Bring Back the Draft

Thinking about many of today’s problems in the harsh light of a dystopian America becoming reality, the idea of bringing back the Draft came to mind.  In 1968, I was drafted by the Army to serve for two years and “volunteered” for four years in the Navy instead.  Before boot camp, I asked a cousin who had already served in the Army, what it was like.  His answer was something to the effect that he wouldn’t do it again for a million dollars but also wouldn’t trade the experience he had for the same amount of money.  It took me four years to fully understand what he had said.

Boot Camp

My vision for a New Draft would provide a two-year obligation for all residents of this country of a certain age, regardless of sex or physical readiness for combat.  This would not be the dreaded Draft of my youth that conscripted all 18-year-old males to military service, but a modified Draft system for all.  Your two-year debt to this country must be served or started any time between the ages of 18 and 26.  All 18 year-olds would owe two years of government based service.  Certain variations of service may be appropriate in specific situations.  For instance, those seeking careers in the medical professions could fulfill their obligations with residency or internships in VA hospitals or select under-served communities.  Other disciplines requiring advanced degrees and lengthy educations could have similar accommodation.  I would also foresee certain situations where this public service obligation could be served on a part time basis for a longer period where the total number of hours equated with a two-year full time commitment.

Our last experience with conscription (the Draft) was from 1940 to 1973, and included World War II, Korea, and Viet Nam.  This Draft was strictly a military conscription to serve our country in time of war.  You may call it a patriotic or civic duty or just a debt you owe for living in a free country; it is my opinion that government service should be part of everyone’s experience and not just a convenience to our military in time of war.

Under this New Draft as I will call it, you could serve your two years with any of dozens of positions.  Some of these positions would have to be created but all would benefit our society as a whole.  You could serve in the military, do clerical or administrative tasks, work on a construction crew fixing our infrastructure, assist veterans in a VA hospital, or work in any number of similar positions that would provide benefit to our nation and local communities.  All positions would be paid.  Many would provide some manner of career training with future employment opportunities when appropriate.  Some positions would be handled through private contractors working on special government projects like infrastructure improvements.  Many positions would include “3-hots and a cot” to use the old military parlance for meals and housing.

The idea for this article came from many places.  It was today however, prompted by a news story of a Kentucky community that has suffered from their inability to provide clean drinking water to their citizens.  Water treatment was minimal and the pipes delivering the water leaked about half of what entered.  The pipes were also a source of contamination.  The problem had been identified at least 50 years ago, but nothing has been done.  The EPA claims that the water in this system exceeds the limits for many carcinogens.  The same area also has high rates of varying cancers.

Martin County Kentucky Water Tanks

I thought, why, in the year 2018, when our government delivers aid to millions of needy individuals in foreign lands, can we not take care of our own.  Clean drinking water should be available to all of our nation’s citizens.  We need some common sense priorities in this country.  While most of us would agree with the importance of border security, certainly providing clean potable water to our nation should rank much higher on our list of priority expenditures than building a border wall.  A New Draft system could provide a source of labor for both a new water system for citizens like those in Kentucky and help with construction projects like a border wall.

In the Navy, we had the SEABEES.  Their name was a heterograph of the initials CB’s which stood for Construction Battalion.  Their motto was Seabees Can Do.  From personal experience, their motto was no BS.  Perhaps a similar but quasi-military organization, staffed with New Draft participants, encompassing a mobile construction force of engineers, designers, and construction personnel, could be put to the task of working on a list of domestic issues.  They could re-build water supplies, fix bridges in “out-of-the-way” America, and could be commandeered during natural disasters.

Navy Seabees (Construction Battalion) Can Do

The New Draft would put all participants through an evaluation system and would match skills and abilities with opportunities.  Earlier in this article, I used the term “residents” to identify who had an obligation under the New Draft and this was a conscious decision.  The New Draft could be used to provide a path to citizenship for many of the so-called “Dreamers” whose immigration status is uncertain.  There would be very few exemptions under the New Draft.  Severe physical and psychological problems would be identified and evaluated on an individual basis.  Certainly, bone spurs in the heels would not qualify for exemption as even wheelchair bound individuals would be eligible for certain Draft positions.  There would be no religious deferments, as accommodations would be made for some manner of public service compliant with religious beliefs.  Any individuals found to be unfit for the New Draft, would definitely never be permitted to own a firearm.

Athlete in center of picture missed the draft due to bone spurs

Another benefit of the New Draft would be for our military.  By many accounts, our experiment with an all-volunteer military has been a failure.  I recently watched a YouTube video interview of retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, a former Chief of Staff to Sec. of State Gen. Colin Powell, who painted a rather bleak picture of the current state of the military.  An all-encompassing public service New Draft implementation would seem to provide at least some impetus toward solving their personnel issues.

I was never a fan of the military conscription Draft of the Cold War, but I now find myself favoring an expanded public service Draft, my New Draft if you will.  As I neared this point in writing this article, I stumbled upon a 2012 piece in the Huffington Post titled, Is Now the Time for Mandatory National Service, by Karen M. Whitney, Ph.D., President of Clarion University.  Her point of view was similar to what you have read so far, but with a slight twist.  She thought that the two-year commitment should always be between the ages of 18 and 20 for everyone.  She foresaw the benefit of a two-year break between high school and college, some of which was based on the maturity levels of 20-year-old college freshmen versus 18-year-olds.

College Maturity at it's Finest

I can easily see a time when it would become necessary to reinstate our military draft.  The all-volunteer service we now use may not see us through any major conflict.  War is our destiny.  Our country has been at war for 223 of the last 240 years.  That’s less than 20 years of peace since 1776.  We are currently in the longest war in our nation’s history, surpassing the 234-month Vietnam debacle.  Our Orwellian future is here.  I would only hope that, if we find it necessary to bring back the Draft, we do so with a public service option as outlined here.

PEACE!

Picture taken by me at 2015 Jazz & Heritage Festival in New Orleans

What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say?

With somewhat clumsy grammar the 2nd Amendment states,

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Initial interpretations, prior to the 1980’s, held that the 2^nd Amendment granted militias, but not individuals, the right to own or carry a weapon.  Enter the NRA of the late 70’s where the organization I joined as a Boy Scout in the 50’s, made a dramatic departure from the promotion of gun safety and gun education, and ushered in a new era of ultra conservative thinking.  The original grassroots organization that prided itself on independence from large corporations was no more.  The bulk of its revenue now comes from the gun industry.  Essentially, the NRA is a front organization for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, (NSSF) located ironically in Newtown, CT.  The NSSF is supported by Sturm Ruger, Remington Outdoor*, Smith & Wesson, Glock, Sig Sauer, O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Savage, Springfield Armory, Beretta, etc.  These are the folks behind the NRA more than its membership.

*It should be noted that, at this writing, Remington Outdoor has filed for bankruptcy protection.  They cited declining sales after Sandy Hook, pending lawsuits, and other financial problems.

After the 1977, NRA convention there was an all-out push to change the existing interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment to equate individuals with militias.  When Ronald Regan was elected in 1980, the NRA saw a friend.  The Senate Judiciary Committee (Orrin Hatch) commissioned a report to “clarify” that the 2^nd Amendment really meant that individuals could have weapons for self-protection and the protection of personal freedoms.  The NRA simultaneously commissioned similar academic studies and, as Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise,” they came to the conclusion that individuals are the same as militias.

Gomer Pyle, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

In 2008, the Columbia v. Heller decision accepted the individual-rights point of view of the 2^nd Amendment and that interpretation became the law of the land.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion that, while militias of the 18^th century were para military groups, current interpretations could not allow individuals to own modern weaponry like tanks, RPG’s, and Stinger Missiles.  He held that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”  Scalia was of the opinion that hand guns were the proper weapon for self-defense in the home.  The suit before the Supreme Court was in response to the District of Columbia’s denial of a license for a handgun.

Supreme Court

Justice Scalia, perhaps fearing the Stinger/RPG type issue, specified that while the right to possess a firearm is an individual right, that right is not unlimited.  State bans on “assault rifles” or various semi-automatic rifles have been upheld in the courts.  It would seem that similar such bans at either the state or national levels would also be held to be legal.  The NSSF is fearful of just such a ban and has issued an industry fact sheet where it predicts doom and gloom for the industry.  Lost jobs, lost wages, lost tax revenue, etc., are all part of this picture.

NSSF Predictions of AWB on Economy
Click Image for Enlarged Detail

While either Congress or state legislatures may be where gun laws will be passed, the courts may end up being where the effectiveness any such legislation will be decided.  A Maryland assault weapon ban, passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook (Newtown, CT) shooting, has been upheld.  In that decision, the courts questioned the necessity of military style weapons for self-defense.  It was determined that there had never been a Maryland self-defense case where a military style weapon was used for such defense nor had a clip with more than 10 rounds been ever necessary.  They further noted that 21% of the massacres between 1982 and 2012 used such weapons and large capacity magazines were used in 50%.  They further held that by banning such military weapons, an individual’s right to self-protection was not being curtailed.

It should be noted that all of the cases supporting the ban of assault or military style weapons were handled below (appeals courts) the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has declined to hear these cases, so far.

Therefore, as we see, it is currently within the purview of lawmakers, both state and federal, to enact laws curtailing the sale and ownership of weapons that exceed the scope of the self-defense parameters.  Such laws have been held to not conflict with the liberties granted by the 2^nd Amendment.

The Problem with Identifying the term "Assault Weapon"

With all that said, how effective are such bans?  The 10 year Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004.  Reviews of gun violence statistics during that period have been cherry picked by both sides of the gun ban issue to “prove” differing points of view.  Having reviewed such reports my opinion is that the ban was largely ineffective.  It grandfathered in the hundreds of thousands of existing large magazines and banned rifles.  It only banned sales of semi-automatic rifles that met the “assault rifle” definition.  See the graphic above to see why this was not effective.

Christopher S. Koper regarding his study of the AWB of 1994

I personally don’t see any reason why a civilian NEEDS a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.  It is not needed for personal self-defense and it is generally outlawed for hunting.  A simple re-enactment of the 1994 AWB however, would not solve or even make a sizeable dent in the gun violence epidemic experienced in our schools and cities.  There were loopholes in the 1994 AWB big enough you could drive a tank through them.  To be effective in today’s environment, you would need an AWB that addresses the existing stockpiles of such weapons and clips.  You would need to address issues like Hellfire Triggers and Bump Stocks and any similar devices that work against the intent of removing high rate of fire weapons from our society.  You would need to better identify a banned weapon by function and not by cosmetics.

TEC-DC9 with 32 round clip
When fitted with a Hellfire Trigger, it fires much like an fully-automatic pistol

I personally believe in the 2^nd Amendment and the right of citizens to bear arms for personal protection, hunting, and for sport shooting.  While I believe a total and comprehensive semi-automatic long gun ban might have some minimal effect on our current gun violence problem, I feel controlling who is allowed to purchase/own any firearm, is where we need to put our efforts.  There is no easy fix.  No simple legislation will completely solve this issue.  We cannot however, sit back and continue to wring our hands and offer prayers and condolences.

There are ways in which smart legislative changes can make a difference.  We need to identify the smart way forward and press our legislature to make the appropriate and effective changes.  

For a more comprehensive analysis of my thoughts on reasonable gun control you can read:

Gun Control January 5, 2016

Reasonable Gun Restrictions, June 15, 2016

An Information Crisis; The Valentine’s Day School Massacre of 2018, February 24, 2018

A Nation Divided, Cannot Stand

The title above paraphrases Lincoln’s “A house divided” speech of 1858.  While Lincoln was addressing the issue of slavery and the national split on that topic, our nation once again finds itself divided.  We are currently divided by not only racial issues, but religious, economic, cultural, and social factors as well.  The question today is, can our nation now survive?

Colorized Photo of Abraham Lincoln

You can’t blame all of this on our newly elected president.  He just took advantage of what he astutely saw as a gridlocked congress and a nation already divided along many lines.  He saw an opening and exploited that weakness to his advantage.  He used fear as a political weapon.  He seems to have the blarney of a carnival barker.  He has used immigration (fear of job loss) and Second Amendment restrictions (fear of losing guns) to convince his core group that only with him at the helm, will they be safe.  Our great cultural divide is even greater than ever before.

During my lifetime, I have traveled by car across our nation at least a half a dozen times.  I have visited every state in America.  During my travels, I have met people from all manner of lifestyles and occupations.  My Miami neighborhood is like a small United Nations.  In this neighborhood, in addition to citizens several generations in this country, there are US citizens who are the first generation (naturalized) or second generations from France, Greece, Trinidad, Brazil, and Cuba.

National Melting Pot

While traveling, I have met waitresses who have never been beyond the borders of their own small town or community.  If you want to literally taste and experience middle America, try eating at a Cracker Barrel restaurant.  I have spoken to some of our current president's "favorite people" as in "I love the poorly-educated."  I have also had conversations with many of their counterparts on the other end of the socio-economic spectrum.  I have a friend on Facebook who is probably more centrist or Libertarian than any garden variety Republican.  He and I differ in several ways but we are still friends.

Inside a Cracker Barrel Restaurant

I would venture that all of the people mentioned above had some opinions that differed from my own, but we were still able to have civil conversations.  I have found within these conversations that, while we may have differing beliefs, there were still many points of agreement.  When given the opportunity, we could always find common ground with which to have a polite conversation.

My personal opinion is that we aren’t really that divided in our real interests and goals, we just don’t know any better because we aren’t listening anymore.  While we have access to more information than at any point in our history, we don’t have the time or inclination to listen to those whose opinions differ from our own.  We have become a nation of Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, Left Wing or Right Wing, red state or blue state, rural residents or urban dwellers, liberals and conservatives, Fox News or MSNBC watchers, northerners and southerners, etc.

Even with our widely diverse backgrounds, I believe that many of our goals are similar; where we differ is on the path to achieving those goals.  We all want a strong economy.  We would all like it if we had access to quality healthcare.  We would like all of our children to have a good education.  We would like everyone to have a decent home in which to live.  We would like everyone who wants a job to have a job.  We would all like lower taxes and more services.  We want our highways and bridges to be safe.  Our national parks should be preserved.  We all support our nation’s military and want it properly funded.  We want clean drinking water.  We would like to live without the threat of crime.  We all believe that Americans should have access to proper nutrition.  We abhor drug addiction and its negative effects on our society.  Most of us would like it if all our wants and needs could be satisfied without going deeper into debt.  These are common objectives but we have different priorities and ways to achieve those goals.  We may have our prejudices, but with a little effort, we should be able to find some common ground upon which to stand and have a meaningful dialogue to address our problems.

We Need a National Platform Addressing the Needs of All

Ours is a representative democracy in which our elected officials are supposed to implement the will of the people.  Toward that end, our democratic process allows those officials to discuss our societal issues and to work out solutions to our problems.  Where there are differing opinions, our leaders should be astute enough to work out compromises that, at a minimum, address these problems.  They should do this even if there is not universal acceptance of the solution.  Too often today, compromise is a term verboten.  In the vernacular, it has become, “my way or the highway.”

Special interest groups now have a disproportionate influence on our democracy.  In some cases, these groups are not even representing the “will of the people,” as was envisioned by the framers of our constitution.  They represent the will of the corporation and its ability to earn a greater profit.  In other instances, influence is distorted by the wealth of an individual who has a willingness to “purchase a bigger soap-box.”  By that I mean, if you are wealthy enough to have disposable income that you are willing to use to influence key politicians, you can buy as much influence as you can afford.

Our most recent debate on firearm regulations is a prime example.  Some polls showed public agreement in the 90+-percentile range favoring better background checks, but our representatives seem unable to make any substantive changes because a single organization objects to all change.  The NRA strikes such fear in politicians; they are paralyzed to the point of inaction.

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upheld the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment.  This one decision brought about the concept of “corporate personhood.”  This was perhaps one of the most egregious errors by the Supreme Court since its Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857.

While I don’t consider President Trump to be an especially bright individual, I do realize that he was able to identify a weakness in our democracy.  He was not only able to identify it, but he was also able to exploit it to become the president of the most powerful (our opinion) nation in the world.  Our democracy had come to a standstill.  Republicans and Democrats alike had buried their heads in the muck of financial greed and nothing of note was being accomplished.  Trump promised to “drain the swamp” and shake up the establishment.  To that end, for better or worse, there is no denying that things are different.  He found that people were so frustrated with their view of the economy they would put up with almost any other perceived personal fault to achieve at least something.

Saying the Dow Jones closed above 25,000 means absolutely nothing to an out of work carpenter not vested in the stock market.  His view of the economy is not the “happy days are here again” perspective of those with stock portfolios.  I recently saw a striking West Virginia schoolteacher interviewed who was working two jobs and whose family qualified for food stamps and WIC.  Those are people who don’t care if Donald Trump cheats on his wife, has affairs with models and Playboy bunnies, or even steers a few dollars to his businesses during his presidency.  Accusations of sexual impropriety now number around nineteen.

Twelve of the Nineteen Current Trump Accusers of Sexual Misconduct,
Does His Base Really Care?

They could probably care less if he does a few favors for his Russian friends.  All is forgiven if he just makes their lives a bit less miserable.  Even the evangelicals and extreme religious right would forgive the devil himself if the devil would outlaw abortions or support their other agendas.  To quote the character Verbal in Usual Suspects, aka Keyser Söze, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Kevin Spacey
Perhaps not the best of examples for a Trump comparison

Our current president has tapped into the anger of many people fed up with our government’s stagnation.  He has exploited their fear of job loss, fear of immigrants, fear of government, fear of Muslims, and has fanned the glowing embers of their racist beliefs.  President Trump’s major achievement has been to widen the chasm between the haves and have-nots.  Large corporations and the very wealthy are doing much better under Trump.  The middle class and below have been thrown crumbs and have had their Social Security and Medicare benefits threatened.

Xenophobia

While I don’t believe Americans are as divided as it would seem on the surface until there is another crisis or until something really changes in this administration, our future remains in doubt.  I watched a recent panel interview of gun owners who all had similar leanings and found out that even they had major issues with the gun debate amongst themselves.  Two basically said that it was their right under the Second Amendment to own a semi-automatic rifle designed for war while others thought that they would be willing to give up that right by considering the rights of the students whose lives were taken.  One of the gun owners asked the question, “I understand that you (addressing another panel member) WANT to have a military-style semi-automatic rifle, I just don’t understand why you NEED such a weapon.” 

Gun Owners Who Think Parkland Shooting to be Tipping Point

Most would agree that driving a slingshot dragster on a major highway at 200 mph might be fun, but that the needs and safety of others should be considered.  Many gun owners think it would be cool to own a shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon like an RPG, but perhaps understand why such ownership is outlawed.  What they don’t understand since they have been in civilian hands for years, why semi-automatic long guns should be restricted and perhaps outlawed.

Our nation is a melting pot of immigrants.  Even Native Americans migrated here across an ancient land bridge from Asia 13,000 years ago.  We are as diverse a nation as possibly exists elsewhere on this planet.  Some would even question, on religious grounds, the science that proves there was a land bridge and that there were humans that existed 13,000 years ago.

Our opinions, beliefs, cultural habits, educations, and living environments differ widely as well.  We live in crowded cities, small towns, or in sparsely populated rural areas.  As a nation with a collective purpose and common government, we are just a bit more than 240 years old.  Difficult topics like abortion will probably never find common ground or a solution acceptable to all citizens.  We are, however, a nation of laws by which we should all agree to live.

Nation of Laws

The pendulum of our political conscience has swung from our first African American president to our first Reality TV president.  If the 2018 mid-term elections provide a shift to the opposition party in the House, then this president will be held in check for the remainder of his term.  The damage he has already done will stand for the immediate future. 

I don’t foresee any major election reform on the horizon so our only recourse for change will be at the ballot box.  Russia and others will continue to attempt to influence our elections.  Individuals like President Trump will continue to exploit the weaknesses in our systems.  Wealthy individuals and large corporations will further their efforts to steer the national dialogue in directions favorable to increasing their share of the financial pie without consideration for the welfare of our nation.

Politicians will continue to do only those things they are forced to do that will get them re-elected.  Threats of voter backlash are the only things that will motivate them.  Our current crop of elected officials, with few exceptions, are more like Claude Rains’ portrayal of Senator Joe Paine than of Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff Smith, in the 1939 movie classic, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Claude Rains and Jimmy Stewart
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939 movie

We need to be more cautious in our acceptance of what we hear, read, and see.  Don’t re-post or share articles or information without first validating the source.  We need to be more tolerant of the views of others and we need to enter into meaningful dialogue without attacking or demeaning differing ideas.  Above all, we need to vote at every opportunity.  That vote should be a well-considered vote from an informed citizen.

For 40 years, voters in midterm elections have checked the White House by giving control of the House to the opposition party.

Let's Party

As Americans, we have all sorts of parties.  We have birthday parties, beach parties, retirement parties, New Year’s parties, surprise parties, cocktail parties, dinner parties, and we have political parties.  Why we call a group of government bureaucrats a “party” is beyond me.  I guess it’s like why we call a group of geese a “gaggle.”  We also call a group of apes a “shrewdness,” and a group of bears a “sleuth.”  Collective nouns for animals are fascinating.  Did you know that a group of asses is a “coffle,” but only when they are in a roped line?

A Murder of Crows

Getting back to our political parties, perhaps they would be better described as a political coffle.  They are certainly closer to a group of asses tied in a line than my idea of a party.  A “flange” of baboons runs a close second to a coffle of asses, but I still like my first choice.

Coffle of Asses

Coffle of Asses

We all know the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that make up our current two-party system.  We also know we usually have an independent or two.  Independents are not to be confused with the American Independent Party (AIP).  It seems that thousands of Californians in the 2016 election were confused and joined AIP which is actually the ultra-conservative segregationist party founded by George Wallace back in the 60’s.  These Californians thought they were registering as “independents.”  Political parties are so confusing.

In 1796 America, the party first began.  It was then that George Washington, who had no party affiliation, was to be replaced.  His vice president, John Adams, ran as a Federalist against Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican.  You see, Democrats and Republicans got along at one time since it is hard to argue with yourself.  Adams won the close election (71 to 68 in the Electoral College) and Jefferson, by the terms of the US Constitution, became his vice president.  Yes, back then, the runner-up became the vice president.  Just think of our Breaking News headlines today if we were dealing with President Donald Trump and Vice President Hillary Clinton.  The late night comedians would have a field day.

President Trump and Vice President Clinton???

Therefore, we had Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, the latter of which would drop the term Republican to become the Democratic Party.  Another split within the Democratic-Republicans was with the formation of the National Republican Party.  This latter group eventually became the Whig Party, which was a name derived from a derisory Scottish word “Whiggamore,” meaning horse thief.  The term Whig evolved over time to mean anyone of a rebellious nature or non-conformist. The Whigs opposed President Jackson who they referred to as “King Andrew” Jackson.

The Whigs and Democrats played seesaw with the presidency for a while before the Whigs self-destructed in 1853 over the issue of slavery.  Eventually the National Union Party formed and Abraham Lincoln was its president.  After Lincoln’s assassination Andrew Johnson became president and the party was renamed the Republican Party.  Personally, my favorite name for a political party was the Know Nothing Party (aka Native American Party & American Party).

This latter spin-off from the Whigs was xenophobic and hostile to immigration and believed that there was a “deep state” whose goal was to subvert civil and religious liberty.  This description of a minor party from 1855 sounds very familiar to our current 2018 political situation.  What modern day politician has a similar philosophy?  Hmm, what politician is someone who is xenophobic, anti-immigration, and paranoid?  Wait, don’t tell me, I know this one.  It’ll come to me.  Even the name, “Know Nothing” seems to fit.  Millard Fillmore was a member of the Know Nothings but kept his association secret.  Fillmore lost the election and the Know Nothings faded into history, or did they?

President Know Nothing