Are We There Yet?

When my children were still quite young, we regularly spent a week of our annual vacation with our families in St. Louis.  Needless to say, the 16-hour drive from our home on the Philadelphia Main Line was a long and tedious experience for our two young sons, who shared the back seat with their little sister.  Invariably, when we had covered only about half the distance between Philadelphia and St. Louis, we began to hear the plaintive question, “Are we there yet?”   

What brought that experience rushing back to mind was a July 12, 2016 column by David Brooks of the New York Times, titled, “Are We on the Path to National Ruin?”  In his column, Brooks wrote, “I never really understood how fascism could have come to Europe, but I think I understand better now.  You start with some fundamental historical transformation, like the Great Depression or the shift to an information economy.  A certain number of people are dispossessed.  They lose identity, self-respect and hope.

“They begin to base their sense of self-worth on their tribe, not their behavior.  They become mired in their resentments, spiraling deeper into the addiction of their own victimology.  They fall for politicians who lie about the source of their problems and about how they can surmount them.  Facts lose their meaning…”  Brooks concludes, “Once facts are unmoored, everything else is unmoored, too.  People who value humility and kindness in private life abandon those traits when they select leaders in the common sphere.  Hardened by a corrosive cynicism, they fall for morally deranged little showmen.  And then perhaps there’s a catalyzing event.”

As I read those words I couldn’t help but think that I have never read a more apt or a more devastating description of the Democratic Party, the wretched legacy it has created for itself, and the cancerous impact it has had on our American culture.  And what, I asked myself, could be the fearsome “catalyzing event” that Brooks foresaw? 

What Brooks foresaw in 2016 is now happening in Washington, DC, planned and implemented by truly evil men and women such as former CIA Director John Brennan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and hundreds of other co-conspirators and their socialist/communist fellow travelers.     

Writing for The Jewish Voice in their October 30, 2019, edition, Caroline Glick describes the vast transformation that has occurred in the Democrat Party during the past two decades… a transformation that has made us a vastly different country than we were prior to the year 2000.  She writes:

“Until 2000, the peaceful transition of power in the wake of elections was a feature of American democracy that everyone took for granted.  In 2000, the Democrats shifted.  They refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave Bush his victory in the state… and through it, in the Electoral College… until the Supreme Court ruled that the results were legitimate.  Even afterwards, many Democrats considered Bush’s victory and his presidency illegitimate.”

As a member of the 2000 U.S. Electoral College, having been elected by Republican leaders in a statewide election, I was very much interested in the outcome of the electoral dilemma created by the extralegal interference of the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court. 

As I watched the angry mob of Gore-Lieberman demonstrators as they filled the streets outside the U.S. Supreme Court, demanding that the court allow the recount to proceed, I had just one thought:  Did those mindless demonstrators not understand that, when all is said and done, the only thing that stands between us and the barrel of a gun is the U.S. Supreme Court?  And when the court ruled in the only way they could… that to recount the votes in only the four most heavily Democrat counties in Florida was a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution… Democrats charged that the Court majority was acting along partisan lines.

However, in the sixteen-year period that followed, the Democrat Party underwent a major radicalization.  As Glick describes it, “The day after the (2016) election, Democrats coined a new term in American politics: ‘resistance.’  Until then, the side that lost a presidential election was the ‘opposition.’  But the Democrats don’t simply ‘oppose’ Trump, they ‘resist’ him.”

Glick continues, “The distinction is profound.  An opponent recognizes the basic legitimacy of the person he opposes.  A resister does not.  The purpose of the anti-Trump resistance is not to offer an alternative path for governing.  It is to nullify Trump’s presidency by, among other things, delegitimizing and dehumanizing Trump, his family, his associates and supporters.  The resistance seeks to paralyze Trump’s presidency, to prevent him from wielding the power of office, and (to) oust him from that office as quickly as possible.”

With each new day producing yet another sordid chapter in the seemingly endless saga of Democratic Party criminality… best typified by the countless crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton…  the party that was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791 has become a lawless enterprise.  Jefferson and Madison could never have visualized the evolution of their party into a criminal conspiracy that consistently attacks constitutional principles and uses fraud, violence, and intimidation in order to win elections and maintain themselves in power.  Faced with the alternative of doing what is best for the country or doing what is best for their party, Democrats invariably choose to do what is best for their party.

In terms of ethics and morality, the Democratic Party has been in decline since the day it was founded.  As the party of slavery, secession, and segregation, Democrats supported the denial of basic human rights to an entire ethnic minority.  Following the Civil War and throughout the entire period of reconstruction, Democrats continued the denial of basic human rights through the enactment of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.  

Then, when the Brown v. Board of Education decision ushered in the civil rights era and Democrats found they could no longer lynch African Americans and white Republicans with impunity, they turned their attention to such things as plundering the rich, dumbing-down our children, murdering post-partum infants, desecrating the American flag, and promoting marriage between same-sex partners.  And when delegates to the 2000 Democratic National Convention booed a color guard of Eagle Scouts carrying the American flag, it was clear that they had sunk to an all-time low.

So, what is it that has caused Democrats to become so loathsome that they would seek to remove a sitting president by engaging in bold-faced lies and outright deception, denying the president and his Republican supporters the ability to cross examine his accusers and to subpoena their own witnesses… the most basic legal rights available in any court in the land?  

The answer may lie in the results of an October 2019 Pew Research survey which tells us that, in 2009, when Barack Obama entered the White House, 68% of white Democrats described themselves as Christians, 24% claimed no religious affiliation, and 7%  claimed to be members of other religious groups.  However, just ten years later, in 2019, after nearly a decade-long Muslim-friendly administration in the White House, only 47% of Democrats call themselves Christians, 42% claim no religious affiliation, and 10% are members of other religions.  Conversely, the same survey showed significantly different numbers among Republicans.  According to the Pew survey, 81% of white Republicans now describe themselves as Christians, 14% are unaffiliated, and just 4% are affiliated with non-Christian religious groups.

As Patrick Henry once said, “Bad men cannot make good citizens.  It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.  A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.  No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” (A.K.A. Conservatism)

So, when David Brooks asks, rhetorically, “Are we on the path to national ruin,” the answer is an unequivocal “yes.”  But Brooks goes on to suggest that this long and painful decline is followed by a “catalyzing event.”  Democrats have attempted to destroy Donald Trump by financing the preparation of a dossier of falsehoods; they’ve attempted to link his electoral success to a false charge of “Russian collusion;” and they’ve twisted a totally appropriate conversation with a foreign leader into grounds for impeachment.  In doing so, they have developed a level of hatred and discord among the American people such as we’ve not experienced since the Civil War.  Has fascism finally come to full bloom in America?  Could it be that history will judge the unjustified impeachment of Donald Trump to be the American version of Kristallnacht?  Occurring as it is on the 81st anniversary of Germany’s descent into fascism, is it too farfetched to ask, “Are we there yet?”  And are the tyrants hard at work forging our chains?

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

Some Perspective on Lynching

Donald Trump does not share many identifiable traits with former president George W. Bush, or with Bush’s late father, George H.W. Bush.  But there is one confounding trait that all three men have regularly exhibited during their time in the White House… a trait that leaves their friends and supporters thoroughly perplexed.  I refer to their apparent inability to respond to Democratic slights or insults with “biting” responses.  Whenever Democrats unwittingly give Republicans an open opportunity for a knockout retort, Republicans invariably treat the opportunity as if it were a sexually transmitted disease. 

For example, in July 1990, after haggling for months with congressional Democrats over spending cuts vs. tax increases, the matter was ultimately resolved at an “economic summit” held at Andrews Air Force Base.  At that summit, Democrats agreed to specific spending cuts, while Bush agreed to tax increases, abandoning his famous “read my lips; no new taxes” pledge and setting the stage for his defeat in 1992.  Bush shook hands on the deal with House and Senate Democrats and returned to the White House to await the agreed-upon legislations. 

When the spending bills arrived on his desk, he signed them into law.  He then leaned back in his chair to await the promised spending cuts.  He waited… and waited… and waited.  But, as might be expected, no spending reductions ever arrived.  It was a perfect example of the sincerity of a Democratic handshake.  It was also an object lesson that he and George W. had available to them in subsequent years.  But either they failed to remember the duplicity of 1990, or they were too nice or too dumb to recognize its value as a political weapon.

Now, in October 2019, nearly thirty years later, Republicans have been given a stunning invitation to let every American citizen, especially those in the African American community, understand the true history of the Democratic Party.

In an early morning tweet on Tuesday, October 22, Trump expressed his anger and frustration with the totally unfair and illegitimate process that House Democrats are using in their attempt to justify his impeachment.  He tweeted, “So someday, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights.  All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching.  But we will WIN!”

To put Trump’s use of the term “lynching” into some context, it is first necessary to recognize that, according to archival statistics at Tuskegee Institute and at the NAACP, between 1882 and 1968, there were 4,743 recorded lynchings in the United States.  Of these, 3,446 were blacks, and 1,297 were whites… a great many of them white Republicans.  So, the question arises, how many white Republicans have Democrats murdered, for no better reason than that they disagreed with them politically?  And how many Democrats have Republicans murdered in response? 

So, who were these mass murderers?  In their condemnation, while hoping to put a respectable face on the Democrat Party and their destructive paternalism of black people, NBC noted that, “The president’s use of ‘lynching,’ which elicits a time when black Americans were murdered by extrajudicial white mobs, was the subject of immediate blowback.”   When we consider that white Democrats have gone to great lengths for the past 154 years to hide the fact that they were the principal opponents of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments…. outlawing slavery and giving the former slaves citizenship and voting rights… as well as the authors of the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws, to say that their paramilitary auxiliary, the KKK, was nothing more than an “extrajudicial white mob” takes political correctness to a never-before-seen level of silliness.

Needless to say, Trump’s use of the term “lynching” brought immediate condemnation. Representative Barbara Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “For him to say something like that was disgusting, reflects his insensitivity toward the historical tragedies of this country…”  To add a bit of perspective to her criticism, one would have to ask Ms. Lee, “Whose sensitivity?”   What sensitivity have Democrats, black and white, shown toward the mindless brutalizing of the black race by a Democratic paramilitary auxiliary, the KKK?  The truth is, most black people regularly vote for candidates of the same party that committed unspeakable acts of cruelty against their forebears. 

For example, in May of 1918, there were a series of lynchings in Georgia.  When Mary Turner, who was nine-months pregnant at the time, complained that she was going to see to it that the white men who lynched her husband would be prosecuted, a mob dragged her from her home, tortured her, and hanged her.  Then, while she was still alive, hanging from a rope, they cut open her womb.  The child spilled out onto the ground and they crushed the baby’s skull under the heel of a boot.

One wonders how much success Mary Turner might have had in her quest for Justice.  In many (most?) instances of Klan violence it was no secret who was hidden beneath the white sheets and under the white peaked hats.  Unfortunately, other than their costumes, the Klansmen all shared another very important thing in common: they were all Democrats.  And since all the members of the local constabulary were Democrats, as were the prosecutors, judges, and juries, successful prosecutions of Klan violence were a rarity.      

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) responded to Trump’s tweet, saying, “Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation’s history, as is this President.  We’ll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching, and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful.”  When Democrats decided during the mid-1950s that, since slavery was no longer a viable alternative in the U.S., they would have to purchase the loyalty of blacks with a multi-trillion dollar social welfare spending spree, is it not reasonable for us to ask Sen. Harris whether or not the welfare state is just the Democrats’ way of “whitewashing” their own corruption?    

Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) said, “You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING?  What the hell is wrong with you?  Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you?  Delete this tweet.”  Rep. Rush thoughtlessly lumps all whites into a single group when he addresses Trump as “people who look like you.”  We should remind Representative Rush that the hundreds of thousands who fought and died in a great war to end slavery did not all look alike.  Some who looked like Donald Trump (my great-grandfather, Lt. Col. Johann Dietrich Hollrah of the Union Army, among them) were devout abolitionists; other white combatants felt just as strongly about maintaining the institution of slavery.  

The Australian website came as close as anyone to defining, perhaps unwittingly, what the fury is all about.  They wrote, “Lynchings, or hangings, were historically mostly used by whites against black men in the South beginning in the late 19th century amid rising racial tensions in the US.  By comparing the impeachment process to a lynching, Mr. Trump is also likening Democrats to a lynch mob.”   So, what’s their point?  When one considers all of the above, concluding that the Democrat Party is, in fact, the party of Slavery, Secession, and Segregation, we leave it to everyone’s conscience to decide which party most resembles a “lynch mob.”

How many black Democrats, who regularly cast 90-95% of their votes for members of the party that murdered their great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, are now among Donald Trump’s most vocal critics?  How many of them are even aware of their party’s racist history?  And how many black children learn the history of the slavery era in their Black History classes?  Given the predictable destruction of the black family unit that can be traced directly to the Democrats’ management of the welfare state, is it not treasonable to ask whether or not the welfare state has not been used by the Democrat Party as “an act of terror used to uphold white supremacy,” as Senator Cory Booker has suggested?

And finally, when one considers the evils of lynching, it is simply not possible to have such a discussion without recalling the ordeal of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, at the hands of Senate Democrats.

Clarence Thomas was nominated as an Associate Justice by President George H.W. Bush.  But, if Thomas had known in advance the physical and emotional agony he would experience at the hands of Senate Democrats, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would not have hesitated; he would have declined the president’s nomination.

On the final day of his Senate confirmation hearing, Friday, October 11, 1991, Justice Thomas delivered what was the most devastating rebuke that a committee of the United States Senate has ever endured.  He closed his remarks by saying, “This is a circus.  It is a national disgrace.  And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”  

Clarence Thomas must sit before his TV each night with a tear in his eye, saying a silent prayer for President Donald Trump.  What they did to Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, and to Judge Robert Bork, is simply standard Democrat procedure.  It’s just the way they play the game.  No one knows that better than these three jurists.  Trump is right.  What they experienced, and what Trump is experiencing now, can only be described by two words:  it is a “public lynching.” 

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 Fifth Edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “hypocrisy” as the “Act or practice of feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; esp., the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion… ”

The Democratic Party… the party of slavery, secession, and segregation… is the embodiment of hypocrisy.  That has never been more evident than in the age of “Get Trump!!”  From the day he entered the Republican presidential primaries on June 16, 2015, he has been the target of every political dirty trick known to man…and the Democrats know them all.

After more than two years of intense effort by a team of highly partisan Democrat lawyers, at a cost of more than $25 million to U.S. taxpayer, it is clear that there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian apparatchiks, aimed at electing Donald Trump and defeating Hillary Clinton.  To the contrary, what we have learned in the past four years is that there have been multiple instances of collusion between the Obama White House, the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the most senior officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA, with a number of foreign interests, including Russia, Ukraine, and others. 

Throughout this shameful period in American history, Democrats have concentrated on following the instructions contained in Chapter One of their party playbook.  That instruction tells them, “Whatever you do that is either unethical, immoral, or illegal, always blame Republicans for doing the same thing.”  To cite just a few examples of Democrat duplicity:

During the early ‘90s, a 1983 memorandum was discovered in the declassified archives of the Soviet Union.  According to the memorandum, written by Viktor Chebrikov, Chairman of the Committee on State Security of the USSR (KGB), and addressed to Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, he was visited by former U.S. Senator John Tunney (D-CA) on May 9-10, 1983.  Tunney was on a highly sensitive mission for his former University of Virginia law school roommate, and former senate colleague, Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, (D-MA).  The purpose of his mission was to enlist the Kremlin leadership in a grand scheme to defeat Ronald Reagan and other Republicans in the 1984 U.S. elections. 

According to the Chebrikov memorandum, Kennedy was convinced that the chilly relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were due to Reagan’s unwillingness to modify his strategic plan to win a final Cold War victory over the Soviet Union.  As Tunney described Kennedy’s view, the only possible political threat to Reagan was rooted in issues related to war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  Kennedy felt that, with the active assistance of the Soviet leadership, these issues would become the most important of the election campaign; hence, the basis for Tunney’s mission to Moscow.  As Chebrikov reported, “Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs…, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps” to counter the militaristic Reagan policies:

First, Kennedy asked Andropov to consider inviting him (Kennedy) to Moscow for a personal meeting in July 1983.  The primary purpose of the meeting would be to provide Soviet officials with “talking points” related to problems of nuclear disarmament so that they’d be “better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.”

Also, Kennedy felt that, in order to influence the American people, it would be helpful to have Chairman Andropov submit to a series of television interviews by major American TV networks.  He felt that a direct appeal by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the American people would “attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country.”

Tunney assured Chebrikov that, “if the proposal is recognized as worthy,” then Kennedy and his political allies would take the necessary steps to have representatives of the major U.S. networks contact Andropov to schedule interviews.  Specifically, he suggested that the head of ABC, Elton Raul, and television personalities Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters, could visit Moscow.

Kennedy also recommended a series of televised U.S. interviews in which members of the Soviet military could convince the American people of the “peaceful intentions of the USSR.”

Tunney left Moscow and returned to the U.S., Chebrikov prepared a memorandum and sent it to Chairman Andropov; and the memorandum found its way into the KGB archives.  If additional negotiations took place between Kennedy and the Soviets is not known, but one thing is certain:  Ted Kennedy did not expect that Reagan would ultimately win the Cold War, that the Soviet Union would disintegrate, and that Americans would one day find themselves reading of his treachery in documents taken from the archives of the KGB.

In the mid 1980s, in an effort to reverse the spread of communism in Central America and the Caribbean, the Reagan Administration proposed a $14 million humanitarian aid package for the anti-communist Contra guerillas in Nicaragua.  But then, just days before the Senate was to vote on the proposal, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) flew to Managua for an impromptu meeting with Nicaragua’s communist dictator, Daniel Ortega.  Their purpose was to find a political rationale for voting against the Reagan aid package, and to find positive things to say about Nicaragua’s communist regime.       

Kerry and Harkin returned to Washington with stars in their eyes.  The amateur diplomats had extracted a “promise” from Presidente Ortega that he would “moderate his policies.”  Kerry boasted, “We believe this is a wonderful opening for a peaceful settlement without having to militarize the region.”  Unfortunately for Kerry, while he worked in Washington to deny aid to freedom-loving Nicaraguans, his new friend, Daniel Ortega, was in Moscow negotiating a $200 million loan with which to oppress freedom-loving Nicaraguans.  When the Reagan aid proposal was voted on it was defeated on a straight party line vote.  Democrats were solidly opposed to humanitarian aid for the anti-communist Contras.  Utter hypocrisy!

Having failed to damage Donald Trump with their bogus charges of “Russian collusion,” Democrats have quickly moved on to an equally sinister charge that the president has committed an impeachable offense by engaging in a relatively innocuous conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski.  According to an October 15, 2019, exposé by former Investor’s Business Daily writer, Daniel John Sobieski, “While Democrats are pushing the bogus Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo story invented by that great storyteller, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, two groups of Democratic senators have been colluding with Ukrainian interests to advance their own agenda and political careers.”  

Sobieski reminds us that, in the October 13 edition of the Fox News show The Next Revolution, host Steve Hilton reported that a group of Democratic senators had taken cash from a Ukrainian lobbyist in return for their support of Ukrainian gas interests.  This occurred contemporaneously with the Democrats’ promotion of the bogus Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo.  Utilizing Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer; Senator John Kerry’s former chief of staff, David Leiter; and a Washington lobbying firm called ML Strategies as conduits, Ukrainian gas producer Burisma Holdings funneled some $90,000 to a group of Democratic senators.

He made four contributions to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and three contributions to Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).  However, Hilton reported that, just one month after the last of those contributions, senators Markey and Shaheen were among four senators who wrote to Barack Obama, saying, “We should leverage the full resources and expertise of the U.S. government to assist Ukraine in improving its energy efficiency, increasing its energy production, and reforming its  energy markets.”  All of this took place at a time when Democrats were waging full-scale war on U.S. fossil fuels, opposing fracking, and attempting to damage U.S. energy interests in every way possible.  It turns normal, bold-faced hypocrisy into an art form.

And while Democrats conduct 24/7 assaults on Donald Trump, falsely accusing him of “bribing” President Zelensky to “dig up dirt” on former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, we find that, in May 2018, another group of Democratic senators formally requested the Ukrainian government to assist Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his “witch hunt” investigation of Trump-Russian “collusion.”  CNN reported that three senators, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and,  Patrick Leahy (D-VT), wrote a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing their displeasure with the closing of four investigations which they felt were critical to the findings of the Mueller investigation. 

But then came the “hammer.”  Implying that their support for U.S. aid to Ukraine was at stake, the senators wrote, “We have supported (the) capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside (democratic) principles to avoid the ire of President Trump.  They then proceeded to demand that prosecutor general Lutsenko “reverse course” so as not to impede cooperation with Robert Mueller’s “Russian collusion” investigation.

Sobieski concludes by saying, “Democratic senators took campaign cash from Ukrainian interests while begging for help in removing a duly elected President from office.  And these are the people who would participate in a Senate impeachment trial.  The inmates are indeed running the asylum.” 

When Donald Trump wins a second term in 2020 and Republicans win even larger governing majorities in both houses of Congress, the schadenfreude will last for at least five years and I will vow to live until age ninety-one just to enjoy their misery

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