Democratic Treachery

“Good news: In two years, we’ll have a new president.  Bad news: If we make it that long.”

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, February 13, 2017

“Ladies and gentlemen, we were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016. That most recent attack didn’t involve a horrible loss of lives, but it was devastating in its own way.  Our entire intelligence community concluded that Russia hacked our election by deliberately breaking into Democratic National Committee computers and then, drip-by-drip, funneling embarrassing emails through WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton’s campaign…”

Thomas Friedman, New York Times, February 14, 207

It seems clear that, to the extent they are still hanging around the White House, engaged in presidential transition duties, former Obama administration staffers are doing whatever they can to damage the Trump presidency. They may also be aided by a few “never Trump” Republicans and their allies in the “hanger-on” class.  Whatever the truth of the matter, Washington appears to be all but immobilized with “Trump derangement” and “Russian dirty tricks derangement.”

Thus, after publishing a column under the title, “Democratic Deceit,” it seems only reasonable to follow it up with a column exposing Democratic treachery.  Democrats are so deranged over the question of Russian interference in our U.S. elections that some have even suggested that we are experiencing a full-scale assault on our democratic institutions.  There may be some truth in that assessment, but, if so, how did it happen?  When did it start and who started it?

Russian attempts at influencing the outcome of U.S. elections are nothing new, although they rarely, if ever, attempted to help Republicans. During the Cold War era the Soviet Union carried on an intensive program to influence American public opinion, and hence, the outcome of elections.  Their methodology is fully outlined by two veteran journalists, Robert Moss, former editor of Foreign Report, and Arnaud de Borchgrave, former chief foreign correspondent for Newsweek magazine, in their fact-based novel, The Spike (New York: Crown Publishers, 1980).

However, it was not until the declassification of Soviet era KGB archives during the early to mid-‘90s that the full extent of Democratic treachery was exposed. For example, one archived 1980 KGB document stated that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) offered to condemn President Jimmy Carter’s policy toward the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in exchange for KGB help in his campaign to unseat Carter.  News accounts of that period prove that Kennedy did, in fact, criticize Carter’s Afghanistan policy.

Even more surprising, Carter himself was willing to jump into bed with the Soviets. KGB files show that, in the closing days of the 1980 General Election, while Carter trailed Reagan in the national polls, Carter sent a political ally, industrialist Armand Hammer, to a secret meeting with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin at the Soviet embassy in Washington.  Hammer asked the Soviets to help Carter win votes in key states by allowing Jewish “refuseniks” to emigrate to Israel.  The Soviets refused to go along with the scheme.

KGB files show that, in January 1984, Carter approached Dobrynin in person. In an effort to derail Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup, Carter asked for Soviet help in defeating Reagan in his bid for reelection.  It is not known whether the Soviets gave him what he wanted.

But Carter, Kennedy, and Hammer weren’t the only Democrat who sought Soviet political help. Declassified KGB files show that, in 1984, House Speaker “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA) privately told Dobrynin that it was in “everyone’s best interests” if the Soviets would help Democrats keep “that demagogue Reagan” from being re-elected.  O’Neill warned Dobrynin that the “primitive instincts” of this “dangerous man” would plunge the world into war.

It must have amazed Dobrynin that those prominent liberals – Ted Kennedy, Armand Hammer, Jimmy Carter, and Tip O’Neill – all viewed Reagan as more dangerous than any Communist dictator.

Historian Paul Kengor observed that the Soviet archives showed “the lengths to which some on the political left… were willing to go to stop Ronald Reagan.” In his book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Professor Kengor quotes the text of a May 14, 1983 memorandum uncovered in the declassified Soviet archives by Herbert Romerstein, a well-known authority on the Venona Papers and the Soviet archives.

According to the memorandum, written by Viktor Chebrikov, Chairman of the Committee on State Security of the USSR (KGB), to Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR, he (Chebrikov) was visited by former U.S. Senator John Tunney (D-CA) on May 9-10, 1983. Tunney, a private citizen, was on a highly sensitive mission for his former University of Virginia law school roommate, a close friend and former senate colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).  The purpose of his mission was to enlist the Kremlin in a grand scheme to defeat Ronald Reagan and other Republicans in the 1984 U.S. elections.

In his memorandum, Chebrikov quoted Tunney as saying that Kennedy was convinced that the chilly relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were due to Reagan’s unwillingness to modify his strategic plan to win a final Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. As Tunney described Kennedy’s frustration with the state of American politics, Reagan was able to rely on the results of his highly successful “Reaganomics” policies – reduced inflation, reduced taxes, increased productivity, a healthy business climate, and declining interest rates – to support his political standing with the American people, making it difficult for Democrats to attack him on foreign policy issues.

As Tunney described Kennedy’s view to the Soviet spymaster, the only possible threat to Reagan was rooted in issues related to war and peace and Soviet-American relations. With the active participation of the Soviets, those issues could become the most critical of Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign.  As Chebrikov wrote to Andropov, “Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs… it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps” to counter Reagan’s policies:

  1. Kennedy asked Andropov to consider inviting him (Kennedy) to Moscow for a personal meeting in July 1983.  The primary purpose of the meeting would be to provide Soviet officials with “talking points” related to problems of nuclear disarmament so that they’d be “better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.”

2.  Kennedy felt that, in order to influence the American people, it would be helpful to have Chairman Andropov submit to a series of television interviews with American TV    networks. He felt that a direct appeal by the General Secretary of the Communist Party to the American people would, without doubt, “attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country.”

Tunney assured Chebrikov that, “if the proposal is recognized as worthy,” Kennedy and his political allies would take the necessary steps to have representatives of the major U.S. networks contact Andropov to schedule interviews. Specifically, he suggested that the head of ABC, Elton Raul, and “television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow.”

Kennedy also suggested a series of televised interviews, in the U.S., in which members of the Soviet military could convince the American people of the “peaceful intentions of the USSR.”

Chebrikov prepared a memorandum and sent it to Chairman Andropov, and the memorandum found its way into the KGB archives. It is not known if additional negotiations took place between Kennedy and the Soviets, but one thing is certain:  Kennedy did not expect that Reagan would ultimately win the Cold War, that the Soviet empire would disintegrate, or that Americans would one day find themselves reading of his treachery in documents taken from the archives of the KGB.

If Kennedy was unsure of a Democratic victory in 1984, with all the forces of the labor unions, teachers unions, public employee unions, trial lawyers, radical environmentalist, plantation blacks, pro-abortion activists, gays, lesbians, and transvestites at their disposal, how better to insure a Democratic victory than by enlisting the aid of the KGB and the Soviet leadership?  That was Kennedy’s principal motivation, and what a cheap, un-American motivation it was.

If a Republican member of the U.S. Senate, or a senior aide to a Republican president, had engaged in the same kind of treachery, he or she would still be staring out from behind the bars of a federal prison. Even a retired three-star general, slated for a top post in the White House national security staff, would be forced to resign in disgrace if he engaged in unofficial talks with a senior Russian official… no matter how innocent or insignificant the subject matter of the conversations.  One also wonders how Democrats view the role played by the notorious Sidney Blumenthal who, as a private citizen, gathered bits and pieces of information from across the Middle East and forwarded it, along with policy recommendations, to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in frequent email exchanges.

If Donald and Melania Trump are now finding Russians hiding under every bed in the White House, it’s because the Democrats invited them in and never got around to showing them the door.

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

Democratic Deceit

In a recent column titled “The Elephant in the Living Room,” I surmised that liberals and Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by continuing to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency.  What makes that bit of nonsense so dangerous for Democrats is the fact that, by continuing to question Trump’s legitimacy, they could easily invite renewed interest in Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility… an issue that lies festering just beneath the surface.

In Obama’s case, enough is known about his lack of presidential eligibility to invite future researchers to dig deeper into his personal history. As a result, the American people will one day be shocked to learn that, between January 20, 2009, and January 20, 2017, a period of time during which the forces of Islamic jihad made the greatest gains in the conquest of the Christian world since the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, the United States was governed by a half-Muslim impostor with no legitimate claim to the presidency.

But man is a curious animal, and if he feels that he’s been lied to or that certain historical facts have purposely been kept from him, he will move mountains to discover the truth.

A great many major historic events and mysteries remain unresolved and unexplored for years… often for decades, centuries, and even millennia. For example, as World War I raged on in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson (D) reassured the American people of U.S. neutrality.   He said, “The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men’s souls. We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.”

However, what the American people did not know was that Wilson, himself, was violating U.S. neutrality by supplying war materiel to the British and, with no apparent regard for the safety of the traveling public, shipping it to England aboard passenger ships. The German spy network in the United States was fully aware of the deceit, causing the German government to publish an April 22, 1915, warning in 50 major newspapers, urging travelers not to sail aboard the RMS Lusitania.  And when travelers expressed concern, the Wilson administration assured them that trans-Atlantic travel was safe and that there was no reason for concern.

The Lusitania sailed on May 1, 1915 with 1,198 passengers and crew aboard, and just one week later, on May 7, i915, as she sailed off the coast of southern Ireland, the RMS Lusitania was attacked and sunk by a German U-boat.

There is no better example of man’s irrepressible search for truth, or the Democratic penchant for deceit, than the events surrounding America’s entrance into World War II. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, many Americans were suspicious of the claim that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was, in fact, a “surprise” attack.  Like the truth of events such as the Kennedy assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing, the truth of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was held under lock and key for more than a half century. It was not until 1994 that official documents detailing events leading up to the Japanese attack were declassified and made available to the public.

Among those declassified documents was an October 7, 1940, memorandum prepared by Navy Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memo was addressed to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley W. Knox, two of FDR’s most trusted advisors, and contained the complete blueprint for the Roosevelt administration’s effort to precipitate a Japanese attack against the United States.   It was the “smoking gun” that historians had been seeking for half a century.

In sections 1 through 7 of the memorandum, Lieutenant Commander McCollum describes in great detail the status of the war in Europe and the tactical and strategic importance of the tri-lateral alliance between the Axis powers… Germany, Japan, and Italy… laying the groundwork for the recommendations contained in sections 8 and 9 of the memorandum. Those sections, as transcribed below, outlined in detail what naval intelligence felt was necessary to precipitate a Japanese attack on U.S. territory and/or U.S. military installations in the Pacific, as follows:.

8.  A consideration of the foregoing leads to the conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade.  A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike at us effectively.  Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely strengthen Britain’s position against Germany and Italy and, in addition, such action would increase the confidence and support of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

  1. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States  government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude.  Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
  2. A.  Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
  3. B.  Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of    supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
  4. C.  Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
  5. D.  Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
  6. E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
  7. F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
  8. G.  Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic       concessions, particularly oil.
  9. H.  Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

The memorandum went on to say, “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.”

In his response to the memorandum, Captain Knox hinted in a chilling postscript, saying, “Re your #6: – no reason for battleships not visiting west coast in bunches (emphasis added).

Although they were not privy to Japanese timing, it is clear that FDR, his senior civilian aides, and his top military advisors knew in advance that the Japanese would attack the United States. In fact, it was they who created the circumstances under which Japan felt compelled to go to war against us.  In their defense, and the kindest thing we can say about them, is that they greatly underestimated the magnitude and the ferocity of the Japanese attack.  The attack lasted just ninety minutes, but in that period of time a total of 2,403 Americans lost their lives (military and civilian combined) and 1,178 were wounded.  Eighteen ship were sunk or run aground.

As recommended by Captain Knox, the Navy had no fewer than eight battleships “bunched up” at Pearl Harbor. These included the USS Arizona, USS California, USS Maryland, USS Nevada, USS Oklahoma, USS Pennsylvania, USS Tennessee, and the USS West Virginia.  Of these, the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma were sunk and were declared total losses.  The USS California and the USS West Virginia were sunk, but were later raised and repaired; and the USS Maryland, USS Nevada, USS Pennsylvania, and the USS Tennessee were badly damaged but were quickly repaired and returned to service.  The US also lost 350 aircraft in the attack.

Just as the truth of the U.S. entry into World War I and the truth of events leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack has finally been exposed, more than fifty years after the fact, so too will the whole truth of Democratic deceit in the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the illegitimate presidency of Barack Obama.  It’s only a matter of time.

I am aware that my friend and neighbor, author Craig Roberts, the only Tulsa police officer assigned to the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, is beginning work on a book telling the whole behind-the-scenes story of how the Clinton Administration, through Attorney General Janet Reno and the FBI, prevented on-site investigators from following evidence wherever it led. Their interference misdirected the investigation away from a number of collaborators and focused the investigation only on Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

In recent weeks, as President Trump has fought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and to appoint the strongest cabinet in memory, Democrats have shown that they are willing to say whatever is necessary to stand in his way. And just as the truth of Democratic deceit in drawing the United States into World War I and World War II has now been made known, so too will the truth of the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and yes, the true identity of Barack Obama.

As a relatively young “ex-president” he will likely live long enough to experience his own political dismemberment. Let the games begin.

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

Trump – The Great Manipulator?

It is no secret in political circles that vote fraud is rampant in US elections, and always has been. Democrats know it, Republicans know it, and the mainstream media know it… but ignore it.  Unfortunately, when one major political party is the primary beneficiary of the fraud, and at least 90% of those in the mainstream media are members of that party, there is little chance that anti-fraud laws can be enacted and/or enforced.  Fraud, violence, and intimidation merely become the “dirty little secret” of the greatest constitutional republic on Earth.

In the not too distant past, voter registration was done only in person. All it took to become a registered voter was to make a brief visit to the election board offices in the county courthouse.  In some states, roving registrars set up tables in malls and shopping centers where it was possible to register while shopping.  It was a time when local, state, and national elections were held on a single day.  The only exception to that rule was absentee ballot voting by those who knew well in advance that they would be traveling, hospitalized, or otherwise unavailable on Election Day.

But then, in recent decades, as Democrats strove to assemble a permanent governing majority of special interests, they developed a vast array of fraud-friendly electoral processes. Under the guise of “fairness” and “inclusiveness,” they created abominations such as postcard registration, motor-voter registration, same-day registration, electronic voting, voting by mail, and many others… all open invitations to fraud and all disguised as ways of extending the benefits of democracy to the greatest number of people.  But is that what the “reformers” actually had in mind, or were they more interested in creating ways to “scam” the system?  Either way, the system has become so fraud-friendly that the entire process is in need of major overhaul.

Democrats have demonstrated no shame whatsoever in their support for fraud-friendly voter registration and voting procedures. In fact, when confronted with the proposal to abandon photo ID legislation, which they invariably oppose, in exchange for a system in which voters would be required to dip a “pinkie” into a vial of indelible ink after voting… so that voters could be prevented from voting more than once… Democrats opposed even that anti-fraud reform.

But now it appears as if Donald Trump has found a way to turn the tables on them. By claiming that, were it not for the votes of more than 3 million non-citizens, he would have won not only a majority in the Electoral College, but a majority of the popular vote as well, he has caused Democrats to suddenly switch sides.  They’ve abandoned their long-held claim that “vote fraud doesn’t exist,” in favor of a challenge to Trump to “put up, or shut up.”  They apparently feel that by investigating his charge and proving him wrong they can put the issue to rest, once and for all.

If this turn of events was the result of careful planning by Trump and his inner circle, then he is truly a “manipulator” of unparalleled skill. But whether planned or inadvertent, the evidence is all on Trump’s side and Democrats have inadvertently walked into a political trap.

If we’ve learned nothing else from the last seventy years of political and social experimentation we’ve learned that, given a choice between doing things the right way or doing things the easy way, Americans will almost invariably choose the easy way… and to hell with the consequences.  There can be no better example than our current electoral system.  But if we are to reform our electoral processes so that we can once again have faith that our votes actually count, we must make some bold reforms.  First, it is imperative that we go back to basic principles:

  1. Voter registration must be done only in person.  Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded.

2.  Registrations must be done only by full-time paid registrars, employees of counties and/or township government.  Third party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited.

3.  Registration must be done only in the county and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence.

4.  As a requisite for voter registration, each voter must show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (driver’s license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).

5.  Qualified voters must be issued a voter I.D. card, complete with photo, permanent address, and precinct number, which must then be presented upon entering a polling place at each election.

6.  Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony.  Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations of all felons at least ten days prior to any election.

7.  County coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates.  All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.

8.  Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must obtain a voter registration transfer document from their local election board. This document must be presented, in person, to county or township officials of the voter’s new place of residence.

9.  Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election.  Absentee ballots must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close on Election Day.

10.  Absentee ballots completed by residents of nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.

11.  Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary residence. Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded.

12.  Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials. And finally,

13.  The national Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:

  • Vote in the name of another person.
  • Vote or attempt to vote more than once.
  • Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person.
  • Vote in more than one state or political subdivision.
  • Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship.
  • Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process, or,
  • Cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

All of these recommendations meet the test of fairness and inclusion because they apply equally to all citizens. But what are the chances that such a program of reform could be enacted?  The chances are not good because Democrats have far too much vested interest in maintaining and liberalizing the fraud-friendly system we have.

But, regardless of the reforms we might impose on the present system, there can be no substitute for an educated and informed citizenry. The election of Barack Obama on November 4, 2008, illustrated precisely the sort of government we can expect when our voting age citizens are uneducated and/or uninformed.

In a November 13-15, 2008, Zogby poll of 512 Obama voters (97.1% high school graduates and 55% college graduates) we learned that: 57.4% could not identify which party controlled Congress; 71.8% could not identify Joe Biden as the candidate who had engaged in plagiarism; 82.6% could not identify Barack Obama as the candidate who won his first primary race by having all of his Democratic opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities; and 88.4% could not identify Obama as the candidate who said that his policies would bankrupt coal-burning electric utilities and drive power costs through the ceiling.

However, 86.3% identified Sarah Palin as the candidate whose political party spent $150,000 on a campaign wardrobe; 93.8% identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter; and 86.9% identified Palin as the candidate who said that she could see Russia from her home in Alaska (Actually, Palin did not say that.  That quote is from comedienne Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live).  Only 12 of the 512 Obama voters answered at least eleven of the twelve multiple choice questions correctly, while only 3 of the 512 interviewed answered all twelve correctly.

Clearly, most Democratic voters get their political information from Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Saturday Night Live. And since we can’t do much to change that, the least we can do is to make the electoral process as idiot-proof and as fraud-proof as possible.

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