The Ticking Florida Time Bomb

With the passage of Florida Constitutional Amendment 4 on November 6, the Democrat Party has taken one more giant step toward the establishment of a one-party political dictatorship in the United States, a goal that they have pursued relentlessly since the day our Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The amendment to Florida’s state constitution is a ticking political time bomb that promises to have a devastating effect on our two-party system… if not in the 2020 General Election, then soon thereafter. But that is exactly what was intended because the likely result will be precisely what Republicans have always known about the Democrats’ approach to politics. While Republicans have always viewed politics as simply the means by which we establish government… a competition of values and ideals… Democrats have always approached politics as a “blood sport” in which the winning and holding of power is the only worthy goal and where any and all tactics… fair or unfair, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, violent or non-violent… are a necessary part of the game.

For example, On November 1, 1871, two years after the 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote, a Joint Select Committee of the U.S. Congress heard testimony on the question of voter intimidation by Democrats in the southern states. Senate Report No. 579 of the 48th Congress contains the testimony of John Childers, a black resident of Livingston, Alabama. When questioned about threats against the newly-enfranchised former slaves, Childers replied, “I have had threats that, if we all would vote the Democratic ticket, we would be well thought of and the white men of the county… the old citizens of the county… would protect us, and every struggle or trouble we got into we could apply to them for protection and they would assist us.”

When asked if he was afraid he would be harmed if he voted the Republican ticket, he explained, “I was, sir, because as I just stated to you, there was a man that told me he had a coffin already made for me. Yes, sir. I voted it and don’t pretend to deny it before nobody. When I was going to the polls there was a man standing in the door and (he) says, ‘Here comes you, God damn your soul. I have a coffin already made for you.’ I had two tickets in my pocket then… a Democratic ticket and a (Republican) ticket. I pulled out the Democratic ticket and showed it to him, and he says, ‘You are all right, go on.’ ”

In 1894, when Democrats had regained control of the Congress, they introduced the Repeal Act of 1894, which sought to repeal most, if not all, of the civil rights legislation passed by Republicans since the close of the Civil War. Just before senate Democrats passed the bill on February 7, 1894, the senators debated the question of whether or not it was still necessary to have U.S. Marshals stationed throughout the South to protect voting rights of blacks and white Republicans. Senator George Hoar (R-MA) described the Democrat Party as it was then, and as it has remained ever since. He said:

“Wherever there is a crevice in our protection of the freedom of the ballot there you will find the Democratic Party trying to break through. Wherever we have left open an opportunity to get possession of an office contrary to the true and constitutional will of the majority, there you will find that party pressing; there you will find that party exercising an ingenuity before which even the great inventive genius of American People, exerted in other directions, fails and is insignificant in the comparison…

“Mr. President, this is a question of fraud or no fraud. They tell us that there have been some Republican invasions of the elective franchise, and it is quite possible, but where can you find one well-authenticated case of a man who has been deprived or inconvenienced in the exercise of his franchise by these United States marshals or other officers, I will pledge myself to find ten thousand well established by evidence on record here where, without those securities, Republicans have been deprived of their votes by Democratic practices.   I incur no danger in making that challenge.   If you will produce me a citizen of the United States, a Democrat, who lost his honest vote in consequence of intimidation or impediment, created by these United States marshals, I will find on record here the proof of ten thousand Republicans who have lost their votes by Democratic practices….

 “Mr. President, the nation must protect its own. Every citizen whose right is imperiled, if he be but one, when it is a right of national citizenship and a right conferred and enjoyed under the Constitution of the United States, has the right to demand for its protection the entire force of the United States until the Army has spent its last man and the Navy fired its last gun. Most of us have nothing else than the right to vote…. The urn in which the American casts his ballot ought to be, aye, and it shall be, as sacred as a sacramental vessel.”  

The history of the Democrat Party in the intervening 125 years tells us that not much has changed in terms of their approach to winning and holding political power. In the 2016 General Election in Florida, some 9,420,039 Floridians voted in that year’s General Election. When all the votes were counted, Donald Trump had 4,617,886 votes (49.02%) and Hillary Clinton had 4,504,975 votes (47.82%). Trump’s 1.20% victory over Clinton gave him Florida’s 29 electoral votes. A switch of just 56,456 votes (0.6%) from the Trump side of the ballot to the Clinton side, would have given Clinton all 29 of Florida’s electoral votes, bringing her to within 14 electoral votes of the presidency.

The purpose of Florida’s Amendment 4 is to automatically restore voting rights to Florida residents who were previously convicted of felony crimes, with the exception of those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses. The amendment becomes effective upon the completion of a convict’s sentence, including their period of incarceration, parole, and probation. Prior to the passage of Amendment 4, Florida was one of just four states in which felons did not have their voting rights restored unless they were restored by an executive clemency board. Under the Rick Scott administration, which ended in January 2019, those Florida felons wishing to have their voting rights restored were required to wait as long as seven years after completion of their sentences… depending on the severity of the crime for which they were convicted… before making application for restoration of voting rights.

According to a report by The Sentencing Project, as of 2016, around 6.1 million people, or about 2.5 percent of the U.S. voting age population, were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. Florida was estimated to have 1,686,318 persons… 10.43 percent of the voting age population… disenfranchised due to felony convictions.

What is so significant about these numbers is the fact that the margin of victory in the 2010, 2014, and 2018 gubernatorial elections in Florida… all won by Republicans… was 1.2%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, while the margin of victory in the last two presidential elections in Florida was 0.9% in 2012 and 1.2% in 2016.

The effort to amend the Florida constitution to automatically restore voting rights to convicted felons began in the year 2000 in the wake of the disputed Bush v. Gore contest. In that election, the margin of victory for the Bush-Cheney ticket over the Gore-Lieberman ticket was just 537 votes out of 5,825,043 votes cast (0.009%). With more than 600,000 ex-felons barred from voting, is there any doubt whatsoever that… given the likelihood that the preponderance of newly enfranchised felons would have voted Democratic… the nation would have had to contend with President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman for the next eight years?

When Hillary Clinton stepped into the voting booth in Chappaqua, New York on the morning of November 6, she had every right to expect that the 22 reliably “blue” states would provide her with 260 of the 270 electoral votes she needed to become the first female president of the United States. She also knew that Donald Trump could count on no more than 197 electoral votes from 24 reliably “red” states and that, in order to be victorious, he would have to win at least 73 of the 81 electoral votes in the five remaining swing states (Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia).

However, in spite of the fact that she needed only 10 of the 81swing state electoral votes, that’s not the way things worked out. She won a total of 19 electoral votes in Nevada and Virginia, but when she looked toward Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin… states that she had fully expected to win… she was devastated to learn that those three normally blue states had delivered their 46 electoral votes to Trump.

However, had Amendment 4 been in effect in 2016, giving Clinton all 29 of Florida’s electoral votes, she could have won the presidency by carrying either Pennsylvania or Michigan. She could have lost both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, or Michigan and Wisconsin, and still won the presidency.

What is clear to almost every conservative and every Republican, except those in leadership positions in Washington, is that the Democrats have been playing a far different political game than Republicans. Democrats have been playing to win, while Republicans have been playing a game in which they’ve assumed that all the players in the game, on both sides, were good and honorable people… albeit with differing political views. That simply is not the case. Honor and decency are rare qualities in caucuses led by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

If, and when, the ticking time bomb that is Florida sends the next Democratic nominee over the top before the first votes are counted in Dixville Notch, maybe that will get their attention. Unfortunately, by that time Florida will have joined the ranks of reliably blue states and Democrats will have achieved their ultimate goal… while Republicans will be left to wonder where they can go to replace the 29 hard-fought electoral votes that have always been available to them in the Sunshine State.   

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

Cockroaches in the U.S. Congress

In a 1991 document titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” the Muslim Brotherhood explains in clear and unambiguous terms exactly what Islam has in store for us. They tell us 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.”

Should there be any doubt remaining what terrible fate awaits us if we fail to stem the Muslim tide during the early years of the 21st century? One would think not. If we in the West are to protect our children and grandchildren from spending the rest of this century contending with all the horrors of a brutal 7th century culture, it is imperative that we 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, as we in western cultures understand the term. Rather, it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, social, and cultural system with a religious component. Wherever we find them, its adherents 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.

Islam made its first major thrust into U.S. politics in 1996 with the election of Keith Ellison in Minnesota’s 5th Cong. Dist. However, after narrowly losing a hard-fought contest to win control of the Democrat Party in 2016, Ellison served for two years as deputy chairman of the DNC before leaving Congress to run for Minnesota Attorney General.

However, following Ellison’s departure from Congress, Islam apparently adopted a more subtle approach to their goal of infiltrating and destroying America from within. Realizing that Islam would have difficulty winning friends and influencing people with fearsome visages such as those of Khalid Sheik Muhammad or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi staring out at them from TV screens and campaign posters, the Imams recruited two relatively attractive young women, Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan’s 13th congressional district, and Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, to seek election to Congress, running on the Democrat ticket.

What the American people will soon learn is that, while the two Muslim women appear to be as non-threatening as their non-Muslim female counterparts, when it comes to furthering the cause of Islam in America they are as capable of putting a smile on their faces, while thrusting a dagger into our throats, as are their radicalized brethren. And while Omar’s unabashed verbal attacks on Israel are only a hint of the deep-seated hatred she holds for our most important Middle East ally, she has inadvertently accomplished something that Republicans have failed to accomplish since 1947.

By forcing the Congress to consider a resolution condemning anti-Semitism… a resolution which House Democrats failed to bring to the floor for consideration because they didn’t have the necessary 218 Democrat votes to pass it… Omar has shown Democrats to be the sunshine patriots and the false friends of Israel that they truly are.

But the question arises, how is it possible for any Muslim to be officially seated in the U.S. Congress? Upon taking their seats in Congress, all newly-elected members are required to take an Oath of Office, as prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the U.S. Code. It reads as follows:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”  

So how did our new Muslim congresswomen take that oath, given that their Islamic belief system is totally antithetical to U.S. constitutional principles? As practicing Muslims, they are dedicated to the ultimate overthrow of the U.S. government through any means necessary, including force or violence? Did they speak the words of the oath or did they simply “lip-sync” the oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs? And if they did speak the words, asking that God help them to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” are they not now guilty of apostacy in the eyes of the Muslim world?

As Rabbi Aryeh Spero stated in a February 14 article for American Thinker: “(Ms. Omar) and Ms. Tlaib have come to Congress with an unprecedented brazenness, defiance, and impropriety that go beyond mere difference of opinion. Right out of the gate, both women have overridden expected norms as single-minded propagandists eager to use their presence and committee positions as platforms to propagandize against Israel, and Jews who support Israel, by making the heretofore unacceptable now acceptable.”

Past Congresses have not been bashful or reticent in their efforts to protect the people of the United States from internal subversion by agents of foreign governments and foreign ideologies. For example, the McCarran-Walter Act, Section 212(a), 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.” The Act reads, in part, as follows:

“Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States:… (28)(F) Aliens who advocate or teach or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (i) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States… (28)(G) Aliens who write or publish, or cause to be written or published, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or who knowingly have in their possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating or teaching (i) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States…”

Two years later, the Congress enacted 50 U.S. Code 842, the Communist Control Act of 1954, which denies to any and all subversive organizations “any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated…”

Are our corrupted law enforcement agencies so consumed by the need to remove Donald Trump from office that they can’t find the time or the courage to enforce laws that are already on the books?   If we are to find a solution to the problem of Islamic expansionism in Europe and North America, we must begin by identifying Islam for what it is. Abandoning the political correctness of the political 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.

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 women 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 too suggestive. No, these are atrocities that are unique to the Muslim world. They are not, and can never be, protected religious practices by anyone’s standard.

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. And since the 95% of Muslims who are described as either “moderate” or “un-radicalized” appear unwilling to play an active role in keeping their radicalized brethren in check, we have no long-term alternative but to quarantine them… prohibiting them from residing anywhere within the civilized nations of the Earth.

The mass migration of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to nearly every nation on the European continent has been likened to an infestation of cockroaches. With the election of the two Muslim congresswomen from Michigan and Minnesota, we can assume that the vanguard of the cockroach infestation has now arrived full force in our nation’s capital. 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 full force at the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and in the streets of America. If the trend continues, western civilization will be lost forever. We cannot bequeath to our children and grandchildren the prospect of fighting a bloody 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

George III Wasn’t ALL Bad

I have just finished reading a 523-page tome, fresh off the presses, titled, The Johann Dietrich Hollrah Family – 700 Years of Hollrah Family History.  The title character, Johann Dietrich Hollrah, was my great-grandfather.  He was born at Hahlen, in the Kingdom of Hanover (now Germany), on September 30, 1824, and emigrated to the United States with his father, also named Johann Dietrich, in the winter of 1834.  They arrived at the Port of New Orleans on December 30, 1834, traveled from New Orleans to St. Louis by riverboat, crossed the Missouri River into St. Charles County, purchased a tract of wooded land, and set about clearing the land for agricultural purposes.  The hard-bound book, researched and written by my cousin, Dr. Robert M. Sandfort, over a period of more than three decades, measures 8½ in. by 11 in. and is nearly 1½ in. thick.

The region of Germany where the Hollrah family lived and prospered for well over seven centuries was under nearly constant religious turmoil beginning in 1532 when the Protestant Reformation began to spread across Germany, reaching northwestern Germany when the principality of Muenster converted to Lutheranism.  Between the years 1532 and the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648, the principality of Osnabruck, immediately to the south of the Rolfes-Hollrah and the Berens-Hollrah farms, near Menslage, vacillated between Protestantism and Catholicism.  During that 116-year period, the principality was governed by five Protestant and four Catholic administrations.  However, beginning around 1690, the church at Menslage affiliated with the Lutheran Church and remains so to this day.

The level of bitterness that divided Catholics and Protestants was such that a public opinion poll taken in Germany during the 1960s found that the German people considered the Thirty Years War to be their country’s “greatest disaster” of all time… greater even than World War II and the Holocaust.

The history tells of a long running dispute between the two Hollrah families which demonstrates, if nothing else, the stubbornness that is often ascribed to people of German descent.  At some point during the latter half of the 17th century a dispute erupted between the Berens-Hollrah and the Rolfes-Hollrah families over three tracts of land on the dividing line between the two farms.  The three tracts were referred to as the kleine Maersch (small marsh), the hinterster Wald  (backmost forest), and the Olden Hagen (old enclosure), all of which were jointly owned by the two farms since the farms were divided, most likely in the 1300s, long before Columbus sailed for America.  And since ownership could not be legally determined, the dispute raged on for some 300 years, during which time the two Hollrah families alternated control of the three parcels for periods of 12 years.

During the 18th century the situation was exacerbated by the religious tensions that existed between the Lutheran principality of Muenster and the Roman Catholic principality of Osnabruck… the dividing line for which ran squarely through the two Hollrah farms.

Finally, in 1730, a commission was established for the purposes of studying the matter and suggesting a final solution.  Unfortunately, the members of the commission were so bitterly divided that the commission members representing Roman Catholic Osnabruck drew a map in which the proposed boundary line passed through the farm buildings of Berens-Hollrah.  The suggested property description instructed: “… proceed in the side door of the Muenster side        of the (Hollrah) house.  From there, through the hallway and then in front of the door alongside the Roeleff-Hollrah farm place and house.”

The 300-year dispute was eventually resolved.  Under that agreement, Rolfes-Hollrah was given sole ownership of the marshlands and Berens-Hollrah the remaining two parcels.

But the most captivating event of the Hollrah family history occurred in the mid-18th century.  As the historical record tells us, when Rudolph Heinrich Hollrah and Helena Bruencke married on November 27, 1748, they signed a contract in which they promised to educate their children at the St. Vitus Catholic school in nearby Loeningen, and to raise them in the Catholic faith.  This in spite of the fact that they were both Lutherans.

Rudolph Heinrich died in 1759 at the age of 57.  He was survived by his wife, Helena, and six children, the eldest being 10-year old Johann Hermann who, as the eldest son, was the hereditary heir to the family farm.  But since Johann Hermann was far too young to take control of a large farm and his mother was unable to do so, it became advantageous for her to remarry.

On June 12, 1762, Helena married Hermann Heinrich Barklage, a tenant farmer in nearby Hahlen.  However, as was the custom in Germany. when a female heir or widow was left in control of a major farm, the man she later married changed his surname to that of his wife.  Accordingly, Hermann Heinrich Barklage paid the required Auffahrt (entry onto the farm) assessment, moved onto the Rolfes-Hollrah farm, and became Hermann Heinrich (Barklage) Hollrah.  He became the provisional “owner” of the Rolfes-Hollrah farm until such time as the hereditary heir, 13-year-old Johann Hermann, came of age.

However, following her first husband’s death in 1759, Helena no longer felt committed to their pledge to raise their children in the Catholic faith.  Needless to say, the priest at the St. Vitus Catholic church in Loeningen, Pastor Vagedes, was not pleased.  He quickly enlisted the assistance of a local magistrate, Judge Nehem.

The two men, convinced that the Hollrah children were attending the Lutheran school in Menslage, threatened to impose heavy fines on their mother if they were absent from classes in the Catholic school, even for a few days.  In fact, when Helena Hollrah married Hermann Heinrich Barklage in June 1762, the newly married couple, under some duress, signed a new agreement to educate their children as Roman Catholics, even though both parents were Lutherans.

During the last half of 1762 and the first half of 1763, Judge Nehem increased the fines, and when the Hollrahs still refused to relent, the authorities sent a detachment of troops to the farm where they confiscated farm equipment, household furniture, livestock, and anything else of value.  The confiscated items were then sold to satisfy the unpaid fines.

But things became even more complicated when Helena’s eldest son, Johann Hermann reached age 14 on June 2, 1763.  On that occasion he announced his intention to convert to the Lutheran religion.  And since he was the designated Anerbe (hereditary heir to the Rolfes-Hollrah farm), his decision angered the local authorities in Loeningen and Muenster, causing them to impose even heavier fines, along with threats to imprison the parents if they continued to disobey the government edicts.

To understand the passions aroused by this disagreement, it is important to understand that the Rolfes-Hollrah and Berens-Hollrah farms were located in the Catholic-controlled Bishopric of Muenster, which was under the ultimate control of the Elector of Cologne, while the ultimate “owners” of the Hollrah farms, since 1319, were the nuns of the Boerstel Convent, which was situated in the Protestant-controlled Bishopric of Osnabruck.  The Bishopric of Osnabruck, in turn, was ruled by the Elector of Braunschweig-Lueneburg (Hanover).  At that time in history, Hanover was ruled by England, which had been Protestant since the reign of Henry VIII.

The Abbess at the Boerstel Convent eventually took the Hollrah farm dispute to authorities in Osnabruck and Hanover who expressed little objection to the actions taken by Pastor Vagedes , and Judge Nehem in Loeningen.  They did not object to efforts to force the younger Hollrah children to be educated at the St. Vitus Catholic School; however, under provisions of the Treaty of Westphalia, ending the Thirty Years War, they agreed that the eldest son, Johann Hermann, having attained his 14th birthday, had the right to choose between Catholicism and Lutheranism.

As time passed, word of the religious persecution of the Hollrah family spread across Germany.  And on December 15, 1763, the Hanover Privy Councillor to George III of England wrote a lengthy letter to the Muenster government objecting to the treatment of the Hollrah family and reminding them that Protestants throughout the Empire would be paying close attention to their predicament.  His letter also served as a reminder that His Royal Highness, King George III, the King of Hanover and of England, would also be fully aware of their actions.

But the local authorities in Loeningen were undeterred.  On December 30, 1766, a letter from the Muenster high court containing six final decrees… one of which threatened the Hollrah parents with imprisonment… was sent to the Hollrah farm where it was read to them on January 10, 1767.  And when the Hollrahs refused to comply with the decree, the husband and wife were imprisoned in the Loeningen jail for eight days, where they were fed only bread and water.

But this harsh treatment did not have its desired effect; the Hollrah parents continued to refuse to educate their children at the St. Vitus Catholic school and to indoctrinate them in the Catholic faith.  As a result, when the Hollrah parents attempted to return to the Rolfes-Hollrah farm, they were again taken into custody by local authorities.  On that occasion, thoe mother was taken to the Cloppenberg jail, where she was held for a period of six months, while the father/stepfather, Hermann Heinrich, was incarcerated at the “Zuchthaus,” the penitentiary at Muenster, where he was held under conditions of hard labor.  Clearly, these people took their religion very seriously.

Six months later, on October 20, 1767, the Hanover Privy Councillor wrote to the Abbess of the Boerstel Convent.  In his letter he explained that he had presented all the details of the Hollrah family’s religious persecution to His Majesty King George III for a decision.  This letter was followed on November 13, 1767, by a letter from the Privy Councillor to the Elector of Cologne.  In this six-page letter the Privy Councillor concluded by saying, “His Royal Majesty of Great Britain, our All Merciful Lord, who at the very least will allow the same rights to his Catholic subjects as to the Protestant ones has directed us to order this treatment to cease and to remedy these complaints…”

It is well that King George III took the time in 1767 to sort out the religious persecution of the Hollrah family in his native Kingdom of Hanover.  Less than nine years later, on July 4, 1776, he had much larger problems to solve.

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