Ten Outstanding People?

During a televised interview on Wednesday morning, September 11, former DNC Chairwoman and current Fox News Contributor Donna Brazile referred to the top ten Democratic candidates as “ten outstanding people.”  At this stage of the 2020 presidential campaign it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about which of those “ten outstanding people” will come out on top. Evaluating that small army of pretenders who see themselves as potential leaders of the Free World is a truly frightening exercise… much like tiptoeing through the malodorous “hazards” on the streets of San Francisco.  However, given the eclectic nature of the Democratic field there are some rather significant underlying factors that are certain to affect the outcome.    

As matters now stand, the RealClearPolitics average of polls taken between August 23 and September 3, shows the top five contenders as follows: Former Vice President Biden, 30.1%: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 17.6%; Sen. Bernie Sanders, 16.9%; Sen. Kamala Harris, 6.7%; and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, 4.4%.  The second tier of candidates… businessman Andrew Yang, Cong. Tulsi Gabbard, former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Sen. Michael Bennet… are all polling at less than 2.0%.  So, what can we say about each of the top five that may cause them to either rise or fall in the polls between now and the Iowa caucuses? 

First, former VP Joe Biden.  Although Biden was “joined at the hip” to Barack Obama during their eight years in the White House, that relationship is truly a double-edged sword.  Since Obama remains a beloved figure in the black community, Biden would be quite happy to have African Americans see his smiling face when they think of Barack Obama.  But will the Biden candidacy be a plus or a minus for the Obama legacy?  As the worst president in US history, Obama finds himself sitting on the edge of his chair, holding his breath and biting his nails, while the gaffe-prone Biden struggles to identify himself with Obama’s indefensible record. 

The New York Times reports that, in an April meeting, just before Biden announced his candidacy, Obama advised, “You don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t,”   The Times went on to explain that Biden, who thinks he could have defeated Trump in 2016, responded by telling Obama that he could “never forgive himself if he turned down a second shot at Mr. Trump.”

Watching Biden carrying out his very limited campaign schedule, it has been clear from the beginning that he is not physically or mentally capable of competing against a strong and vital Donald Trump, a man who is capable of holding campaign rallies in San Diego, St. Louis, and Philadelphia, all in a single day, spending the night at the White House, and doing it all over again, five days out of every week.  Joe Biden will no longer be a candidate when the Iowa caucuses convene in February.  In fact, the odds are that he will withdraw prior to Christmas.

With Biden out of the race, media attention will focus on the contest between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.  Warren is said to have an excellent ground organization in Iowa, which could easily give her an edge over Sanders in that first-in-the-nation contest.  But it’s hard to see Iowans getting excited about either candidate, both of whom support the gradual phasing out of fossil fuels.  Even the most wild-eyed liberals in Iowa understand that tractors require either gasoline or diesel fuel to plant and harvest crops.  And since the phasing out of fossil fuels would necessarily eliminate the need for ethanol fuel additives, distilled from corn, it is highly unlikely that any of the ten Democratic candidates will be popular in any of the Corn Belt states.

From a national standpoint, both Warren and Sanders have expressed support for full term abortions, free college educations, student loan forgiveness, a national $15.00 minimum wage, guaranteed healthcare for all, and legalized marijuana… all of which are losing positions across the country.  Sanders has even gone so far as to endorse a population control scheme that can only be described as infantile genocide.  He has said, “So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it’s something I very, very strongly support.”    

Worst of all, both Warren and Sanders have endorsed the most harebrained scheme in the history of representative government: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Green New Deal.  How any candidate for the presidency could campaign on those proposals is beyond human understanding.  In their entire platform of shared policy proposals, there is not a single winning issue.

Some ten points behind Bernie Sanders we have Sen. Kamala Harris, the former attorney general of the State of California, who takes great pride in the number of black and Hispanic criminals she’s sent to prison… a dubious distinction that she will regret once blacks and Hispanics have a chance to “evaluate” her in the voting booths.

However, Harris’s greatest shortcoming is the fact that she is not eligible to serve as president or vice president.  Although her lack of eligibility has not been an issue in the campaign, as yet, it is only a matter of time before one of her desperate competitors will use that fact against her.    

Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, emigrated to the U.S. from India in 1960 and her father, Donald Harris, emigrated to the U.S. from Jamaica in 1961.  Under U.S. law, an individual cannot apply for U.S. citizenship until they’ve held a “green card” for a minimum of five years.  Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964.  At best, her mother was a legal non-citizen resident of the U.S. for just 4 years, 9 months, and 20 days when Sen. Harris was born.  Her father was, at best, a legal non-citizen resident for just 3 years, 9 months, and 20 days when she was born.  Neither parent could possibly have been a U.S. citizen when Sen. Harris was born. 

What few Americans recognize is that there are only two (2) jobs in the entire United States… public sector and private sector combined… that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.  The term “natural born,” by its very nature, implies that the “quality” of an individual’s citizenship must be pure… totally authentic, totally American, unencumbered by any modifying adjectives such as “dual,” “naturalized,” or “birthright.”  Senator Harris can be Mayor of San Francisco, she can be Governor of California, she can be a federal judge, she can even be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  None of those jobs require status as a “natural born” citizen.  But unless her parents were both U.S. citizens when she was born, she is not a “natural born” citizen and cannot serve as either president or vice president. 

Just over two points behind Senator Harris, at 4.4% popularity, is the current mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg.  Unfortunately, Buttigieg has a major factor in his personal life that could easily short circuit any presidential ambitions he might have.  Buttigieg is openly gay and the person he refers to as his “husband” is a man named Chasten Buttigieg, nee Glezman.

The American people have proven time and time again that they are willing to cut a president a bit of slack when it comes to his personal life.  Were that not the case, John Kennedy would have been forced out of the White House long before he planned a trip to Dallas, and Bill Clinton would have been sacked long before he ever left Arkansas.  JFK is thought to have had more than 50 mistresses, including one he shared with Chicago organized crime boss Sam Giancana (a woman who also served as a courier between the two men), a bevy of some of our most beautiful movie stars, and two others who were thought to be Soviet spies.

The mainstream media were fully aware of the Kennedy and Clinton sexual dalliances, but they refused to report on them; they simply responded with a wink and a nod.  But the question arises [Ahem! How to phrase this delicately?], while the American people have always been willing to accept what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and have generally accepted the notion of same-sex marriage, when it comes to the sexual practices of gays and lesbians, have we become so inured to the idea of sodomy that we are willing to overlook its practice in the hallowed halls of the White House?  In the Lincoln bedroom?  Is that what political correctness demands of us?

Have the American people really come that far?  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky introduced our children and grandchildren to the concept of oral sex, but sodomy?  Having that obligatory “birds and Bees” conversation with our children and grandchildren is difficult enough, but how would we ever explain sodomy to them… especially when the subject of our conversation is the president of the United States? 

From the beginning of the Trump candidacy, there have been three kinds of Republicans:  1) The “Never-Trumpers”… Bill Kristol et al… who despised Trump from the beginning and have not begun to change their minds, 2) Those who turned up their noses at Trump until at least the  end of his first year in office… this writer included… but who have finally concluded that he is exactly the kind of no-holds-barred leader that the country has needed for many decades, and 3) Those who were dedicated “Trumpsters” from the very beginning… my lovely wife included…  whose respect and admiration have only grown with time.

Considering all of Trump’s significant accomplishments and comparing what he could accomplish in two full terms with the irreparable damage that would be caused by any one of the current Democratic candidates, there is only one choice.  We must reelect Donald Trump in a landslide, and we must return governing Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

As for the ten “outstanding people” now seeking the Democratic nomination, there is not a single person on the first page of the Washington, DC telephone directory who would not make a better president.  They are not what Ms. Brazile judges to be “ten outstanding people.”

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

Why are Muslims so Angry?

An August 18, 2019 Associated Press report describes the carnage resulting from the most recent suicide bombing in Kabul, an atrocity in which 63 guests at a Shiite Muslim wedding were killed and 182 were wounded.  According to the AP report, an ISIS suicide bomber detonated his suicide vest as he stood near the bandstand, watching the wedding guests dance.  The bombing took place in a western Kabul neighborhood inhabited by many of Afghanistan’s minority Shiite Muslims, and although the wedding guests were a mixture of both Shiites and Sunnis, the local ISIS affiliate, a Sunni terror group, took credit for the mass killing.

So, what is it about the world of Islam that we in the West fail to understand?  We know of no instances in which Lutheran suicide bombers have blown themselves up at Roman Catholic weddings or funerals. Nor have we heard of instances in which Baptist terrorists have drowned Methodist captives by enclosing them in steel cages and then lowering them into large tanks of water.  Unlike Islam, there are simply no commandments in Christianity or Judaism that require us to kill others who do not share our religious beliefs. 

In an August 25 article by Raymond Ibrahim, titled “There Is No Christian Anymore in This Town”: Persecution of Christians, June 2019, The Gatestone Institute reports on some of the most recent acts of anti-Christian genocide in majority Muslim nations of Africa and Asia. 

Ibrahim reports that, on June 9, approximately 50 heavily armed Islamic Fulani gunmen arrived at a Christian village in Mali, a west African nation in which some 90% of the population are Muslims and only 5% are Christians.  They surrounded the village and then set it ablaze.  Many residents… men, women, and children… were burned to death.  No one escaped.  At least 93 Christians died in the massacre.  According to Malian security forces, the village was “virtually wiped out.” 

On the same day, June 9, in Burkina Faso, located on Mali’s southern frontier, 19 residents of the town of Arbinda were slaughtered by Muslim terrorists.  The following day, June 10, ten additional Christians were slaughtered in a nearby town.  When peace was restored, one local Arbinda resident said, “There is no Christian anymore in this town.”   According to a 2006 census, approximately 60.5% of the Burkina Faso population are Muslims; 25% are Christians.

Ibrahim reports that, in Nigeria, on June 17, Muslim Fulani herdsmen slaughtered at least 24 Christians, three of whom were children, in three separate raids.  The terrorists also burned two churches and more than 200 Christian homes, along with crops in the fields.  Approximately 53% of Nigerians are Muslims and 47% are Christians.  And while the terror group Boko Haram, famous for kidnapping 276 schoolgirls in April 2014, gets the lion’s share of the headlines in Nigeria, the Global Terrorism Index reports that, “In 2018 alone, deaths attributed to Fulani extremists are estimated to be six times greater than the number committed by Boko Haram…”

So, what is it that sets Islam apart from civilized societies?  Why is it that Muslims stand alone in their indifference to the value of human life?  What is it that makes Muslims so angry?  And why have they no sense of right or wrong?

First, we must understand that Islam is not a religion, as such, subject to First Amendment protections as we in Western cultures understand the term.  To fully understand why Muslims worldwide are so intent upon murdering large numbers of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, we must begin by imagining the hatred generated by nearly 1400 years of endless internecine warfare.  Add to that a large measure of insoluble political differences, a laundry list of legal disputes, centuries worth of military scores still to be settled, and a long list of social and cultural disparities and we can begin to understand why so many Muslims feel not only superior to the rest of us, but also disrespected or marginalized by competing Muslim sects. 

Wherever we find them, Islamists 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.

Since the earliest days of the 116th Congress, whatever dignity and decorum the House of Representatives still possessed has been shattered by the presence of the first two Muslim women ever elected to Congress: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), a Somali refugee, and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), a Palestinian.  In the nearly eight months since they took office in January 2019, they have been a thorn in the side of House Democratic leadership, creating daily headlines with their radical left criticism of Donald Trump and their unceasing antisemitic criticisms of Israel and American Jewry.

Jn recent weeks the two have spurned a junket to Israel with a larger group of congressional fact-finders.  Instead, the two freshman members planned to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories on their own.  But Trump intervened, asking Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to deny them access to Israel – a request that Netanyahu readily complied with.  In denying the women access, Netanyahu cited their support for Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS), a movement that advocates the boycott of Israel and Israeli products until it withdraws from the occupied territories and grants full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens. 

One wonders whether the Muslims who’ve settled in Michigan and Minnesota in such large numbers are naturalized US citizens.  If they are, they’ve sworn an oath which begins: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

If the two Muslim congresswomen had been allowed to visit Israel as planned, it appears that a sufficient body of law exists that could have denied them reentry into the United States.  Jimmy Carter used that law to deny access to Iranians during the Iranian hostage risis.  As a far more courageous man, Donald Trump might easily have done the same in the present case

In other words, a Muslim who takes that oath of citizenship can no longer maintain allegiance to the dictates of the Quran because the Quran and the US Constitution are wholly incompatible.  It is also interesting to note that Section 212(a)(28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952  (The McCarran-Walter 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.” 

To be an American, enjoying all the benefits of a free society, one must be willing and able to assimilate into our culture.  Clearly, that is not what Muslims have in mind.  It should be clear to all by now that what Muslims want is to replace our 21st century culture with their brutal 7th century culture, and if we resist they will simply force the issue.  We will have no choice in the matter.  What we in the West must decide, before we reach the point of no return, is whether we want future generations of our families to be forced into a primitive 7th century culture. 

If the answer is yes, then the road ahead is clear; we only need to do what we’re already doing to  reverse the Muslim onslaught… which is nothing.  However, if the answer is no, we must begin by identifying Islam for what it is.  Abandoning the political correctness of the political left, it is imperative that we officially define Islam, not as a religious denomination, but as a brutal 7th century culture, totally foreign to and incompatible with 21st century Western values. 

Many of the great nations of Europe are now spiraling downward into irreversible Islamic chaos.  And unless we undertake to 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 in the cities, towns, and villages of America.  If that comes to pass, western civilization will cease to exist.  We cannot bequeath to our children and grandchildren the prospect of fighting a bloody, unwinnable battle that should have been fought and decided in our time.

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

What is a Democratic Republic?

The answer to this question lies in what the American Revolution was about.

 To understand this, we should revisit the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson said that all men (in the eyes of God) are equal and they are given by God certain inalienable Rights “among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  No man can give us any of these … certainly evil men can take these from us, but they cannot give them to us … they are God given.  The men who affixed their names to the Declaration, each and every one, was doing something illegal … committing a capital felony.  They had the guts to pledge their all to the effort when they mutually pledged:  “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”  Benjamin Franklin quipped,” If we don’t all hang together, we shall all hang separately.”  Many of the signers did not fare well.  They were true patriots, how many of us today would be brave enough to do what they did?

The American colonies, pre-revolution, were being ruled by a tyrant, they were in a tyranny.  Their citizens were being told, under the threat of imprisonment (or worse), what to do … how to solve their personal or community problems by a tyranny that had no idea of or stake in their problems.  They were prohibited by law, faux law, from having any say in the solution of their problems.  They were the chattels, the slaves of a far away master.  Today the Federal government has in a large measure placed a new tyranny not dissimilar to that of King George III upon us.

After the Revolution, the colonies, the 13 new Republics, conceded one thing to democracy … they  enfranchised the common man with the vote, the first and only time in human history that the common person had any say in government.   Democracy in large venues devolves into mob rule as was exemplified tens of centuries ago in ancient Athens and as was repeated time and again throughout subsequent history where it was tried.  Democracy, one man, one vote, is to be feared in all venues except  where protagonists meet in groups small enough have face to face debate about solving mutual problems.  The “majority rules” mantra always leaves a discontented minority.   If the issue is a solution to a mutual problem, comity within the community generally allows acceptance of the verdict.  But if the democratic process is extended to a large group, say the American Presidential election, the results could be disastrous.  If the election of Hillary Clinton by a majority of 67 million to 64 million for Donald Trump means that the US Constitution will be overthrown for a “socialist utopia” it could mean civil war.  Our forefathers were aware of this danger of large democracies and rejected that form of government out of hand.  They, in the Constitutional Convention, opted for a Federal government of succinctly defined and limited powers joined together with a federation of self governing republics combined in a compact that presented a united front to foreign aggression and an united arbiter both to disputes among the States and international exigencies.

Why do we need government at all?

Governments are instituted for the protection of the powerless.  The most powerless in the face of outward aggression, be it individual or organized … is us … you and I, our families, our friends and neighbors , our community.  We band together and choose those who would take on the responsibility to protect us, the sheriff to give us comfort from fear of physical harm and mental anguish;  the judges to mediate and mitigate disputes between us and others;   our Senators and Representatives, our community exemplars, sent to larger venues to explain our local problems and to carry back the concerns of others to us, in short to insure our God given Right to Happiness.   Governments are for the maintenance of the “life, liberty and happiness” of the common man, the individual … not the majority or the mob.  The American system was carefully and ingeniously assembled to protect that goal.

In a Democracy every person is to vote on every issue.  This should require some degree of expertise by the voter, which is of course impossible.  So, in practice the voters have invariably relied on the demagogues. (A Greek word loosely translated “mob teacher.”)   The demagogues, being men, often times misrepresented their issues much to their advantage and the disadvantage of the populace.  On the other hand, under the guise of majority rule, the voters quickly realized that they could vote themselves the treasury.  Those of you who “vote for the man” are today similarly abused by the modern demagogues; the political ads, the word of mouth, peer pressure, the political parties, the signs, the radio, the TV and any other form of communication imaginable.  You do not and probably cannot know “the man” you only know what others say about him.

Let us contrast this with the republican (representative) form of government.  Republican government is bottom up government.  In the first instance you and your family understand your place in the community.  You and yours should solve almost all your problems alone or in community gatherings.  You should or certainly can know the sheriff or local policeman.  You can go to the local court house and talk to the local officials.  If you don’t like what they are doing, you can campaign for their removal in the next election.   You live in a political and physical subdivision of your state, your county.  Your county is governed by county commissioners whom you vote for.  If you live rurally that is your government.  If you live in a village or city it is run by the town council and mayor whom you could and probably do know.  There may be several municipalities in your county all of which are self governing with officials that are elected by their local residents.  You, yourself, may be on an elected school board, elected cemetery district, an elected irrigation district or an elected highway district.  You probably participate in local church, charitable or service organizations all of which have elected boards, chairmen and administrators.  If you are not participating, you most certainly can communicate with your fellow citizens who are.  All these board members represent you, it is representative government.   Your community and county is unique and fully functional, and definitely cognizant of its place in the sun.  In sum, our Republic gives you , if you care to participate, the privilege of direct access to the government that is most important to your personal well being.  More important than the State or Federals. 

Be the county be big or small, rural or populous, it is an integral part of this State and as such needs to be represented on the state level in both Houses of the Legislature by people that you know so that its uniqueness can be part of the dialogue of law making on the State level.

The US Constitution guarantees Republican government in the States.  The US Supreme Court has un-Constitutionally abrogated that Right to the detriment of the counties and people of this State.  The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives the State the Right to reject that decision.                       

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”    

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment