Real Russian Collusion

Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was a Soviet journalist for RIA Novosti, Russia’s international news agency.  He was also an informant for the Soviet First Main Directorate KGB, who defected to the West in 1985 after becoming disillusioned with Soviet-style communism.     

Bezmenov stated that, while posted in India, he’d been “instructed not to waste time with idealistic leftists (otherwise known as ‘useful idiots’ in communist circles), as these would become disillusioned, bitter, and adversarial when they realized the true nature of Soviet Communism.”  Upon discovering that many such idealists were slated for execution once the Soviets achieved control, his disaffection led him to begin making plans to defect to the West. 

In 1985 he executed his plan.  Upon arriving in North America and being granted political asylum in Canada, Bezmenov had a very grim message for the American people.  He described the ideological subversion that has been ongoing in the U.S. for decades as a process in which the perception of reality of every American has been changed to such a degree that “despite the abundance of information (available to them), no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

He went on to describe ideological subversion as “a great brainwashing process which goes very slowly and is divided into four basic stages:  The first (is) demoralization.  It takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation.  Why that many years?  Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy.  In other words, Marxist ideology has been pumped into the soft skulls of at least three generations of U.S. students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism.

“The result?  The result you can see,” he continued.  “Most of the people who graduated in the sixties… drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals… are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, the educational system.  You are stuck with them.  You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.  You cannot change their minds, even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

“In other words, (in) these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.  To rid society of these people you need another fifteen or twenty years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common-sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.” 

One of the most glaring examples of the ideological subversion and demoralization Bezmenov described can be seen in the almost total lack of knowledge of American history and world geography that we find in children educated in American public schools.  As a grammar school student during the 1940s, I can recall geography quizzes in which one of the questions might have been: “Name twelve European countries and their capitals.”  It was a rare student who could not answer such questions quickly and correctly.  But how many of today’s 5th and 6th grade students could match our knowledge of geography?  And if today’s students are incapable of locating the nations of Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America on a map, let alone identify the fifty U.S. states and their major cities, how can we expect them to have any real sense of belonging, of family history, of ethnic identity, of national pride?  And if the American people suddenly made a giant collegial decision to return to the educational standards and methods of yesteryear, it would take at least two generations to purge the bad actors out of our schools, our school boards, our colleges and universities, and our school administrations.  

The ideological subversion and demoralization that Bezmenov described is thoroughly understood by conservatives.  We have recognized it and fought against it unremittingly for nearly a century, yet we see evidence of it all around us… every day, in every way.  But one doesn’t have to be a conservative to understand the ideological rot that has slowly but surely infected the minds of a great many Americans. 

On July 12, 2016, New York Times columnist, David Brooks, had this to say: “I never really understood how fascism could have come to Europe, but I think I understand better now.  You start with some fundamental historical transformation, like the Great Depression or the shift to an information economy.  A certain number of people are dispossessed.  They lose identity, self-respect and hope.  They begin to base their sense of self-worth on their tribe, not their behavior.  They become mired in their resentments, spiraling deeper into the addiction of their own victimology. They fall for politicians who lie about the source of their problems and about how they can surmount them.

“Facts lose their meaning.  Entertainment replaces reality.  Once facts are unmoored, everything else is unmoored, too.  People who value humility and kindness in private life abandon those traits when they select leaders in the common sphere.  Hardened by a corrosive cynicism, they fall for morally deranged little showmen… (name any prominent Democrat).

“Normally, nations pull together after tragedy, but a society plagued by dislocation and slipped off the rails of reality can go the other way.  Rallies become gripped by an exaltation of tribal fervor.  Before you know it, political life has spun out of control, dragging the country itself into a place both bizarre and unrecognizable.  This happened in Europe in the 1930s.  We’re not close to that kind of descent in America today, but we’re closer than we’ve been…  How can America answer a set of generational challenges when the leadership class is dysfunctional, political conversation has entered a post-fact era, and the political parties are divided on racial lines…?

Who can make the case that political conversation in America has not entered a “post-fact” era, or that the America of 2019 is not a “bizarre and unrecognizable” place when compared to the America of the 1950s?  Since when have facts meant anything to liberals and Democrats?  In 2016 they were so certain that they would retake the White House that, when they lost, they staged what can only be described as a thinly veiled coup d’état against Donald Trump.  They used an all-hands-on-deck effort to convince their base that Trump was (is) a tool of the Kremlin.  

Given the obtuse nature of the Democrat Party, we can’t say we weren’t warned.   We can’t say we didn’t know what was coming.

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

Head-Counting – The Democrat Way

One thing we can always be certain of is that Democrats are the ultimate pragmatists.  If they were a football team and they couldn’t beat my Philadelphia Eagles with eleven men on the field, they’d find a way to get thirteen or fourteen players on their side of the football, and it wouldn’t matter much what the NFL rule book or the game officials had to say about it.  It’s just the way they play the game.

For example, during the mid-1930s, FDR complained that far too many of his New Deal social and economic initiatives were being thwarted by the Supreme Court.  These included decisions on Social Security, federal taxes, and monetary policy, among others.  Thus, in a March 9, 1937 radio address to the nation, he had this to say:  

“Last Thursday I described the American form of government as a three-horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed.  The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government – the Congress, the executive, and the courts.  Two of the horses, the Congress and the executive, are pulling in unison today; the third is not. Those who have intimated that the president of the United States is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the presidents, as chief executive, is himself one of the three horses. It is the American people themselves who are in the driver s seat.  It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.  It is the American people themselves who expect the third horse to fall in unison with the other two… 

“What is my proposal?  It is simply this: whenever a judge or justice of any federal court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the president then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States… The number of judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

“If, for instance, any one of the six justices of the Supreme Court now over the age of seventy should retire as provided under the plan, no additional place would be created.  Consequently, although there never can be more than fifteen, there may be only fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve. And there may be only nine.”

In other words, if Roosevelt’s radical social and economic proposals couldn’t pass muster before the Supreme Court, he’d gradually increase the size of the court from six justices to as many as fifteen by adding one additional justice each time a sitting justice reached the age of seventy but chose not to retire.  It was his way of getting that third horse to pull the way he wanted.

But Roosevelt’s “court packing” plan was nothing new to Republicans, then or now.  In a February 7, 1894 speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senator George F. Hoar (R-MA) said the following:

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

Senator Hoar and other Republicans were fully aware of the lengths to which Democrats would go in order to win and hold power.  They were fully aware that, in 1787, Democrats exercised their considerable political ingenuity to win major concessions in the U.S. Constitution.  As delegates to the Constitutional Convention struggled to complete their work in Philadelphia during the long hot summer of 1787, the delegates from the southern states schemed to win a greater number of seats in the Congress than they would otherwise have been entitled to.

The result of their treachery was language added to Article I, Section 2, which reads as follows: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

While the language adopted was skillfully obtuse, their intent left nothing to the imagination.  In other words, in addition to the numbers of free persons and bond servants enumerated by census in each state, the slave states could increase their representation in the U.S. Congress by counting each slave as three-fifths of a person.  Although the slaves were viewed as “property,” without citizenship and voting rights, Democrats saw no moral contradiction in counting each of them as three-fifths of a person when the census-taker arrived at their door. 

The significance of the three-fifths rule was such that, by 1793, five years after the Constitution was ratified, slaveholding states had 47 congressmen, 14 more than the 33 they would have been entitled to in the absence of the three-fifths rule.  As might be expected, in the 74 years between the ratification of the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation, the three-fifths rule had a significant impact on the presidency, the leadership of the House of Representatives, and the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Democrats of today are much the same as they were 125 years ago when Senator Hoar subjected them to a well-deserved public beat-down.  They continue to specialize in the practice of identity politics, playing the poor against the rich, blacks against the whites, the uneducated against the educated, the young against the old, and women against men.  In other words, wherever they can find a “crevice” in our society, some appearance of division, they find creative ways to exploit it and to sow the seeds of discord and victimhood.  Without the ability to convince large numbers of people that they have been victimized, pointing the finger of blame at alleged victimizers… most often conservatives and Republicans… the Democratic Party could not exist.  

Since the Emancipation Proclamation and the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, Democrats have been forced to reevaluate their approach toward African-Americans.  Whereas they were happy to consider blacks as three-fifths of a person for some 75 years, the fact that blacks had been granted citizenship and voting rights called for a totally new approach.  And while the period between 1865 and the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court can best be described as the “KKK era,” in which Democratic “night-riders” murdered thousands of blacks and white Republicans, the party’s relationship with black Americans quickly evolved into a smothering paternalism as white Democrats came to the realization that they could no longer oppress blacks as second-class citizens through violence and intimidation.  They quickly found creative ways to purchase the loyalty of blacks through taxpayer-supported social welfare schemes, and the descendants of slaves were quickly transformed into the most reliable voting bloc of the Democratic Party.

The “three-fifths of a person” strategy of 1787 produced exceptional results for southern Democrats in terms of congressional representation.  What better way to repeat that success in the early 21st century than to inflate the populations of the states containing the greatest numbers of illegal aliens by including them in the national census.  It is the one and only reason why Democrats now oppose having a citizenship question on the 2020 census form.   

As the U.S. Census Bureau prepares to print questionnaires for the 2020 national census, they are also locating and identifying every residence in every city, town, village, and rural area in the nation.  In 2020, census enumerators will be visiting every household, gathering data from individuals who failed to voluntarily complete and return the census forms that will be mailed to each household.

The Trump administration sees the 2020 census as an opportunity to learn a great deal about who is living in our country, legally or illegally, and to correct population-related anomalies created in previous census years.  In other words, how many current U.S. residents are citizens, how many are legal resident aliens, how many are illegal aliens, and how do 2020 census figures compare to 2010 figures when the Obama administration saw no value in asking census respondents whether they were citizens or non-citizens.  

Democrats across the country are understandably concerned over the makeup of the Congress and the reallocation of federal funds if the citizenship question is placed on the 2020 census form… with a stern warning that to answer any question falsely is to invite federal criminal prosecution.  And although Democrats have threatened to fight the decision in the federal courts, the president appears resolved that the question will appear on the 2020 census form… one way or another.    

However, if the citizenship question is not on the 2020 census form and Republicans find it more and more difficult to win majorities in the lower House of Congress, they will be understandably haunted by the suspicion that they and their family members are no longer counted as whole persons by our federal  government.  Instead, Democrats will have been successful, once again, in causing a major segment of the U.S. population to count as just three-fifths of persons.

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 Reparations Boondoggle

According to recent news reports, at least nine of the twenty-five announced candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have called for some sort of “reparations” for African Americans. The intended beneficiaries are the ethnic descendants of those who were enslaved in the United States between 1619, when the first slave ship arrived from Africa, and January 1, 1863, when Republican president Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

So, exactly what do the proponents of “reparations” have in mind? If we were to pose that question to all nine of the Democratic candidates, we would likely get at least nine different answers. However, an organization called The Movement for Black Lives has provided an outline of what they have in mind when they demand reparations for slavery and for 160 years of discrimination and race-based oppression.

They tell us: “We demand reparations for past and continuing harms. The government, responsible corporations, and other institutions that have profited off the harm they have inflicted on black people – from colonialism to slavery, through food and housing, redlining, mass incarceration, and surveillance – must repair the harm done.” This includes (paraphrasing):

  1. Reparations for the systematic denial of high-quality educational opportunities. Free access to community colleges and universities, as well as technical and skilled trades training and retroactive forgiveness of student loans.
  2. Reparations for the continued discrimination toward and exploitation of minority communities in the form of a guaranteed livable minimum wage.
  3. Reparations for the wealth extracted from minority communities through racism, slavery, food apartheid, and housing discrimination, with focus on healing ongoing physical and mental trauma.
  4. Reparations in the form of mandated public school curricula that critically examine the political, economic, and social impacts of colonialism and slavery.
  5. Funding to support, build, preserve, and restore cultural assets and sacred sites to ensure the honoring of our collective struggles and triumphs.
  6. Federal/state legislation requiring the government to acknowledge the lasting impact of slavery. Implement a plan to address those impacts, including passage of the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act.”

Although a great many blacks have “sugar plums dancing in their heads” as they visualize the postman delivering a healthy government check to their front door every month, there is little likelihood that the reparations dream will ever become a reality. However, just for the sake of argument, if Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, or Cory Booker should ever come to power in our country, bringing with them all of their nightmarish Utopian socialist dreams… including the reparations boondoggle… who would be required to ante into the reparations kitty?

In other words, if only citizens who are direct descendants of former slaves are to be recipients of reparations payments… black Americans such as Barack Obama, who has no slave blood in his veins, would be excluded… is it not reasonable to suggest that those required to contribute to the reparations jackpot should be limited to those who are direct descendants of former slave owners and oppressors? Assuming that some attempt would be made to establish degrees of personal and family culpability by evaluating “the sins of the fathers,” let’s look at the record.

The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 as the Democratic-Republican Party by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others. Dominated by pro-slavery members, the party won its first major victory during the 1787 Constitutional Convention when delegates agreed to allow the slave states to count each slave as “three-fifths of a person.” And although slaves would not be allowed to vote, their numbers would serve to increase the number of pro-slavery Democrats in Congress, In 1828, the party dropped the “Republican” portion of its name and has been officially the Democratic Party ever since.

So, if my next door neighbor has a long family history of Democratic Party activism, while my family has a flawless record of Republican Party affiliation, including a great-grandfather who served as a lieutenant colonel in the Union Army during the war to end slavery, should my neighbor and I be required to contribute equally to the reparations boondoggle?

On July 6, 1854, the Republican Party was founded out of opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a federal statute that allowed the people of Kansas and Nebraska to decide whether they would be slave states or free states. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in all states north of the 36°30′ parallel, except for the State of Missouri. At their first national convention in 1856, Republicans adopted a definitive platform which contained the assertion, “Congress did not have the right to recognize slavery, but should have an obligation and a right to abolish it.”  

Prior to the Civil War, the State of Missouri had just two pockets of strong anti-slavery sentiment… a two or three county rural enclave in east-central Missouri, populated largely by German immigrants, and a similar enclave in the Kansas City area of northwestern Missouri.

My great-grandfather and my great-great-grandfather settled in east-central Missouri in 1834, where they later became dedicated Republicans. In the years following the Civil War my great-grandfather served for many years as the Presiding Judge of the St. Charles County Court in east-central Missouri, running as a Republican. With that family history as a predicate, on what basis could I be required to contribute to the reparations kitty?

On January 11, 1864, Republican Senator John B. Henderson, of Missouri, submitted a joint resolution for a 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of which was to “free all slaves and abolish slavery in the United States and its territories.” The underlying arguments presented by anti-slavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats drew a clear distinction between the parties… a distinction that has changed little in the intervening 155 years.

During floor debate on March 19, 1864, one of the principal spokesmen for the Democrats was Congressman Fernando Wood of New York, who argued: “The proposed Amendment to abolish slavery in the states of the Union is unjust, a breach of good faith and utterly irreconcilable… It involves the extermination of all white men of the southern States and the forfeiture of all the land and other property belonging to them. Negroes and military colonists will take the place of the race blotted out of existence.”

Speaking in favor of the joint resolution was Republican James Wilson, of Iowa. In his remarks, he said, “… As immutable as the laws of God stands the declaration, ‘slavery is incompatible with a free government….’ No religion which recognizes God’s eternal attribute of justice and breathes that spirit of love which applies to all men the sublime commandments, ‘whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them’ can ever be allowed free exercise where slavery curses men and defies God.”

It was left to Republicans to correct a constitutional oversight that had allowed slavery to flourish in the United States for nearly 250 years. Their efforts were opposed by Democrats at every turn. So, who were the friends of slavery and who were its enemies? And should the descendants of those who fought and died to end slavery now be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those who were its victims more than 150 years ago?

Beginning in 1865, southern Democrats continued their relentless efforts to re-enslave African Americans by legislating Black Codes. Along with other restrictions, the Codes established where African Americans could live, for whom they could work, the type of work they could perform, which hotels and restaurants they could patronize, where they could sit in theaters and on buses and trains, and which restrooms and drinking fountains they could use.

The Black Codes virtually re-enslaved African Americans until they were ultimately repealed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a statute that is nearly identical, word-for-word, to the Republican-sponsored Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1875 statute was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883 when Democrats regained a sympathetic majority on the high court.

But the greatest assault on African American freedom has been the Ku Klux Klan, a paramilitary force created by Democrats to murder and intimidate blacks and white Republicans. Although no official statistics on lynching were kept between 1865 and 1882, Tuskegee Institute records show that, between 1882 and 1968, 4,743 people were lynched by Democrat Klansmen. These included 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites… nearly all white Republicans.

Although Democrats can be expected to look only outside their “big tent” for those with deep enough pockets to finance the reparations boondoggle, there is ample evidence that, if blame is to be assessed only on the basis of racist lineage, they need only look inside their own tent.  That is where they will find the unbroken blood lines of racial bigotry, oppression, intimidation, and violence that have enslaved and oppressed black Americans for nearly 400 years.

In 2019, with black unemployment at an all-time low, Democrats are understandably concerned that their long hold on the black vote is slowly, but surely, slipping away. The political and economic plantation that Democrats have created for blacks since the 1950s and ‘60s is no longer an insurmountable barrier to political and economic freedom, and Democrats know it. If African Americans should suddenly begin to think for themselves and to shed the bonds of victimhood, the Democratic Party would simply cease to exist. It is the only reason why so many Democrat presidential hopefuls give lip service to the reparations boondoggle.

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