Reversing the Muslim Tide

In the days following the horrific slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by radical Islamists in Paris, small groups of Syrian refugees have been  detained in unlikely ports of entry throughout the western hemisphere.  Eleven Syrian refugees, traveling with fake passports, were detained in Paraguay; 5 Syrians, traveling with stolen Greek passports, were arrested in Honduras; 3 Syrian men, traveling with fake Greek passports, were arrested on the Caribbean Island of St. Maarten after traveling through Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti; and 8 Syrians were arrested after making it as far as the INS border checkpoint at Laredo, Texas,

Is it my imagination, or is there a pattern developing here?  Is it pure coincidence that so many Syrians were detained in unlikely western hemisphere locations while trying to enter the U.S. illegally?  Could it be that they were acting under orders from ISIS to make their way into the U.S. for purposes of committing acts of terrorism?  And if these four insurgencies were detected, how many others went undetected?

In the meantime, Barack Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Islamic refugees per year has drawn strong opposition across the country.  While Republican presidential candidates argue that the 10,000 Syrian refugees now destined for resettlement should be barred from entering the U.S. until a fail-safe vetting formula can be developed, Democrats argue that U.S. immigration officials should simply trust the refugees to answer truthfully when asked whether or not they represent an existential threat to the American people.

In light of a great many vicious terror attacks, both here and abroad, the American people are understandable frightened and are unwilling to accept additional large numbers of Muslims into our country.  Unfortunately, members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, fail to recognize that the question of whether or not to admit additional Muslims has already been decided in the negative.  What I have suggested in recent columns is that, if the intent of the current law is unclear, the Congress should rewrite sections of the Communist Control Act of 1954, a statute that has not been overturned by the courts and is still in force, to read as follows:

SEC. 1. PURPOSE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution. 


SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose it is to overthrow the government of the United States, or to force the political or religious conversion of its people by force or violence, or threats thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded.

This amendment to the Communist Control Act of 1954 would serve to reinforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 414, which effectually bars any and all Muslims from either entering or residing in the United States.  That law, otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, is still on the books.  And while it has not been enforced by recent administrations, Democrat or Republican, it is sufficient to protect the American people from attacks such as those carried out on September 11, 2001, and subsequent atrocities.

Chapter 2, Section 212, of the McCarran-Walter Act contains numerous provisions which bar  Muslims from legally entering or residing in the United States.  For example, Islam permits Islamic men to marry up to four wives.  And although fewer than 2% of Muslim men have multiple wives, the practice of polygamy is permitted under Islamic law.  Section 212(11) of the McCarran-Walter Act prohibits all aliens who are polygamists, or who practice polygamy, or who  advocate the practice of polygamy, from entering or residing in the United States.

Section 212(19) of the Act bars entry to any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.

Section 212(27) of the Act bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”

Section 212(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens who are anarchists, or who have at any time been  members of or affiliated with, any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

In addition, the McCarran-Walter Act contains provisions for a reporting system whereby all aliens are required to report their current address to the INS each year.  It also establishes a central index of aliens in the U.S. for use by security and enforcement agencies… much as Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have suggested.

Section 212 of the Act makes irrelevant any current debate or legislative proposal that would restrict or delay the entry of large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees.  Section 212 concludes by saying, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

In other words, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Muslims are prohibited from obtaining visas to enter or immigrate to the United States, and it gives Obama the authority to do exactly what the American people want him to do… i.e. suspend any further immigration of Muslim refugees to the United States.

Muslim immigration is prohibited under McCarran-Walter because the Koran and Sharia Law require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.  All those who subscribe to the Koran as their guiding principle, by definition, subscribe to Islam and its form of government.  Most liberals and Democrats insist that Muslims cannot be prohibited from entering the U.S. because Islam, as a religion, is a protected class under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.  However, Islam is not merely another religious denomination.  Islam is a complete social, political, economic, legal, judicial, and military system with a religious component.  As such, it is totally incompatible with principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Islam does not, and cannot, merit 1st Amendment protections.

When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was sent to President Harry Truman for his signature, he vetoed the bill.  However, his veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.  Speaking in support of a veto override, Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV), a principal author of the Act, said what any Republican of today might say.  He said, “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization, and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.  I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors.  However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary, are its deadly enemies.”

He concluded by saying, “Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain.  The solution to the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.  I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”

How prophetic!  The enemies of America have been highly successful in “riddling our system to pieces,” and never before has the “last flickering light of humanity” been in greater danger of being extinguished than it is today.  What is needed is not a temporary halt to immigration by the “hard-core, indigestible blocs” that now threaten us, but a reversal of the immigration that has taken place since the McCarran-Walter Act became law in 1953.  So long as radical Islamists insist upon achieving world domination through acts of unspeakable violence, and so long as so-called “moderate” Muslims merely look on as bystanders, peace-loving peoples must insist that Muslims settle their age-old differences in total isolation, in their own barren lands.

If and when a new immigration bill comes before Congress for a veto override, Republicans would be well advised to resurrect the wise counsel of their 1953 colleague, Pat McCarran.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.





Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Obama Must Go

As one who had never felt as though George H.W. Bush was a man of presidential caliber and, if nominated and elected, would be a one-term president, I was more than happy to serve as deputy campaign manager in the presidential exploratory committee of former White House Chief of Staff, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had a far more impressive resume than Bush and was a far more capable, competent, and decisive leader.

Unfortunately, the combined efforts of conservatives were unable to deny Bush the nomination and, as predicted, he was no match for the Democratic congressional leadership.  He allowed himself to be lured into a political trap by the Democrats in which he reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge and was defeated for reelection in 1992.  His poor performance in office caused me to write what was the first of many “Must Go” columns titled, “George Bush Must Go.”

The “George Bush Must Go” column was followed in subsequent years by columns suggesting that Senator Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor “must go.”  However, lest I be accused of rejecting only members of my own party from positions of power and influence, I should point out that I have also called for the resignation or impeachment of former Attorney General Eric Holder.  But now it’s Barack Obama’s turn.

In a November 14 column for the New York Post, columnist Michael Goodwin assessed Barack Obama’s approach to the war against radical Islam.  He said, “In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple.  It is the ultimate zero-sum contest… you win or you lose.”  True, but that’s not how Barack Obama sees things.  In his childlike world view he sees things not as they really are, but only as he wishes them to be.  As Goodwin describes it, “President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is.  He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure.  If nuances were bombs, the Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

“He refuses to say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims.  He rejects the word ‘war,’ even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world.  He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is ‘leading from behind.’  He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and calls the Islamic State the ‘jayvee team,’ even as it was beginning to create a caliphate.  Having long ago identified American power as a problem, he continues to slash the military as the enemy expands its reach.  In a globalized era, the Obama doctrine smacks of cowardly retreat and fanciful isolation.”

Goodwin reminds us that, in an accident of timing that demonstrates his profound cluelessness, Obama expressed his view of the current status of ISIS in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos just hours before radical Islamists staged a bloody attack on Paris.  He said, “I don’t think they’re gaining strength.  What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them.  They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.   They’ll come in, (then) they’ll leave.  But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”

The interview was aired at approximately 8:00 AM (EST) on Friday, November 13, on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”  The first bomb exploded outside the Stade de France, a football stadium north of Paris, at 9:16 PM Paris time (3:16 PM Washington time), followed almost immediately by volleys of gunfire and explosions at the Bataclan Concert Hall, the Le Carillon Restaurant, the Le Petit Cambodge Restaurant, and two other locations in Paris.  In a matter of minutes, 132 innocent people were killed and 350 others were wounded by Islamic terrorists.

The coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris began just 7 hours and 16 minutes after Obama declared ISIS to be “contained.”  Even as he pontificated for the TV audience, the terrorists were likely pacing the floor in their rented safe-houses, inspecting their AK-47s and their Kalashnikovs, loading ammo clips, and making last minute adjustments to their suicide belts.

It was the most deadly attack on Paris by enemy forces since World War II, prompting French President Francois Hollande to condemn the attacks as an “act of war,” vowing that France will be “merciless toward the barbarians of the Islamic State group.”  He said, “We will lead the fight and we will be ruthless.”  Sadly, those are the words we expect to hear from Barack Obama.

Goodwin concluded, “The time has run out for half measures and kicking the can down the road.  The enemy must be destroyed on the battlefield before there can be any hope of peace.  If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign.  Those are the only options and it is his duty to decide.”

Yes, Goodwin is correct in his call for Obama’s resignation.  But is it even remotely possible that he… addicted as he is to the narcotic of holding power… would even consider the possibility of resignation?  Unlike the Nixon example, wherein Republican congressional leaders… Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA), Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and House Minority Leader John Rhodes (R-AZ)… went to the White House for the purpose of informing Nixon that his support in Congress had all but evaporated and that, if he chose to fight impeachment, there was not sufficient support in the U.S. Senate to avoid conviction and removal.

Is there a man or woman alive who can honestly visualize their Democratic counterparts of today… Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)… going to the White House to tell Obama that his presidency is over and that he must resign to avoid impeachment?  Let’s face it.  The sort of patriotism that Republican leaders have demonstrated over and over again… e.g. Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc… just does not exist in the Democratic Party.  The desire to put the country’s best interests ahead of party interests is just not present in the Democratic DNA.

At the outset of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, every one of the 45 Senate Democrats went to the well of the Senate, raised their right hands, and swore: “I solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, now pending, that I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.  So help me God.”  Yet, every one of those 45 Democrats made that solemn promise to God, knowing that they intended to violate that oath.  In spite of mountains of irrefutable evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Clinton’s part, every one of the 45 Democrat senators voted to acquit.  The only member of the U.S. Senate to be seriously punished for voting “not proven,” in spite of irrefutable evidence that Clinton had perjured himself before a federal judge, was Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was turned out of office in a primary election by Republican voters.

And while impeachment is the most logical solution to the problem presented by Obama, it is clear that, if Republicans had the stomach to impeach Barack Obama, who has to his credit a long list of impeachable offenses, would they not already have done so at some time since January 20, 2009?  The fact is, Barack Obama continues to serve for no other reason than the color of his skin.  As a black man, he relies on the collective guilt of white liberals to engage in whatever “high crimes and misdemeanors” he feels are necessary to his political agenda.  It is indisputable that, if he were a white man, he would have been removed from office long ago.

The one remaining alternative is for the military to remove him… non-violently, if possible; by force, if necessary.  The Framers created a constitutional republic in which the military was, by design, made subservient to the civilian branches of government.  However, Thomas Jefferson knew that there were no guarantees where governments instituted by men were concerned.  In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, in referring to the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he wrote, “… that to secure these rights, governments are institutes among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”

Inasmuch as Barack Obama has been, from the first day of his administration, destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and since he has repeatedly violated his oath of office by failing to “faithfully execute” the office of President of the United States, the American people are left with no alternative but to bring an abrupt end to his presidency, even at this late date.  And since congressional Republicans lack the courage to impeach him and leaders of his own party demonstrate insufficient love of country to call for his resignation, it is left to our military leaders to advise him that it is time for him to do the honorable thing.

If the joint chiefs of staff were to request an audience with Obama, accompanied by a delegation of the most highly respected retired flag and general officers… such as General Tommy Franks, General Paul Vallely, General Stanley McChrystal, and General Ray Odierno… to remind him that, inasmuch as he no longer enjoys the loyalty and the respect of members of the military services, from the top generals and admirals down to the lowest of enlisted ranks, he should summon up the courage to do what is in the best interests of the nation and its people.

If we were to judge our 44 presidents by their failures and their accomplishments, several would receive very low grades.  Barack Obama would be the only one to receive a grade of less than zero.  He has been, by far, the worst president in American history.  And if we stop to consider the damage that has been done, globally, by radical Islam in just a matter of months, imagine the damage that an embittered Obama can be expected to do in the remaining 14 months of his presidency.  For the good of the people, he should be forced to resign.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.






Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

The Red Guards of Mizzou

During the months of May and June 1966, the Communist Central Committee of the Peoples Republic of China formed cadres of radical students called the Red Guards.  In a document titled the “Sixteen Articles,” outlining the role that university students would be asked to play in the Cultural Revolution, the students were ordered to attack the “Four Olds” of Chinese society… i.e., old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas.

However, the attacks on Chinese culture soon devolved into attacks on the Chinese people.  And although the “Sixteen Articles” stipulated that non-violent persuasion, rather than force, was to be used to achieve the goals of the Cultural Revolution, officials in positions of authority, as well as perceived “bourgeois elements,” suffered physical and psychological attacks.  Many were ousted from teaching and administrative duties at colleges and universities and assigned menial tasks such as sweeping streets and cleaning public toilets… the sort of tasks that senior party officials believed would allow them to contemplate their “past mistakes.”

Now that University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin have been forced from office by a rag-tag mob of radical left faculty and liberal students, black and white, one wonders where they will be sent and what tasks the “Red Guards of Mizzou” will assign them.   Will we find them mucking-out stalls and shoveling manure in the Animal Husbandry barns at the College of Agriculture?  If so, their public humiliation could not be any greater than they have already suffered by meekly yielding to radical student demands.

The most visible faculty member in the mob at Mizzou has been communications professor Melissa Click.  When professor Click climbed out of bed on the morning of November 9, she could never have imagined that, by sundown, her blazing eyes and frizzy carrot-red hair would become the worldwide symbol of leftist intolerance, just as the skull and crossbones has become the international symbol for poisonous substances.  As a Mizzou alumnus, having studied engineering just a stone’s throw from the highly regarded Missouri School of Journalism, just beyond the iconic columns, I am greatly embarrassed that my alma mater is now identified in the minds of many non-Missourians by the inconceivable image of a radical left journalism professor calling for “muscle” to help suppress freedom of the press in a campus uprising.

Along with the resignation of President Tim Wolfe and other demands too outlandish to mention, the radical students demanded that he write a letter of apology to the concerned students in which he acknowledged his “white male privilege.”  They demanded an amendment to university hiring policies requiring that all future presidents and chancellors be selected by a “collective of students, staff, and faculty of diverse backgrounds.”

They demanded that the university create and enforce a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum,” mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administrators throughout all campus departments.  The racial awareness curriculum would be “vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.”  Although it was not included in their demands, one can only assume that, in time, the students engaged in the vetting, maintenance, and oversight of the racial awareness program would demand salaries equal to those of faculty and staff.

Given that most of those involved in the campus uprising are majoring in make-believe subjects such as Underwater Basket-Weaving or Playground Supervision, their daily study routines would not be impacted by such foolishness.  However, what about those students studying Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, or Engineering?  Would they be required to forego subject matter essential to their professional development in order to satisfy the racial demands of a small group of students whose motivation for being on campus is questionable, at best?

The students demanded that, by academic year 2017-18, the university increase the percentage of  black faculty and staff to 10%.  They also demanded that, prior to May 1, 2016, the university develop a strategic 10-year plan aimed at “increasing retention rates for marginalized students.”  In other words, a mob of students with IQs smaller than their hat size, spouting political ideology taken straight out of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, are insisting that a major institution of higher learning develop a 10-year plan to retain students who have neither the ambition, the self-discipline, nor the brain-power to merit their presence on a college or university campus.

The absurdity of the students’ demands was followed by an even greater absurdity.  On the day following the resignations, the Mizzou campus police published a statement under the subject heading: Reporting Hateful and/or Hurtful Speech.  The statement read:  “To continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe, the MU Police Department (MUPD) is asking individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions to:

  • Call the police immediately at 573-882-7201.  (In an emergency situation, dial 911.)
  • Give the communication operator a summary of the incident, including location.
  • Provide a detailed description of the individual(s) involved.
  • Provide a license plate and vehicle descriptions (if appropriate).
  • If possible, and if it can be done safely, take a photo of the individual(s) with your cell phone.

The MUPD release raises some interesting questions:  For example, will the MUPD hate-speech crackdown create a massive increase in demand for a long distance lip-reading curriculum?  And would the act of eating a large slice of watermelon on a sidewalk in front of a black fraternity or sorority merit a 911 call, or would a call to 573-882-7201 be sufficient?

The entire affair has been very poorly handled by faculty and administrators.  Instead of yielding to the rabble on the Mizzou campus, the Missouri Board of Curators should have refused to accept the resignations of the University’s top administrators.  Instead, they should have fired all faculty members who participated in the uprising and sent every student who participated in the outrage back to their parents for recycling and attitude adjustment… and yes, that includes all thirty-two of the football players who threatened to go on strike.  After all, their season is already ruined, and as poorly as they’ve performed on the playing field, they can easily be replaced.

In February 1970, Soviet KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov decided that he could no longer live under the repressive policies of the Kremlin, the same repressive policies now so highly favored by American liberals and Democrats.  Disguised in a beard and a wig, Bezmenov joined a tour group and eventually made his way to the U.S. and Canada.

In extensive interviews with U.S. intelligence, Bezmenov described the ideological subversion that had been ongoing in the U.S. for decades.  He said, “What (ideological subversion) basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite the abundance of information (available to them), no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

“It is a great brainwashing process which goes very slowly and is divided into four basic stages:  The first (is) demoralization.  It takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation.  Why that many years?  Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy…  In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism…

“The result you can see.  Most of the people who graduated in the sixties… are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, the educational system.  You are stuck with them.  You cannot get rid of them.  They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.  You cannot change their minds even if you expose them to authentic information.  Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

He concluded by saying, “In other words, (in) these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.  To rid society of these people you need another fifteen or twenty years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of U.S. society.”

Yes, we are a “demoralized” nation.  The ideological subversion that Bezmenov described has descended like a fog over colleges and universities across the country.  With rare exceptions, such as Liberty University, Hillsdale College, and Grove City College, all of which are dedicated to teaching constitutional principles as the Framers intended, the colleges and universities of America are cesspools of ideological intolerance.  They are populated by the sort of “useful idiots” who led and participated in the effort to remove the top administrators of the University of Missouri, and to stifle free speech and freedom of the press in the process.  Like it or not, the Red Guards have arrived at nearly every college and university campus in America.  Worse yet, they are our children and grandchildren, the products of our public education system.  They are the future leaders of America; they are also neo-fascists.

Since it is impossible to hold a conversation of any depth with such undeveloped minds, perhaps they can understand the simple advice of CNN’s Don Lemon, who said, “College students should not be coddled by retreating into so-called ‘safe spaces’ because they’re afraid of having their feelings hurt.  If you’re afraid of having your feelings hurt, don’t leave your house…”  Amen!

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.




Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment