James T. Hodgkinson – Democrat

In a June 11, 1807 letter to newspaper editor John Norvell, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “…  nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper… Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle… I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time… I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors…”

In the wake of the attack on the Republican congressional baseball team in Alexandria, Virginia, by deranged Democrat James T. Hodgkinson, Democrats were quick to provide us with all of the hollow and meaningless platitudes that we have come to expect from them.  And although their sentiments regarding the need for free and open debate … the issues of the day look good on paper and before the TV cameras, what they fail to acknowledge is the fact that those who collect and disseminate the daily news… those who own and operate the “sieve” through which all news and opinion must pass… rarely report the facts in a complete and unbiased fashion.  It is why men such as James Hodgkinson exist.

The mainstream media is so thoroughly wedded to the Democratic Party agenda, so intellectually dishonest, that they will allow no opposing views and no complete understanding of the issues to make their way into the public mind.  If Thomas Jefferson had been able to see 150 years into the future, he might have expanded his condemnation by saying, “I will add that the man who never reads a newspaper, who never watches network television, who never watches late night TV talk shows, and who refuses to set foot on a college or university campus, is better informed and is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors…”

For example, U.S. State Department approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline was delayed by the Obama administration for at least eight years before being approved by the Trump administration just days after taking office.  According to a January 26, 2017, editorial in the New York Times, “The Trump administration has reversed the government’s position on a highly contentious energy project, issuing a permit for the Keystone XL, a pipeline that would link oil producers in Canada and North Dakota with (refineries) and export terminals on the Gulf Coast.  A long battle may delay construction for months or even years.

“The pipeline has long been at the center of a struggle pitting environmentalists against advocates of energy independence and economic growth.  President Barack Obama rejected the project in late 2015, saying it would be antithetical to the United States’ leadership in curbing reliance on carbon fuels.

The editorial went on to suggest that the pipeline was not as essential as it was in 2008 because of changes in energy markets and increased U.S. production.  But what the mainstream media failed to communicate during Obama’s eight years in office is that the 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines already crisscrossing the country are approximately 70 times as safe as transporting oil and gas by tank truck or by train.  Nor did they inform the American people that pipeline safety was only a “false flag” issue and that the primary reason for Obama’s opposition to the pipeline was rooted in the mindless opposition of wealthy environmentalist.

When it came time to choose between plentiful, secure, and inexpensive energy supplies for the American consumer, and the billions of dollars that wealthy environmentalists would provide to the Democratic Party and its candidates, the Democrats decided in favor of taking the money and the mainstream media kept that dirty little secret from the people.  If the American people had known the whole truth about the Keystone XL pipeline, that its fate was rooted in the ability of Democrats to extort money from wealthy environmentalists, it is unlikely that Obama could have sat on it for eight years, but they didn’t.  That was never fully understood by the public at large and Obama was allowed to take advantage of that information vacuum.

Beginning in 2008, as the U.S. economy sank into economic recession, Democrats blamed the economic downturn on George W. Bush and his economic policies, while the mainstream media systematically repeated the fiction, preventing the American people from knowing the truth about the roots of the recession and the bursting of the inflated real estate “bubble.”

The seeds of the economic crisis were sown decades earlier with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), a Carter administration initiative that encouraged lenders to make home loans to qualified borrowers who had previously been denied solely on the basis of the color of their skin.  The CRA worked exactly as intended until the 1990s when the Clintons moved into the White House.  They recognized the CRA as a political “mother lode” which, if strategically enforced with a political end in mind, provided a unique opportunity to attract and solidify the votes of the poor, especially minorities.

Under the Clinton administration, regulators paid particularly close attention to the lending practices of banks and savings & loan associations.  They questioned whether lenders were meeting the credit needs of all borrowers, regardless of borrowers’ ability to repay their loans.  Accordingly, they began to use the results of those examinations to decide whether or not to approve bank mergers and acquisitions, and whether or not to approve applications for new branch banks.  Mortgage lenders soon found that the CRA was more stick than carrot.

As a result, lenders abandoned traditional lending criteria and made mortgage loans to almost anyone who applied, regardless of their income level or credit worthiness, and immediately sold those sub-prime mortgages to one of two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), i.e. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.  Fannie and Freddie, of course, had no reason to worry because, as quasi-public institutions, they had the entire cash assets of the American taxpayer…  the U.S. Treasury… at their disposal.  They had nothing to lose.

Fannie and Freddie then bundled the loans with other sub-prime mortgages and sold the bundles to private investors, promising not only attractive returns, but a high degree of security as well.  By year end 2010, Fannie and Freddie had acquired more than half of the $11 trillion mortgage loan market in the United States.

However, the sale of mortgages to private investors was not a totally arms-length proposition because, even though Fannie and Freddie had sold the bundled mortgages to private investors, they guaranteed the securities for the investors, promising to continue making payments on mortgages even if homeowners stopped making payments.  In 2008, when the overheated real estate market collapsed and a great many homeowners stopped paying all at once, the cash reserves of Fannie and Freddie were soon depleted, forcing them to default on their guarantees and precipitating a major economic crisis.

So how much of that Democratic “sting” operation were American taxpayers aware of?  Very little.  Not only was it difficult to explain to economically illiterate voters… many of whom found it difficult to balance their own checkbooks… the mainstream media saw to it that essentially all the people heard was Democratic charges that it was all George Bush’s fault.

But the most damaging First Amendment failure of the past century took place beginning on Tuesday, July 27, 2004.  It was on that date that Barack Hussein Obama, an unknown Illinois state senator and Chicago community organizer, took his first giant step toward winning the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.  Within hours of his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Democratic kingmakers began speculating about his potential as a future presidential candidate.

However, just as quickly, serious-minded American patriots, true believers in the rule of law, began delving into Obama’s personal history and background.  What they found, and what any person with the ability to read the English language would be forced to conclude, was that a young man who was born with dual US-British citizenship on August 4, 1961, and who held dual US-Kenyan citizenship between December 12, 1963 and August 4, 1984, could never qualify as a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

And while Obama’s lack of qualifications for the presidency was without question, Democrats were so anxious to have an attractive and articulate young black man in the White House that they were only too happy to rip the U.S. Constitution to shreds.  Republican leaders, on the other hand, were so concerned about the firestorm that was sure to follow if the first black presidential candidate in U.S. history was suddenly disqualified on constitutional grounds, that they tucked their tails between their legs and ran for cover.  And the mainstream media?  They simply took it upon themselves to misinform the people, tagging anyone who questioned Obama’s eligibility with the “birther” label and subjecting anyone who spoke the truth about his lack of eligibility to withering public ridicule.

Is it any wonder, then, that a man of James Hodgkinson’s political views, and millions of others like him, are wandering around our country with seething hatred in their hearts, with Democratic voter registration cards in their wallets, and with deadly weapons in their hands?  And is it any wonder that a longtime New Jersey Democratic political strategist, named James Devine, has responded to the Alexandria shootings by shamelessly introducing the Twitter hashtags #HuntRepublicans and #HuntRepublicanCongressmen?

Unlike the Frankenstein monster of Mary Shelley’s imagination, James Hodgkinson was not a figment of anyone’s imagination.  But like the Frankenstein monster who was created in a laboratory by a mad scientist, Hodgkinson was created by Democratic politicians who suffer from a mental illness called “liberalism.”  He was not one of a kind.  He is legion.

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

Repeal and ……….Replace?

We who believe in Constitutional principles, individualism, capitalism and the free market stood by with open mouthed, gaping disbelief a few years ago as the then leaders of the majority Democratic party cajoled, misrepresented, fabricated, lied and tricked their way into coercing the hapless rank and file Democrats of Congress into adopting “Obama Care,” the ACA … the Affordable Care Act. Who can forget … “You can keep your doctor” … “The price of health care will go down” … “We will not finance birth control” … “we will not fund abortion.” And on and on as the socialistic “Progressive” leaders of the Democratic Party tricked the rank and file of their party into the beginnings of the socialistic “single payer” government run form of health care that has so stifled the medical practices and medical communities in Canada and Great Britain. It was appalling to see Bart Stupak and his friends in the Congress credulously accept President Barack Obama’s promise, in order to get their votes, to nullify the abortion clauses in the ACA by executive order, which he did not nor ever have intention to do. One of the tenants of Marxism is that “the end justifies the means.” It is OK to lie to get the law you want by suborning little people of no consequence, Lenin’s “useful idiots.” And what are the consequences?

The ACA, which is socialism, with its coercive taxes, mandates of participation and threats of incarceration, has been a miserable , frightening drag on individuals and on the commerce of our country. But it is law … allowed under the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court by being a tax, under the Sixteenth Amendment. It is probably the most hated law in the US since the infamous “Fugitive Slave Act” which led to the Dred Scott decision and contributed mightily to the Civil War. In spite of this it has its supporters … left wing zealots and of course those who receive its medical benefits without having to pay for them. The zealot’s eyes are aglow with socialistic ecstasy when they speak of … “pre-existing conditions” … “free birth control for college women” … ” participating in one’s parent’s insurance until age 26″ … “20 million uninsured, now insured.” Of course, there is never a thought about how to pay for it beyond taxing the subjective “rich.”

So the people who will pay the bill, the downtrodden middle class, seeing this monstrous attack on them began to rebel. They formed the “Tea Party” and banded together to stop this attack upon Freedom. They threw enough of the scoundrel Democrats out of the House of Representatives in 2010 to give control of that body to the Republicans who were promising to repeal Obama care. But they did not get rid of the Democratic Senate with its ogreiferous leader Harry Reid, nor the Progressive muslimophilic President, Barack Obama. But, nonetheless, the Tea Party and the Republicans finally managed to gain control of the Presidency, House and Senate in November of 2016. Additionally, as soon as they came to power, they filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court with an esteemed jurist who is ostensibly a Conservative. (we shall see on this) Everything is coming up roses …. right? … Wrong!!!

 
The voting public thought that they we voting for people who were promising to repeal “Obama Care.” And in many cases they were, that is if their candidate was not disingenuous. The American public is learning, but only slowly. We do not remember or maybe are incapable of remembering words or phrases that are parsed. Remember President Bill Clinton saying: “it depends on what the definition of “is” is. There are a lot of Republicans who are closet Democrats … we call them RINOs. When the Tea Party spectacle of “repeal” emerged, the RINOs, who secretly like socialized medicine had to morph the movement into something that would protect the concept. So, they, along with a left wing media, began to say … “we need to repeal AND REPLACE Obama Care.” The American public, being credulous people, forgot to listen (read?) what was being said.

I don’t want Obama Care replaced, I want it repealed. A replacement is still SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Is Republican socialism better than Democratic socialism? I think not. Why on Earth would anyone want to substitute bureaucratic incompetent insensitivity for the best medical system in the World? Don’t you think that you and your doctor can make better decision about your health than a committee of bureaucrats?

 
We know that the Ryan/Trump Care package will not and can not pass the Congress because the patriots in Congress like Rand Paul, Mike Lee or Ted Cruz will not vote for socialized medicine and RINOs like Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins from Maine, who refused to stop Obama Care when she could have, don’t think it is socialized enough.
If you modify Obama Care, then you are accepting that we will have socialized medicine at the Federal level. Obama and his socialistic Progressive acolytes will have won and America will be well on its way to socialistic utopia like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, modern Venezuela and all the other failed socialistic states of the last 150 years.

 
So what should be done?
First I will write the bill that should be introduced:
Be it enacted:
“The Affordable Care Act, known as Obama Care, together with all its Amendments, Rules and Regulations, together any and all references and modifications in any other law, rule or regulation supporting it is hereby repealed. This law is to be effective on January 1, 2018.”
Now wasn’t that easy? What Republican Congressman would dare vote against this bill and then face his constituency?

 
Once this is done, Obama Care or the modification of it is no longer at issue in any way. And socialized medicine in the USA has disappeared. Democratic chicanery has disappeared and they can’t do anything about it. We are back to free market medicine. The shoe has now been moved to the other foot, the Democrats and RINOs will have to move fast to address their concerns about the present system.

 
At this point, if it is repealed, hopefully the States but, probably the Congress can take up any perceived shortcomings in our health care system. They can debate how to insure people with pre-existing conditions, whether the government should supply young unmarried women, or any women for that matter, with birth control supplies, whether medical insurance can be sold in the free market across state lines, whether young people should be carried (by law) on their parent’s insurance policies until they are 26, whether government should continue to fund abortions and abortion clinics, whether Catholic Nuns should be compelled by law to support and provide for birth control and whether to consider any of a myriad of other controversies pertaining to socialized medicine. But the beauty of this approach is that every Congressman, Democrat or Republican, will be on record as to where he stands.

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

Who Hugs the Russian Bear?

On this Memorial Day holiday, as we honor those who gave “their last full measure of devotion” in the defense of our great nation, it is only fitting that we distinguish between those who are sincere in their patriotism and those who only give lip service for self-serving political purposes.

In the February 14, 2017 edition of the New York Times, columnist Tom Friedman provided all the proof we need of the mainstream media’s political bias.  He said, “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…”

Since the closing days of the 2016 campaign, liberals, Democrats, and their enablers in the mainstream media have made it clear, implicitly and explicitly, that they believe the hacking was done at the request of Donald Trump and/or his advisors.  Having failed Logics courses in college, they still have not concluded that, while the Kremlin may have shuddered at the thought of a Clinton presidency, it did not necessarily follow that they longed for a Trump presidency.

However, the American people must be made aware that Russian attempts at influencing the outcome of U.S. elections are nothing new, although the substance of back door diplomacy by Democrats and Republicans with Russians has been vastly different.  During the Cold War era   the Soviet Union carried on an intensive program to influence American public opinion; hence, the outcome of elections.  Their methodology is fully exposed by 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-mid ‘90s that the full extent of Democratic treachery was finally made known.  For example, now-declassified KGB documents tell us that, in 1976, Senator Ted Kennedy offered to publicly condemn Jimmy Carter’s policy toward the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in exchange for KGB help in his campaign to defeat Carter in the Democratic presidential primary.

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” in the Soviet Union 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 Reagan’s defense buildup, Carter asked for Soviet help in defeating Reagan in his bid for reelection.  However, in that election, Reagan carried 49 of the 50 states, defeating Democrat Walter Mondale by a vote of 525 to 13 in the Electoral College, the second largest electoral landslide in U.S. history.  It is unlikely the Soviets gave Carter the help he requested.

But Carter, Kennedy, and Hammer weren’t the only Democrats who sought Soviet political help in U.S. elections.  Declassified KGB documents show that, in 1984, House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA) told Ambassador 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. So much for the storied “détente” between Reagan and O’Neill.

It must have amazed Andropov and Dobrynin that those prominent Democrats all viewed Reagan as more dangerous than any Communist dictator, just as Vladimir Putin must now be amazed that Obama, Clinton, Schumer, and Pelosi see Donald Trump as more dangerous than either ISIS or al Qaeda.

Historian Paul Kengor has observed that the Soviet archives show “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 KGB 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 Communist Party Central Committee, 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 a close friend and former senate colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy.  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 view to Chebrikov, Reagan’s only weakness was rooted in issues related to war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  Can anyone spell T-R-E-A-S-O-N?

Kennedy asked Andropov to consider inviting him (Kennedy) to Moscow for a personal visit in July 1983.  The primary purpose being to provide the Soviets with “talking points” related to the issue of nuclear disarmament, so that they’d be “better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the U.S.”  Kennedy felt that, in order to influence the American people, it would be helpful to have Andropov submit to a series of television interviews with American networks.

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.”

But the Soviets weren’t the only targets of Democratic treachery.  In an effort to reverse the spread of communism in Central America and the Caribbean, the Reagan administration proposed a $14 million humanitarian aid package for the anti-Communist Contra guerillas in Nicaragua.  But then, just days before the Senate was to vote on the aid package, and just five months after they were first elected to the U.S. Senate, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) flew to Managua for an impromptu meeting with Nicaragua’s Communist dictator, Daniel Ortega.  The purpose of the meeting was to find a political rationale for voting against the Reagan aid package, and to find positive things to say about the communist regime.

Before returning to Washington, the amateur diplomats had extracted a “promise” from Ortega that he would “moderate his policies.”  Kerry boasted, “We believe this is a wonderful opening for a peaceful settlement without having to militarize the region.”

Unfortunately for Kerry, as he was basking in the afterglow of his freelance diplomatic mission Ortega was on his way to Moscow to arrange a $200 million loan from the Soviets.  While Kerry worked in Washington to deny aid to freedom-loving Nicaraguans, Kerry’s new friend, Daniel Ortega, was in Moscow raising money with which to oppress freedom-loving Nicaraguans.  When the Reagan aid proposal was voted on it was defeated on a straight party line vote.  Democrats were solidly opposed to humanitarian aid for the anti-communist Contras.

One would think that Trump defenders and congressional Republicans would be using the Democrats’ sordid history with the Russians to defend against the unrelenting attacks on Trump, but they don’t.  They remain inexplicably silent.  So, as Donald Trump begins his second hundred days in the White House, he is beset by media reports of covert communications with the Putin regime in Moscow.  And without a shred of evidence of actual wrongdoing, the mainstream media report every instance of Democratic calls for his impeachment.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote to newspaper editor John Norvell on June 11, 1807, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper… I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time… I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.”

Did the Russians hope to derail Hillary Clinton’s “coronation” as President of the United States? Yes!  But it does not necessarily follow that they looked forward to a Trump presidency.  So, who hugs the Russian bear?  We’ll never know by consulting the mainstream media.  The only way we can know is by consulting the KGB archives.

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