Political Correctness Taints the Olympics

The opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games are always a breathtaking spectacle. With each Olympic experience, one wonders what great technical and artistic miracles special effects technicians will produce for future Olympic ceremonies.  This year we were told that we could also look forward to seeing the greatest Olympian of all time, Michael Phelps… the winner of 19 gold medals in previous Olympics… marching at the head of the U.S. contingent, proudly carrying the stars and stripes.

But when the U.S. team entered the stadium we were immediately distracted. There, in the first row of athletes, just off Phelps’ left shoulder, was a young Muslim woman wearing a hijab.  What were the chances that, of the 554 members of the U.S. team, the one Muslim athlete on the team would end up marching in the front row?  Was it an accident… pure chance?  Or was she purposely placed in the front row by U.S. Olympic officials in an excess of political correctness?

It didn’t take long for the young woman, Ibtihaj Muhammad, to answer that question for us. In an interview with the Associated Press, she said, “I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States.  I’m hoping that with my first time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.”  She went on to say, “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family, and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

A report in the August 8, 2016 edition of frontpagemag.com, titled “Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country,” explained that, while Michael Phelps was elected by his teammates to carry the American flag, he was pressured to decline the honor in favor of Ms. Muhammad. According to the report, a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, suggested, “America has enough tall, successful rich white guys hogging the spotlight,” and that, “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

One wonders whether Ms. Muhammad has ever expressed concern over the difficulty of everyday life for Christians living in countries with Muslim majorities… assuming they are even allowed to live there. It is difficult to avoid the thought of what fate might have in store for a young Christian or Jewish woman who might go to a Muslim country and complain publicly about her “treatment.”

It was also interesting to ponder the nature of Ms. Muhammad’s sport. Was she a swimmer, a diver, a volleyball player, or a gymnast?  We could quickly reject all of those possibilities because of the skimpiness of the costumes worn in those events.  Participation in any of those sports would have made her an immediate target of Muslim religious police who might have had her stoned to death for exposing too much of her body.  Or they might have ordered her father or a brother to kill her in an “honor killing” for bringing shame upon her family name.

As it turns out, Ms. Muhammad’s sport of choice is fencing. This is understandable because, given the penchant of Muslims for hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments, it’s only natural that Ms. Muhammad would gravitate toward the fencing competition.  Fighting and attacking others with knives and other sharp objects appears to be in the Muslim DNA.

If Ms. Muhammad is unhappy in America, or made to feel ill at ease, one wonders why she continues to live here. She is certainly free to live in any one of the many majority Muslim countries of the world.  She would likely be unable to drive an automobile, go to college, marry the man of her choice, participate in sports, or leave her home without being accompanied by her father or a brother.  But what the heck… if that would make her happy then she should go for it.  Most Americans would be happy to help defray the cost of a one-way plane ticket to the destination of her choice.

Like most Muslims in the U.S., Ms. Muhammad appears to be upset that she is expected to fully assimilate into American society. It has apparently escaped her attention that, when Germans, Swedes, and Norwegians arrived in America, they made no demands that the people already here must become Lutherans.  She is apparently unaware that, when Italians and the Spanish arrived here in large numbers, they made no demands that all Jews and Protestants must convert to Catholicism.  And when the British began arriving here in the 16th century, they made no demands that all Native Americans must swear allegiance to the Anglican Church or forfeit their lives.  Yet, in the late 20th century and the early 21st century, Muslims emigrating to America arrive here fully convinced that it is their duty to ultimately convert all non-Muslim Americans, and that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. federal and state law should be superseded by Sharia law.

In a July 14, 2016 article in the Washington Times, titled “Deport all Muslims who support shariah law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quoted as saying that, while all Muslim mosques should be monitored, the American ruling class is afraid to do so.  He said, “This is the fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary…  We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.”  He concluded by suggesting that we should identify all Muslims who believe in Sharia law over U.S. law and deport those who do.

Gingrich’s politically incorrect suggestion created a firestorm of criticism from liberals and Democrats, much like Donald Trump’s suggestion that all Muslim immigration should be put on hold until we find a way to adequately vet them. What critics fail to understand is that we already have sufficient statutory authority to do exactly as Trump and Gingrich suggest.

For example, every Muslim immigrant who obtains U.S. citizenship though the naturalization process is required to take the statutory citizenship oath, as prescribed by Congress. The oath reads, in part, as follows: “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… and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

In other words, the U.S. citizenship oath requires all immigrants, including Muslims, to renounce all other allegiances and requires them to agree to abide by the U.S. Constitution and all federal and state laws. And if an immigrant later decides that he/she cannot abide by that oath, and insists upon subjecting themselves to a legal system other than U.S. law, U.S. law provides that they may be subject to a process called “denaturalization,” and ultimately deported.

The grounds for denaturalization are as follows: 1) Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts. (Examples include failure to disclose past criminal activities or lying about one’s real name or identity). 2) Refusal to Testify Before Congress. (Naturalized citizens may not refuse to cooperate with congressional committees investigating their participation in groups or organizations whose stated purpose is to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government).  3) Membership in Subversive Groups. (Citizenship may be revoked if the government can prove membership in a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen.  Examples include, but are not limited to, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.).  4) Dishonorable Military Discharge. (Immigrants obtaining U.S. citizenship by serving in the military may have their citizenship revoked if they are dishonorably discharged before serving five years). .

Children granted citizenship based on a parent’s status may also lose their citizenship after that parent has been denaturalized. When U.S. citizenship is revoked, the defendant is subject to deportation as soon as the verdict is rendered.

In addition, in the event the bar for denaturalization is set too high, we have Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act) which 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 that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” It is this statute that President Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, invalidating the visas of all Iranians then in the United States and prohibiting the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.

Not only is Islam completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, making it impossible for a devout Muslim to hold full allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, Islam is the only “religious” movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the globe by rape, murder, terror, and oppression. Speaker Gingrich warns, “We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.”  I disagree.  There’s no need to “rethink the rules.”  The necessary laws are already on the books.  What we lack is the courage to enforce them.

Ms. Muhammad may be honestly concerned that the lives of Muslims all over the world could be “a little bit easier, particularly in the United States.” I would suggest to her that it would be difficult for us to make life in the U.S. any easier for Muslims.  It’s too bad she can’t feel the level of unease that most Americans feel every time radical Islamists decide to kill large numbers of innocent people… just because their interpretation of the Koran tells them it’s their duty to do so.

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 Passion of Political Movements

Since the early years of the Great Depression in the late 20s, the United States has witnessed four great political movements in which the principal outcome of the movement was a lasting imprint on our political and cultural history.

The first of these was the Roosevelt administration and its signature program, the New Deal… a collection of social and economic experiments that changed forever the political and economic foundations of our great nation. It was during those years, between 1933 and 1952, that Democrats initiated the long process of assembling a diverse coalition of special interests… each wanting something from government that they were unable to acquire through free and open competition… and to define Republicans in the hearts and minds of working men and women and the poor in terms that were totally unrelated to reality.

The false image of conservatives and Republicans created in that era remains to this day, while conservatives and Republicans continue to think of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the man most responsible for bringing our nation to the tipping point of American greatness… the point in time when our great nation began to turn its back on the founding principles of our country.

Then, in the early 1960’s, following a long succession of Republican presidential candidates selected, promoted, and nominated by the so-called eastern liberal establishment, a small group of young Republican conservatives decided it was time for the Republican Party to send a true conservative to the White House. Their goal was to find a way to nominate a conservative to challenge the 1964 reelection of John F. Kennedy.

It was during those years that this writer entered the political arena as a card-carrying member of the Draft Goldwater Committee. Throughout 1963 and 1964, I made numerous weekend delegate-hunting forays, in company with other young conservatives, into key cities in Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.  Organizing conservatives from the grassroots upward to the county and statewide level in every state of the nation, we were able to assemble enough delegates to win a first ballot nomination for Senator Goldwater at the July 1964 convention.

What we could not have foreseen was that John F. Kennedy would be assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. On that day it was clear to us that Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, armed with the “sympathy factor” resulting from Kennedy’s assassination, would not only win the 1964 General Election, but win by a landslide.  But for the assassination of Kennedy, the 1964 General Election would have been a highly competitive contest.

However, the eastern liberal establishment saw those developments as an opportunity to regain control of the party and the nominating process. Accordingly, on July 15, the third day of the 1964 convention, they placed in nomination the name of Pennsylvania Governor William W. Scranton. The Scranton nomination served only to infuriate the young conservatives who had engineered the Goldwater nomination.  Goldwater defeated Scranton by a vote of 883 to 214 on the first ballot and the liberal stranglehold on the GOP nominating process was broken.

The Goldwater nomination was the result of a conservative political movement designed to transform the GOP from a pale imitation of the Democrat Party.  It is what Ronald Reagan had in mind in a March 1, 1975 speech when he said, “Our people look for a cause to believe in.  Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”  The attempt to deny Senator Goldwater the 1964 nomination through the eleventh-hour nomination of William Scranton created such animosity within the ranks of young Republicans and other conservatives that the names Rockefeller and Scranton are as reviled in conservative circles today as they were in July 1964.

The 1964 conservative movement was followed twelve years later by a movement that arose out of an attempt by conservatives to deny incumbent president Gerald R. Ford, the candidate of the eastern Republican establishment, the 1976 Republican presidential nomination. In September 1973, I was invited to participate in a meeting of ten or twelve young conservative leaders at the Crown Center Hotel in Kansas City. The meeting was hosted by former Senator Tom Van Sickle, of Kansas, a regional coordinator for the Draft Goldwater Committee from1961-64, and Judge Ed Failor, of Dubuque, Iowa, who served as deputy director of the Draft Goldwater Committee.

The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether we could unite behind a single conservative for the 1976 nomination… much as we had for Barry Goldwater in the early 60s. The only 1976  presidential hopeful to send a representative to our Kansas City meeting was California Governor Ronald Reagan.  However, by the time we adjourned on Sunday afternoon, the consensus was that, as of September 1973, Governor Reagan did not possess the key political and financial network necessary to wage a successful national campaign for the 1976 nomination.

At the 1976 Kansas City convention, Reagan was narrowly defeated for the nomination by a vote of 1,187 to 1,070, falling just 59 votes short of the nomination. But the intensity of the campaign for the 1976 nomination made it clear to all observers that yet another conservative movement was taking shape within the Republican Party.  And as Ronald Reagan set his sights on the 1980 nomination he was able to build on his growing cadre of western political/financial supporters, creating yet another political movement across the nation.

Reagan arrived at the 1980 national convention in Detroit, Michigan, with a sizeable delegate advantage over his nearest competitor, George H.W. Bush, the candidate of the Republican establishment. I was in Detroit as a senior aide to former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon who, along with former congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY) and former Defense Secretary Donald  Rumsfeld (R-IL), was on Reagan’s “short list” for vice president.  However on the second day of the convention, establishment Republicans, convinced that Reagan was incapable of leading the nation, created a groundswell of support for a proposal to force Reagan to select former president Gerald R. Ford as his running mate.

In order to put an end to that subversion and to unite the party, Reagan was forced to select George H.W. Bush as his running mate and the eastern Republican establishment was back in business. The 1980 Bush vice presidential nomination cut short the Reagan conservative movement, giving the Republican Party 12 years of Republican presidents… from 1989-93, and from 2001-09… in which the tepid leadership style of Bush (41) and Bush (43) encouraged Democrats to continue unabated their long push toward collectivism.

Finally, the fourth major political movement occurred in the 2016 election year, a year in which the American people on the left and on the right made it clear that they were fed up with the apparent inability of inside-the-beltway Republicans and Democrats to solve any of our major national problems. As a result, Senator Bernie Sanders, a disgruntled old man from Vermont… a self-described socialist… waged a highly-competitive campaign for the Democratic nomination.

However, when Sanders became a serious threat to frontrunner Hillary Clinton, defeating her in 23 primaries and caucuses and winning 46% of pledged delegates, a movement was born.  But when Sanders’ rabid young supporters became aware that, within the Democratic Party, 713 of the party’s 4,765 convention delegates (15%) were unelected “super delegates,” nearly all party leaders whose job it was to insure that the “fix” was in for Hillary Clinton, they staged angry street demonstrations outside the convention hall.  And when they learned through leaked emails that the leadership of the Democratic National Committee had conspired to “rig” the 2016 nominating process, a political rift was created that will likely last for generations.

On the Republican side, a parallel movement was created when disaffected conservatives and Reagan Democrats across the country nominated a totally untested political neophyte, billionaire Donald Trump, a man who, while promising to “make America great again,” quickly became the most unattractive and the most egocentric presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Running against Hillary Clinton, a woman who embodies all the worst characteristics of Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and her husband, Bill Clinton, Trump was in a position to literally “waltz” into the White House by concentrating all of his energies on: a) restoring the economy and creating jobs, b) defeating the international threat of radical Islam, and c) solving the problem of illegal immigration… all issues that represent a toxic “poison pill” for Democrats. Instead, he’s spent the majority of his time in childish name-calling, in “walking back” previous oratorical faux pas, and in alienating friend and foe alike.

Anyone who might still have doubts about the comparative value of the primary system versus the caucus/convention system might want to study the Trump nomination. It was the primary system that allowed those least politically astute, those most informed by political generalities and 30-second sound bytes, to swing election after election to Trump.  His debate style was best characterized by a propensity to engage in unprecedented playground-level name-calling.

Now there is talk of a political “intervention,” a process in which party leaders would remind him of who his true enemies are and to point him once again in the direction of those who, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, would lead our nation down the path of no return. But the question arises, if Trump is not smart enough to know that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to mop the floor with him in debate, is he smart enough to know when he’s being given good advice?   And is he man enough to finally subordinate his own larger-than-life ego to what is in the best interests of the country and the American people?  That remains to be seen.

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


Treason comes to us mainly from the movies and TV … “You speak Treason … off with your head!!”  And so on.

Webster’s dictionary says that the word comes from the Latin meaning … to “hand over.”  It is 1: a betrayal of trust: Treachery.  2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family.

The Constitution of the United States of America is very specific about treason to our Federal government. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

When we Americans think of treason or traitors we generally first think of Benedict Arnold, the Revolutionary War General, who defected to the British.  Or maybe if we muse upon it, we think of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who gave the Soviet Union, our then mortal enemy, the secrets to the atomic bomb.  Or maybe Alger Hiss, the Communist fellow traveler Soviet spy and aid to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who gave the Soviets secrets straight out of the White House.   Of course, in modern times, we have the spies that have given military secrets to foreign governments generally for a big pay off which, depending on who they gave the secrets to, friend or foe, would determine their crime under the Constitution.

Were the draft card burning draft dodgers and flag burners, the people that spit on our returning war veterans committing treason?  Probably a pretty close call … many of us thought so.

Are the governmental employees or officials who, in consideration of their jobs, swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States and then go about doing everything they can think of to subvert the Constitution and laws for a “new idea” or “new order,” traitors?  Does the finding of “new, hidden intent” in our in our sacred writings constitute treason?  … some of us think so.

Of course, maybe accusations of treason are too harsh,  maybe it is just sedition.  Sedition is probably most accurately defined as agitating or advocating for the overthrow of the government, whereas treason is the knowing overt act to that end.  Treason comes to us in many kinds of clothes and because of this diversity, is often not only hard, but sometimes nearly impossible to discern who is in the costume.

What inspired this blog was my reading of the definition of treason given by a man from long ago who was trying to save his Republic from a tyrant … read what Marcus Tillius Cicero, a contemporary of Julius Caesar thought about it:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

This begs the question, “Do we have these kinds of traitors in our midst?”

What did President Obama mean by “hope and change?”  What is there to change in a government that for the first time in history venerates the individual and was instituted safeguard that individual’s unalienable Rights.  Well, the Constitution is not perfect you might say nor is the American system  and you would be right.  The men that wrote the Constitution were perfectly aware that they didn’t have all the answers.  What they did understand was that the people in the various States in the Union, when presented with prickly dilemmas would work it out to their local satisfaction.  Conditions in New Hampshire would dictate a different solution for a problem there than would the same problem in South Carolina … viva la difference.  If the solution in New Hampshire was untenable to an individual, under the new Union, that person could move to South Carolina or Tennessee if he wanted.  What the Constitution was about was protecting the States from foreigners, insuring tranquility amongst the States and maximizing the ability of the individual to move and do freely what he wanted.  When he was growing up, the only system that President Obama was attuned  to was collectivism; the socialistic teachings of his father, step father, mother, grandfather, his grandfatherly friend, Frank Marshall Davis, his communist indoctrinated political mentors like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett  and revolutionary friends like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn were his education.  For Obama, because of his upbringing and associations, political change could only mean socialism … some kind of command statism directed by an individual or by a committee.  The irony is that under statism, the freedom so cherished by he and his acolytes, that were hoping for hope and change, who voted for him and so ardently supported him, would, of necessity, see it disappear.

For the entire 20th Century, the USA fought collectivism and statism.  The Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Che Min, among others.  As these totalitarian  socialistic beasts murdered millions, hundreds of thousands of Americans died to stop them.  They stopped those implacable foes of individual and human freedom from gaining the ascendant power that they so desired.  Now we have a Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, who unabashedly wants to turn America into a socialistic state.  Hillary Clinton panders to him.  Barack Obama supports Hillary.  These people are internationalists, they are kindred souls with the above named beasts in that they seek world domination … one world  government … so that they can dictate their view of Utopia to us, the ignorant masses.  They all claim to be “Progressives,” wanting us to “progress into socialism.”  Progress is a good word meaning to go forward into something better.  There can be no progress in going backward into failed ideology or polity.  Ironic isn’t it when one recognizes that every socialistic experiment from the mid 19th Century through the 20th Century right up to today has failed.  But, as we have formerly pointed out in previous blogs, these people have one of the most successful secret political weapons ever devised … Fabianism, the incremental, step by step, “death by a thousand cuts” destruction, in this case, of individual freedom.

Socialism became ascendant in the mid nineteenth century when people who were inspired by the writings of Marx  attempted the revolutions of 1848 … which all failed.  In the US, of course, there was the early test of socialism in the Plymouth colony, which you can read about.  In Plymouth, during this communist tryout, all things produced belonged to the community.  It was the first American test of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.”  After a year of experimentation it was found that everyone had great needs, but that ability degenerated to the lowest common denominator.  In other words, “why should I bust my backside when the guy who does nothing dips into the pot as deeply as I do?” There was a town meeting and it was decided that each person would be responsible for himself and could keep or sell whatever he produced at his own discretion.  The system worked and the rest is history.  After the American and especially the French revolutions, numerous thinkers like St. Simon, Fourier and Owen began to theorize about socialism, this long before Marx and Engels.  Robert Owen tried a commune in New Harmony, Indiana in the 1820’s which  failed in 3 years.  I could go into many case histories, but they all failed and the same was the fate of the socialistic political movement in 19th Century America.  By the end of the century, socialism was so discredited that its disenchanted followers began to call themselves “Progressives” in order to avoid the stigma.  Make no mistake, a modern Progressive is an ardent socialist.  If you are following someone who brags about being a Progressive, and you are not one now, you are being co-opted into being a socialist.

So how does this affect treason?  The Progressive (the word Progressive sounds good, doesn’t it?) movement seeing that they couldn’t overthrow the US by force majeure began to use Fabianism to achieve their goals.  After Theodore Roosevelt with his “Progressive” party elected Woodrow Wilson, the nails began to be quickly driven into America’s coffin.  The adoption of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments all were stakes driven into the heart of the Constitution.  The Founders were terrified by the thought of giving the Federal government the ability to tax the populous.  They were adamantly opposed to a distant and powerful entity taxing the individual, and rightly so; we were in an European war within 4 years.   The 17th Amendment took away the right of the States to be represented in the Senate to by the State’s exemplars and gave that privilege to the carpetbaggers with the biggest sack of money.  The 18th Amendment was the first  Constitutional power given the Federal government to suppress States Rights.  And worst of all, they gave us the criminal, money counterfeiting  Federal Reserve System.  Then came FDR.  His administration debunked the money to the point that he made it a crime to own gold.  He tried a myriad of socialistic schemes to bring the people out of the depression, all of which failed, until at last he finally put the American people to work fighting WWII.  But his real success in promoting socialism came in the incremental changes in the Supreme Court.  At first he was defeated in his aims when he impatiently tryed to “pack” the Court.  But as he demagogued the electorate into four presidential terms, he outlived his nemeses and was able to put his men on the court.  He did his best to overthrow the Constitution that he had sworn to “preserve, protect and defend.”

So what did the Court do?  The best example of  the Court’s perversion of the Constitution is the Wickard vs. Filburn case where wheat that a farmer grew on his farm and fed to his pigs, which he then butchered and ate was found to be in interstate commerce.  The implication being that everything is in interstate commerce, so the Federal government can regulate everything.  A blatant perversion of the intent of the Constitution.  Was it treason?  The Justices who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution had knowingly broken their oath.  Since that 1941 decision, subsequent Courts have heaped mountains of similar decisions upon the citizenry.

Every attorney in law school is taught, on pain of scholastic failure, that when the Supreme Court rules, there is no appeal.  Patrick Henry perceived this problem when he first inspected the Constitution that James Madison brought him from Philadelphia.  Henry insisted that there be a bill of rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from those who would run the Federal government.  His answer to the above dilemma was the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  The law schools denigrate the 10th Amendment.  Is this treason?

In the Federal government, the bureaucracy is controlled by the executive … the President.  The Congress makes the laws and the President upholds and administrates, according to the Constitution.  But there is a fly in the ointment.  The Congress makes a broad law and inserts a clause stating, “and the ‘insert name of bureau’ shall make the rules and regulations necessary to implement this law.”  Of course this means that the President has control of the “rules and regulations” which now amount to well over 80,000 pages … all of which carry the full force of law, which can be tried in the Federal courts.  Is this treason?

And of course, we have the “executive order” (now about 14,000 of them) power that the Congress has given the President, which also carry the full force of law.  In order for an “executive order” to be overridden a law must go through both the House and Senate and be presented to the President, which he will undoubtedly veto.  This then requires that in order for the law to be effective it must now be resubmitted to the Congress for a 2/3 override vote.  Was this the intention of the Founders or is it treason?

Then we have the President’s military and treaty making powers and his control of foreign policy.  President Obama and his minions, basically Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have basically given away America’s reputation in foreign policy by their actions in supporting jihadist regimes in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Their unratified treaty with Iran guarantees that that country will soon have atomic bombs.  Is that treason?  Many of us think so and Israel certainly does.

I could go on and on by elaborating on the gutting of the military command structure, his Supreme Court appointments, the profligate spending spree, the crimes against citizens fomented by the EPA, the IRS, the Border Patrol, the Justice Department, the Energy Department, the Forest Service and BLM.  What about transgender bathrooms, anti-police rhetoric and as I said, on and on.  Are these actions treason or just “hope and change?”

Is it possible that what President Obama meant by “hope and change” was the destruction of our democratic Republic and “changing” it into a socialist utopia.  If you read the tenants of communist revolution or Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” you will see that they are the template for the actions of the Obama administration.  This is the kind of treason that that brilliant, lonely republican Roman, Marcus Tillius Cicero was talking about.  Worse and more dangerous than barbarians at the gate.  Are the President and his “Progressive” sycophants committing treason?  Many of us think so.

But if you ask your state Legislators or US Senators or Congressmen, as I stated in a previous blog you will find,



Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment