Conservatives, Honest Liberals Opposed FCC Newsrooms ‘Study’

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

In a Feb. 10 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who occupies one of the Republican seats on the commission, broke the news that the Obama Administration was planning to place inquisitors in the newsrooms of television and radio stations across the nation.

Titled the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the FCC program proposed to send researchers into TV and radio newsrooms to interview reporters, editors, and station managers about how they decide which stories to cover… or not cover.

As Pai described it, the stated purpose of the CIN was to “ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected,’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ along with ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’” As a guideline for their research, the FCC planners selected eight major categories for their investigators to delve into:

1) Emergencies and risks – immediate and long term;

2) Health and welfare – local health information and group specific health information;

3) Education – the quality of local schools and choices available to parents;

4) Transportation – available alternatives, costs, and schedules;

5) Economic opportunities – job information, job training, and small business assistance;

6) The environment – air and water quality and access to recreation;

7) Civic information – the availability of civic institutions and opportunities to associate with others; and

8) Political – information about candidates at all relevant levels of local governance, and relevant public policy initiatives affecting communities and neighborhoods.

In addition, the FCC identified two broad areas of critical information needs associated with each of these categories: 1) Those fundamental to individuals in everyday life; and 2) Those that affect larger groups and communities.

But this is all pretty boring stuff.  If the FCC was interested in conducting a study on which topics and which stories were most likely to put TV viewers and radio listeners to sleep, it’s pretty clear they were really onto something.  There have always been much more interesting stories to report.

Although everyone but the fascist thugs of the Obama Administration and the brain-dead rank-and-file of the Democratic Party were immediately horrified at what the FCC proposed, for the first time in history conservatives and the lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union threw their arms around each other.  The thought of someone marching into the newsrooms of television and radio stations and demanding to know how they conducted their business was roundly denounced by conservatives and honest liberals alike.

Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, cautioned:  “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

Without doubt, Sekulow had the Obama administration in mind when he cautioned us against “repressive regimes?”

Commentary magazine equated the proposed FCC study to the dangers of, say, a federal shield law.  The principal danger of a shield law is that, in order to legislate protections for a specific group… i.e. the “press”… it is first necessary to define that group.  Therefore, the government would be placed in the position of deciding who is a journalist and who is not.  As Commentary suggests, “The government could easily play favorites and have yet another accreditation – not unlike an FCC license – to hold over the heads of the press.”  Given the Obama Administration’s unprecedented use of the IRS to thwart its political opponents, is there any doubt that a shield law in their hands would be a very dangerous thing?

Commentary concluded that it is such rules that the FCC’s CIN calls to mind.  It opens the door to increased government scrutiny of the press, with an implicit threat to a broadcaster’s license.  It does so under the guise of “public service,” “quality control,” “fairness,” and other terms that usually hint the government is up to no good.  Left unchallenged, the CIN would support the premise that “news judgment is the FCC’s business.”

The FCC quickly issued a statement saying that Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler was in agreement that “survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required.”  An FCC spokesman added that “any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false.”

However, what is most noticeable about all of the moral indignation directed at the FCC’s CIN program, whether from the left or from the right, is that it is all premised on the notion that we actually have a free press in the United States when, in fact, we do not.  Few conservatives, the most “underserved population” of all, would deny that because of many decades of leftish propagandizing by the mainstream media, any opportunity to get inside the newsrooms at the major networks to expose them for the charlatans they are would be far too tempting to ignore.

For example, in 2004, CBS newsman Dan Rather created a national stir when he charged that George W. Bush had been AWOL during a part of his service in the Texas Air National Guard.  Unfortunately for Rather, the documents used to support his charge turned out to be forgeries.  The documents, which Rather claimed were memos from one of Bush’s senior officers, contained superscript characters which were not available on typewriters at the time.  In truth, the documents that Rather hoped would ruin Bush’s reelection chances were created on a modern computer using Microsoft Word software, and artificially aged to make them appear authentic.

Nevertheless, the networks and major print media devoted hundreds of hours of airtime and countless lines of newsprint to the bogus story.  It would have been interesting to learn how the networks decided to spend that much time and effort on the phony Bush AWOL story.

Conversely, just three years later, when it became evident that Sen. Barack Obama would be a viable Democratic candidate for the presidency, legal scholars complained that, because Obama failed to meet the basic requirements to be a “natural born Citizen,”  as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, he would be ineligible to serve.  And although there was ample evidence to support the charge, the mainstream media all but ignored the story.

And when the Maricopa County, Ariz., Cold Case Posse, under the direction of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, provided irrefutable proof that the long form birth certificate uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011, was a poorly crafted forgery, that his draft registration card was a forged document, and that his Social Security number was stolen and would not pass a simple Social Security Administration E-verify test, the left-leaning newsmen of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC looked the other way.  They simply ignored the story.

It would be interesting to have editors, producers, and reporters at our major networks explain why a few days absence by George W. Bush from his Air National Guard duty station should be a major national news story, while the constitutional ineligibility and the forged documentation of the country’s first black president deserved nothing more than to be swept under the rug.

These are not isolated incidents; they happen every day of the week, on every conceivable kind of issue, foreign and domestic.  The only constant is the fact that the reporting is almost always slanted in favor of liberal/socialist orthodoxy and against traditional conservative views.

Given that so much of the Obama Administration invites favorable comparison to Hitler’s Third Reich, it was only to be expected that the FCC’s CIN study would quickly attract comparisons.  Marilyn Assenheim, writing at Minutemen News, suggests that, “What (Obama) is establishing is a redo of historical absolutism.  The German National Socialist government could not have aspired to better.”

Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, reminds us that “Arbitrary power is ugly and vicious, regardless of what pious rhetoric goes with it.  Freedom is not free.  You have to fight for it or lose it.”  Further, he asks, “But is our generation up to fighting for it?”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming has said“I think Obama is learning.  By the end of his presidency he’ll have gone from less than useless to achieving parity with uselessness…  In America, we love rooting for the underdogs, so maybe a gigantic decline in our nation is just what we need to believe in ourselves again.”

Perhaps a close brush with fascist dictatorship will be enough to wake us all up to the realities of the terrible dangers Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi represent.

Paul R. Hollrah is a two-time member of the Electoral College and a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Writer Reveals True Face of the Democratic Party

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

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.

Above (left to right): Rod Blagojevich, Jesse Jackson Jr., Barack Obama, Antoin “Tony” Rezko

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.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe 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.

Setting Record Straight on Democrats and Racism

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

Rev. Wayne Perryman

Rev. Wayne Perryman, of Seattle, a recovering Democrat, has pursued lawsuits against the Democratic Party on three occasions, seeking to win an apology for centuries of oppression, murder, mayhem, and bigotry directed against blacks.  And although he and most of his fellow plaintiffs, and those who filed amicus briefs, are black, the courts have consistently ruled that blacks of today were not harmed by Democratic racism and lack “standing.”  That has been the fate of Reverend Perryman’s most recent effort, dismissed by the court in recent days.  Nevertheless, in spite of the court’s refusal to hear the case, it is time once again to help set the record straight.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial titled Whitewash, The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget, conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett taught ultra liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a lesson that most small boys learn the hard way: when approaching an active hornets’ nest, it’s best not to poke at it with a stick… which is precisely what Krugman has done in his book, The Conscience of a Liberal.

As if borrowing shamelessly from Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative, were not enough, Krugman proceeded to turn what was clearly intended to be a serious book into a comic piece by tagging it with a blatant oxymoron.  As Bartlett explains, Krugman attempted to make the case that “the political success of the Republican Party and the conservative movement over the past 40 years has resulted largely from their co-optation of Southern racists that were the base of the Democratic Party until its embrace of civil rights in the 1960s.”

Apparently Krugman has not ventured far from his ivory tower at the New York Times.  If he had, he would know a bit more about the remnants of the Democrat Party south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  He would understand that, during the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, southern Democrats with an ounce of gray matter, an ounce of human compassion, and more than an ounce of courage, switched to the Republican Party.  Those who remained in the party occasionally wash and iron their white sheets and hoods and burn small crosses in their back yards… just to stay in practice.

Bartlett tells us that a key piece of evidence for Krugman’s mistaken notion is that, in Ronald Reagan’s first speech after accepting the 1980 Republican nomination, he expressed his support for “states’ rights.”  To Krugman, and other liberals, this can only be code for a secret sympathy for southern racism.

“However,” Bartlett asks, “if a single mention of states’ rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards, what about the 200-year record of prominent Democrats who didn’t bother with code words?  They were openly and explicitly pro-slavery before the Civil War, supported lynching and Jim Crow laws after the war, and regularly defended segregation and white supremacy throughout most of the 20th century.”

Bartlett then proceeds to offer some direct quotes from prominent Democrats:

Stephen A. Douglas

“I hold that a Negro is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States.  I hold that this government was made on the white basis; made by the white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others.” – Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (D., Ill.), 1858; Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1860.

“I am opposed to the practice of having colored policemen in the District (of Columbia).  It is a source of danger by constantly engendering racial friction, and is offensive to thousands of Southern white people who make their homes here.”– Sen. Hoke Smith (D., Ga.), 1912; Appointed Secretary of the Interior by Grover Cleveland, 1893.

Benjamin Tillman

“Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme.  That is why we Southerners are all Democrats.” – Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906; Chairman, Naval Affairs Committee, 1913-19.

“The Negro as a race, in all the ages of the world, has never shown sustained power of self-development.  He is not endowed with the creative faculty…  He has never created for himself any civilization…  He has never had any civilization except that which has been inculcated by a superior race.  And it is a lamentable fact that his civilization lasts only so long as he is in the hands of the white man who inculcates it.  When left to himself he has universally gone back to the barbarism of the jungle.” – Sen. James Vardaman (D., Miss.), 1914; Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 1913-19.

Hugo Black

“I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the ‘Junior Senator from Alabama.’ ” – Hugo Black, accepting a life membership in the Ku Klux Klan upon his election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Alabama, 1926;  Appointed to the United States Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937.

“I have never seen very many white people who felt they were being imposed upon or being subjected to any second-class citizenship if they were directed to a waiting room or to any other public facility to wait or to eat with other white people.  Only the Negroes, of all the races which are in this land, publicly proclaim they are being mistreated, imposed upon, and declared second-class citizens because they must go to public facilities with members of their own race.” – Sen. Richard B. Russell Jr. (D., Ga.), 1961.

“I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes.” – Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961.

Lyndon B. Johnson

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.  Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.  For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation.  It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.” – Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957; President of the United States, 1963-69.

“There is no warrant for the curious notion that Christianity favors the involuntary commingling of the races in social institutions.  Although He knew both Jews and Samaritans and the relations existing between them, Christ did not advocate that courts or legislative bodies should compel them to mix socially against their will.” – Sen. Sam Ervin (D., N.C.), 1955; Chairman, Senate Watergate Committee, 1973-74; Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, 1971-75.

Jimmy Carter

“I’m not going to use the federal government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods…  I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.” – Gov. Jimmy Carter (D-GA), 1976; President of the United States, 1977-81.

“Everybody likes to go to Geneva.  I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” – Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), 1993; Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03; Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984.

Robert C. Byrd

“I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County…  The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.  It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union.” – Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 1946; Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-2010; Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88; Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-2010.

Bonus quote: “It has of late become the custom of the men of the South to speak with entire candor of the settled and deliberate policy of suppressing the Negro vote.  They have been forced to choose between a policy of manifest injustice toward the blacks and the horrors of Negro rule. They chose to disfranchise the Negroes.  That was manifestly the lesser of two evils…  The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks…  So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained.” – Editorial, “The Political Future of the South,” New York Times, May 10, 1900.

Has Mr. Krugman’s employer changed its editorial policy since 1900?  As the citadel of bias and hypocrisy in journalism, the Times has been unerringly consistent in its refusal to condemn the blatant racism of Democrats, whether in the 19th, 20th, or 21st century.  That being the case, before attempting to ascribe improper and unprovable motivations to southern Republicans, Mr. Krugman might want to spend a few hours in the basement of the Times, searching through the dusty archives to find a rare example of the Times’ condemnation of Democratic racism.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right.  Follow me on Twitter @BobMcCarty.  Thanks in advance for your support!

Dick Durbin Hunting for Muslim Votes

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

The Democratic Party is the oldest of the two major U.S. political parties.  It was first organized in the early 1790s by anti-federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as the Democratic-Republican Party.  Unlike the Democratic Party of today, it was distinguishable by its support for states’ rights and strict adherence to constitutional principles.

The modern Democratic Party was born in February 1825 following the disputed presidential election of 1824. In that election, between John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts; Henry Clay of Kentucky; William H. Crawford of Georgia; and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, Jackson won a plurality of both the national popular vote and the electoral vote.  However, since he had failed to win a clear majority of the electoral votes, the 12th Amendment dictated that the names of the top three candidates… Adams, Crawford, and Jackson… be sent to the House of Representatives, presided over by none other than Speaker Henry Clay, for the final selection.

Clay threw his support to Adams, who became the sixth president of the United States; Jackson resigned from the Senate and launched a campaign for the party’s 1828 nomination; and Clay relinquished the Speaker’s gavel to become Secretary of State in the Adams Administration.  The Jackson faction of the party, referring to the highly-suspicious Adams-Clay alliance as a “corrupt bargain,” split off from the party and established the Democratic Party.  It was out of that “corrupt bargain” that the DNA of the modern Democratic Party was formed.

In the years between 1825 and 1860, as abolitionist sentiment gained more and more support, the Democratic Party, north and south, became the party of slavery, championing such pro-slavery laws as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Fugitive Slave Law.  Then, after opposing Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Democrats opposed ratification of the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery; the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to the freed slaves; and the 15th Amendment, which gave voting rights to the freed slaves.

Following the Civil War, in states where they held essentially one-party control, Democrats enacted Black Codes and an endless variety of Jim Crow laws.  In 1866, as a means of ensuring the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were fully enforced, Democrats created a paramilitary auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

In the remaining years of the 19th century, Democrats established an unbroken record of opposition to civil rights legislation. They opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the First Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.  Then, after regaining control of Congress and the White House in the 1890s, Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894, repealing much of the civil rights legislation enacted by Republicans in the decades since the Civil War.

Later, in the mid-20th century, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the Equal Employment Act of 1972 became law only with strong Republican support.  All of those bills received strong opposition from Democrats in one-party states, mostly in the South.

During the 1930s, Democrats began to build a coalition of special interest groups.  With the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, giving workers the right to organize unions and to engage in collective bargaining with employers, Democrats saw an opportunity to capture a stable and reliable voting bloc.  If they could convince working men and women that they were the sole protectors of their unique government-created “right” to hold hostage the private property of the owners of business, they would be the beneficiaries of many millions of dollars during each campaign season and tens of millions of votes on Election Day.  Since that day, Democrats have been the dutiful servants of the labor bosses.  Whatever labor has wanted, labor got… no matter how ethically or economically ill-advised the demand.


Rosa Parks

Then came Brown v. Board of Education, Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, Orville Faubus and the Little Rock Central High School, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox, and suddenly everything changed. African-Americans were suddenly knocking at the door, demanding access to the American Dream, and they had every right to do so.  But they had a decision to make.  Would they be consumed by the irresistible narcotic of the welfare state, or would they recognize that the only true economic progress in America is not class progress, but individual progress, and opt for the sure rewards of education, opportunity, and hard work?

We all know what happened.  African-Americans turned their backs on the Republican Party, the party that was born out of opposition to slavery, the party whose members had shed their blood and their treasure to free their forbears from the bonds of slavery. Instead, their leaders opted for the “free lunch” promised by Democrats and they filed, en masse, into the Democratic Party where, to this day, they faithfully and blindly pull the Democrat lever on Election Day.

In more recent times, Democrats can be seen courting not only the votes of Hispanic citizens, but the votes of illegal immigrants, as well. While illegal aliens stream across our porous borders by the millions, bringing tons of drugs along with them, Democrats refuse to enforce immigration laws and offer the illegals generous taxpayer-funded education, medical, and welfare benefits.

In 1962, Rachel Carson published her book, “Silent Spring,” which attacked the use of chemical pesticides.  Her book led to a ban on DDT and other pesticides and a grassroots environmental movement was born.  Yet, in spite of the fact that scientific studies show conclusively that DDT is not a carcinogen, the EPA lists DDT as a ‘probable human carcinogen’… but only if ingested in large quantities.  Nevertheless, it was yet another opportunity for Democrats to make political capital out of a bogus public issue based on questionable science and embraced by a large and dedicated following… many of them wealthy, well-educated, and blindly idealistic.

It is of no apparent concern to Democrats that, since DDT was banned by a Democratic Congress in 1972, more than 50,000,000 people have died of malaria.  The World Health Organization reported that, in the year 2000 alone, malaria infected more than 300 million people, killing some 2,000,000… mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.  Most fatalities today are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day.  Yet, so long as Democrats have their campaign coffers filled by radical environmentalists they will continue to do their bidding… no questions asked.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano talks with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

In subsequent years, Democrats have embraced the agendas of numerous other special interests, all having just one thing in common: they all want something from government.  These include trial lawyers, radical feminists, abortion rights advocates, public school teachers, public employees, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people.  But now it appears that Democrats are looking to add yet another loyal voting bloc to their coalition.  They’ve sent Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), their second-ranking Senate leader, on a hunting expedition to capture the American Muslim vote… both radicals and moderates.

In the wake of hearings held by U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, into charges that homegrown Muslims are being radicalized by ideologues in mosques all across the country, Senate Democrats held an “anti-King hearing,” on Tuesday, March 29, chaired by none other than Dick Durbin, himself.  It was an apparent attempt to show that the guys who took down the World Trade Center, the guys who flew a plane into the Pentagon, the guy who slaughtered 13 and wounded 29 at Fort Hood, and dozens more, were just a bunch of misunderstood eccentrics.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, a photograph has circulated in the mainstream media showing a smiling Dick Durbin at an early March gathering of Muslim clerics at the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation in Chicago. As described by Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, of the eight men photographed with Durbin, six are allied with Hamas, the Palestinian terror group; five are unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial; and four of the eight have made statements calling for the killing of Jews.

Should they be successful, it will be interesting to visualize future Democratic conventions. Just picture the thugs of the AFL-CIO, ACORN, and SEIU conducting seminars for teachers and Code Pink pacifists on how to beat up little old ladies at Tea Party rallies. Picture the blacks and the Hispanics beating the tar out of each other because blacks are tired of hearing Mexicans say that blacks are too lazy and too spoiled to do stoop-labor.  But most interesting of all, picture what happens when a bunch of radical jihadists get a little high from sniffing the smoke in one of the Democrats’ smoke-filled rooms and wander into a ballroom where gays, lesbians and transvestites are enjoying a no-holds-barred meet-and-greet.  Where the jihadists come from, men are beheaded and women are stoned to death for that sort of thing, but in Democratic circles it will just be viewed as business as usual.

If Democrats are so determined to make themselves bullet-proof, politically, one wonders why they haven’t embraced the political agenda of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Could it be that pedophiles just don’t bring enough money or enough votes to the table?  Happy hunting, Dick!  Better you than us.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Black, Brown, White: Leftists Come in All Colors

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

Whether black, white, brown, red, pink, orange, green, or purple, leftists come in all colors… depending on their issue de jour. Watching the turmoil in Wisconsin in recent weeks, and seeing Democrats on the floor of the General Assembly… all decked out in their stylish orange t-shirts…  shouting childish epithets at their Republican colleagues, one is reminded of how easily and how quickly liberals, Democrats, socialists, fascists and communists adopt self-identifying uniforms.

What comes to mind are leftist movements of the past two centuries: Mussolini’s Blackshirts; Hitler’s Brownshirts; the white-hooded Knights of the Ku Klux Klan; the black-suited New Black Panthers; the pink-shirted dilettantes of Code Pink; the red-shirted thugs of Obama’s ACORN; the green-shirted radicals of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); and the purple-shirted goons of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  Of these, only Hitler’s Brownshirts and Mussolini’s Blackshirts are not known to have been closely associated with the Democratic Party.

Unlike Tea Party activists, who are capable of dressing themselves and thinking for themselves, union members and other self-identified leftists, socialists and fascists are, by their very nature, like children who must have others dress them and do their thinking for them.

St. Louis Tea Party 11-29-09

Click above to read Tea Party-related stories.

Mussolini’s Blackshirts, the Fasci di Combattimenti, were established as a Fascist paramilitary force in 1919.  Far from being as brutal as Hitler’s Brownshirts, Mussolini’s Blackshirts favored tactics such as tying an opposition “non-conformist” to a tree, forcing a pint or two of castor oil down his throat, and forcing him to swallow a live toad or frog.  While not life-threatening, such punishments were enough to cause most Italians to give the Blackshirts a bit of latitude.

And while submissive adults were important to the Mussolini regime, it was the children, the fascists of the future, who were of greatest interest to Il Duce.  Like Democrats of today and like Nazis of yesteryear, a top priority of Italian fascists was control of the state’s public education system… not because of the quality of the education children might receive, but because of the opportunities it provided for filling impressionable young minds with leftist ideology.

While Italian children were taught to sing hymns of praise to Il Duce, American children are taught by unionized teachers to chant, “He said red, yellow, black, or white, all are equal in his sight.  Mmm, mmm, mmm!  Barack Hussein Obama!  Barack Hussein Obama!”

Adolph Hitler’s Brownshirts, the Sturmabteilung (SA), served as the paramilitary arm of the National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party.  It played a major role in Hitler’s rise to power during the 1920s and ’30s until being violently displaced by the Schutzstaffel (SS) in 1934.

The Hitler Youth, who wore the same brown shirts as their elders, were important to the future of the Third Reich because it was their job, not only to inform on their parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors, but to train and recruit future SA members.  And just as the Hitler Youth were taught Nazi slogans and Nazi doctrine by adult leaders, Youth for Obama children are taught to sing propaganda themes such as, “We’re gonna’ spread happiness.  We’re gonna’ spread freedom.  Obama’s gonna’ change it, Obama’s gonna’ lead ‘em, Obama’s gonna’ change it… and rearrange it.  We’re gonna’ change the world.”

The Ku Klux Klan, identifiable by their white robes and white conical hats and facemasks, was formed in 1865 as the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party.  The primary role of the Klan was to intimidate the freed slaves, controlling every facet of their daily lives as if they had not been freed from the bonds of slavery.  Sworn testimony contained in the Congressional Record tells us that, after Republicans wrote and ratified the 15th Amendment, giving blacks the right to vote, Democrats often stood in the doorways of the polling places handing out Democratic ballots and reminding blacks that, if they failed to vote the Democrat ticket, there was a coffin waiting for them.

With that level of intimidation most blacks voted the Democrat ticket… but some did not.  Archives maintained by the Tuskegee Institute contain the names of some 4,730 men and women who refused to be intimidated.  Between 1882 and 1951, the white-clad night riders of the Klan lynched some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, essentially all Republicans.  Now, in what can only be described as a mind-boggling reversal of roles, we find members of the New Black Panther Party, clad in black military style uniforms and brandishing police-style nightsticks, employing essentially the same tactics as the KKK… intimidating both black and white voters suspected of voting for Republican candidates.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), whose members and staff are recognizable by their red t-shirts, was born out of the welfare rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.  According to ACORN propaganda, the group’s priorities have included better low-income housing, higher wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, unionization of workers and other “social justice” issues.   Putting a bit of “lipstick on a pig,” ACORN claims to have pursued these goals through public demonstrations, negotiations, lobbying and voter participation.

The truth is, in spite of the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it taxpayer funds, have flowed through the hands of 30 ACORN state chapters and hundreds of local chapters, ACORN activists have little to show for their efforts. Low-income housing has been a national disgrace; few minorities have gained middle-class status via ACORN’s efforts; pressure exerted on banks to make mortgage loans to applicants with little or no ability to repay them, has brought our nation to the brink of financial collapse; the number of high school dropouts, especially in the black community, has steadily increased while education spending has grown exponentially; more than two out of every three black babies are born to unwed mothers; and, with ACORN’s assistance, the number of black babies aborted now borders on genocide.

The only thing ACORN has done successfully is to provide the Democratic Party with many thousands of dead or fictitious voters. Numerous officials have been indicted on fraud charges and on March 22, 2010, ACORN announced it was closing all of its remaining state chapters and disbanding due to falling revenue.  Although Democrats will be forced to find a new source of fraudulent voter registrations, they’re almost certain to experience a one-time windfall from the sale of thousands of red ACORN t-shirts.

Until the shameless siege of the Wisconsin state capitol, the purple-shirted goons of the SEIU could be counted on to turn out in force… shouting, screaming, pushing, shoving and brutalizing the opposition. But now, the violence-prone goons of the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the NEA and the AFT appear to have reclaimed their mantle as party “enforcers.”  And while decent people may view with alarm the lawless nature of those who occupied the Wisconsin capitol, threatening and terrorizing Republican members of the House and Senate, it is easy to lose track of just who those people are.

They are not just a bunch of radical Democrats and unionized public employees in someone else’s state capital.  No matter where we live, they are our family members, our neighbors; the teachers who teach our children; our fellow Wal-Mart shoppers; and, sadly, in far too many instances, they are the police officers and the firefighters in whose hands we place the safety of our families and our property.  They are, like the Wisconsin classroom teachers and other public employees, those who contribute their hard earned dollars to elect Democratic puppets in our city halls, our county courthouses, our state legislatures, and the Congress.

They are the people who refuse to condemn the author of the death threat made to Wisconsin legislators, the cowardly threat that tells Republican legislators, “Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed… We have all planned to assault you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head…” They are the leftist hoodlums who have been taught by their union overlords to chant at Republicans, “You have killed democracy,” when few of them are sufficiently educated to write a single declaratory sentence describing the difference between a democracy and a republic.

They are not the people who have, through their industry, built a great nation; they are the people who would find comfort in the smothering embrace of a European-style socialist state.  They are not builders of wealth, creators and leaders; they are the moochers, the parasites and the hangers-on of Ayn Rand’s epic work, “Atlas Shrugged.”

Now that conservatives and Republicans have been successful in attacking the power of public employee unions in Idaho, Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and elsewhere, the real battle begins.  Between now and the 2012 general election, it is up to Republicans to remind voters of why collective bargaining reform is so essential.  They must hang all of Wisconsin’s $100,000+ bus drivers, New York City’s 4,000 “rubber room” teachers and Harry Reid’s Northern Nevada Cowboy Poetry Festival tightly around the necks of Democrats.  And now that the rainbow coalition of color-coded radicals, representing less than fifteen percent of the U.S. workforce, has been foolish enough to show us their true colors, it’s up to the rest of us to make sure the voters do not forget who they are when they go to the polls in 2012.


Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Wisconsin Protests Result of Political Incest

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines “incest” as, “The crime of cohabitation between persons related within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.”

However, it took an ugly confrontation between Wisconsin’s unionized public employees and their employer, the State of Wisconsin, to redefine the term and to finally shine the light of day on the incestuous relationship that exists between public employees, public employee unions, and state and local government. And while some in the left wing media would have us believe that both major parties have contributed to the development of that relationship, that charge is demonstrably false.  The corrupt combine could never have developed had not Democrats let it be known that their loyalty could be purchased with campaign money and support at the polls.

While it is common knowledge that business interests have on occasion exerted undue influence over elected officials… the Teapot Dome, Billy Sol Estes, Duke Cunningham and Enron cases come to mind… it is those exceptions that prove the rule.  The rule being that the relationship between business interests and government is essentially an arm’s length relationship, one that consistently promotes the general welfare while seeking a business environment in which basic fairness and regulatory restraint is the rule.

This is in stark contrast to the Democratic Party where the all-encompassing goal is the winning and holding of political power, and where the party has shown a willingness to adopt the agenda of any special interest that brings enough money or enough votes to the table.  In the post-industrial era, the Democratic Party has embraced a wide variety of often competing special interests, including private-sector unions, public-sector unions, trial lawyers, radical feminists, radical environmentalists, racial minorities, gays and lesbians… any group with the capacity to subordinate its own special interests, when necessary, for the greater good of the coalition.

Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.)

Never has that been more evident than in recent weeks in Madison, Wisc., when thousands of middle-class private-sector union members… many bused in from out of state…  joined hands with the teachers unions and the other public employee unions to defy Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature.  In many instances, those who picketed in support of the public employee unions were middle-class taxpayers who not only pay as much as half the cost of their retirement and healthcare plans, but pay the state and local taxes that fund the exorbitant salaries and the overly generous retirement and healthcare benefits of public employees. Talk about dumb and dumber.

Now, as the Madison demonstrators depart the state capitol and put aside their picket signs until the next rent-a-riot opportunity, it appears that a recall petition war is breaking out in which recall efforts will be made against Republican legislators and against the fourteen Senate Democrats who hid out in various Illinois motels for more than two weeks.

The 85 percent of Wisconsin voters who are not members of labor unions may soon have an opportunity to show that they understand the nature of the relationship that exists between Democrats and public employee unions, and that what is at stake is the monopoly power of high-salaried union bosses… that, and nothing more.

It is the union bosses who collect hundreds of millions of dollars in dues from classroom teachers and other public employees and use a major portion of that dues money to elect more Democrats to the Congress, the state legislature, and city and county offices (95% of union contributions go to Democrats).  The Democrat politicians who are elected with union support then return the favor by creating more and more government bureaucracies, resulting in more and more dues-paying union members; establishing costly and inefficient union-friendly work rules; reducing class sizes in the schoolrooms; and agreeing to salaries, retirement benefits, and healthcare plans that are far more generous than those of the private sector.

In short, when members of the same political family (Democratic elected officials and their brothers and sisters in the labor movement) are allowed to sit down across the table from each other for the purpose of divvying up other people’s hard-earned money, that comes very close to defining the term “incest.”  It is precisely why labor icons such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and AFL-CIO president George Meany were so outspoken against public employee unions.

Most Americans would agree that the time has arrived when government at all levels must begin to reduce spending and to eliminate unfair and excessive union work rules.  By now, almost everyone has heard about New York City’s “rubber rooms,” the Temporary Assignment Centers created to house unionized school teachers who are either too incompetent or too dangerous to be allowed near our children, but who cannot be terminated because they are protected by their union contracts.

In Madison, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, the highest-paid city employee in 2009 was not the mayor, not the chief of police, not even the head of the metropolitan transit authority.  It was bus driver John E. Nelson. Nelson earned $159,258, including $109,892 in overtime and other pay.  He and his colleague, driver Greg Tatman, who earned $125,598, were among the city’s top 20 wage earners for 2009… They are among seven bus drivers who made more than $100,000, thanks to a clause in their union contract that allows the most senior drivers, who have the highest base salaries, to get first crack at overtime.

Within the Madison city government, any employee who takes a voluntary demotion, in lieu of layoff, continues to receive full pay, plus any subsequent across-the-board salary adjustments, unless the employee voluntarily demotes more than two pay grades.

Part of the job search for those who’ve been laid off involves notices posted on bulletin boards.  However, the union contract is so detailed and so complex that it even dictates the size and location of new bulletin boards in the workplace.

A very crude old joke says, “Incest is best; love begins at home.” Not true.  Most incest occurs when Democratic elected officials and public employee unions gather behind closed doors to divide up the spoils of a corrupt political system.  Is it any wonder that Wisconsin now has more government jobs than manufacturing jobs?


Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

‘Hope and Change’ Arrives at Last

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

QUESTION: What do 3,408½ Democratic Party convention delegates, 365 Democratic members of the 2008 U.S. Electoral College, and 535 members of the 111th Congress have in common?

ANSWER: They are all cowards, Democrats and Republicans alike, who had an opportunity to question Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States, but did not.

Now, as political activists, members of the media, and potential candidates begin to jockey for position ahead of the 2012 presidential campaign, the question of Obama’s eligibility once again takes center stage.  Was Obama eligible to run in 2008? No, he failed to meet the “natural born citizen” standard required under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Knowing in his own mind that he was ineligible to serve, did that knowledge in any way deter him from running? No, the Obama narcissism is such that he actually believed he was capable of leading the world’s only remaining superpower.  Finally, did his ineligibility in any way deter those who purchased the office for him?  No, those who supported his candidacy were so anxious to place control of our government into the hands of a totally inexperienced and totally incompetent puppet that the only thing that concerned them was his ability to read flawlessly from a teleprompter.

But now, under the old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” members of Congress and the state legislatures are taking steps to erect insurmountable roadblocks to an Obama rerun.  During the 111th Congress, Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced HR 1503, as follows:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, HR1503 had little chance of receiving serious consideration.  The bill was assigned to the House Administration Committee where it was allowed to die a quiet death.  However, with Republicans now in control of the House, it is expected that a similar bill will pass the House and move on to the Senate where Harry Reid and other Democrats will have to explain to the American people why they oppose the idea of the president and vice president having to show that they are, in fact, eligible to serve.

However, if Democrats are able to block passage of the bill in Congress, Obama will have an even tougher hurdle to cross.  At least ten states are considering legislation requiring candidates for president and vice president to prove their qualifications in order to have their names appear on the primary and/or general election ballots.  The most interesting of these are Arizona HB2544 and Nebraska LB654.

Arizona HB2544, Section A, in addition to requiring the national political parties to provide the Arizona Secretary of State with written notice of the names of their candidates for president and vice president, would require the candidates themselves, within ten days, to submit an affidavit stating their age and citizenship, along with documents proving: a) their status as natural born citizens, b) their age and c) their 14-year U.S. residency requirement.

Under Section B, the Arizona bill would require candidates to submit: a) an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the name of the hospital, the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance, b) a sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America, and c) a sworn statement that identifies the candidate’s places of residence in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Finally, under Section C, the Arizona bill provides that, “If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state.”

Nebraska LB654 would require candidates for president and vice president to provide: a) a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, showing that the candidate was born within a state or territory of the United States and that the candidate will be at least 35 years of age prior to the inauguration date and b) documentary proof, as required by the Nebraska secretary of state, showing that the candidate meets the residency requirements for the office as prescribed by the United States Constitution. In addition, Nebraska law would require candidates to execute a sworn affidavit, reading substantially as follows: “I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth.  On the day I was born, both my birth mother and birth father were citizens of the United States of America.”

Other legislative proposals… Connecticut SB391, Georgia HB37, Indiana SB114, Maine LD34, Montana HB205, Oklahoma SB91and SB384, Texas HB295 and HB529… are similar in nature.

They require candidates for president and vice president to provide proof of age and natural born citizenship in the form of a certified long form birth certificate, as well as proof of at least fourteen years U.S. residency.

Indiana SB114 also places a responsibility on the state chairmen of the major political parties, requiring that the party chairmen certify that each nominee of his/her party for president and vice president meets the constitutional qualifications, and that a certified copy of each nominee’s birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the nominee meets the qualifications, accompany the state chairman’s certification.

Georgia HB37, in addition to requiring proof of age, 14-year U.S. residency, and natural born citizenship, provides Georgia citizens with statutory “standing” to challenge the documentation.  HB37 provides that, “Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates by the Secretary of State…”

A third Oklahoma bill, SB540 additionally invests all registered Oklahoma voters with standing to sue a presidential or vice presidential candidate, requiring proof of citizenship.

The weakest of the 13 legislative proposals is Missouri HB283.  Current law provides that, “Not later than the twelfth Tuesday prior to each presidential election… within seven working days after choosing its nominees for president and vice president of the United States, whichever is later, the state committee of each established political party shall certify in writing to the secretary of state the names of its nominees for president and vice president of the United States.”  HB283 would add the words: “Such certification shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each nominee.”

Under the revised Missouri statute, requiring that candidates provide only “proof of United States citizenship,” Obama could qualify as a candidate for president if he can provide proof of either naturalized or “native born” citizenship.  Inasmuch as his father was not a U.S. citizen he would still be unable to prove “natural born” citizenship, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Texas HB295 prohibits the Texas Secretary of State from certifying a candidate for president or vice president unless the candidate has provided an original long form birth certificate indicating that the candidate is a natural born U.S. citizen.  Texas HB529 prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented: (1) the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating the name of the hospital and the physician of record or (2) for a candidate whose birth was not documented in the manner required by Subdivision (1) a document certifying the candidate’s birth in the United States.

Taken together, the ten states will control 112 electoral votes in 2012, 38 votes in the state of Texas alone. Of the ten, Obama carried only Connecticut, Indiana, and Maine in 2008 with a combined total of 22 electoral votes… not enough, under normal circumstances, to cause him to lose reelection in 2012.  However, with one or more of those ten states standing in his way, causing him to reveal once and for all who he is and his citizenship status, the chances of his reelection would be almost nil.  The American people would finally learn exactly what is so important about his background that would cause him to spend some $2 million keeping it from them.

Obama will finally have brought us the “hope and change” he promised in 2008… “hope” that the final two years of his bogus presidency will pass quickly, and sufficient “change” in our state laws to prevent a total fraud from ever again ascending to the presidency of the United States.


Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!