Armageddon? ..

When I started university many years ago, my school of choice was a land grant college.  As such, in those days, a young man had to submit to 2 years of reserve officers training. (ROTC or as we called it rot-C)  Since I had dreams of being a fighter pilot, I joined Air Force ROTC.  I remember in particular a lecture given by my professor, a Lt. colonel, on the methods of conducting warfare; he said for the air force there were four ways.  Conventional: strafing, bombing, psychological, ect; Nuclear; Chemical and Biological.  I think that I pretty well understood conventional and nuclear … I knew people from WWI who had been subjected to chemical … but I am not sure that I ever understood how biological warfare would be conducted.

I envisioned loading up the local crop duster’s airplane with some kind of nasty stuff, then flying out over the enemy and giving them a good dusting with something like small pox, anthrax or bubonic plague. I also could see dropping a bomb loaded some horrible pathogen into a large metropolis or their water supply.  However, I kind of dismissed this out of my mind, because it seemed to me that any disease that would be transmitted would take far too long in its incubation to be of any real effect in a wartime scenario.  It never occurred to me that the enemy would most probably be totally unaware of what my bomb had done.  The first three methods of warfare, and even the crop duster, require active, aggressive action that the enemy can combat.  Even the more subtle way of bombing the water works or the city with an apparent dud are pretty aggressive.  On further reflection these ideas came to me later in life.  All these methods are still aggressive with a long time delay and so out of mind it went again.

The ultimate goal of war from the aggressive point of view is to conquer your enemy by destroying his forces in the field so that the populace has no one to defend them.  Or alternatively by destroying the populace or its will to resist either completely or to the point that it cannot resist.  If an attack could so affect populace’s confidence in the government that they would rebel, it might foment a revolution that would result in a capitulation that would satisfy the aggressor’s war aims.  Examples of this are the Russian revolution and the subsequent capitulation by the Bolsheviks to Imperial Germany in WWI or by the overthrow of Mussolini during WWII.  But could these aims be achieved by passive means rather than aggressive means?  To do this it would have to be a very subtle attack by a very determined enemy who would have to play the role of innocent bystander.  A bystander who was willing to sacrifice much.  America has such an enemy, the devious, crafty, dedicated, patient, subtle, brutal, arrogant, genocidal Chinese Communists.

There is a city in central China, Wuhan, about the size of New York City with a population of about 11 million.  Wuhan is a highly industrial city.  Some of Wuhan’s industries are pharmaceuticals and biological research.  Wuhan has the largest, newest, most sophisticated biological research center in China and probably the world.  They do biological research on viruses.  They can clone, re-combinate and otherwise manipulate existing strains in the most advanced ways known.  The Communist Party (CP) says that the Corona virus (COVID-19), first found in Wuhan, came from wild animals, eaten raw by the people.  Is it possible that the virus came from the laboratory downtown?

COVID-19 infection is much like the flu.  It is related to the recent SARS virus that ran rampant several years ago.  However there is no vaccine for it and about 1 in 75 people that get it die.  The virus is spread as an aerosol, that is by droplets in the air from coughing or sneezing.  Of course those droplets can get on your body or clothes and can be ingested from your hands by wiping your nose or mouth.  It is nasty, nasty and it, like the flu, being airborne will be everywhere and we, each and every one of us will eventually be exposed.

Is it possible that the CP, an enemy that has sworn to destroy us, has been looking for a biological like this to promote biological warfare?  Maybe they are and maybe not, but what a beautiful passive weapon.  You develop it, turn it loose on your domestic population, a population in a very cosmopolitan city and let the chips fall where they may.  Very soon, foreign travelers will have spread it worldwide.  … Oh, come on, Lee, the CP wouldn’t loose this on 11 million people in Wuhan.  Oh, wouldn’t they?  Would it make any difference to the CP if everyone in Wuhan died?  11 million out of 1.8 billion?  No!  Would the CP care if 100 million Chinese died from this infection?  Leaving 1.7 billion — No!

Would the people of America care if everyone in New York City died?  Absolutely unthinkable!  100 million?  Unrecoverable, incomprehensible!

So how does the USA react to a virus that did not exist 100 days ago that at this point has no cure, but as yet has not been demonstrated to be any worse than the common flu that last  year hospitalized 450,000 people and killed nearly as many people as died in traffic accidents?  Well, we freak out, both the populace and the government, in the greatest demonstration of mass hysteria in American history.  Absolutely incomprehensible!  Considering an ancient fable  I would point out that when Henny Penny finally got the entire barnyard hysterical, the calm one, the fox, ate all of them up.  It is more than obvious that COVID-19 will not come close to being a pandemic like the Spanish flu or the bubonic plague.  But what is not so obvious is the damage that is being done to the country.

I believe that one of the most successful military operations that has ever happened in world history was when a platoon of 19 Arabic soldiers hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them into large buildings.  Yes, lots of innocent people were tragically killed, but the collateral damage of that attack nearly 20 years ago still goes on in the limitations of personal freedom, cost of safety measures, anxiety and continuing angst.  But the present viral attack on us is far more subtle and ingenious.  Passive vs. Active!

It isn’t the “pandemic”, but our reaction to it.  Myriads of citizens standing apart, wearing handkerchiefs, bandanas, dishtowels, hoarding or stealing TP, there are people in isolation, racked with fear, businesses shut down,  schools shut down, travel restrictions, there is un-Constitutional lawmaking, the anxiety and on and on.  It is a tragic commentary on the state of the credulous American citizenry.

But the most frightening thing and the thing that can defeat us is the reaction of the government.  The Congress and the President with smiling faces and the aura about them of love, care and beneficence, after totally shutting down the entire nation have now provided a “cure” for their ineptitude.  They have borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank, 2.2 trillion dollars, quickly followed by a 850 billion dollar supplemental to bail out affected citizens and businesses.  The Congress at the urging of the Secretary of the Treasury is considering injecting another up to 7 trillion dollars into the world banks to help struggling foreign nations.  Let’s see … 10 million-million dollars of counterfeit money … financed by wealth stolen from all the nation’s capital assets, but mostly from middle class Americans … but the government says that if you do it right, it is “free” money.  How long can this go on?  Maybe this is the straw that will break the camel’s back!  Chinese or Statists or not we need to face the certainty that we are in a war for our Republic and right now we are losing!  Are we too late?

Posted in Lee's Musings | 1 Comment

Happy New Year, Democrats!

This is a tale of two impeachments.

On January 7, 1999, the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton began in the U.S. Senate.  Although the original charges presented to the House Judiciary Committee by independent counsel Kenneth Starr included eleven impeachable offenses, including perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, evidence tampering, abuse of power, and others, the House of Representatives was able to reach agreement on just two counts: 1) lying under oath in a court of law, and 2) obstruction of justice… both serious felonies.  

Under Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is required to preside over all presidential impeachment trials.  As Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the members of the senate to order, he called each of the 100 senators to the well of the senate where he administered the following oath to each one, in turn:    

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?”  With their right hands raised and their left hands on the Holy Bible, each senator responded, “I do!”  Although most of us who’ve fought in the trenches against Democrats for many years could accurately predict how the Democrats would ultimately vote, only God, himself, and the 100 senators, knew which of them possessed the strength of character and the integrity to live up to that solemn oath.

House managers began presenting evidence on January 7, 1999 and completed their closing arguments on February 12.  When the final votes were tallied on the perjury count, all 45 Democrats voted “not guilty,” in spite of undeniable evidence to the contrary.  Forty-five Republicans listened to the evidence, did their duty, and voted “guilty.” Ten Republicans, after being presented with undeniable video evidence, voted either “not guilty” or “not proven.”

To be alive at that time and to have a clear understanding of Clinton’s irrefutable guilt, and then to watch as forty-five Democrats and ten Republicans flagrantly voted “not guilty,” violating their solemn oaths to “do impartial justice,” was a devastating blow to all who love our country and who respect the rule of law..     

When votes on the obstruction charge were tallied, the Senate split evenly: 50 senators voted “guilty” and 50 voted “not guilty.”  Throughout the voting on the two articles of impeachment, and in spite of the undeniable evidence of guilt on both counts, not a single Democrat voted to convict the one man most responsible for seeing to it that our laws are “faithfully executed” and that he/she will “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

But now, in late December 2019, as we gather together with family and friends to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, it is devastating to hear every Democrat in Congress, House and Senate, demanding that Donald Trump be removed from office, even though they are unable to find him guilty of any offense that would qualify as “treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.”    

Of the 100 senators who voted to either convict or acquit Bill Clinton in 1999, seven Democrats and eight Republicans are still there, preparing to vote on the question of whether or not our current president is guilty of impeachable offenses of such magnitude that he deserves to be removed from office.  So, what can we expect from those seven long-serving Democrats and eight Republicans?  Knowing what we do about Democrats, we know that they are evil, vile, disgusting, and loathsome people, totally lacking in integrity and self-respect.  In fact, they are so despicable and so contemptible that we are able to predict with a high degree of certainty that they will all vote to remove Trump from office, innocent as he may be of any impeachable offense.  All eight of the Republicans can be expected to stand with their more junior colleagues and vote to deny the Democrats their bitter revenge for having defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Anyone with access to the mush-filled brains of a millennial might want to keep a very short parable on the tip of their tongue.  What every young person needs to understand as they reach voting age is that, in February 1999, every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to acquit a Democratic president who was indisputably guilty of the charges for which he was impeached, while it is readily predictable, with a high degree of certainty, that those same Democrats will vote unanimously to convict a Republican president whom they’d managed to impeach on the flimsiest of “trumped-up” charges, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.  

The Clinton administration is a perfect example of the Democrats’ approach to law and justice.  When the Clintons left the White House in January 2001, the American people had an opportunity to take stock of what was the most criminal administration in U. S. history.

During the Clinton years in the White House, some 113 individuals were known to have committed felony crimes.  Of these, 54 went unindicted and 59 were indicted.  Of the 59 who were indicted, three… two Buddhist nuns and Monica Lewinski… were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony; two were found guilty, but were later pardoned; two resigned from office rather than submit to a jury trial; one, a black cabinet secretary from Mississippi, was acquitted by a D.C. jury; and 39 faced a jury and were found guilty, as charged.  The final disposition of the remaining 12 felony indictments is unknow. 

It should be obvious to all patriotic Americans that, in the absence of a free and unbiased press, it is impossible to have a free country, and that, in the absence of an honest, educated, and fully informed citizenry, it is impossible to have a justice system that guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens.  At this point in time the American people have reason to doubt that we have either.  We no longer have a free press, and we have a justice system that is increasingly administered based on nothing more than the (D) or the (R) that we place behind our names.

So, who is to blame for this unmitigated failure of the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of mankind?  While there is no doubt that the Democratic Party… the party of slavery, secession, and segregation… has played a major role in everything damaging, destructive, and deadly in our nation’s history, the opposition party, the party of Lincoln, must also accept its share of the blame.

For example, in the present circumstance regarding the impeachment of Donald Trump, the Republican Party has abdicated its leadership and abandoned its strategic responsibilities in ways too numerous to mention.  For example, when Democrats began developing their bogus impeachment claims against Donald Trump by criticizing his July telephone conversation with the newly elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Democrats immediately placed Trump and congressional Republicans on the defensive.  They did so by creating the impression that the primary purpose of Trump’s call was to congratulate Zelensky on his election victory and to seek his assistance in investigating evidence of Ukrainian corruption involving former vice president Joe Biden and his 49-year-old son, Hunter. 

What the Trump administration and congressional Republicans fail to make clear is that, when Trump placed a telephone call to President Zelensky, he was “wearing two hats.”  The first, and most significant hat, was his presidential/commander-in-chief hat.  There is only one hat like it on the face of the Earth, and Donald Trump owns it until at least noon on January 20, 2021.  The fact that he also wears the hat of a candidate for reelection, and that one highly visible American,  whose family member appears to be closely tied to Ukrainian corruption, is also a candidate for president of the United States, is purely coincidental.  In other words, when Trump called president Zelensky he was, first and foremost, carrying out his sole responsibility as chief executive of the United States.  Any other topics of conversation were of secondary importance.

Congressional Democrats sprang their trap when it became known that a “whistleblower,” an unnamed lower-level official of the U.S. intelligence community, had written a letter to one of the principal Trump-haters in the Congress, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).  As it was soon made clear, the “whistleblower” complained about what he/she felt was an improper request made by President Trump in his July 25 telephone call.  However, when Republicans asked for details of the identity of the so-called “whistleblower,” Democrats refused, claiming that they had a duty to protect the identity of the individual.  In short, Donald Trump could be the first man in U.S. history to be indicted, tried, and convicted without being allowed to face his accuser, introduce witnesses in his own defense, or to cross examine his accuser or other prosecution witnesses. 

At that point, congressional Republicans proceeded as if the “whistleblower” actually existed, although they had absolutely no proof that he was a real person.  Instead of putting Adam Schiff and congressional Democrats on the defensive by questioning or denying the existence of a “whistleblower,” Republicans simply proceeded as if Democrats were being truthful about the source of the accusations against Trump.  Had they taken the strategic offensive at that point, the Trump impeachment process may have had an entirely different outcome.

But there is hope.  On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2019, Attorney General William Barr announced D.C. grand jury indictments against eight high-dollar Democratic fundraisers.  The charges include conspiracy, making conduit contributions, causing excessive contributions, making false statements to the FBI, causing false records to be filed, and obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation.  The recipients of the more than $3.3 million in illegal contributions include four super PACs; forty-one party organizations, mostly state Democratic committees; and sixty-nine candidates, including Hillary Clinton (2), Cory Booker (5), Amy Klobuchar (3), and Kirsten Gillibrand (3).  

The Christmas Eve indictments of the nine Democratic fundraisers is just the first shoe to drop in what promises to be an election year filled with surprises for Obama administration officials and Clinton campaign operatives.  If Attorney General Barr lives up to his stellar reputation, 2020 will be a very difficult year for Democrats.  So, here’s wishing them the Happy New Year that they so richly deserve.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

The Ever-Shrinking Democratic Field


Years from now, when historians write the story of the 2020 U.S. presidential election and they recall the names of the twenty-eight candidates who sought the Democratic nomination, they will have just one question.  They will ask, “Who were those people, and what in the hell made them think they were presidential caliber?”

One Democrat who has been thinking… quite correctly… is Rep. Al Green, who has represented Houston’s 9th Cong. District in Congress since 2005.  Green was one of the first Democrats to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment and he reiterated that position in an August 8 interview on CNN. 

In that interview, Green made it clear exactly how much he hates and despises Donald Trump, expressing a desire to not only remove him from office, but to do it in such a way that Trump would be totally and utterly destroyed.  He said, “To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice.  To do so would do our nation a disservice, and would not allow us to do (to him) what they did in 1868 when Andrew Johnson, who was the bigot of his time, who was impeached by the radical Republicans…” 

Green is convinced that “There ought to be radical Democrats and Republicans who are willing to rise to the occasion and say to this president, ‘You are unfit, unworthy, and you must be removed from office.’”  He concluded by saying, “(Democrats) can’t let him walk the Earth without that stain (of impeachment).”

It would be interesting to know exactly who Green would choose from the ever-shrinking Democratic field who could even begin to accomplish what Trump has accomplished.  As a Democrat, he might choose a colleague such as Rep. Hank Brown (D-GA), a member of the House Judiciary Committee who has now voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment.  It was Hank Brown who stunned Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, saying he feared that stationing 8,000 additional Marines on Guam would cause the island to “become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”  As proof of the old adage that the people get exactly the quality of representation they deserve, Hank Brown’s intellectual capacity is representative of a great many Democrats in Congress.

But who would Green select from among the remaining announced candidates?  Of the twenty-eight candidates who have announced, to date, four of whom were so unremarkable that no one knew they were running, thirteen have already withdrawn, leaving fifteen candidates.  Of these, six candidates (Booker, Castro, Delaney, Steyer, Williamson, and Yang) are seen as having not even a remote chance of winning the nomination, leaving Democrats with just nine candidates to choose from.  These include Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), former vice president Joe Biden (D-DE), former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN), Cong. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), former Massachusetts governor Duval Patrick, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  

Of these, seven have all-but-disqualifying fatal flaws. In addition to Joe Biden’s serious health problems, making it all but impossible for him to maintain a campaign schedule even half as rigorous as Trump’s, he has major family-related corruption problems which haven’t even begun to cause major damage, as yet.  As the appearance of major corruption drag Biden deeper and deeper into the political mire, he will find it impossible to continue.  Having already slipped to fourth in some national polls, Biden can be expected to withdraw before the Iowa caucuses.  

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a unique case.  Serving as the mayor of the nation’s 306th largest city is not a major qualification for the presidency.  Thus, his political fortunes may ultimately rest on the strength of his military service and on the fact that he is openly gay.  At this point in the 21st century, most Americans are willing to accept the notion that a few of our family and friends may be homosexual or bisexual.  Most are indifferent to the issue, taking a live-and-let-live stance.  However, African Americans are known to be strongly anti-gay and it has been many years since a Democrat has won statewide or national office without carrying a prohibitive share of the black vote. 

But the question arises, are there limits to the tolerance that most heterosexuals display?  In other words, if a heterosexual couple would refuse to rent a spare bedroom to a gay or lesbian couple, would they be just as intolerant of the notion of sodomy taking place in the White House… in the Lincoln Bedroom?  As matters now stand, with Buttigieg seen as a long-shot for the presidential nomination, the question of his sexual orientation has not been an issue.  But how far does such tolerance extend?  Democrats may soon have to decide, but not until they’ve entered the privacy of the voting booth.  The opinions they express outside the voting booth will not always inform the decisions they make inside the voting booth.  Scratch Pete Buttigieg.

Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, is a self-described Democratic socialist.  He has developed a large following among young (age 18-36) liberals and progressives.  However, while he may attract young votes in the traditionally blue states, he would have a difficult time in the South, the Southwest, the Mountain States, the Farm Belt, and the Rust Belt.  Sanders would be 83 years, 4 months, and 11 days old when he completed a four-year term in January 2025.  Having suffered a heart attack while on the campaign trail in recent months, will he be able to withstand the rigors of the campaign trail for the next twelve months?  That is highly unlikely.  Scratch Bernie Sanders.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is the one 2020 candidate who seems to have a bit of staying power and she appears to be in good health.  However, her insistence that Medicare-for-all is a valid idea, in spite of her stunning cost estimate of $52 trillion over ten years, is bringing denunciation from every part of the political spectrum… left, right, and center.  The American people, while willing to pay for the best quality healthcare, have a strong aversion to what has always been known as “socialized” medicine.  They are not likely to changes their minds on that issue in 2020.  Scratch Elizabeth Warren.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while a relatively popular mayor of New York, has proven himself to be quite dilettantish on the issues.  He has bought into the “global warming” hoax and he has spent a great deal of political capital attempting to limit the size of soft drinks that New Yorkers can consume.  As a multi-billionaire and a late entrant into the race, Bloomberg is seen by a great many Democrats, even among his fellow competitors, as a rich man trying to buy the presidency.  Scratch Mike Bloomberg.

Finally, former Massachusetts governor Duval Patrick, having entered the race very late, has had very little chance to build a field organization anywhere but in Massachusetts.  And with a cheering-squad of just one, Barack Obama, there is little or no chance that Patrick has time to create a political movement behind his cause.  Scratch Duval Patrick.

Of the twenty-eight Democrat candidates who announced their intentions to seek the Democratic nomination, that leaves Democrats with just three to choose from: Sen. Michael Bennet, of Colorado; Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii; and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota.  And if all these assessments are valid, we can finally begin to understand why Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, and Adam Schiff are so hell-bent on impeaching Donald Trump, on grounds that do not even deserve to be called “flimsy.”

And as the attorney general, the Justice Department Inspector General, and U.S. Attorney Durham begin to put some meat on the bones of what is sure to be the greatest political scandal in U.S. history, Democratic chances in November 2020 will become slimmer and slimmer.  Congressman Al Green has it just right.  Since Democrats have little or no chance of winning the presidency, or to win control of either House of Congress, their only alternative is to remove Trump from office by impeachment.

As a long-suffering victim of Democratic treachery for sixty years, this is the day I’ve been waiting for.       

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment