Treason?

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,

NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!!! 

 

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

Donald Trump – Our Only Choice

On Monday, March 23, 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) became the first to announce his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, foretelling a merciful end to the Obama era… what history is certain to record as the low-point in American history.  Before all was said and done, an unwieldy field of sixteen additional Republicans would announce their intention to seek their party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

After many months of primary campaigning, and after subjecting the American people to an embarrassing series of “debates,” more closely resembling no-holds-barred mud-wrestling contests than grown-up discourse, the Republican field narrowed from seventeen candidates to just two… Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Unfortunately, the long and bitter primary battle, punctuated by unruly and self-serving debate rhetoric, caused the most able and competent candidates to be sidelined.

While Donald Trump initially ranked among the top candidates, primarily on the strength of his assurance that he could run the country as well as he runs his own multi-billion dollar business empire, his performance in the debates and on the campaign trail created an unseemly spectacle unmatched in American political history. His lack of knowledge of the political process, his lack of knowledge of the issues, and his constant resort to the sort of name-calling most often heard on grammar school playgrounds, quickly turned the contest into a mudslinging embarrassment.  His unmitigated arrogance, his boorishness, his apparent ignorance of Republican principles, his complete lack of an identifiable value system, and his total lack of good manners and graciousness, whether in victory or in defeat, is unparalleled in U.S. political history.

But now that Trump’s has become the presumptive Republican nominee, nowhere has his ignorance of the political process been more evident than in his response to Sen. Ted Cruz’s ability to win large numbers of delegate votes in non-primary states… in particular, his childish response to Cruz’s success in winning all 34 of Colorado’s delegate votes.

If Trump and his advisors had even the slightest familiarity with the intricacies of the nominating process from state to state, they would have known that some states have chosen to have closed primaries, in which partisans are limited to deciding among candidates only of their own party. They would have known that the citizens of other states have chosen to have open primaries, in which voters are allowed to cross party lines and vote in opposition party primaries.  And they would have known that other states, such as Colorado, have chosen to manage their affairs through the caucus/convention system.  It’s up to the people to decide.

Upon learning that Senator Cruz had captured all 34 of Colorado’s delegates, Trump is quoted as saying, “I’ve gotten millions of more votes than Cruz, and I’ve gotten hundreds of delegates more, and we keep fighting, fighting, fighting, and then you have a Colorado where they just get all these delegates, and it’s not (even) a system. There was no voting.  I didn’t go out there to make a speech or anything.  There’s no voting.”

He went on to say, “They offer them trips… they offer them all sorts of things, and you’re allowed to do that.  I mean, you’re allowed to offer trips and you can buy all these votes.  What kind of system is this?  Now, I’m an outsider and I came into the system and I’m winning the votes by millions of votes.  But the system is rigged.  It’s crooked.”   Referring to the Colorado result as “totally unfair,” he later tweeted, “How is it possible that the people of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican primary?”

The people of Colorado, especially those party activists who’ve elected the state’s 34 delegates, would be quite surprised and angered to learn that Donald Trump considers them to be the sort of people who are motivated not by principle, but by “what’s in it for them,” and that the system they’ve devised to elect national convention delegates is “rigged,” “crooked,” or “unfair.”

What Trump apparently fails to understand is that, while he was having his way with politicians around the globe, buying with cash whatever governmental decisions he couldn’t win by simple persuasion, millions of other Americans were doing whatever they could to further the interests of their country, their community, and their party. Millions of concerned Americans were serving as party precinct chairmen, as county chairmen, and as state committeemen.  Millions of others spent their evenings licking envelopes, putting up yard signs, and distributing campaign literature door-to-door.  Many others spent much of their spare time recruiting good people to run for public office, chairing or participating in precinct meetings and caucuses, or serving as delegates to county, district, state, and national political conventions… all at their own expense.

Such people are the backbone of the political process and it is they who are in the best position to match their party’s principles with the best possible candidates. And it is they who have earned the right to decide who are the most knowledgeable and deserving partisans to represent their county, state, or congressional district in the U.S. Electoral College and at county state, and national conventions.  But when Trump and others criticized the list of candidates for national convention delegate slots listed on the Colorado GOP ballot… complaining that no one knew who those candidates were or who they supported… they simply did not understand that the citizens of Colorado who performed all of the party function listed above knew who they were.  If some Republicans in Colorado were unfamiliar with the candidates for national convention delegate, it could only be because they were not in the political arena, doing their part.

Those of us who’ve been sharing in those responsibilities for many years have learned the value of the caucus/convention system in which the planks of party platforms are generated at the local precinct level, from where they eventually become planks in state and national party platforms, and where delegates are elected to represent local party units at the state and national level. We learned that the caucus/convention system that Donald Trump apparently fails to appreciate is in many ways far preferable to the primary system in which our most apolitical friends and neighbors… often members of the opposition party… make their uninformed voting booth decisions from nothing more than watching dozens or hundreds of 30-second TV ads.

Trump is quoted as saying that he “doesn’t care about rules.” If the rules of the Republican Party require 1,237 votes for nomination at the quadrennial nominating convention, he apparently felt that that rule didn’t apply to him.  If he was to arrive at the national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, with less than a majority of the pledged delegates, that was good enough for him… so long as his vote total was more than whoever is in second place.

As Trump apparently sees things, as in horseshoes and hand grenades, close is good enough. However, unlike the rules for horseshoes and hand grenades, close is not good enough in politics.  A majority is a majority, and that means at least fifty percent, plus one.  The party rules will not change to benefit Trump’s inflated ego.

In a recent interview following the Colorado Republican convention, Trump insisted with great bravado that, like Ted Cruz, he “could have gone to Colorado.” He insisted that he could have met with the “head guy” out there (presumably the chairman of the Colorado Republican State Committee).  He expressed the conviction that, had he been given the opportunity to “wine and dine” the guy, he could have won his share, if not all of the Colorado delegate votes.

In other words, what Trump was saying is that all he needs in order to have his way in this world is a pen and a checkbook. With those two things in hand, he can accomplish whatever he has in mind.  But it doesn’t work that way in grassroots Republican politics where honesty and integrity are the coin of the realm.  What Trump has done is to question the integrity of nearly every Republican in the states of Colorado and Wyoming, as well as in dozens of other states.

What GOP establishment candidates totally ignore is the fact that Americans, in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, have been yearning for nearly thirty years for a presidential candidate with the courage to “tell it like it is.” They’ve longed for a conservative willing to take on the mainstream media, bare-knuckled, a leader with enough “rough edges” on him/her to scare the crap out of liberals and Democrats, both inside and outside the mainstream media.  Trump’s success, to date, tells us that he may be such a man, although he appears at times to be a bit too “rough around the edges.”

What voters need to consider as they make their voting booth decisions in November is that the candidates of both major parties are essentially irrelevant because, for the first time in U.S. history, the presidential candidates of both major parties are the opposition’s greatest assets. Since neither Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton have demonstrated that they are of presidential caliber, the 2016 presidential election will be the first in which the voters’ primary consideration will be, not the candidates themselves, but the kind of people… senior advisors, cabinet secretaries, judicial appointees, and agency heads… that the respective candidates will bring into government with them.

What is at stake in this election is nothing less than the future of our country as a constitutional republic, and it is a dead certainty that, if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, the decline of this great 229 year experiment in self-government will have passed the point of no return. And since we cannot allow that to happen we have only one choice in November.  Although we may not know what Donald Trump stands for or what he may attempt to do as president, our only hope is the expectation that he will bring the right kind of people into government with him.  That being the case, it appears he will be the only candidate we can possibly support.  And while we may never want a man such as him as a personal friend, we absolutely must elect him.  GO TRUMP!!

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

Radical Islam – The Final Solution

The unspeakable massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in which forty-nine innocent people were brutally murdered by a radical Muslim, has produced what all such events have produced in the past: enough handwringing to set entire cities ablaze and enough heated debate over gun control to make one’s head spin. Unfortunately, none of it can or will do anything to attack the root cause of Islamic extremism and prevent future reoccurrences.

A December 17, 2015, letter from Senator James Lankford, Oklahoma’s first-term junior senator, is a perfect example of the head-in-the sand attitude of western political leaders. Lankford began by thanking me for contacting him with my concerns about Islamic immigration.  Then he went on to explain that, “The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of all Americans to practice the religion they choose, or no religion, without fear of government interference or retribution.”  He went on to explain, “Religious liberty is vital to a free nation.  The First Amendment to the Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’  Disruption of religious liberty for one person endangers the liberties of us all.”

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

Islam is not a religion, subject to First Amendment protections, 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.

If we are to find a final solution to Islamic jihad 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 values and cultures.  Unfortunately, the Roman Catholics and other Christian denominations are evolving at a snail’s pace in their approach to Islam. In a most thoughtful and thoroughly researched treatise, titled, Islam, Interreligious Dialogue, and Evangelization, published on May 8, 2015, Andre Villeneuve, Ph.D. of Saint John Vianney Seminary, describes the evolution of the Catholic Church’s approach to Islam in just the past half century.

According to Dr. Villeneuve, “Since Vatican II (1962-65) the Catholic Church has taken a conciliatory approach toward non-Christian religions in general, and Islam in particular. Interreligious dialogue has tended to focus on similarities rather than differences…”  He quotes the Council Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, saying, “Since in the course of centuries, not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”   

The conciliatory theme within the Catholic hierarchy continues to this day. Dr. Villeneuve writes that, “After praising the commitment to prayer, faith, devotion, and ethical values of many Muslims, (Pope) Francis encourages Christians to adopt a welcoming attitude towards the increasing number of Muslim immigrants in traditionally Christian countries, while asking for a reciprocal freedom of worship for Christians living in Muslim countries.”

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

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

Needless to say, the response from the Muslim world has not been what the Vatican might have hoped for. Instead of reciprocating, in kind, radical Islam has pursued a brutal, unrelenting jihad against the Christian world.  Dr. Villeneuve quotes a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” The memorandum explains 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.”

At this writing, the focus of the western world is on Syria and Iraq where ISIS, one of history’s most bloodthirsty organizations, is literally butchering its way across the Middle East. The limits of their savagery are beyond comprehension, yet Western leaders, chiefly Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, sit idly by, not knowing what to do or how to prevent the ISIS butchers from slaughtering us on our own home soil.

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 an open invitation.  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.

The next and final step in dealing with the Islamic threat is for western governments to codify opposition to Islamic jihad. Senator Lankford and other political leaders are apparently unaware that as recently as the 1950s our country has taken steps to protect itself from domination by foreign ideologies.  For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”

Included among these, Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens “who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization (such as Islam or the Communist Party USA) that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This is precisely what Donald Trump has suggested, and it is precisely this statute that President Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.

Islam is the only “religious” movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the Earth 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.

Barack Obama appears convinced that we have little to fear from Muslim immigration. That simply is not the case.  Our political leaders live each day inside protective cocoons, safe from the bloodlust of the Muslim muhajirs, whose sole purpose in life is to impose their brutal 7th century culture on 21st century Judeo-Christian nations.  And since our political leaders appear unwilling to do what is necessary to protect us, we cannot escape the possibility that We the People may ultimately be forced to take matters into our own hands.

Unless we defeat radical Islam in the deserts of the Middle East and in the streets of Europe in the months and years ahead, they will surely confront us at the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and in the streets of America. If that comes to pass, western civilization will be lost forever.  We cannot bequeath to our children and grandchildren the prospect of fighting 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 | 18 Comments