e., "prepared to obey others unquestioningly."She serves in leadership roles at her company (which, incidentally, is a supplier of health information technology solutions and very much part of the "modern world"), her church, and other groups. Forer is an older, white gentleman who obviously holds on to ancient stereotypes about Asian women.

Regarding c.), far from being insecure, it took a great deal of courage to ask out this tall, beautiful, and intelligent woman. I'm fortunate that she said yes. 

Forer also threw out the scurrilous implication that I abuse my wife. That should demonstrate to all that he is not a decent human being.

Over the years, I have dealt with many liberals like Forer. Unable to offer a cogent argument, they immediately launch into personal attacks. Unfortunately, those attacks are often directed at my wife, who is an innocent bystander. Most of those attacks are similar to Forer's. I have had liberals say that my wife married me only because she wanted to escape poverty in her own country. In fact, she is a registered nurse who qualified to come to this country on her own during the early 1990s because of the nursing shortage in this country. There has also been the common charge that I had to get a wife from another country because "no American woman would married me." Note the racism inherent in that comment. It assumes that women from other countries are inferior to American women. (Again, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I notice liberals making the same "argument" regarding his wife.)

Interestingly, Forer offered comments again today, including this gem: "The racists crawl out of the woodwork to comment."

That has to be the ultimate in projection.

Stupid news director violates journalistic ethics

“Journalists cannot drop professional affiliation when it is convenient for them or for their cause,” Deni Elliott, executive director of the Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, wrote in FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics (September 1989). “People who wish to work on behalf of a particular cause should work in public relations or advocacy groups, not for the news media. Journalists should confine their public voices to their own professional arena.”

Unfortunately, some in the news media fail to follow this basic tenet of journalistic ethics. For example, Scott Rothschild, the former statehouse reporter for the Lawrence Journal-World, simultaneously served as the president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka (UUFT). In that role, Rothschild decided to make a political statement when his 128-member fellowship wrote a check to the local Topeka School Fund for $1,323, the amount it would have paid had its building been on the tax rolls.

The Jan/Feb 2003 issue of UU World: The Magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association quoted Rothschild concerning how UUFT decided to make this stand: “The decision wasn't a slam dunk, said member Scott Rothschild, who suggested the idea. ‘The social justice committee had a pretty thorough discussion about it. There was a lot of concern about separation of church and state and why we should help the schools when it was really up to the politicians. But in the end, people thought this was one year the funding situation was really bad so we should help out.’”

Apparently, no member of the Journal-World management team took issue with Rothschild’s ethical lapse. He continued to be a statehouse reporter--and report on political issues on which his organization had adopted positions—until 2014, when he assumed a public relations position with the Kansas Association of School Boards.

While UU World did not mention Rothschild’s position with the news media, R.J. Dickens, the news director of Wichita’s KCTU, has made no effort to hide his affiliation with the news media while promoting It's Time to Fix Stupid, a political action committee (PAC) that, according to Dickens, wants to form a national super-PAC to target “stupid” candidates around the country. Last month, It’s Time to Fix Stupid held an online poll to identify the stupidest legislator in Kansas. With the exception of “a box of rocks,” all the nominees in the poll were Republicans.

Several newspapers have quoted Dickens saying, “Kansas has the third-least-educated legislature in the country.” His source is a June 2011 report in The Chronicle of Education. “Arkansas has the least formally educated Statehouse, with 25 percent of its 135 legislators not having any college experience at all, compared with 8.7 percent of lawmakers nationwide,” The New York Times reported on the report. “It was followed by state legislatures in Montana (20 percent), Kansas (16 percent), South Dakota (16 percent) and Arizona (16 percent).”

The Chronicle also looked at the percentage of state lawmakers who have a bachelor's degree or higher. Of the 7,000-plus state legislators in America, 74.7% have a bachelor's degree or higher. In Kansas, the percentage is 68.6%. This percentage is higher than Arkansas (60.4%) and Montana (64.7%). However, it is also higher percentage than New Hampshire (53.4%), Maine (58%), Delaware and New Mexico (59.7%), South Dakota (60.9%), Nevada (65.1%), and Wyoming (66.7%).

When Dickens, as the executive director It's Time to Fix Stupid says, “Kansas has the third-least-educated legislature in the country,” he appears to be suggesting that those without any college education are stupid. In addition, he appears to believe a better-educated legislature would make Kansas a better-run state. But where is the evidence to support this belief?

Last December, 24/7 Wall St. published “The Best and Worst Run States in America: A Survey of All 50.” Kansas, which supposedly has the “third-least educated legislature,” ranked #21. Montana, which has the second-least educated legislature, narrowly missed the top 10 list of best-run states at #11. Wyoming, which has a lower percentage of legislators with a bachelor’s degree or higher than Kansas, is the second best-run state. South Dakota, which also has a lower percentage of legislators with a bachelor’s degree of higher than Kansas, also made the top 10. Nebraska is the best-run state. It has a slightly higher percentage of legislators with a bachelor’s degree than Kansas (68.9% vs. 68.6%).

The worst-run state is Illinois, where 81.9% of its legislators have a bachelor’s degree or higher. California, which has the highest percentage of legislators with a bachelor’s degree or higher at 89.9%, ranks #30 on the best-run state list. (California was ranked last the previous year.) New York, which has the fourth highest percentage of legislators with a bachelor’s degree or higher at 86.8%, ranks #33 on the best-run state list.

There does not appear to be a correlation between how well-run a state is and the education level of the legislators in that state. That would make Dickens’ argument a specious one.

Dickens is certainly not the first bitter liberal to claim that Kansas legislators are stupid simply because they don't share his liberal worldview. In November 1999, PitchWeekly reported on the comments of Robert McKnight, a political consultant and husband of Caroline McKnight, then the executive director of the lefitst MAINstream Coalition, before the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus. "I ran campaigns for 12 years before I went to Topeka,” McKnight said. “It was embarrassing! Have you gone and looked at these people who represent the state of Kansas? ... There are not enough smart women in politics, or the smart women aren't in politics. We've got a bunch of farmers up there. We've got a bunch of retired guys."

How odd that a farming state like Kansas would have legislators who know something about farming! And those retired guys? What do they know? Incidentally, my cousin, an Illinois farmer, was recently featured online discussing "variable-rate seeding.” I very much doubt McKnight could understand the discussion. In fact, he may not even understand his own field of public consultancy all that well. He ran for the Kansas House as a Democrat in 2010 and received just 38% of the vote.

Oh, and about that online poll concerning the “stupidest legislator in Kansas.” The “winner” was State Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook. Pilcher-Cook was a single mother working two jobs when she decided to go back to college. She graduated magna cum laude in 1993, and then went on to earn an MBA. She is better educated than Wilson and the vast majority of those who participated in his ridiculous poll.

Now Dickens might argue that earning college degrees does not mean that someone is intelligent. However, that argument would step on his point concerning Kansas having the "third-least-educated legislature in the country."

Dickens would be wise to stick to being a new director and confine his public voice to his own professional arena. He would look much less stupid if he did so.

Scott Stanford: Liar

Conservatives in Douglas County are well aware of the liberal bias exhibited by the Lawrence Journal-World (J-W). For many years, Scott Rothschild served as that newspaper’s Statehouse reporter. It didn’t seem to matter to J-W management that, at the very same time he was supposed to be providing objective reporting, he was also serving as the president of a liberal organization in Topeka. Last year, Rothschild left the J-W and accepted a position as a propagandist for the Kansas Association of School Boards. Unfortunately, he was replaced at the J-W by Peter Hancock, who, like Rothschild, is merely a Democratic Party operative with a byline.

What some conservatives may not be aware of is how the J-W’s liberal bias excludes many conservatives from sharing their opinions on the newspaper’s online forum. These conservatives essentially broke an unwritten forum rule, i.e., "posting while conservative." In the process, those left to comment on the J-W website make up a virtual Council of Coprophagia, in which liberals feed off the waste deposited by their fellow liberals.

I had this happen to me at the end of May. My account was suddenly gone and all the comments I had offered were removed as well. I reviewed the forum rules again to see if I may have violated one. However, I could not find any rule that I could have violated. I emailed Nick Gerik, the J-W’s digital editor, and asked him why my account was removed, but received no answer. Therefore, I can only speculate as to why my account was removed. I had written a letter to the editor about the Pacific Educational Group and USD 497 earlier in May, and then added more information in the comments section. I believe I may have raised questions that caused some in the local educational establishment a little discomfort. 

While J-W General Manager Scott Stanford was with the Steamboat Pilot & Today in Colorado, his wife, Kelly, was the director of curriculum and instruction at the Steamboat Springs school district. After the couple moved to Lawrence, Kelly took a position with Communities In Schools of Mid-America, Inc. Like the Pacific Educational Group, Danette Clark's education blog lists Communities in Schools as a liberal indoctrinating organization. In Texas, Clark has noted that the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development "partners with many liberal education organizations, including the Houston Annenberg Challenge, CES Small Schools Project, and Communities in Schools of Texas." Bill Ayers, the former Weather Underground terrorist and current education "expert," has been associated with both the Annenberg Challenge and the "small schools movement." As I noted in a blog item last year, Ayers is also closely associated with the "critical race theory" upon which Pacific Educational Group's program is based.

 I was on vacation for the beginning of June, so I dropped the issue for a while. But then I read a letter to the editor from an individual who bashed Kansas and said he was moving to California. I don't like when people denigrate my adopted state, so I responded with my own letter to the editor. After reading several personal attacks (which are violations of the forum rules) directed at me, I decided to contact the J-W’s general manager, Scott Stanford, on July 7. I will include the full exchange with Mr. Stanford so that I cannot be accused of taking his comments out of context:

Mr. Stanford: 

This comment was offered on your forum today by a David Carson: 

"More 'blah blah blah' from Kevin. In my 48 years I have never run across someone so arrogant, hateful, and unhappy."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jul/07/letter-kansas-not-so-bad/ 

I'm trying to figure out why comments such as this one are allowed to stand on your forum, yet I was booted from the forum after violating not a single one of the forum rules 

I have spoken with many conservatives in Lawrence over the past several years, and, like me, they believe that the J-W inconsistently enforces its forum rules. Conservatives are routinely kicked off of the forum, while liberals are allowed to violate the rules with impunity. Many conservatives say they simply refuse to comment on the forum since they are subjected to many personal attacks when they do so. 

There are also several forum users who are obviously violating the forum's rule regarding the use of actual names. These folks set up bogus Facebook accounts in order to start an account on the J-W forum. It's probably not a coincidence that these same users tend to be among the least civil. Among these users are "Lawrence Freeman," "Paul Beyer" (whose sole Facebook friend is John Ayo from Nigeria), and James Howlette (a comic book character).* 

It's your forum and your rules, so I suppose you can enforce them as you like. However, the inconsistent enforcement does not reflect well on your publication. 

Sincerely,
Kevin Groenhagen

I received a response the same day: 

Kevin: 

Thanks for your email and feedback. Enforcement of rules on the forum involves a fair amount of subjectivity. Our editors try to be fair and reasonable.

Unfortunately, history has proven that debating forum decisions is generally counter-productive. Instead, I encourage users who are unhappy with our forums to participate in other community forums that are moderated differently. 

I have passed along your note about Lawrence Freeman, Paul Beyer and James Howlette so that those fake users can be removed. 

Thanks again for your note and feedback.
 ----
Scott Stanford

My second email:

Thank you. 

I have asked your moderators to give me an explanation concerning why my account was terminated several weeks ago. I never heard a response. I have read the forum rules, and cannot see where I violated any of them. 

BTW, the user "Barb Gordon" has also set up a fake account at Facebook. See https://www.facebook.com/barbara.gordon.92798 

Like "James Howlette," Barb Gordon is a comic book figure, i.e., the alter ego of Batgirl. 

Kevin Groenhagen

I received no response to this message. After noticing the users with bogus names continued to have active accounts, I emailed Mr. Stanford the next day:

Mr. Stanford: 

"I have passed along your note about Lawrence Freeman, Paul Beyer and James Howlette so that those fake users can be removed." 

 Looks as if those three fake users, as well as Barb Gordon and Philipp Wannemaker (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009691412326&sk=friends), are still there. A bogus account is a violation of the forum rules:
 http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/oct/09/journal-world-websites-require-commenters-identify 

David Carson's personal attacks (which are explicitly against your forum rules) are also still there:
 http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jul/07/letter-kansas-not-so-bad/?letters_to_editor 

Meanwhile, I cannot post after following the forum rules. Again, the J-W seems to have one set of rules for liberal users and another set for conservative users. That does not reflect well on your publication and its employees. 

Sincerely,
Kevin Groenhagen

Mr. Stanford's final response to me:

Kevin: 

Thanks for your email. 

This isn't something we're going to debate. As you have noted before, it's our forum to moderate as we think best. 

I understand and accept your criticism of our publication and our employees. That criticism does not change any of our decisions. 

Best regards,

 ----
Scott Stanford

My final message to Mr. Stanford:

So you lied to me when you said the bogus accounts would be removed?

It’s been six days since Mr. Stanford wrote, "I have passed along your note about Lawrence Freeman, Paul Beyer and James Howlette so that those fake users can be removed." However, all those users, as well as Barb Gordon and Philipp Wannemaker, continue to have active accounts. Unless I am misreading the meaning of Mr. Stanford’s words, he clearly lied to me.

While Mr. Stanford does not appear to be a man of integrity, he did say something we conservatives should consider:  “I encourage users who are unhappy with our forums to participate in other community forums that are moderated differently.”

We have had the discussion before about having our own forum, but really haven’t moved on making that happen. Would it be beneficial to have our own forum, or is emailing to one another sufficient? Is there anyone who can set up a decent forum for us? If it costs a little to buy the software and host the forum, are there others who would join me in providing the funds to make it possible? Can we come up with a set of rules that, unlike the J-W’s, are consistently and uniformly enforced.

Any ideas?

* If you visit the Facebook pages of those I mentioned to Mr. Stanford, you will find that they have no listed friends or, as in the case of Paul Beyer, just a single friend, i.e., John Ayo from Nigeria. Perhaps Mr. Beyer is a bit like Jack Nicholson’s character in “About Schmidt,” where the only person he seemed able to talk to was a Tanzanian boy named Ndugu Umbo. However, I think Nicholson’s character would also have family members, fraternity brothers, former co-workers, etc., listed as friends. It appears to me that these individuals started bogus accounts on Facebook so that they could skirt the J-W’s new forum rules, which allows them to issue personal attacks against others anonymously.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: Decade 2

David Burress hates George W. Bush. In fact, in January 2003 he helped the far-left Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice raise funds by hosting a "Sorry-Ass State of the Union" house party. Sadly, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) appears to be a long-term affliction with some. Burress presents an example of this phenomenon. 

On February 26, the Lawrence Journal-World published the following letter from yours truly:

To the editor: 

In his Sunday column, Leonard Pitts writes the following: “…the wheels began to come off the Bush administration’s argument for invading Iraq, i.e., to find the weapons of mass destruction. But of course, there were no such weapons, an inconvenient truth to which Team Bush responded with a new, after-the-fact rationale. Now, the argument for war was and always had been the need to free the poor, suffering Iraqi people.” 

First, as noted by the New York Times last October, WMDs were found in Iraq. Of course, Pitts would argue that these were “old” WMDs. That may be the case. However, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy ALL of his WMDs. If he failed to do that, isn’t it likely that he failed to destroy newer WMDs as well? There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that Saddam sent WMDs to Syria prior to the invasion.* There is precedent for this since Saddam sent most of his air force to Iran prior to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. 

As far as the after-the-fact rationale, the Bush administration cited several rationales before the invasion. WMDs was one. However, freeing the Iraqi people was also a major rationale cited prior to the invasion. Pitts may have forgotten that the operation to remove Saddam from power was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The point of my letter was to point out that Leonard Pitts, the Pulitzer-prize-winning prevaricator, was not truthful when he wrote that no WMDs were found in Iraq and that the Bush administration then cam up with an after-the-fact rationale, i.e., freeing the Iraqi people. Note that I did not express an opinion regarding whether or not I believed it was a good thing to invade Iraq. I believe I merely presented the facts in a dispassionate manner.

Well, Burress, a retired KU professor and current president of the Ad Astra Institute of Kansas, took issue with my letter and offered what I suppose he considered a rebuttal:

To the editor: 

Connecting the dots in his evasive letter of Feb. 26, Kevin Groenhagen appears to be claiming that:

1. President Bush could have persuaded us to go to war against Iraq even if he had admitted that any WMDs left in Iraq were useless rusted hulks; and

2. The invasion of Iraq was a good idea because Bush had a secondary goal of “freedom for Iraq” — even though the actual result was instead a combination of chaos, anarchy, and warlordism. 

If that’s what Groenhagen means, his judgment is just plain wacko. If that’s not what he means, his letter makes no sense.

Of course, there was nothing evasive about my letter. It addressed facts that Burress could not refute. Regarding his two points, note that the first ignores the "dot" regarding the fact that there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that Saddam's newer WMDs went to Syria. Ignoring that "dot" is an actual example of evasiveness. Burress also implies that Bush knew beforehand that "any WMDs left in Iraq were useless rusted hulks," but didn't admit that. What Burress and others with BDS fail to acknowledge is that, just a few short months before the invasion, the Clinton administration argued that Saddam had WMDs and, thus, was "a clear and present danger at all times." In other words, if those on the left believe it was a lie to say Saddam had WMDs, then they must acknowledge that that lie originated with Bush's predecessor. Those with BDS also seem to forget that even those who opposed the invasion of Iraq, including Joe Wilson, believed Saddam had more than just WMDs that were "useless rusted hulks."

On Burress' second point, again, I never expressed an opinion regarding whether the invasion of Iraq was a good or bad idea. In other words, contrary to his claim in his final paragraph, I offered no judgment, wacko or otherwise.

Unfortunately, BDS can cause many, even those with Ph.D.'s, to lose their senses and ability to offer cogent arguments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Being limited to 250 words, I was unable to go into the evidence suggesting that Saddam's newer WMDs went to Syria prior to the invasion. Iraqi General Georges Sada has claimed that Iraq’s WMDs were flown to Syria prior to the invasion.

According to Sada, “On June 4, 2002, a three-mile-long irrigation dam, which had been drawing water from the Orontes River in the northwestern district of Zeyzoun, Syria, collapsed, inundating three small villages and destroying scores of homes…. As soon as word of the disaster was broadcast on television, help began arriving from all over the Middle East.”

Iraq was one of the countries to send aid to Syria. However, Sada claims that the Iraqi planes and trucks that traveled to Syria did not carry supplies for those in need. “Weapons and equipment were transferred both by land and by air,” Sada wrote. “The only aircraft available at the time were one Boeing 747 jumbo jet and a group of Boeing 727s. But this turned out to be the perfect solution to Saddam’s problem. Who would suspect commercial airliners of carrying deadly toxins and contraband technology out of the country? So the planes were quickly reconfigured.”[1]

Indeed, according to Agence France Presse (AFP) on June 9, 2002, “Iraq said Sunday it has sent 20 planeloads of humanitarian assistance to Syria to help victims of Tuesday’s Zeyzoun dam collapse in the north of the neighbouring country.” AFP noted that Iraq would send foodstuffs, pharmaceutical products, and “teams of specialised doctors, surgeons and chemists to Syria.”[2]

Satellite imagery also picked up unusual activity on the Iraq-Syria border before and during the invasion. James R. Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2003, has said U.S. intelligence tracked a large number of vehicles, mostly civilian trucks, moving from Iraq into Syria. Clapper suggested the trucks may have contained materiel related to Iraq’s WMD programs.[3]

In a January 5, 2004 letter to Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who had defected from Syria to Western Europe, said he knew of three sites in Syria where Iraq’s WMDs were kept. One of those sites was a series on tunnels under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. Reportedly, the tunnels were part of an underground factory built by North Korea for producing a Syrian version of the Scud missile.[4] Interestingly, al-Baida is located near the Zeyzoun dam.

That same month, David Kay, who had recently resigned as the head of the Iraqi Survey Group, said, “[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”[5]

---

[1] Georges Sada, Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein, p. 259.

[2] http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/ACOS-64BRQW?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=syr

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/iraq/main580883.shtml

[4] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39182

[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html