Some Perspective on Lynching

Donald Trump does not share many identifiable traits with former president George W. Bush, or with Bush’s late father, George H.W. Bush.  But there is one confounding trait that all three men have regularly exhibited during their time in the White House… a trait that leaves their friends and supporters thoroughly perplexed.  I refer to their apparent inability to respond to Democratic slights or insults with “biting” responses.  Whenever Democrats unwittingly give Republicans an open opportunity for a knockout retort, Republicans invariably treat the opportunity as if it were a sexually transmitted disease. 

For example, in July 1990, after haggling for months with congressional Democrats over spending cuts vs. tax increases, the matter was ultimately resolved at an “economic summit” held at Andrews Air Force Base.  At that summit, Democrats agreed to specific spending cuts, while Bush agreed to tax increases, abandoning his famous “read my lips; no new taxes” pledge and setting the stage for his defeat in 1992.  Bush shook hands on the deal with House and Senate Democrats and returned to the White House to await the agreed-upon legislations. 

When the spending bills arrived on his desk, he signed them into law.  He then leaned back in his chair to await the promised spending cuts.  He waited… and waited… and waited.  But, as might be expected, no spending reductions ever arrived.  It was a perfect example of the sincerity of a Democratic handshake.  It was also an object lesson that he and George W. had available to them in subsequent years.  But either they failed to remember the duplicity of 1990, or they were too nice or too dumb to recognize its value as a political weapon.

Now, in October 2019, nearly thirty years later, Republicans have been given a stunning invitation to let every American citizen, especially those in the African American community, understand the true history of the Democratic Party.

In an early morning tweet on Tuesday, October 22, Trump expressed his anger and frustration with the totally unfair and illegitimate process that House Democrats are using in their attempt to justify his impeachment.  He tweeted, “So someday, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights.  All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching.  But we will WIN!”

To put Trump’s use of the term “lynching” into some context, it is first necessary to recognize that, according to archival statistics at Tuskegee Institute and at the NAACP, between 1882 and 1968, there were 4,743 recorded lynchings in the United States.  Of these, 3,446 were blacks, and 1,297 were whites… a great many of them white Republicans.  So, the question arises, how many white Republicans have Democrats murdered, for no better reason than that they disagreed with them politically?  And how many Democrats have Republicans murdered in response? 

So, who were these mass murderers?  In their condemnation, while hoping to put a respectable face on the Democrat Party and their destructive paternalism of black people, NBC noted that, “The president’s use of ‘lynching,’ which elicits a time when black Americans were murdered by extrajudicial white mobs, was the subject of immediate blowback.”   When we consider that white Democrats have gone to great lengths for the past 154 years to hide the fact that they were the principal opponents of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments…. outlawing slavery and giving the former slaves citizenship and voting rights… as well as the authors of the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws, to say that their paramilitary auxiliary, the KKK, was nothing more than an “extrajudicial white mob” takes political correctness to a never-before-seen level of silliness.

Needless to say, Trump’s use of the term “lynching” brought immediate condemnation. Representative Barbara Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “For him to say something like that was disgusting, reflects his insensitivity toward the historical tragedies of this country…”  To add a bit of perspective to her criticism, one would have to ask Ms. Lee, “Whose sensitivity?”   What sensitivity have Democrats, black and white, shown toward the mindless brutalizing of the black race by a Democratic paramilitary auxiliary, the KKK?  The truth is, most black people regularly vote for candidates of the same party that committed unspeakable acts of cruelty against their forebears. 

For example, in May of 1918, there were a series of lynchings in Georgia.  When Mary Turner, who was nine-months pregnant at the time, complained that she was going to see to it that the white men who lynched her husband would be prosecuted, a mob dragged her from her home, tortured her, and hanged her.  Then, while she was still alive, hanging from a rope, they cut open her womb.  The child spilled out onto the ground and they crushed the baby’s skull under the heel of a boot.

One wonders how much success Mary Turner might have had in her quest for Justice.  In many (most?) instances of Klan violence it was no secret who was hidden beneath the white sheets and under the white peaked hats.  Unfortunately, other than their costumes, the Klansmen all shared another very important thing in common: they were all Democrats.  And since all the members of the local constabulary were Democrats, as were the prosecutors, judges, and juries, successful prosecutions of Klan violence were a rarity.      

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) responded to Trump’s tweet, saying, “Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation’s history, as is this President.  We’ll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching, and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful.”  When Democrats decided during the mid-1950s that, since slavery was no longer a viable alternative in the U.S., they would have to purchase the loyalty of blacks with a multi-trillion dollar social welfare spending spree, is it not reasonable for us to ask Sen. Harris whether or not the welfare state is just the Democrats’ way of “whitewashing” their own corruption?    

Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) said, “You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING?  What the hell is wrong with you?  Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you?  Delete this tweet.”  Rep. Rush thoughtlessly lumps all whites into a single group when he addresses Trump as “people who look like you.”  We should remind Representative Rush that the hundreds of thousands who fought and died in a great war to end slavery did not all look alike.  Some who looked like Donald Trump (my great-grandfather, Lt. Col. Johann Dietrich Hollrah of the Union Army, among them) were devout abolitionists; other white combatants felt just as strongly about maintaining the institution of slavery.  

The Australian website news.com came as close as anyone to defining, perhaps unwittingly, what the fury is all about.  They wrote, “Lynchings, or hangings, were historically mostly used by whites against black men in the South beginning in the late 19th century amid rising racial tensions in the US.  By comparing the impeachment process to a lynching, Mr. Trump is also likening Democrats to a lynch mob.”   So, what’s their point?  When one considers all of the above, concluding that the Democrat Party is, in fact, the party of Slavery, Secession, and Segregation, we leave it to everyone’s conscience to decide which party most resembles a “lynch mob.”

How many black Democrats, who regularly cast 90-95% of their votes for members of the party that murdered their great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, are now among Donald Trump’s most vocal critics?  How many of them are even aware of their party’s racist history?  And how many black children learn the history of the slavery era in their Black History classes?  Given the predictable destruction of the black family unit that can be traced directly to the Democrats’ management of the welfare state, is it not treasonable to ask whether or not the welfare state has not been used by the Democrat Party as “an act of terror used to uphold white supremacy,” as Senator Cory Booker has suggested?

And finally, when one considers the evils of lynching, it is simply not possible to have such a discussion without recalling the ordeal of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, at the hands of Senate Democrats.

Clarence Thomas was nominated as an Associate Justice by President George H.W. Bush.  But, if Thomas had known in advance the physical and emotional agony he would experience at the hands of Senate Democrats, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would not have hesitated; he would have declined the president’s nomination.

On the final day of his Senate confirmation hearing, Friday, October 11, 1991, Justice Thomas delivered what was the most devastating rebuke that a committee of the United States Senate has ever endured.  He closed his remarks by saying, “This is a circus.  It is a national disgrace.  And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”  

Clarence Thomas must sit before his TV each night with a tear in his eye, saying a silent prayer for President Donald Trump.  What they did to Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, and to Judge Robert Bork, is simply standard Democrat procedure.  It’s just the way they play the game.  No one knows that better than these three jurists.  Trump is right.  What they experienced, and what Trump is experiencing now, can only be described by two words:  it is a “public lynching.” 

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

Hypocrisy

The Fifth Edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “hypocrisy” as the “Act or practice of feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; esp., the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion… ”

The Democratic Party… the party of slavery, secession, and segregation… is the embodiment of hypocrisy.  That has never been more evident than in the age of “Get Trump!!”  From the day he entered the Republican presidential primaries on June 16, 2015, he has been the target of every political dirty trick known to man…and the Democrats know them all.

After more than two years of intense effort by a team of highly partisan Democrat lawyers, at a cost of more than $25 million to U.S. taxpayer, it is clear that there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian apparatchiks, aimed at electing Donald Trump and defeating Hillary Clinton.  To the contrary, what we have learned in the past four years is that there have been multiple instances of collusion between the Obama White House, the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the most senior officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA, with a number of foreign interests, including Russia, Ukraine, and others. 

Throughout this shameful period in American history, Democrats have concentrated on following the instructions contained in Chapter One of their party playbook.  That instruction tells them, “Whatever you do that is either unethical, immoral, or illegal, always blame Republicans for doing the same thing.”  To cite just a few examples of Democrat duplicity:

During the early ‘90s, a 1983 memorandum was discovered in the declassified archives of the Soviet Union.  According to the memorandum, written by Viktor Chebrikov, Chairman of the Committee on State Security of the USSR (KGB), and addressed to Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, he was visited by former U.S. Senator John Tunney (D-CA) on May 9-10, 1983.  Tunney was on a highly sensitive mission for his former University of Virginia law school roommate, and former senate colleague, Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, (D-MA).  The purpose of his mission was to enlist the Kremlin leadership in a grand scheme to defeat Ronald Reagan and other Republicans in the 1984 U.S. elections. 

According to the Chebrikov memorandum, 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, the only possible political threat to Reagan was rooted in issues related to war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  Kennedy felt that, with the active assistance of the Soviet leadership, these issues would become the most important of the election campaign; hence, the basis for Tunney’s mission to Moscow.  As Chebrikov reported, “Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs…, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps” to counter the militaristic Reagan policies:

First, 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.”

Also, 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 by major American TV networks.  He felt that a direct appeal by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the American people would “attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country.”

Tunney assured Chebrikov that, “if the proposal is recognized as worthy,” then 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 personalities Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters, could visit Moscow.

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

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

In the mid 1980s, 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 proposal, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) flew to Managua for an impromptu meeting with Nicaragua’s communist dictator, Daniel Ortega.  Their purpose was to find a political rationale for voting against the Reagan aid package, and to find positive things to say about Nicaragua’s communist regime.       

Kerry and Harkin returned to Washington with stars in their eyes.  The amateur diplomats had extracted a “promise” from Presidente 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, while he worked in Washington to deny aid to freedom-loving Nicaraguans, his new friend, Daniel Ortega, was in Moscow negotiating a $200 million loan 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.  Utter hypocrisy!

Having failed to damage Donald Trump with their bogus charges of “Russian collusion,” Democrats have quickly moved on to an equally sinister charge that the president has committed an impeachable offense by engaging in a relatively innocuous conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski.  According to an October 15, 2019, exposé by former Investor’s Business Daily writer, Daniel John Sobieski, “While Democrats are pushing the bogus Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo story invented by that great storyteller, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, two groups of Democratic senators have been colluding with Ukrainian interests to advance their own agenda and political careers.”  

Sobieski reminds us that, in the October 13 edition of the Fox News show The Next Revolution, host Steve Hilton reported that a group of Democratic senators had taken cash from a Ukrainian lobbyist in return for their support of Ukrainian gas interests.  This occurred contemporaneously with the Democrats’ promotion of the bogus Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo.  Utilizing Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer; Senator John Kerry’s former chief of staff, David Leiter; and a Washington lobbying firm called ML Strategies as conduits, Ukrainian gas producer Burisma Holdings funneled some $90,000 to a group of Democratic senators.

He made four contributions to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and three contributions to Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).  However, Hilton reported that, just one month after the last of those contributions, senators Markey and Shaheen were among four senators who wrote to Barack Obama, saying, “We should leverage the full resources and expertise of the U.S. government to assist Ukraine in improving its energy efficiency, increasing its energy production, and reforming its  energy markets.”  All of this took place at a time when Democrats were waging full-scale war on U.S. fossil fuels, opposing fracking, and attempting to damage U.S. energy interests in every way possible.  It turns normal, bold-faced hypocrisy into an art form.

And while Democrats conduct 24/7 assaults on Donald Trump, falsely accusing him of “bribing” President Zelensky to “dig up dirt” on former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, we find that, in May 2018, another group of Democratic senators formally requested the Ukrainian government to assist Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his “witch hunt” investigation of Trump-Russian “collusion.”  CNN reported that three senators, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and,  Patrick Leahy (D-VT), wrote a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing their displeasure with the closing of four investigations which they felt were critical to the findings of the Mueller investigation. 

But then came the “hammer.”  Implying that their support for U.S. aid to Ukraine was at stake, the senators wrote, “We have supported (the) capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside (democratic) principles to avoid the ire of President Trump.  They then proceeded to demand that prosecutor general Lutsenko “reverse course” so as not to impede cooperation with Robert Mueller’s “Russian collusion” investigation.

Sobieski concludes by saying, “Democratic senators took campaign cash from Ukrainian interests while begging for help in removing a duly elected President from office.  And these are the people who would participate in a Senate impeachment trial.  The inmates are indeed running the asylum.” 

When Donald Trump wins a second term in 2020 and Republicans win even larger governing majorities in both houses of Congress, the schadenfreude will last for at least five years and I will vow to live until age ninety-one just to enjoy their misery

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

Constitutional Imperfections

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides the rules under which the Constitution can be amended, should that become necessary.  Although the Constitution has been successfully amended only twenty-seven times since March 4, 1789, most Americans would be surprised to learn that some 11,770 proposed amendments have been introduced in Congress between 1789 and January 3, 2019.

The first ten amendments are what we refer to as the Bill of Rights.  These amendments were written and adopted to satisfy the objections of the Anti-Federalist (States’ Rights) faction of the Constitutional Convention.  The Bill of Rights Amendments addressed Anti-Federalist concerns regarding personal freedoms and individual rights, restrictions on government power in judicial proceedings, and a catch-all declaration stating that all powers not specifically granted to the Congress are reserved to the states or to the people.  

The remainder of the amendments, numbered eleven through twenty-seven, deal with such matters as the election of presidents and vice presidents; outlawing slavery; citizenship and voting rights for former slavers; taxation authority; the election of U.S. senators; the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages; women’s suffrage; presidential term limits; Washington, DC, electoral rights; outlawing poll taxes; presidential disability; voting rights for 18-year-olds: and others.  However, three constitutional shortcomings now demand our immediate attention.

First, and most importantly, we must take immediate steps to amend the Constitution to eliminate the concept of “birthright citizenship.”  The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, was designed to provide citizenship for all those previously enslaved individuals who became Freedmen when President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.  The amendment was never intended to confer citizenship on those who just happened to be born on American soil, with no effort on their part.  As written, the amendment proclaims, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

However, since the 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the courts have held that it is sufficient for infants to claim “birthright citizenship,” so long as they are born on American soil, no matter the country of residence or the citizenship status of the child’s parents.  Ignoring the fact that children born to alien parents on American soil have no formal connection to the United States, the courts have rendered the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meaningless.

The center for Immigration Studies estimated in 2012 (the most recent figures available) that there were then approximately 40,000 annual births in the United States to “birth tourist” parents.  However, since 2012, a cottage industry called “maternity hotels” has developed.  For example, it has been reported that the Trump Tower II hotel in Miami, Florida, has become a “maternity hotel” specializing in Russian “birth tourists.”  Russian parents can give birth to an infant with American citizenship by paying a fee as small as $20,000 or as much as $85,000.  Wikipedia tells us that the deluxe program includes food, lodging, Russian-speaking obstetricians, gold-tiled bathtubs, and chauffeur-driven limousines.

Although it appears as if a great many Americans remain unconvinced that “birth tourism” is a bad thing, the “birth tourist” industry is one that must be eliminated.  A 2015 Pew Research survey found that 53% of Republicans and only 23% of Democrats oppose the concept. What is needed is an amendment clarifying the 14th Amendment, requiring that alien parents must be full-time legal U.S. residents for a period of years before their newborn infants can expect to have “birthright citizenship.”   

Next in order of importance is an amendment to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, specifying the manner in which presidential electors are allocated in the various states.  Although states must retain the power to determine how electors are chosen, the question of whether states should be allowed to utilize a winner-take-all system, as opposed to the more democratic system now used by the states of Maine and Nebraska, is debatable.  To allow the winner-take-all system to be used at the discretion of the state legislatures is to guarantee an unrepresentative system in which a small number of states with very large cities will be able to determine who will lead our country.      

 In the 2000 presidential election, a switch of just 271,951 votes would have given George W. Bush a narrow popular vote victory over Democrat Al Gore, along with a 271 to 266 vote victory in the Electoral College.  The 2000 Bush-Cheney victory in the Electoral College, while losing the national popular vote, caused liberals, Democrats, and some moderate Republicans to search for ways in which to bypass the Electoral College.  The result was the creation of an organization called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). 

The NPVIC actively seeks support among the legislatures of the various states in support of a rule requiring that all of their state’s electoral votes be cast for the candidates for president and vice president who receive a majority of the national popular vote… regardless of the popular vote count in each of the Compact states.  What the NPVIC “reformers” have failed to consider is the outcome of the 2000 Electoral College vote if the NPVIC rule had been in place in all the blue states in the country, and if Bush-Cheney had been able to attract just one additional vote out of every 373 votes cast to win a narrow majority in the national popular vote.

In that event, the NPVIC proponents would have been quite chagrined to learn that, under the NPVIC rule, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would have been the beneficiaries of a 538-0 unanimous vote in the Electoral College… not exactly what Compact supporters had in mind.  

What is needed is an amendment to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, requiring the states to adopt an electoral vote allocation formula in which the winner of each state’s popular vote would receive his/her state’s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of each state’s electoral votes would be allocated to reflect the winner of the popular vote in each of the state’s congressional districts.   It is the most democratic reform available and it would require candidates to campaign in many more states than the so-called “swing” states of recent years.

The third, and final, constitutional shortcoming requiring our attention is the need for a clear definition of the term “natural born Citizen,” as used in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution.  

As the Framers met in Philadelphia in July 1887 to approve a final draft of the U.S. Constitution, delegate John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, sent a letter to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention.  In his letter, Jay expressed his concern over the prospect of allowing an individual with any form of foreign allegiance, whether real or perceived, to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He wrote: “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”

The Framers rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  Accordingly, what the Framers feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or an ideology which might cause him/her to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. 

Accordingly, the Constitution contains the clause cited above, requiring that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural born” citizens, individuals whose citizenship status is unencumbered by any modifying adjective such as “dual,” “naturalized,” or “birthright.”  They cannot be “dual” citizens, as is the case with Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or Nikki Haley.  And they cannot be “naturalized” citizens, as is the case with former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

As a nation of some 320 million people, there is enough political talent available to us to forego the necessity of delving into our large population of non-natural born citizens for presidential and vice-presidential talent.  Accordingly, a clarifying amendment to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is needed to make it clear, as the Framers intended, that a “natural born” citizen is an individual who was born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens at the time of his/her birth, and who has at no time in his/her life been a dual citizen  of the United States and any other country.

Since the earliest days of the 20th century, aliens wishing to avoid U.S. immigration and naturalization statutes have utilized liberalized interpretations of the 14th Amendment to win U.S. citizenship for their newborn infants, making it possible for extended family members to gain unfair and unintended legal residency status.  That citizenship loophole must be eliminated.

We must also take a lesson from the two-term presidency of Barack Obama.  Obama’s father was a Muslim and a black African communist sympathizer; his mother was a left wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim; his grandparents were far-left communist sympathizers; his teenage mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a well-known Communist Party writer and activist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were Weather Underground terrorists who had killed U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.  These are but a few of the far-left radicals who had a major impact on Obama’s social, political, and economic values.  So, is it any wonder that he attempted to “fundamentally transform” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth? 

Finally, the Framers were concerned that at some future time a relatively small number of megalopolis urban cities would have populations sufficient to control the selection of our national leaders.  Their concern that the day would come when small and sparsely populated states would have little or no say in the selection of our presidents and vice presidents led them to create the U.S. Electoral College.  It has served our nation well and we must take steps to protect it.

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