Category Archives: Guest Writer

Guest Writer Says Obama ‘Should Be Forced to Resign’

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

As one who had never felt as though George H.W. Bush was a man of presidential caliber and, if nominated and elected, would be a one-term president, I was more than happy to serve as deputy campaign manager in the presidential exploratory committee of former White House Chief of Staff, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had a far more impressive resume than Bush and was a far more capable, competent, and decisive leader.

Unfortunately, the combined efforts of conservatives were unable to deny Bush the nomination and, as predicted, he was no match for the Democratic congressional leadership. He allowed himself to be lured into a political trap by the Democrats in which he reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge and was defeated for reelection in 1992. His poor performance in office caused me to write what was the first of many “Must Go” columns titled, “George Bush Must Go.”

The “George Bush Must Go” column was followed in subsequent years by columns suggesting that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) “must go.” However, lest I be accused of rejecting only members of my own party from positions of power and influence, I should point out that I have also called for the resignation or impeachment of former Attorney General Eric Holder. But now it’s Barack Obama’s turn.

In a Nov. 14 column for the New York Post, columnist Michael Goodwin assessed Barack Obama’s approach to the war against radical Islam. He wrote, “In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple. It is the ultimate zero-sum contest… you win or you lose.” True, but that’s not how Barack Obama sees things. In his childlike world view he sees things not as they really are, but only as he wishes them to be. As Goodwin describes it, “President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, the Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

“He refuses to say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims. He rejects the word ‘war,’ even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world. He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is ‘leading from behind.’ He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and calls the Islamic State the ‘jayvee team,’ even as it was beginning to create a caliphate. Having long ago identified American power as a problem, he continues to slash the military as the enemy expands its reach. In a globalized era, the Obama doctrine smacks of cowardly retreat and fanciful isolation.”

Goodwin reminds us that, in an accident of timing that demonstrates his profound cluelessness, Barack Obama expressed his view of the current status of ISIS in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos just hours before radical Islamists staged a bloody attack on Paris. He said, “I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.   They’ll come in, (then) they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

The interview (above) aired at approximately 8:00 AM (EST) on Friday, Nov. 13, on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” The first bomb exploded outside the Stade de France, a football stadium north of Paris, at 9:16 PM Paris time (3:16 PM Washington time), followed almost immediately by volleys of gunfire and explosions at the Bataclan Concert Hall, the Le Carillon Restaurant, the Le Petit Cambodge Restaurant, and two other locations in Paris. In a matter of minutes, 132 innocent people were killed and 350 others wounded by Islamic terrorists.

The coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris began just 7 hours and 16 minutes after Obama declared ISIS to be “contained.” Even as he pontificated for the TV audience, the terrorists were likely pacing the floor in their rented safe-houses, inspecting their AK-47s and their Kalashnikovs, loading ammo clips, and making last minute adjustments to their suicide belts.

It was the most deadly attack on Paris by enemy forces since World War II, prompting French President Francois Hollande to condemn the attacks as an “act of war,” vowing that France will be “merciless toward the barbarians of the Islamic State group.” He said, “We will lead the fight and we will be ruthless.” Sadly, those are the words we expect to hear from Barack Obama.

Goodwin concluded, “The time has run out for half measures and kicking the can down the road. The enemy must be destroyed on the battlefield before there can be any hope of peace. If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign. Those are the only options and it is his duty to decide.”

Yes, Goodwin is correct in his call for Barack Obama’s resignation. But is it even remotely possible that he… addicted as he is to the narcotic of holding power… would even consider the possibility of resignation? Unlike the Nixon example, wherein Republican congressional leaders… Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA), Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and House Minority Leader John Rhodes (R-AZ)… went to the White House for the purpose of informing Nixon that his support in Congress had all but evaporated and that, if he chose to fight impeachment, there was not sufficient support in the U.S. Senate to avoid conviction and removal.

Is there a man or woman alive who can honestly visualize their Democratic counterparts of today… Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)… going to the White House to tell Barack Obama that his presidency is over and that he must resign to avoid impeachment? Let’s face it. The sort of patriotism that Republican leaders have demonstrated over and over again… i.e. Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc… just does not exist in the Democratic Party. The desire to put the country’s best interests ahead of party interests is just not present in the Democratic DNA.

At the outset of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, every one of the 45 Senate Democrats went to the well of the Senate, raised their right hands, and swore: “I solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, now pending, that I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help me God.” Yet, every one of those 45 Democrats made that solemn promise to God, knowing that they intended to violate that oath. In spite of mountains of irrefutable evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Clinton’s part, every one of the 45 Democrat senators voted to acquit. The only member of the U.S. Senate to be seriously punished for voting “not proven,” in spite of irrefutable evidence that Clinton had perjured himself before a federal judge, was Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was turned out of office in a primary election by Republican voters.

And while impeachment is the most logical solution to the problem presented by Barack Obama, it is clear that, if Republicans had the stomach to impeach Barack Obama, who has to his credit a long list of impeachable offenses, would they not already have done so at some time since Jan. 20, 2009? The fact is, Obama continues to serve for no other reason than the color of his skin. As a black man, he relies on the collective guilt of white liberals to engage in whatever “high crimes and misdemeanors” he feels are necessary to his political agenda. It is indisputable that, if he were a white man, he would have been removed from office long ago.

The one remaining alternative is for the military to remove him… non-violently, if possible; by force, if necessary. The Framers created a constitutional republic in which the military was, by design, made subservient to the civilian branches of government. However, Thomas Jefferson knew that there were no guarantees where governments instituted by men were concerned. In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, in referring to the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he wrote, “… that to secure these rights, governments are institutes among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”

Inasmuch as Barack Obama has been, from the first day of his administration, destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and since he has repeatedly violated his oath of office by failing to “faithfully execute” the office of president of the United States, the American people are left with no alternative but to bring an abrupt end to his presidency, even at this late date. And since congressional Republicans lack the courage to impeach him and leaders of his own party demonstrate insufficient love of country to call for his resignation, it is left to our military leaders to advise him that it is time for him to do the honorable thing.

If the joint chiefs of staff were to request an audience with Barack Obama, accompanied by a delegation of the most highly respected retired flag and general officers… such as General Tommy Franks, General Paul Vallely, General Stanley McChrystal, and General Ray Odierno… to remind him that, inasmuch as he no longer enjoys the loyalty and the respect of members of the military services, from the top generals and admirals down to the lowest of enlisted ranks, he should summon up the courage to do what is in the best interests of the nation and its people.

If we were to judge our 44 presidents by their failures and their accomplishments, several would receive very low grades. Barack Obama would be the only one to receive a grade of less than zero. He has been, by far, the worst president in American history. And if we stop to consider the damage that has been done, globally, by radical Islam in just a matter of months, imagine the damage that an embittered Obama can be expected to do in the remaining 14 months of his presidency. For the good of the people, he should be forced to resign.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Political Strategy Offered to Defeat ‘The Left’ in 2016

By Paul R. Hollrah

To be elected president or vice president of the United States requires a total of at least 270 votes in the Electoral College. Through the strategic spending of other people’s money, especially among minority populations in our major urban areas, Democrats have fashioned an electoral map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22 blue states with a combined total of 257 of the needed 270 electoral votes. Of the remaining 281 electoral votes, they only have to pick up 13 in order to elect a president and a vice president.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base of 23 red states with a combined total of 191 electoral votes, leaving a total of six swing states… Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral votes. In order for a Republican to win in 2016 and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the red states, plus at least five of the six swing states. They could afford to lose either Colorado’s nine electoral votes or Iowa’s six electoral votes, but not all 15. To lose both Colorado and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia, would leave them with a total of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an electoral majority. It appears to be a nearly-insurmountable obstacle for Republicans, but is it?

With a bit of foresight and strategic planning, Republicans could do a great deal between now and November 2016 to mitigate the Democrats’ electoral advantage. In a December 2012 column, Real Electoral College Reform, I analyzed what would happen to the political balance of power in the United States if all 50 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska method for allocating electoral votes.

In the Electoral College, each of the 50 states are allotted two at-large electoral votes, one for each of their two U.S. senators, and one vote for each of the state’s congressional districts. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the popular vote in each state takes all of the state’s electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, however, the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote is allotted that state’s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of the electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of the popular vote within each of the state’s congressional districts.

If the Maine-Nebraska formula had been in effect in all 50 states in 2012, and assuming that the vote for the presidential candidates of each party would roughly approximate the votes for the congressional candidates of the respective parties in each congressional district, Obama would have lost 115 of his 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney in the 26 states, plus D.C., in which he won a majority of the popular vote. On the other hand, in the 24 red states carried by Romney-Ryan, they would have lost only 39 electoral votes to Obama-Biden.

The end result?  In 2012, instead of a 332 to 206 vote victory for Obama-Biden in the Electoral College, the Maine-Nebraska system would have produced a comfortable 282 to 256 vote victory for Romney-Ryan, an outcome that would have been far closer to expressing the will of the people than the present winner-take-all system.

To understand this phenomenon, one need only look at the county-by-county electoral map of the United States with the counties colored either red or blue. It is reflective of: a) the preference for Republican principles among a substantial majority of the people, and b) the overwhelming size of the vote for the Democratic “sugar daddy” in the inner city precincts. The electoral process is disproportionately skewed by the fact that, in the heavily-populated inner-city precincts, the vote is nearly always 95 percent to 110 percent for Democratic candidates, while in the suburbs and the rural areas the vote is nearly always within the 60-40 range, one party over the other.

If it is true that “all politics is local,” as the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill once remarked, then to replace the current winner-take-all system with the Maine-Nebraska electoral system would help to bring political decision-making much closer to the people because of the increased interest generated in local and congressional elections.

The Maine-Nebraska electoral system would deemphasize the key battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia and require candidates to campaign in all fifty states. As matters now stand, presidential candidates spend little time in states such as California, New York, Oklahoma and Texas because the outcome of presidential voting in those states is almost always a foregone conclusion. Had the Maine-Nebraska system been in place for the 2012 General Election, Obama would have found it necessary to defend the 15 votes that Romney could have won in California and the six votes he could have won in New York, while Romney could not have ignored the 12 electoral votes that Obama might have captured in Texas.

Liberals and Democrats are notorious for expressing appreciation for whatever they see as being most “democratic.” But is there a chance that Democrats in the bluest of blue states… such as California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Oregon… would agree to such a reform once they figured out that the Maine-Nebraska system would cause them to lose a significant number of electoral votes to Republicans, and that the Maine-Nebraska system would all but guarantee that no Democrat could be elected president or vice president for many years to come? Among liberals and Democrats, when it come to a choice between what is best for the country and what is best for their party, the country will always come out on the “short end of the stick.”

Image above represents voting for president by county in 2012 presidential election (i.e., Red = Romney, Blue = Obama).

Image above represents voting for president by county in 2012 presidential election (i.e., Red = Romney, Blue = Obama).

So, while we cannot expect to ever see an electoral system in which all 50 states utilize the Maine-Nebraska formula, is there something that can be done now to level the playing field a bit? The answer is yes, and it can easily be accomplished in advance of the 2016 General Election. Here’s what must be done:

At the present time, there are 11 states with a total of 139 electoral votes that were carried by Barack Obama in 2012 which now have Republican governors. Of those 11 states, the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin now enjoy Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures. What this means is that, if the governors and legislative leaders in those five states understood what could be accomplished, they would take immediate steps to repeal the winner-take-all electoral system and adopt the Maine-Nebraska system. With Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures, Democrats would be powerless to stop them.

Even if Democrats should win the popular vote in each of those five states in 2016, as they did in 2012, the Maine-Nebraska formula would create a much different scenario than the winner-take-all system:  Instead of winning all 29 of Florida’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 12 and Republicans would win 17; instead of winning all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes, Democrats would win seven votes and Republicans would win nine; instead of winning all six of Nevada’s electoral votes, Democrats would win three and Republicans would win three; instead of winning all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes, Democrats would win six and Republicans would win 12; and instead of winning all 10 of Wisconsin’s electoral votes, Democrats would win five and Republicans would win five.

Applying these totals to the expected blue state and red state totals, the Democrats’ expected advantage would increase from 257 electoral votes to 258, while the Republican disadvantage would move from 191 electoral votes to 237. As matters now stand, Democrats have to take only 13 (14 percent) of the 90 swing state votes while Republicans have to take 79 (8 percent) in order to win the presidency. On the other hand, if Republicans in those five states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system in the current legislative sessions, Democrats would have to take 12 (28 percent) of the remaining 43 swing state votes to win, while Republicans would have to take 33 (76 percent) of the remaining 43. Taking 76 percent of 43 votes is easier than taking 88 percent of 90 votes.

But what if many of the low-information Obama voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin decide to stay home in November 2016, giving Republicans popular vote victories in all five states? After eight years of disastrous Obama-Biden-Clinton-style governance, it is a distinct possibility. Under that scenario, Republicans could put another 10 electoral votes in their column.  Democrats would have 248 electoral votes and Republicans 247 electoral votes before the 43 electoral votes of Colorado (9), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13) were won or lost. Democrats would have to win 22 (51 percent) of the remaining 43 swing state votes, while Republicans would have to win 23 (53 percent). The playing field would be substantially leveled.

However, in order to greatly increase their chances of victory, Republicans should not hesitate to target Minnesota, with 10 electoral votes; New Hampshire, with four electoral votes; New Mexico, with five electoral votes; and Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes… all winner-take-all states, and all states that Obama carried with less than 53 percent of the vote in 2012. After eight years of Obama-Biden, at least five percent of the good people in those four states should be anxious for a change.

In the meantime, those readers who live in the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan might wish to place copies of this analysis into the hands of their governors and their legislative leaders. With seven states utilizing the Maine-Nebraska system we may witness the  beginning of a trend as other blue states follow suit. The question is, do Republican leaders in Washington and in the state capitals have the political sense to recognize the advantage they enjoy? Given their past history, we know that they= are not always quick to act when political advantage falls into their laps.  t may be necessary to lean on them a bit.

Paul R. Hollrah is a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Will Joe Biden Select ‘Indian’ Warren As Running Mate?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Biden-Warren

Will Joe Biden run, or will he not?  That is the question.

If I had to venture a guess I’d say that, before year’s end, Hillary Clinton will be either sitting on the bench or exchanging her large selection of polyester pantsuits for a selection of orange or black-and-white striped jumpsuits.  Her campaign is in steep decline, and when the talking heads on the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC begin to devote major segments to the question of her political future, the end cannot be far away.  But who do the Democrats have to replace her?  Unlike Republicans, the Democrats have little or no “bench” strength.  Bernie Sanders, the doddering old socialist from Vermont is drawing large crowds, but we can’t be sure if people come to hear his plan for turning the U.S. economy into another Greek economy, or if they come to see whether or not the “Black Lives Matter” storm troopers will once again drive him from the speaker’s platform.

On Aug. 22, Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was summoned to Biden’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington.  And while their meeting was not videotaped for public consumption, there’s not much doubt about the subject matter of their chat.  They discussed the very real possibility that Hillary will soon be forced out of the race, perhaps with criminal indictments lodged against her.

So exactly who is Elizabeth Warren and what has she ever done, if anything, to make her a viable candidate for president or vice president of the United States?  Warren has roughly the same presidential qualifications as Barack Obama, who was roughly as qualified as, say, Rosie O’Donnell.  Yet they are the sort of candidates most liberals prefer because they’re full of you-know-what.  In other words, like Obama, she has no presidential qualifications whatsoever.  And wouldn’t it be fun to see Warren, who has spent her entire adult life lecturing about personal and corporate bankruptcy, debate Donald Trump, who is not only skilled at using the bankruptcy statutes to his benefit, but who has become a multi-billionaire trying not to go bankrupt?

Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1978, and has since taught at a number of major law schools, including Houston, Texas, Michigan, Penn and Harvard.  During that academic career, she gained fame as a leading authority on the subject of bankruptcy law.

Warren freely admits that for most of her adult life she was a Republican.  However, she has also explained that she became a Democrat in 1995 when she stopped believing in a free market economy… i.e., capitalism.  In fact, it is she who has taught Barack Obama to say that, if you’ve achieved some financial success in your life, or if you’ve built a large and profitable business, “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.”

In 2012, after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, the Boston Herald reported that Prof. Warren had described herself on Harvard job applications as being part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian.  In the debate that followed it could not be proved that she had any Indian blood whatsoever in her lineage.  Instead, she supported her claim by saying that, as a young woman, she could remember her older brothers speak of their Native American heritage.  And since it looked good on a Harvard job application she simply ran with it.

Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, defeating Sen. Scott Brown and regaining the Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, the fact that she was the first female senator from Massachusetts was rarely mentioned by Warren or other Democrats… presumably because they did not wish to call attention to the fact that the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts was Republican Ed Brooke, elected in 1966, some 46 years earlier.

And that brings us to vice president Joe Biden.  The current vice president of the United States grew up in Scranton, Pa., and Wilmington, Del., where his father worked as a used car salesman, providing a practical grounding for Biden’s later political career.  He met his first wife while he was a student at the University of Delaware and she a student at Syracuse University.  Even at that early stage of their relationship he told her that his long term goal was to become a member of the United States Senate by age 30, before running for president of the United States.  During his college career he majored in history and political science, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965, ranking 506th in a graduating class of 688… not necessarily the greatest predictor of long term success at the top of the political world.

After earning a law degree in 1969 Biden was elected to the Newcastle County (Del.) Council, and just two years later he ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, on Dec. 18, 1972, just days before he was to take his seat in the U.S. Senate, he suffered the first of two major family tragedies in his life.  His wife and three children were involved in an auto accident while Christmas shopping in a small town west of Wilmington.  His wife and year-old daughter were killed and his two sons were seriously injured, but both recovered fully.

During his Senate career, which spanned six full terms, he was a member and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he gained a well-deserved reputation for being wrong on almost every significant foreign policy issue.  He was also a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving as chairman of the committee for eight years and ranking minority member for eight years.  He served as chairman in 1987 when Senate Democrats conducted the shameless public “drawing and quartering” of conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and as ranking minority member in 1982, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a partisan sideshow that Justice Thomas referred to as a “high-tech lynching.”

In 1987, Biden launched the first of two campaigns for the presidency.  However, in September 1987 he was publicly denounced for having plagiarized several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party.  His dishonesty quickly became a national issue, and he was forced to abandon his presidential ambitions.

But then, beginning in 2003, Democrats began to take notice of a young man they thought might be a future Democratic presidential candidate, an attractive young black man from the south side of Chicago, a former “community organizer” and a sitting member of the Illinois state senate, a man named Barack Hussein Obama.  The only problem was that, having been born with dual US-British citizenship, and having acquired dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship at age 2, Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

To solve that problem, Democrats introduced two resolutions in the 108th Congress in 2003, and two resolutions in the 109th Congress in 2005, all aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution to make Obama eligible for the presidency.  They even went so far as to pluck him from almost total political obscurity and gave him the plum assignment of making the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  It was the political launching pad that sent Obama to the United States Senate in 2005 and to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

But Democratic leaders were still concerned about Obama’s lack of eligibility and his complete lack of experience.  In an attempt to submerge the issue of his ineligibility, Democratic leaders caused then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairman of the 2008 Democrat National Convention, and Alice Travis Germond, convention secretary, to delete the words, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” from official nominating certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifications that allowed state election officials to print ballots.

Although one would think that either the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or at least one member of the U.S. Congress, Democrat or Republican, would care enough about the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility, that was not the case.  All failed in their constitutional obligations and in November 2008, the low-information voters of the United States caused Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be elected president and vice president of the United States, respectively.

But there was a reason Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate.  Democrats knew from the outset that, not only was Obama totally without experience and qualifications, he was hopelessly naïve and was unable to utter a simple declaratory sentence without having a teleprompter telling him what to say.  To resolve that problem they caused Biden to be selected as Obama’s running mate.  With Biden occupying the vice president’s chair, he would be in a position to whisper in Obama’s ear, hopefully preventing him from making any really stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way things worked out.  Within five minutes of entering the Oval Office, Obama made it quite clear to Biden and everyone else that he didn’t need anyone’s advice.  What we have witnessed since that day is much like a high school student who won a Kiwanis Club “President for a Day” contest and who arrived at the White House with no one but his high school social studies teacher (in Obama’s case, Valerie Jarrett) as his principal advisor.

On May 30, Biden suffered the second major personal family tragedy of his life.  His son, 46-year-old “Beau” Biden, a former attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer.  It is reported that the younger Biden’s deathbed wish was that his father seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

With the impending demise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, there is every reason to believe that Biden will enter the race.  But there is also every reason to believe that, if he does, Democrats across the country will use Beau Biden’s death, shamelessly, as a sympathy factor to help gain support for his campaign.  They used that tactic in 1964 to help LBJ win in the wake of JFK’s death, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t use the same classless tactic again in 2016.

SEE ALSO: This 2006 video revealing how then-presidential candidate Biden feels about another group of Indians and this post about how he missed an opportunity for another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Writer Reveals True Face of the Democratic Party

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. It first appeared on this site Aug. 31, 2012. Almost two years later, it vanished — along with nearly 5,000 others written and published since October 2006 — as detailed in this post. After rescuing it from where it appears on an alternate site, I share it again below with only minor modifications. Please read and share. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

DEMS by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

DEMS by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

It is not unusual for Democrats to say something reasonable and then do what is totally unreasonable.  We’ve come to expect that; it’s the “nature of the beast.”  But when they feel politically threatened, as they now feel threatened by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, it is then we get to see the true face of the Democratic Party.

In recent days, an Obama SuperPAC, funded and managed by people close to President Barack Obama, has produced a TV ad in which Mitt Romney is accused of being responsible for the death of a steelworker’s wife.  The truth is, the steelworker’s employer, which went into bankruptcy, was shut down by Bain Capital two years after Romney left the company.  When the steelworker, Joe Soptic, lost his job, his wife continued to have company health insurance for at least another two years.  She was not diagnosed with cancer until five years after her husband lost his job.

Then, on Aug. 14, in a speech before a largely black audience in Danville, Va., Vice President Joe Biden suggested that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would like to “put y’all back in chains.”  Surely, Biden understands that it is his own party that has maintained black Americans in slavery and in political and economic bondage since the earliest days of our republic.

The saddest part of Democratic Party history took place during the post-Civil War era when they attempted to nullify Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation through Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, and worst of all, the Ku Klux Klan.  Between the years 1882 and 1951, some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, nearly all Republicans, were lynched by the KKK, acting as the paramilitary arm of the Democrat Party.  No one knows how many thousands more were lynched by the KKK between the close of the war and 1882 because Tuskegee Institute and NAACP archives don’t contain those statistics.

As a product of the Chicago Democratic political machine, Barack Obama is not what one would call a man of compassion or refined sensibilities.  Like his Democratic forebears of the 19th and 20th centuries, he has shown little respect for human life.

While a member of the Illinois State Senate, he openly supported legislation allowing abortionists to destroy viable fetuses, post partum, who survived late term abortion procedures.  During World War II, Nazi concentration camp guards regularly slaughtered Jewish babies.  So how does Obama distinguish between that and the ghoulish practice envisioned by the partial birth abortion legislation he supports?  The only difference appears to be in methodology, so exactly where does he draw the line?

In the years since the Woodrow Wilson administration (1913-1921), Democrats have attempted to clean up their image by adopting a mostly non-violent approach to political hegemony.  Realizing that votes can be purchased in blocs, they have increased their numbers through the adoption of special-interest constituencies.

As a result, the party now consists primarily of abortion rights advocates; blue-collar unions; teachers unions; public employee unions; race-based minorities; radical feminists; radical environmentalists; radical youth; radical academics; the gay, lesbian, and transgender community; and trial lawyers… all of whom want something from government.

With the recent adoption of the same-sex marriage issue, it is hard to find a radical left issue or agenda that has not already been adopted by Democrats.  When Democrats meet in early September to re-nominate Barack Obama and Joe Biden, many of the party faithful… Christian fundamentalists, Muslims, blacks, and others… will be forced to hold their noses as their party votes to add same-sex marriage to their party platform.  Why?  Because, unable to raise the funds and unable to attract the same adoring crowds he drew in 2008, Obama has cynically flip-flopped on the issue because he needs the money and the votes of the gay and lesbian community.

Although it seems highly improbable that any party could manage a coalition of such diverse interests… many whose interests are in direct conflict with those of other constituencies… it all works because each of the special interests are willing to subordinate some of their secondary interests so long as they can expect the same consideration on their core issues.  As the American people go to the polls Nov. 6, it is critical they understand that the Democratic Party has taken full ownership of the following issues and agendas:

Labor union racketeering and its ties to organized crime, forced unionization through “card check” and National Labor Relations Board interference in private sector economic decision-making;

The monopoly power of public employee unions and the systematic plundering of state and local government treasuries;

The systematic growth of high unemployment rates through promotion of uneconomic minimum-wage standards;

Opposition to reform and restructuring of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps programs;

The systematic destruction of the housing sector through creation and promotion of the sub-prime mortgage market and the systematic corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

The de-construction of the teaching profession, the dumbing-down of public education and opposition to popular reforms such as charter schools and voucher programs;

The destruction of the black family unit, black teen pregnancy rates and the growing incarceration rates of young black males;

The gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual agenda, support for same-sex marriage and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act;

The illegal immigration, open borders, and sanctuary cities agenda;

Late-term and partial-birth abortion;

The exportation of weaponry to drug cartels in Mexico;

The support of fraud, violence, and intimidation in our electoral process; opposition to political reforms such as photo ID laws;

Class warfare and the vilification of business enterprises, large and small;

The overt attack on religious liberty and Roman Catholic Church doctrine; support for Islamic expansionism throughout the Christian world;

The domination of the public sector over the private sector; the use of excessive and oppressive environmental regulations as an anti-business weapon;

The opposition to American energy independence; opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the un-economic subsidization of “green” energy projects;

Support for frivolous lawsuits and opposition to tort reform;

The weakening of U.S. military capability and repeal of the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and

The abandonment of strategic international alliances and longtime allies.

A bit harsh?  Not really.  One of the things that most distinguishes Democrats from Republicans is the extent to which Democrats attempt to mask who and what they are.  And although they may attempt to put a kinder, gentler face on some of their more outrageous policies, all of the above will be included in one way or another in the platform they will adopt at their national convention in Charlotte.

Without mentioning Democrats by name, former Secretary of State Condi Rice, in her rousing speech before the Republican National Convention, described exactly what it is that separates Republicans from Democrats.  She said, “My fellow Americans, ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement.  We have never believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well.  We have never been jealous of each others’ successes.   No, ours has been a belief in opportunity.  And it has been a constant struggle… to try to extend the benefits of the American dream to all.  But that American ideal is indeed in danger today…”

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are both men of honor, men of the highest caliber.  They are straightforward, honest, and trustworthy and those traits are self-evident in every one of their public appearances.

Obama and Biden, on the other hand, never fail to come off as evil, angry and mean-spirited.  They are the true face of the Democratic Party, and it is they who put the American ideal in jeopardy by persisting in their efforts to divide Americans along racial and economic lines.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Donald Trump: A Watershed Moment in History

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Donald J. Trump

Donald J. Trump

After weeks of agonizing by establishment Republicans and the mainstream media… agonizing over the question of what a bull-in-the-China-shop candidate like Donald Trump is doing among the largest-ever field of well-qualified Republican presidential candidates… Trump has announced a simple, straightforward plan for immigration reform, a plan that could represent a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.  The Trump Plan is based on three core principles:

1. That the U.S.-Mexican border must be secured by building a wall or a fence along the entirety of our southern border,

2. That all immigration laws currently on the books must be fully and rigidly enforced, and

3. That the number one priority for any future immigration plan must be based on what is in the best cultural and economic interests of the American people… and nothing else.

As part of his immigration plan, Trump calls for a nationwide system to identify and locate all illegal aliens… those who have entered the country illegally, as well as those who’ve entered legally and overstayed their visas.  To accomplish that end, Trump proposes tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

What he suggests is precisely what conservatives and Republicans have been promoting ever since mass illegal immigration began.  However, Trump departs from Republican orthodoxy by taking a totally no-nonsense approach to the problem of the so-called “anchor babies,” defined as infants born to pregnant foreign women who come to the Unites States, illegally, just to insure that their babies can acquire U.S. citizenship by being born on American soil.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves and their children who were born on U.S. soil.  The authors of the amendment could never have conceived of a time when pregnant women would travel great distances from foreign lands for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment.  The “anchor baby” concept has created an entire underclass of undocumented aliens who are allowed to remain in the country under an unwritten law that protects families from being separated and prevents infants with U.S. citizenship from being forcibly deported along with their illegal alien parents.  Trump, who says what conservatives and Republicans have always feared to say, merely scoffs at suggestions that to deport all illegal aliens would separate foreign parents from their minor children.  In an Aug. 16 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he made his position on “anchor babies” crystal clear, saying, “We have to keep the families together, but they have to go.”

He also ventures outside Republican orthodoxy by taking a no-nonsense approach to the status of Obama’s so-called “Dreamers” -– non-citizens who were brought to the United States illegally as children, who’ve grown up here, who’ve been educated here, and who would be political and cultural strangers in the native lands of their parents.  He expresses no desire to separate “Dreamers” from their illegal alien parents by allowing them to remain in the United States while their parents are deported.  Instead, he insists that Obama’s executive order shielding the “Dreamers” from deportation must be rescinded.

So what is it about Trump’s immigration reform plan that would qualify it as a “watershed moment” in American history?  Its significance is not that it has a chance of being enacted and fully implemented; as a nation we are still far too politically correct and we have far too many “squeaky wheels” among liberals and Hispanic activists to accomplish that anytime soon.  No, the significance of Trump’s immigration reform proposal is much more subtle.  Just as Rush Limbaugh’s major contribution to our national persona is not that he has caused elections to be won or lost, but that he has caused millions of politically uncommitted Americans to understand where they fit in the political spectrum, Trump’s straightforward approach to solving the illegal immigration problem has made it okay for previously hesitant Americans to openly agree with his no-nonsense approach.  It is what most Americans have always believed, but were afraid to put into words for fear that they would be branded as racists or xenophobes.

The point is, Americans are fair and reasonable people.  Scratch almost any American and you’ll find a person who would fully expect to be deported from a foreign country where they were living illegally.  So why would they not expect foreigners living in the United States illegally to react in the same way?  In short, it’s time we expected our uninvited guests to act like grownups, and Trump’s no-nonsense approach to the problem of illegal immigration gives us all license to finally put those expectations into words.

But more importantly, his courageous stance on illegal immigration also provides us with the opportunity to bring other critically important issues to the fore… issues that, until now, have been stuck in quagmires of constitutional uncertainties and/or political correctness.  Of these, none are more important than the unrelenting invasion of radicalized Muslims and the chilling threat of Islamic terrorism inside our own borders.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Islamists arrive in the United States despising the country and all it represents, intending to make converts, exploit the freedoms and rights granted them, and build a movement that will effect basic changes in the country’s way of life and its government.  The superpower status of the United States makes it especially attractive to those who wish to change the world order; what better place to start?  Islamists do not accept the United States as it is but want to change it into a majority Muslim country where the Qur’an replaces the Constitution.”

The United States has already provided refugee status for more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined.  Yet, in spite of that insanity, the Obama administration has recently announced that we are prepared to receive an additional 70,000 unvetted Muslim refugees, including many with strong ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda.  Some come seeking safety, some come seeking a better life, but many others come in the hope of doing us great harm.

In order to neutralize and reverse radical Islam’s contribution to the cultural infestation of the United States, we must attack the problem of Muslim immigration with the same level of courage with which Donald Trump approaches illegal immigration.  In short, we should not hesitate to confront Muslim infiltration by enacting new legislation, tailoring the language of the Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:

SEC. 1.  PREAMBLE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence, or the government of any State, Territory, District, possession, or political subdivision thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded:  Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islamic jihad illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists.  We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of, ccausing them to self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers.  With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Islamists could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

American policymakers could take a lesson from the Slovakians.  When asked by United Nations officials to accept “their share” of Muslim refugees, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, Ivan Metic, replied, “We could take 800 Muslims, but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?”  Clearly, what Metic was saying is that building permits for mosques might be very difficult to obtain in Slovakia.  Officials in the United States and other western nations should learn to be equally “welcoming” to Islamists.

What Donald Trump’s straightforward no-nonsense approach has done is to finally make it acceptable to debate some of our major national problems by putting political correctness behind us.  When all is said and done, Trump may not be electable.  However, if his presence in the race ultimately makes it permissible for us to deal with racial discord, immigration reform, and the threat of radical Islam without fear of being branded racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, or politically incorrect, his candidacy will truly be seen as a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.