More Pieces of the Obama Puzzle

Readers of this column will agree… perhaps complain… that I have harped on the subject of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility for at least a decade, and that, in spite of all my passion and my never-say-die approach to the issue, that worthless piece of excrement was still able to serve two full terms in the White House.

But, just as early explorers were convinced that they could reach the East Indies by sailing west, I am just as convinced that I have been right about Obama’s lack of eligibility from the first day he stepped into the national spotlight.  And, as each new piece of information presents itself, I feel duty-bound to see how it fits into the puzzle.  So please bear with me as I add a new piece or two to the puzzle.

From the day that Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president, millions of patriots who love the Constitution and who believe in the Rule of Law have steadfastly insisted that he is not a “natural born” citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Obama was born on August 4, 1961, to a 17-year-old American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a 25-year-old African father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony.  Since one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other was a British subject, it is indisputable that he was born with dual US-British citizenship, making it impossible for him to ever qualify as a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.

But Democratic “kingmakers,” who regularly demonstrate little regard for the Rule of Law, apparently harbored doubts about Obama’s presidential eligibility because of his dual US-British citizenship at birth.  Accordingly, on June 11, 2003, more than a year before anyone outside Chicago or Honolulu had ever heard of Barack Obama, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59, proposing to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution.  The Snyder resolution was followed on September 3, 2003 by H.J.R. 67, introduced, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  Nearly identical to the Snyder proposal, either of the amendments would have legitimized an Obama presidency.  Neither proposal was acted upon.

Nevertheless, in spite of those strategic failures, when Democratic leaders were satisfied that Obama had presidential potential, they arranged his dramatic “coming out” as keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Then, undiscouraged by their failure to win approval of a resolution to amend the Constitution in the 108th Congress, both Conyers and Snyder made second attempts in the 109th Congress in 2005 with the introduction of H.J.R. 2 and H.J.R 42, respectively.  Like their predecessors in the 108th Congress, both 2005 proposals died in committee.

Undeterred by their failure to legitimize a potential Obama presidency, Democrats elected him to the U.S. Senate in November 2006.  And within months of taking his seat in the Senate he went to Springfield, Illinois, to announce his candidacy for president of the United States.  Following a bitter primary campaign against former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama won the Democratic nomination on August 27, 2008, in Denver, Colorado.

But, aside from their unsuccessful attempts to amend the Constitution in Obama’s favor, there is further circumstantial evidence that Democrats knew when they nominated him that he was ineligible for the presidency.  On the closing day of the 2008 convention, as Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary of the convention, respectively, prepared certificates of nomination for the 50 state election boards, so that General Election ballots could be printed, the Democrats tipped their hand.  The certification sent only to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, read as follows:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  Other states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”  The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, the documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

Having nominated an inexperienced and unqualified man for president of the United States, the Democrats were past the point of no return.  Accordingly, when WorldNetDaily published the details of a sworn affidavit by retired Chicago postman, Allen Hulton, on March 19, 2012, as Obama was preparing to run for a second term, there was nothing to be gained by attempting to refute Hulton’s affidavit… so they simply ignored it.

In his affidavit, the retired postman recounted his experiences delivering mail to the home of Bill Ayers’ parents in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, some 25 miles west of downtown Chicago.  Hulton explained that, on numerous occasions during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, as he delivered mail to the Ayers’ front door, he engaged in brief conversations with Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’ mother.

On one such occasion, Mrs. Ayers explained that she and her husband, Thomas, CEO of Commonwealth Edison, were financially supporting a young black man, a “foreign exchange” student from either Kenya or Indonesia, with his education.  [Note: This would have been at a time between Obama’s first and second years at Harvard Law School, when he worked as a summer intern at the Sidley Austin Law Firm in Chicago.]

Hulton described one occasion on which he had a conversation with the young black man in question, who he identified as being Barack Obama.  After a friendly greeting, Hulton asked the young man what his plans were for the future, after he finished his schooling.  Hulton recalled, “He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States.  There was a little bit of a grin on his face as he said it… He sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant…”

One can hardly escape the feeling of having walked in at the middle of a movie.  What was it that made Democrats so anxious to launch constitutional amendments in 2003, a year before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, and again in 2005 when he was seen as the wunderkind of the Democrat Party, and was just beginning to contemplate a run for the U.S. Senate?

Was Barack Obama a plant, a young communist who was selected and groomed over many decades to become president of the United States?  And, if so, who planted him?  Who was the grand puppet master?  A potential answer to these questions appears on page 158 of Edward Klein’s current best-seller, All Out War – The Plot to Destroy Trump.  Klein tells us that, in organizing the effort to undermine the Trump presidency, “(Valerie) Jarrett arranged a visit by Hillary Clinton, who urged Obama to join her in leading the ‘resistance.’  Jarrett made sure that Obama received assurances of support from George Soros, who had been funding Obama since his early days in the Illinois state legislature (emphasis added)…”

If Klein is correct in his assertion… that Obama and Soros were joined at the hip as far back as the early ‘90s…, he adds credence to a letter published by California software developer, Tom Fife, in 2008.  Fife claims to have worked in Moscow in the early ‘90s, developing joint ventures with Russian software engineers.       

As Fife explains, he and his American associates were invited to dinner one evening at the apartment of their Russian partner, referred to as “V.”  As the evening progressed and the vodka consumption went unabated, V’s wife, a hardcore communist, became surly and argumentative.    She said, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?  Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”  V attempted to change the subject, but his wife was determined to gain the upper hand.  She said, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white, and American, and his father is black, from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President…  He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist… He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

She went on to say that the young man named Barack, who was being groomed to be president of the United States, was from Hawaii, that he went to college in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he was soon to be elected to the state legislature.  She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Could all of this be true?  Since the day that Barack Obama was first mentioned as a candidate for president of the United States, few among the leaders of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, fearing the certainty of being dismissed as racists and “birthers,” have had the courage to openly challenge Obama’s presidential eligibility.  They have allowed the issue to be framed in terms of the “place” of Obama’s birth, which is irrelevant, while allowing the all-important facts of his nationality at birth to be a non-issue.

But now, after fourteen months of the most vicious attacks on Donald Trump, his family, and his loyal supporters, what is to be lost by causing the Obama eligibility question to be fully and completely examined?  Is there any leftist invective so cruel and so unthinkable that it could further elevate the coarseness of today’s political discourse?  At a time in our history when a coarse and thoroughly unlikeable billionaire real estate developer from New York can be elected president of the United States, exactly what remains outside the realm of possibility?  It’s time that our side started fighting back, and what better target than the Democrats’ beloved Barack Obama?

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 Silent Majority

My friend, Olani, a devout Christian and Patriot sent this to me and I share it with you.

The Silent Majority

Where is it?

In a kinder, gentler and more respectful time, politically speaking, we spoke of the “silent majority.”  This group was represented with individuals from all walks of life, from the north and the south, for the east and the west, democrat and republican.  Who speaks of the silent majority today?  Who represents them and what effect do they have in our society today?

I would like to make a proposal about this group and then discuss several points to back up my proposal.

As Barack Obama began his first campaign to become president of the United States, he created a theme of “hope and change.”  Little detail was ever discussed about his proposed “transformation of America” during the entire campaign, but it worked – Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America.

During his first year in office, he gave a speech in Pennsylvania.  In that speech, he isolated a group of people as “enemies” of the country.  He referred to them a “Bible huggers and gun toters.”  I was appalled.  I could not remember any President speaking in such terms about a relatively large and meaningful group of people -people who love their God and are protective of citizen’s rights to hold and bear arms.  At the time, I wrote several letters to President Obama accepting his challenge that I was an “enemy of the United States.”

Let me propose a different way of analyzing the presidency of President  Obama.  Instead of reviewing the first term and then the second, let’s review his first two years and his last two years.  In 2009 and 2010, the democrat party controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.  They also held a majority of the governorships of the nation and most of the state legislatures.  However, when 2015 rolled around, President Obama found himself with a republican House and Senate.  As he stated, “I have my phone and my pen”, and for the last two years of his presidency he ruled as he desired with executive orders, regulatory pronouncements and personal declarations.  That has changed, now the republicans hold a majority of the governorships (today they have 35 governorships) and over 1,000 democrat seats in state legislatures have been lost.  Apparently someone was not pleased with “transformation” they had experienced in the previous 6 years.

Who was the leader of this great change in the political landscape of America?  Which pollsters were driving this change?  Were there elite marketers and organizers driving this change?  None of the above!  A mass of Americans stood up and said, ENOUGH!  This group has several common characteristics, such as:

  1. Love of our heritage, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence
  2. Willingness to obey the law themselves, and a desire that all citizens obey the law
  3. The felt need to fix our entire immigration system
  4. A total disgust of the way business is done in Washington D.C.
  5. A desire to have religious freedom and for Christian values to be respected

This “indefinable group” caused the massive political change from 2009 to 2015.

Now it was time for the presidential campaign of 2016.  The “silent majority” were seeking a “catalyst” to continue and complete their desires.  The Republican Party started with 16 candidates, all of whom were fine individuals, with some great ideas and a desire to serve.  One of them, Donald J. Trump, was considered to be a “joke”, a “farce”, a total outsider.  He was rough around the edges and, in the beginning no one thought he had a prayer.  The Media laughed, were incredulous and totally disbelieving as to his credibility.  But a funny thing happened on the way to the election –  he didn’t go away!  His followers were quickly dubbed, the deplorables, racists, white supremacists, ignorant and unsophisticated, and many other names.

Mr. Trump made many mistakes, spoke outrageously at times and was often counted out, but he never quit.  At 8:00 PM on the night of the election, most people still assumed he would lose.  No group of people has been so consistently wrong as the group who opposed Donald J. Trump from the beginning until the present time.  This group includes democrats, the liberal media and even a fairly large slice of the leadership of the Republican party!  Every excuse in the book has been heard and discussed, but here are a few facts that will not go away:

  1. “We the People” provided President Trump with 307 electoral votes. Not a landslide, but 37 more than were required
  2. “We the People” helped him win 30 States
  3. “We the People” helped him win more counties than any president since Ronald Reagan. More than George H. W. Bush, more than Bill Clinton, more than George W. Bush and yes, more than Barack Obama
  4. To my knowledge, no one has yet shown how the Russians helped Trump win a single county, let alone more counties than any other president since Ronald Reagan
  5. By the way, all those deplorables, racists, white supremacists, ignorant and unsophisticated people, they are the silent majority. The left wing politicians, quickly becoming socialists, just renamed them, trying to get them to go away
  6. There is a real war going on in America today. There are no guns or battle lines.  However,  the left got so arrogant after the 2008 election, they thought they would always control government groups.  Obamacare was designed to become a “single payer system” in 2017.  The left could not conceive of the possibility that a democrat would not be in the White House on January 20, 2017 to make sure the transition occurred.  Today they are fighting to remain relevant.  Sadly, our education system, and Bernie Sanders, have been training the young people of America to value socialism and communism.  They felt they were close to “transforming America” as President Obama desired, but they have not yet succeeded.

Now comes the critical question – “Will the deplorables, the racists, the white supremacists, the ignorant and the unsophisticated” be around in2018?  In 2020?  The answer is a resounding: yes!  “We the People” still seek the same goals, they are crucial for our survival as a nation.  “We the People” continue to hold dear, the qualities and integrity that some have such a desire to destroy.  We will not allow that.  We do not need a leader, we have our standards.  We aren’t  sure what politicians have similar  standards,  but we are identifying them daily and we will work hard to get others to run against them and conquer them!

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

Game On, Mohammed!

With no fanfare whatsoever, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on December 20, 2017, effective at 12:01 AM, December 21, 2017, that gives the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Treasury, the power and the authority to prohibit the forces of radical Islam from ever gaining a foothold on U.S. soil, as they have throughout the countries of western Europe.  The Executive Order is titled, “Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.”

In its preamble, the Executive Order states as follows:  “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Public Law 114-328) (the “Act”), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)) (INA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

“I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, such as those committed or directed by persons listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems… The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who commit serious human rights abuse or engage in corruption, as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same persons.  I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”  

The most significant of the above citations is 8 USC 1182(f), which states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”  The powers are clear and unambiguous; they require no clarification.

In a June 18, 2016, column, provocatively titled, “Radical Islam – The Final Solution,” I quoted Oklahoma’s junior U.S. senator, James Lankford, who was responding to my suggestion that, if we are ever to deal with radical Islam on a non-violent basis, we must first agree that Islam is not a “religion” in the same sense that Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc. are identifiable religions.  He said, “The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of all Americans to practice the religion they choose, or no religion, without fear of government interference or retribution.”  He went on to explain, “Religious liberty is vital to a free nation.  The First Amendment to the Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’  Disruption of religious liberty for one person endangers the liberties of us all.”

What the senator was suggesting, without actually putting it into words, is that all non-Muslims in America should view the language of the First Amendment as a suicide pact.  To the contrary, if we in the west are to protect our children and grandchildren from the horrors of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, we must first dispense with the cruel fiction that Islam is just another religious denomination, subject to all of the legal protections afforded legitimate religious sects.

Islam is not a religion, subject to First Amendment protections.  Rather, it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, social, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion.  Wherever we find them, Muslims refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as a separate culture within a culture, not subject to the laws of their host countries.  In order to accomplish their ends, they rely on anti-western directives of the Quran to preach the overthrow of host governments, by force and violence if necessary.

If we are ever to find an acceptable solution to Islamic jihad we must begin by identifying Islam for what it is.  Abandoning the political correctness of the far left, it is imperative that we begin by officially defining Islam, not as a religious denomination, but as a brutal 7th century culture totally foreign to and incompatible with 21st century Western values and cultures.  Unfortunately, Roman Catholics and other Christian denominations are evolving at a snail’s pace in their approach to Islam.  For example, the Vatican II Council Declaration on Non-Christian Religions declares, “Since, in the course of centuries, not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”

“Not a few quarrels and hostilities?”  “Forget the past?”  Does any evidence exist that Muslims are willing to forget the past?  This is in sharp contrast to a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg Lecture of September 12, 2006, a statement that was not well received in the Muslim world.  Benedict quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Yes, as Pope Francis has suggested, we should first ask for reciprocity from the Muslim world, but asking is not the same as demanding, and it’s time that political and religious leaders in the Christian world demand that non-Muslim denominations be allowed to establish churches and synagogues throughout the Muslim world, signaling that serious repercussions… including an outright ban on mosques in Christian nations… will follow if reciprocity is not granted.  Nothing less will suffice.

Needless to say, the response from the Muslim world has not been what the Vatican might have hoped for.  Instead of reciprocating, in kind, radical Islam has pursued a brutal, unrelenting jihad against the Christian world.  A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” states that the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Accordingly, the first step in coming to grips with the Islamic threat is to officially declassify Islam as a protected religion in the hearts and minds of western populations.  Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and Presbyterians do not stone female rape victims to death; they do not behead those who are of a different faith; they do not throw homosexuals from tall buildings; they do not place their enemies in steel cages and lower them into tanks of water, or spray them with gasoline and burn them alive; they do not capture large numbers of women and young girls and sell them into sex slavery; and they do not sexually assault women and girls in public places because they think their style of dress is an open invitation.  No, these are atrocities that are unique to the Muslim world.  They are not, and can never be, protected religious practices.

Just days ago, it was reported that a Muslim immigrant in Finland raped his Finnish girlfriend, then strangled her, doused her with gasoline, and burned her alive.  Such incidents, and worse,  are daily occurrences in countries around the world where Muslim immigrants seek refuge.

The next and final step in dealing with the Islamic threat is for western governments to codify opposition to Islamic jihad.  As recently as the 1950s our country has taken steps to protect itself from domination by foreign ideologies.  For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”

Included among these, Section 212(a)(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 (such as Islam or the Communist Party USA) that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.”  This is precisely what Donald Trump has suggested, and it is precisely this statute that President Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis. Unless we defeat radical Islam in the deserts of the Middle East and in the streets of Europe in the months and years ahead, they will surely confront us at the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and in the streets of America.  If that comes to pass, western civilization will be lost forever.  We cannot bequeath to our children and grandchildren the prospect of fighting, in their time, a bloody battle that should have been fought and won in our time.  By reasserting his powers and duties in his new Executive Order, president Trump has essentially said, “Game on, Mohammed!” to the radicals of the Muslim world.  Now all we need is an attorney general and an FBI director who are willing to enforce the law.

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