Tag Archives: Constitution

Are FBI Informants Working Inside America’s Churches?

Posted on by
3

Jesse Trentadue’s ongoing effort to obtain information from the FBI continued this week when he filed a motion Wednesday aimed at convincing a federal judge in Utah to allow him access to information about the FBI’s “Sensitive Informant Program.  The move was made one month after the Salt Lake City attorney filed his first motion — the details of which appeared in a post Jan. 30 — seeking, among other things, to learn whether the FBI has informants working inside American churches.

Trentadue Motion for Limited Disc 2-27-13

Click to download motion (PDF).

Why is Trentadue seeking the information?  Because he believes it will lead him closer to the truth about the 1995 death of his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, under suspicious circumstances while in custody at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.

Below, I share the fascinating details of his most-recent motion (PDF).  Beginning with the “Background” which begins on page one of the document, the details contained in the document appear below, minus the footnotes contained in the actual document:

The FBI devotes a considerable portion of the Memorandum that it submitted in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to arguing that this is a typical Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case involving the adequacy of the FBI’s search for responsive documents and/or the applicability of the exemptions claimed by the FBI for not releasing the documents/records.  But this is not a typical FOIA case. Neither is it an isolated or stand alone case. This case, as the FBI well knows, is the latest front in Plaintiff’s long war with the Bureau to discover and uncover the truth about the Oklahoma City Bombing and a related matter: the murder of his brother, Kenneth Michael Trentadue.

Untold Stories of the OKC BombingThe first battle in this almost decade long FOIA war was fought before this very Court in Trentadue v. FBI, which revealed that persons other that Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier had participated in the Bombing. That first battle, and the documents/records that Plaintiff obtained as a result, also disclosed: (1) the existence of the FBI’s I-Drive and S-Drive computer systems wherein evidence related to the Bombing was kept hidden so as not to be subject to a FOIA request and/or not made part of the FBI’s official Bombing case file; (2) the CIA’s involvement in the Oklahoma City Bombing; (3) “Patriot Conspiracy” or “PATCON” that was a decade or more long FBI undercover operation designed to infiltrate and monitor or perhaps even incite various right-wing organizations; and (4) the existence of a surveillance camera videotape taken on the morning of April 19, 1995, which according to federal government documents purportedly shows not only the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, but also the persons who carried out that attack.  That first FOIA battle also disclosed the existence of the FBI’s “Sensitive Informant Program,” which is at the heart of this current FOIA discovery dispute.

The Sensitive Informant Program is the FBI’s disturbing practice of using private citizens as spies on the staffs of members of Congress and perhaps even federal judges, in the national media, within other federal agencies, on defense teams in high profile federal and/or state criminal prosecutions, inside state and local law enforcement agencies and even among the clergy of organized religions. The Sensitive Informant Program is designed to and does result in the circumvention of the protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

In response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for the policies, rules, protocols and/or procedures governing the FBI’s recruitment and use of such informants in this secret surveillance program which spies on United States’ citizens on United States’ soil, the FBI produced 205 pages, which appear to be but a small portion of its: “Corporate Policy Directive” on the use of confidential human sources, “Confidential Human Source Validation Standards Manual,” “Confidential Human Source Policy Manual,” and “Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide” (collectively the “Manual”). Those portions of the Manual that the FBI actually provided to Plaintiff were heavily redacted. The FBI withheld all of these portions of the Manual on the basis of various exemptions from disclosure under FOIA.

It is Plaintiff’s belief, however, that NO exemption can be asserted to conceal this unconstitutional domestic spy/surveillance program. Simply put, FOIA, which has as its stated purpose the disclosure of the federal government’s wrongdoing, cannot and should not be used to shield the FBI’s unconstitutional actions undertaken on what appears to be a national scale. However, in order to properly frame and present to the Court his challenge to the FBI’s claims of exemption Plaintiff needs to conduct limited discovery into the scope and duration of this Sensitive Informant Program.

In the “Summary of the Argument,” beginning on page four of the motion, he presents the latest details:

Plaintiff’s need for this discovery is simple. If, for example, the FBI has never embedded a Sensitive Informant on the staff of a member of Congress and/or a federal judge, in the national media, within another federal agency, on the defense team in high profile federal and/or state criminal prosecution, inside of a state or local law enforcement agency or among the clergy of an organized religion, it will admittedly be difficult for Plaintiff to assert that NO FOIA exemptions should apply to those portions of the Manual being withheld from him. This is so because a rare or isolated violation of the Constitution by the use of Sensitive Informants may not be sufficient for the Court to override the FBI’s exemption claims.

However, if the FBI’s Sensitive Informant program has been in operation for years and/or involves the placement of many Sensitive Informants on the staffs of members of Congress and perhaps even federal judges, in the national media, within other federal agencies, on defense teams in high profile federal and/or state criminal prosecutions, inside state and local law enforcement agencies or among the clergy of organized religions, then it is obvious that the Manual is designed to and/or does result in the circumvention of the protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. If this is so, then it is Plaintiff’s position that the FBI cannot lawfully assert any FOIA exemption to keep secret a clearly unconstitutional nationwide program of domestic spying.

The information that Plaintiff’s seeks by way of this discovery will also be necessary for the Court to determine whether the (b)(1) exemption claimed by the FBI applies. Exemption (b)(1) allows the FBI to exempt certain records provided it declares them “secret” on the basis of national security AND pursuant to an Executive Order allowing for that “secret” designation.

In order to obtain information with respect to the scope and duration of the FBI’s Sensitive Informant Program, Plaintiff has moved to conduct limited discovery consisting of just eleven (11) Interrogatories, the answers to which will document the unconstitutionality of the FBI’s Sensitive Informant Program, thereby allowing Plaintiff to challenge the FBI’s assertion of FOIA exemptions to conceal and/or withhold the Manual from Plaintiff and the American public, and the Court to determine the validity/applicability of those exemptions to the Manual. The FBI, however, vehemently opposes that Motion.

Of course, there is a lot more to the case, but Trentadue’s approach, summed up under the “ISSUE” section of the motion and shared below, seems brilliant to this non-lawyer:

The issue in this case is not the adequacy of the FBI’s search for the Manual. The FBI found the Manual. The issue for the Court to decide is (1) whether the FOIA exemptions advanced by the FBI for withholding portions of the Manual apply and (2), even if they do apply, can those exemptions be lawfully asserted to conceal FBI activities that clearly subvert the Constitution? Furthermore, this issue cannot and should not be decided without the discovery that Plaintiff is seeking to obtain through his Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery.

During an email exchange late Friday, Trentadue used layman’s terms to boil the matter down to one key issue.

“The FBI argues that the discovery (he) seeks would be futile since ‘illegal’ activity by the federal government is shielded from disclosure under FOIA if covered by an exemption,” he explained.

He went on to question how the FBI can, in good faith, claim that a national security exemption allows the Bureau to declare its unconstitutional domestic spying program “secret” and, in turn, allows them to keep their illegal activities hidden from the public.

“It is an absurd — no, arrogant — position for the FBI to take,” he said.

Stay tuned for details about how this case turns out.  Also, be sure to read earlier articles in my series, UNTOLD STORIES of the OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING.

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Communists Around the World Cheering Barack Obama

Posted on by
Reply

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union during the 1980s by bankrupting the “evil empire,” forcing the Kremlin to try to compete with his “Star Wars” missile defense program.  They couldn’t keep pace in the arms race and the Soviet empire imploded.

Reagan vs. Obama

So, as we now find ourselves racing headlong toward the so-called “fiscal cliff,” is this payback time for international communism?  Is that what Barack Obama is all about?  I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist… I try as best I can to stick to what we actually know to be true… but I’m beginning to see the outlines of a major international conspiracy.  So humor me for a few moments, if you will.

In early 2008, when it looked as if Barack Obama might actually defeat the vaunted Clinton political machine, an article titled “The First Time I Heard of Barack” circulated on the Internet.  It was written by a man named Tom Fife who claimed to have made frequent trips to Moscow in the early 1990s, working on a software-development joint venture with Russian partners.

On a trip to Moscow in early 1992, he and several other Americans were invited to dine at the apartment of their Russian associate.  As he describes the evening, everything went well until late in the evening when their Russian partner’s wife, a hard core communist, launched into an anti-American tirade.  She said, “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect.  Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now?  You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it… Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The Americans expressed the opinion that, yes, there was nothing to prevent a black man or a black woman from being elected president.  The right person, at the right time, could easily be elected.  To which the woman responded, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?  Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”

As her husband tried vainly to change the subject, one of the Americans said, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

According to Fife, she replied, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President.”

I tried several times to locate Tom Fife so that I could ask him to confirm or deny the story attributed to him, but with no success.  However, a four-part interview — Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 — with Fife, by Jeff Rense, has recently surfaced:

Fast forward to the late ’80s or early ’90s, when Obama would have been in his late 20s.  Postman Allen Hulton regularly delivered mail to the home of Bill Ayers’ parents in Glen Ellyn, Ill., a Chicago suburb.  The Ayers family was quite proud that they had helped finance the education of a young black foreign student.  One day, Hulton met the young man, who he claims was Barack Obama, on the sidewalk in front of the Ayers home.  And when Hulton asked the young man about his plans for the future, he replied that he was going to be president of the United States.

Barack Obama Caricature by Political GraffitiFast forward once again some ten or twelve years when a young black Illinois state senator first emerged as a rising star in the Democratic Party.  On June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Victor Snyder (D-AR) introduced House Joint Resolution 59, a proposal for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on Sept. 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers, a radical black Democrat from Michigan.  The Conyers amendment would have required only that presidents be U.S. citizens for 20 years, eliminating the “natural born” requirement.  Few members could see the need to amendment the Constitution.  Both proposals died in committee.

However, on July 27, 2004, an unknown young black man, Illinois state senator Barack Obama, delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, creating immediate speculation among Democrats that he might one day be a candidate for president.

Just over five months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Representative Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress.  And on April 14, 2005, Representative Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.

Since the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution had never before created a shortage of presidential candidates, why did the congressmen feel the need to overturn the desire of the Founders that all presidents must be “natural born” citizens?  Perhaps we should be asking them what they knew about Obama’s lack of eligibility, and when did they know it?

Barack Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004 and was sworn in during the first week of January 2005.  Within weeks after taking the oath as a U.S. Senator, he launched into a campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

His principal opponent for the Democratic nomination was U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), but the powerful Clinton political machine was no match for the Chicago Democratic machine and on Aug. 27, 2008, a man with no real world experience… literally no experience of any kind… and who failed to meet the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, was handed the Democratic presidential nomination.

However, as the convention drew to a close on Aug. 28, 2008, the chairman and secretary of the convention, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, respectively, had one final task to perform.  It was their job to prepare certifications for all fifty state election boards, officially certifying the names, home addresses, and constitutional eligibility of the party’s candidates.

The certification sent only to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113 which requires that all certifications must contain eligibility language, read as follows:  “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively 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.”

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:  “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  The documents were signed by Pelosi and Germond, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.

The phrase, “… 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” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, all of the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

So when did Pelosi first learn that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States?  And who else was involved in the conspiracy to make him president?

And now, as the greatest nation in recorded history rushes headlong toward fiscal ruin, that same community organizer from Chicago who hoodwinked enough voters, or stole enough votes, to get himself elected to two terms in the White House, stands alone with the power to either save or to bring down our nation.

As he sits across the desk from Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), refusing to make real spending cuts and refusing to discuss entitlements reform, it is quite clear that he has no desire to prevent our country from plunging over the “fiscal cliff.”  Instead, as the committed communist he is, he would much prefer to see the capitalist system destroyed, and all of its adherents along with it.  In the dark crevices where communists gather around the world, they are drinking to his health and cheering him on.  This is known as “payback” time.  Am I wrong?

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate andthe New Media Journal.  His blog is found at OrderOfEphors.com.  He resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” coming soon.

Oklahoma Senator Wrong on ‘Natural-Born’ Citizenship

Posted on by
11

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.)

Over the past two years I have engaged in an ongoing debate with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) over the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States.  Although Senator Coburn is an exceptionally fine senator, one of the top three in the senate, his views on the issue are not unlike those of other members of Congress.  They are simply wrong.

In all of our exchanges, Senator Coburn has relied on the same “boilerplate” language, insisting that, “First and foremost, while I disagree with most of President Obama’s policy positions, I believe he is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president of the United States.  My belief is based upon the fact that he was born in Hawaii, as the release of his long-form birth certificate proves, and his mother (was) a U.S. citizen.  My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.  I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results.  Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”

There are at least three major errors and misconceptions in Senator Coburn’s response.

First, he accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, provides proof of that claim.  If the senator would examine the extensive forensic evidence developed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Ariz., he would know that the document provided by Obama is simply a poorly-constructed forgery.

Sheriff Arpaio has made it clear that anyone who feels that his Cold Case Posse… a team of highly respected and experienced lawyers, detectives, and forensic experts… was mistaken in their conclusions, they are free to submit the posse’s work to examination by a team of experts of their own choosing.  To date, none of the doubters have been doubtful enough to accept Sheriff Arpaio’s challenge.  Consequently, it is only the credibility of the doubters that is found wanting.   Rather than allow themselves to be proven wrong, they simply deny the validity of the posse’s findings without ever attempting to support their opposing position.

Even if it could be shown, conclusively, that Obama was born in Hawaii, his forged birth certificate notwithstanding, he still cannot claim status as a “natural born” citizen because, by his own admission, his father was a citizen of Kenya.  The place of one’s birth is not the determining factor in who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen.  Just as hundreds of thousands of “native born” children born in the U.S. each year are not “natural born,” because their parents are not U.S. citizens, tens of thousands of “natural born” babies are born abroad to American parents each year.  These children are “natural born” citizens because both parents are U.S. citizens.  Senator Coburn makes a common mistake, assuming that to be “native born” is to be “natural born.”  It is not.  The two terms are not synonymous.

Second, the senator argues that, “My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.”  The only thing to be said in response is that, when one fails to look for evidence, it is unlikely that one will find evidence.  Senator Coburn would be well advised to order his staff to utilize their own investigative resources and to take at face value the opinions of their friends on the Washington cocktail circuit who are armed with nothing more than inside-the-beltway “conventional wisdom,” which is almost always wrong.

Finally, the senator writes, “I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results.  Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”

The senator must know that few states have laws requiring their state election board to certify the qualifications of candidates for president and vice president.  To the contrary, it is an implicit constitutional duty of the party nominating conventions to nominate eligible candidates and to certify the eligibility of candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.

For example, in 2008, all of the certifications provided to the 50 state election boards by the Republican National Convention contained language certifying that John McCain and Sarah Palin met all of the constitutional requirements for the offices of president and vice president.  The documents were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform.  The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, which requires certification of constitutional eligibility, contained the following affirmation:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively 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.”

The remaining 49 states, which do not require a statement of constitutional eligibility, received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  The documents were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, chairman and secretary, respectively, of  the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.

The phrase, “… 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” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, all of the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.  Clearly, Democrats knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was not eligible to serve as president of the United States.  The question is, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?  She should be put under oath in a court of law and made to answer that question.

Contrary to Senator Coburn’s assertion, the obligation to properly vet candidates for president and vice president lies only with: a) the party nominating conventions, b) the members of the Electoral College, and c) the members of Congress, in joint session.  The party responsibility is implicit; the responsibilities of the Electoral College and the Congress are explicit.

In a Dec. 8, 2008, discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.”  Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’ (emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.

In other words, the matter of Obama’s eligibility is still a matter before Congress because the Congress has not questioned and evaluated his eligibility, and in spite of the fact that the state election boards printed his name on the 2008 General Election ballot, the responsibility for vetting him is still on their collective plates.

In 2008, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention failed us, the 365 Democratic members of the Electoral College failed us, and the 535 members of the U.S. Congress failed us.  In order to clarify the issue and to avoid a future constitutional crisis over presidential eligibility, the Congress should take immediate steps to establish, by law, the definition of the term “natural born Citizen.”  To clarify the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the term should be defined as: “an individual born to parents, both of whom were United States citizens at the time of the birth, and neither of whom owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty at the time of the birth.”

The American people will come to know that, between Jan. 20 2009, and Jan. 20, 2013, the man who occupied the Oval Office was not eligible to sit in that chair.  And while it would be all but impossible to reverse four years of presidential acts and appointments, by codifying the definition of “natural born Citizen” the people can be satisfied that we will never again suffer the likes of Barack Obama.  But the wrong that has been done to the American people will not soon be forgotten.  The delegates to the 2008 Democrat National Convention, the Democrat members of the 2008 Electoral College, and the members of the 111th Congress, of both parties, will carry the shame of their treachery to their graves.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media Journal.  His blog is found at OrderOfEphors.com.  He resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

Posted on by
1

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

It is always interesting, and instructive, to hear how liberals view the term, “judicial activism.”

A June 26 New York Times op-ed by conservative Ross Douthat framed the issue.

“It’s a great pleasure,” he wrote, “in this week when the entire political world is hanging on the Supreme Court’s health care ruling, to welcome so many liberals to a cause dear to my heart: The crusade for judicial restraint.”

Putting the subject of judicial activism into context, Douthat explains:  “The experience of the civil-rights era taught liberals to regard an aggressive judiciary as their natural ally, and over the ensuing decades the left came to rely on expansive (some might say fanciful) court rulings as a kind of trump card on issues where liberalism had not won public opinion to its side.”

In other words, whatever parts of the liberal agenda could not be achieved through the legislative process, liberals could expect leftist judges to accomplish for them by judicial decree.

“When conservative intellectuals complained that the Court’s approach to abortion (or civil liberties, or religious expression, or criminal justice… the list was long) amounted to a kind of ‘judicial usurpation of politics,’” Douthat continued, “liberals rolled their eyes and called the conservatives paranoid.  When right-wing politicians ran too hot in their attacks on liberal judges, liberals often responded with high-minded paeans to the importance of judicial independence.

“This changed only gradually as the influence of Republican appointees inevitably tilted the court rightward.  In the 1990s, liberals sometimes found themselves reaching for conservative-sounding rhetoric about judicial activism to critique court rulings they disliked.  In the wake of the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, some of them reached for harsher rhetoric still.  But the Court’s swing votes, Sandra Day O’Connor and then Anthony Kennedy, leaned leftward often enough… and on the hottest issues, crucially, from gay rights to Guantanamo Bay… to prevent the traditional liberal deference to the United States Supreme Court from breaking down entirely.

“Now it has… but the mere possibility that five justices (might have invalidated) part or all of (Obamacare) has persuaded liberals that the Court has become a purely ideological actor, a rogue body unmoored from any cause save partisanship, a crucial participant in what The Atlantic’s James Fallows described as a ‘long coup’ perpetrated by the political right.”

It is particularly instructive that Douthat would cite the Bush v. Gore decision of December 2000… which brought an end to the patently illegal Florida recounts… that liberals most often use to convince themselves that decisions of the Rehnquist court were ideologically driven.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Had it been possible to poll the members of the court on their level of interest in hearing the case, chances are the justices would have been unanimous.  They would have preferred not to get involved… but for vastly different reasons.

To review what was in dispute, when it appeared that the final results in Florida would show the two sides separated by less than one percent of the vote, Democrats dispatched hundreds of lawyers across the state, asking the courts to disqualify the ballots of overseas military personnel, based on mostly bogus technicalities.  And when that disgraceful effort failed and the Palm Beach County ballots became a major problem, the Gore campaign approached the heavily-Democratic Florida Supreme Court to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

The Florida Supreme Court, with absolutely no jurisdiction in the selection of presidential electors… Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests the state legislatures, and ONLY the state legislatures, with the duty to determine the manner by which each state’s electors are chosen… ordered recounts in only the four most heavily Democratic counties in the state.  The Bush-Cheney campaign, fully aware that the Democrats would be certain to “find” several hundred ballots in the trunk of someone’s car or in a dark recess of a voting machine storage warehouse, took the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Looking at it from the liberal point of view, where the end always justifies the means, it is all but certain that Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter would have been more than happy to let Florida Democrats work their special magic with the ballots, arguing that a “dimpled” chad was the same as a “hanging” chad, and that dimpled chads and hanging chads were the same as “cleanly-punched” chads… so long as the chads in question were next to Al Gore’s name.

The remaining members of the court, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas… aware that the winning of an election will always trump constitutional principles and the rule of law in the minds of liberals and Democrats… would have preferred not to get involved because they knew that they would be accused of partisanship if they heard the case and decided it based on the “equal protection” provisions of 14th Amendment.

Liberals were convinced then, and it has since become a part of Democratic orthodoxy that, based solely on partisan considerations, the court sided with the Bush campaign to prohibit a recount that would have thrown Florida’s 25 electoral votes to Gore-Lieberman.  In the present case, Douthat tells us that liberals remain convinced that “the Court has become a purely ideological actor, a rogue body unmoored from any cause save partisanship…”

As silly as that might sound, what it tells us is that any decision by the court that is inconsistent with the liberal view of federal-state relations must be, by definition, ideologically motivated.  It totally ignores the possibility that the conservative members of the court might actually attach some importance to the limitations of federal power outlined in the 10th Amendment.

Douthat reports that others “have cast around for reforms that might limit the influence of the court’s current right-leaning majority: a big expansion in its membership, term-limits for the justices, or even a 6-3 supermajority requirement for overturning an act of Congress.”

An FDR-style expansion of the court to 11 members would be just fine with liberals, but only in the event that a Democrat would have the opportunity to appoint a liberal to the Ginsburg seat and two additional liberals to the expansion seats for a reliable 6-5 liberal majority.  To suggest to them that a Republican president might be able to appoint a conservative to replace Justice Ginsburg and two additional strict constructionists to the expansion seats, for a reliable 7-4 conservative majority, would cause them to immediately discard the idea.

What it all boils down to is that, when liberal justices manufacture new rights out of thin air to benefit a voting constituency important to Democrats, it is only because the Constitution is a “living document” which must evolve with the times.  However, when conservative justices honor their commitment to the actual written word of the Constitution, in support of conservative ideals, liberals can always be expected to see a partisan motivation behind the decision.

In his June 28 op-ed in the Washington Post titled “Why Roberts Did It,” the normally reliable Charles Krauthammer argues that Roberts voted with the court’s liberals “because he carries two identities.  Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative.  Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.”

In writing for the majority in the Obamacare decision, the chief justice wrote, “… we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

So there you have it.  Krauthammer believes that the Chief Justice is not only the leader of the high court, he is also its PR flack who sees it as his job to punish us because a majority of the American electorate was dumb enough to elect Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress.  If he is correct, then we have the greatest anomaly of all time on our hands because Roberts has succeeded in accomplishing precisely that which he sought to avoid.  In ruling as he did, he has destroyed forever any faith the American people might have in the one institution that was designed to stand between the rule of law and the barrel of a gun.

Justices of the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments.  The Founders designed the court in that way so as to insulate the court from political pressure.  But if Roberts truly sees his job as Krauthammer describes it, he should resign immediately so that we can begin the long and painful task of repairing the damage he has done to our republic.

If the United States Supreme Court can be manipulated by liberal Democrats and the mainstream media, then what took George W. Bush so long to identify a replacement for William Rehnquist?  If all we needed was a PR flak to uphold the court’s reputation in the eyes of liberals, he could have nominated almost any inside-the-beltway political hack who would do almost anything for a buck.  Jack Abramoff was out of a job and looking for something interesting to do.  He would have been perfect for the job.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media Journal.  His blog is found at OrderOfEphors.com.  He resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.

Prediction: Barack Obama ‘George Washington of Africa’

Posted on by
5

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama, President of Kenya.  Farfetched?  Out of the question?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Allow me to make my case.

On May 30, 2011, I published a column, Barack Obama for President — of Kenya!  In that piece, I reminded readers that Obama will be only 55 years, 5 months, and 16 days old, a relatively young man, when he completes his four-year presidential impersonation on Jan. 20, 2013.  That will be the day when he walks out of the White House for the last time, having brought the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation on Earth to the very brink of disaster.

I asked, what should we do with such a man… a man who promised a bedazzled electorate in 2008 that his goal was to totally transform our constitutional republic into a European-style socialist state?  Should he be arrested for his crimes and sentenced to spend the rest of his days behind bars?  Or would the members of his party insulate him, insisting that his sham presidency was just their way of having a little fun with us…“water under the bridge,” so to speak?

I suggested that Obama may have his long term future already planned… assuming that he would be allowed to leave the country, a free man.  As a man whose boundless narcissism has led him to “sweet-talk” his way into the presidency of the United States… the most unqualified man ever to set foot in the Oval Office… would it be too much of a stretch to imagine him returning to his beloved Kenya, the land of his forebears, to serve as president of that country?

If that sounds a bit farfetched, consider this:  With little notice by the U.S. media, the people of Kenya have paved the way for Obama to do just that.  With the help of $23 million in U.S. Agency for International Development funds… spent in support of a “yes” vote… the people of Kenya adopted a new constitution on Aug. 4, 2010, Obama’s 49th birthday.  (Nice touch, eh?)

Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961 to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Luo tribesman from Kenya, a British colony.  Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth.  Therefore, under British law, it is indisputable that Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted constitution went into effect.

Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the 1963 constitution provided as follows:

“(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963… ; and

“(2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

In other words, on Dec. 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Barack Obama became a citizen of Kenya, giving him, at least temporarily, dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship.  He did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his Kenyan father.

However, at the time of their independence in 1963, Kenyans were not too keen on the idea of adults holding dual nationality.  Chapter VI, Section 97[1] of the 1963 constitution provided the following:

“A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”

Since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship on or about his 21st birthday.  However, the newly adopted 2010 Kenyan constitution brought Obama back into the fold by creating a new category of Kenyan citizenship called “citizen by birth.”  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 Kenyan constitution provides as follows:

“(1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).

“(5) A person who is a Kenyan citizen by birth and who, on the effective date, has ceased to be a Kenyan citizen because the person acquired citizenship of another country, is entitled on application to regain Kenyan citizenship.”

In other words, Chapter 3, Section 14, Subsections 1 and 5, invest Obama with status as a Kenyan “citizen by birth” and allow him to apply for reinstatement as a citizen of Kenya.  The 2010 constitution also reverses the Kenyan policy on dual citizenship in Obama’s favor.  Chapter 3, Section 16 of the new constitution provides that, “A citizen by birth does not lose citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country.”

What this tells us is quite disturbing.  It tells us that, since Aug. 4, 2010, Barack Obama has been a “citizen of Kenya by birth.  It is precisely the reason why the Founding Fathers insisted that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president or vice president.  Having been born with dual U.S.-British citizenship, Barack Obama does not qualify as “natural born.”

But the 2012 Kenyan constitution is even more Obama-friendly.  Chapter 9, Section 137 of that constitution provides that:  “(1) A person qualifies for nomination as a presidential candidate if the person… is a citizen by birth;”  However, in order to prevent a person with divided loyalties from ever becoming President of Kenya, Chapter 9, Section 137 provides that: “(2) A person is not qualified for nomination as a presidential candidate if the person… owes allegiance to a foreign state.”

In short, upon completion of his four years in the White House, Obama will be eligible  to serve two five-year terms as president of Kenya… so long as he first renounces his U.S. citizenship.

A suspicious person might suspect that the $23 million spent in Kenya in 2010 might have been a mere down-payment on Obama’s long-term plans, a mere pittance when compared to what we are spending in Kenya in 2012.  According to a June 20, 2012 World Net Daily article by Steve Peacock, “Barack Obama administration spending and projects in Kenya have become so voluminous that (USAID) must hire more contractors to oversee endeavors other providers already carry out across the African nation.”  In other words, Obama is spending so much money in Kenya that he needs to hire more overseers to oversee the overseers.

The $480 million now being spent by USAID in Kenya, Peacock reported, encompasses numerous assistance projects in general areas such as health, population, and HIV/AIDS; basic education; youth; governing justly and democratically; and economic growth, environment, and natural resources management.  However, this amount of money represents just over half of the total that is spent in Kenya, the largest recipient of U.S. aid in sub-Saharan Africa.

If one were a bit Machiavellian, one might suggest that, for Obama to spend the equivalent of $23 for every man, woman, and child in Kenya (not an insignificant sum in that country), he has learned his vote-buying lessons well in the Democratic precincts of south Chicago.

And to those who suggest Obama may not be happy ruling over a population of only 39 million people, after having used a population of 314 million as his own private socialist laboratory, allow me to suggest that Obama may have something far more grandiose in mind:  After winning election as President of Kenya, what’s to stop a man who’s seen as God-like in Africa from confederating all of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa into one large union, much like the United States of America?  He might even call it the United States of Africa (USA), while he advertises himself as the “George Washington of Africa,” the most powerful black man in world history.

Obama would have yet another distinction to add to his Nobel Peace Prize… after having done absolutely nothing in the interest of world peace.  He will serve as president in a country where they’ve erected a statue of him before… not after… he served as president of the country, a truly remarkable achievement.  And finally, renouncing their American citizenship and acquiring Kenyan citizenship will give Michelle Obama something she’s always longed for… a country she can be truly proud of.

Barack Hussein Obama, president of Kenya?  Who knows?  When a man of his meager abilities can work his way into the U.S. presidency, we should not be surprised at anything he might do.  Just remember… you read it here first.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media Journal.  His blog is found at OrderOfEphors.com.  He resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.

Man Arrested During GOP Presidential Caucus Will Plead ‘Not Guilty’ Tuesday

Posted on by
1

Three months after the bedlam of a botched Republican presidential caucus (a.k.a., the “St. Patrick’s Day Massacre”) took place inside and then outside a St. Charles County, Mo., high school gymnasium, Ron Paul Republican Brent Stafford will plead “not guilty” to charges of criminal trespassing during an appearance Tuesday morning at the City of St. Peters (Mo.) Justice Center.

Though I attended the gathering and offered several reports related to it, the outdoor “fireworks” took place after I had departed.  According to the news release, however, Stafford and his attorney, David Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri, contend the following took place during the impromptu outdoor portion of that oh-so-raucus caucus:

On the morning of March 17, 2012, Brent Stafford expected to be elected as the chairman of the St. Charles County Republican Caucus.  Instead, Stafford’s political rivals ignored parliamentary procedure, blocking his election and improperly adjourning the caucus.  Intent on following proper procedure, Stafford started to reorganize the caucus outside the Francis Howell North High School gymnasium.  As he was giving instructions to a peaceful assembly of citizens, police officers placed Stafford under arrest, although they did not at that time tell him why he was being arrested.

The police eventually claimed that Stafford had been “trespassing,” although the gathering took place on school grounds that were open to the public and the police did not arrest any of the scores of other people gathered outside of the school.

Stafford and Roland will meet with reporters at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the Northeast Corner of the building located at 1020 Grand Teton Drive in St. Peters.  They will answer questions about the charges and explain why the charges threaten all citizens’ constitutional freedoms.  It could get very interesting!

UPDATE 7/23/12 at 12:03 p.m. Central:   Tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. Central, the City of St. Peters, Mo., will put Brent Stafford on trial in St. Peters Municipal Court, seeking to have him convicted of trespassing, according to a message I received from Dave Roland at the Freedom Center of Missouri.  More details here and here.

UPDATE 8/01/12 at 4:10 p.m. Central:  Last night Judge Donald Kohl did not even need to hear witnesses testify in favor of Brent Stafford before ruling him not guilty of the criminal trespassing charges with which the City of St. Peters had charged him. Stafford, a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, had been arrested on March 17, 2012, because he was speaking to a peaceful crowd of several dozen people on the grounds of Francis Howell North High School in the wake of the aborted St. Charles County Republican Caucus.  More details here.

UPDATE 4/16/2013 at 8:39 a.m. Central:  According to a local newspaper report, Brent Stafford has filed suit against the City of St. Peters and at least one of the police officers involved in his arrest at the caucus.

* * *

Be sure to order a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” and get ready for my second nonfiction book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” set for release this fall. Both will make your blood boil!

Journalism Dead In America

Posted on by
Reply

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

We all know what physicians do, we all know what teachers do, we all know what scientists and engineers do, and we all know what lawyers do.  But do we understand what it is that journalists do?  We are told by those in the profession that the journalist is one who searches for truth so that the truth can be communicated to the masses.  But is that really the case?

If one were to believe the hype that is circulated in the media on behalf of one of their own, the recently departed Mike Wallace, it would require what Hillary Clinton might describe as a “willing suspension of disbelief.”  One does not have to be a “news junkie” to understand that the mainstream media is governed by left wing political bias and that it is just as important to know which stories they fail to report as it is to recognize the bias in the stories they do.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, tells us that, “Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists…  Journalism has developed a variety of ethics and standards.  While objectivity and a lack of bias are often considered important, some types of journalism, such as advocacy journalism, intentionally adopt a non-objective viewpoint.” 

Not once is the word truth mentioned.  That part of the conventional wisdom about the journalism profession… the notion that the journalist engages in a search for truth… is a fiction that has been created by “journalists” in order to enhance their standing as professionals.

So the question arises, is it possible to have a free nation without a free press?  The answer to that question is… perhaps, but only for a brief period of time.

What causes us to consider this question now is the growing body of evidence surrounding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States.  From the day that he announced his candidacy, it was widely known that he lacked status as a “natural born Citizen,” one of the three principal qualifications for the office.  Yet, the men and women of the media totally ignored that critical shortcoming.

Then, throughout the 2008 presidential primaries, when Obama’s principal opponent was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), hundreds of bloggers and freelance writer of the “alternative media” researched his background, producing thousands of authoritative articles and editorials for print media and the Internet.  The “journalists” of the mainstream media, captivated by the notion of helping to elect the first black president, ignored the story.

As powerful as the Clinton political machine might have been, they were no match for the fraud, violence and intimidation practiced by the Obama forces.  Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano produced a documentary, titled We Will Not Be Silenced, which told the story of the criminal misdeeds committed by the Obama campaign against Clinton supporters.  The men and women of the mainstream media ignored the documentary evidence, and Obama was nominated by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, 3,188.5 votes to Clinton’s 1,010.5.

At the close of the convention, it was the responsibility of the convention chairman, Nancy Pelosi, and convention secretary Alice Travis Germond, to certify the names, home addresses, and constitutional eligibility of the party’s nominees to the 50 state election boards so that ballots could be printed.  Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, the certification sent only to the State of Hawaii contained the following affirmation:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively 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.” 

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  However, the phrase, “… 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” was omitted from certifications sent to those 49 states.  Other than that, the documents were exactly the same… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.  Hawaii is the only state with a law requiring the certification of constitutional eligibility.

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond… and presumably other senior Democratic officials… were aware when they nominated him that Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.  But if the top leaders of the Democratic Party knew, then so did the men and women of the mainstream media.  Yet, they looked the other way, knowing that the Democrats had nominated a man who was ineligible to hold the office of president.

Throughout the 2008 General Election campaign, writers and bloggers of the “alternative media” continued to publish details of Obama’s lack of qualifications, but the men and women of the mainstream media continued to look the other way.

In the three and one-half years that Obama has been in office, numerous lawsuits have been brought against Obama, charging that he is ineligible to serve in the office he occupies.  A number of cases were examined by the members of the Supreme Court for grant of certiorari, but all were denied for “lack of standing,” taking the position that the people of the United States had no right to demand that their president be eligible to hold that office.  The men and women of the mainstream media were fully aware of those efforts but, again, they looked the other way.

Finally, during the month of April 2011, billionaire developer Donald Trump took an interest in the issue and openly questioned the circumstances of Obama’s birth.  With the added attention brought by Trump’s inquiries, Obama caused what appeared to be an authentic long form birth certificate to be uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011.  Within days, dozens of the nation’s most knowledgeable forensics experts examined the document and found it to be a poorly crafted forgery.

Finally, on Thursday morning, Aug. 18, 2011, the leaders of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party presented Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a petition bearing the signatures of 242 county residents.  The petition questioned whether or not a fake birth certificate could be used to document Barack Obama’s eligibility to have his name appear on the Maricopa County ballot in the November 2012 General Election.  The petition requested that Sheriff Arpaio conduct a criminal investigation of the alleged forgery.

Sheriff Arpaio assigned the task to a five-member team of retired attorneys and law enforcement professionals, known as the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.  Following a six month intensive investigation, Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse presented their findings on March 1, 2012 at a nationally televised press conference.  Their findings provided conclusive evidence that the Obama birth certificate… and the Obama draft registration card… were, in fact, forgeries.

Inasmuch as Obama himself testified to the authenticity of his birth document, the findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse represent a felony crime by Barack Obama.  But, again, the men and women of the mainstream media refused to report the story.

Barack Obama’s usurpation of the office of the presidency is the greatest crime ever committed against the people of the United States… a crime greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor, a crime greater than the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.   But what is most shameful and most unforgivable about the crime is that the men and women of the mainstream media, those who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people, the ever-watchful guardians of our precious freedoms, stood idly by and allowed it to happen.  They are as complicit in the crime as if they themselves had planned it.

When the terrible national nightmare of the Obama presidency is finally behind us, Obama must be called to answer for his crimes.  He deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars.  But those who were his principal enablers: the leaders of the Democrat Party, the men and women of the Congress who refused to properly vet him, and the men and women of the mainstream media who failed to properly vet him, must also be held accountable.  Until that work is done, we must conclude that journalism is dead in America.

We the People will have to find a way to ensure that future generations will have all the benefits of a free press… a press for which the search for truth and justice is the paramount purpose.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media Journal.  His blog is found at OrderOfEphors.com.  He resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Be sure to check out Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.