Is Radical Islam Un-American?

In the years immediately following World War II, most American were understandably concerned about Communist infiltration at the highest levels of the U.S. government. For example, how could anyone forget the photograph taken at the Yalta Conference, Feb. 4-11, 1945, in which Alger Hiss, a deep-cover Soviet agent, was seen leaning over President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s shoulder, whispering advice to him as he negotiated with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin? Hiss served as FDR’s senior advisor on political affairs.


Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Premier Josef Stalin sit side by side at the site of the Yalta Conference in February 1945. (Army).

Roosevelt arrived in Yalta carrying copies of the Morgenthau Plan, which advocated that the post-war occupation of Germany include measures to eradicate Germany’s ability to wage war, and to remove or destroy other key industries basic to military strength. The Morgenthau Plan was the brainchild of yet another deep-cover Soviet spy in the highest echelons of the Roosevelt administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White.

But it was not until the Cold War and the U.S.-Soviet arms race became a fact of life that most Americans became fully aware of the dangers of Soviet expansionism and the extent to which Soviet agents had infiltrated the U.S. government. It was then that Congress took steps to facilitate the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee, created in 1938, with the passage of the Communist Control Act of 1954, and similar measures.

While newsmen take notes, Chairman Martin Dies Jr. of the House Committee Investigating Un-American Activities proofs and reads his statement replying to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attack on the Committee, Oct. 26, 1938.

While newsmen take notes, Chairman Martin Dies Jr. of the House Committee Investigating Un-American Activities proofs and reads his statement replying to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attack on the Committee, Oct. 26, 1938.

The HUAC was abolished in 1975, but now, in the early years of the 21st century, we find ourselves confronted by an enemy every bit as ruthless as the enemies we faced in World War II and the Cold War, but far more numerous. If, as some Muslim apologists suggest, only five percent of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, the number of potential airplane hijackers, suicide bombers and jihadists we face is approximately 70 million. In World War II, the combined military forces of the Germans, Japanese, and Italians numbered only 31.4 million.

A recent Investor’s Business Daily article describes the recent formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations. It provides a clear insight into how far Muslim infiltration of the U.S. has advanced. The report tells us that, “With an eye toward the 2016 election, the radical Muslim Brotherhood has built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc.”

IBD cautions, “This development bears careful monitoring in light of the U.S. Brotherhood’s recently exposed goal of waging a ‘civilization jihad’ against America that explicitly calls for infiltrating the U.S. political system and ‘destroying (it) from within.’” The IBD article explains that this subversive plan was spelled out in hundreds of pages of documents seized by the FBI during a raid on a Muslim Brotherhood leader’s home in a Washington suburb after 9/11.

The article goes on to quote Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations as saying, “Muslim voters have the potential to be swing voters in 2016. We are aiming to bring more participation from the Muslim community.”

"This Way to Socialism" by My Personal LitmusOne might ask, “Is that a proffer, available to the highest bidder?” Liberals and Democrats have always been known for their willingness to embrace almost any special interest agenda so long as that special interest brings enough money and votes to the table. Is it possible that they might be tempted to adopt the cause of radical Islam, ignoring the fact that they and their families are as much targets of radical Islam as conservatives and Republicans?

The Democratic Party has been very successful at tap-dancing around the disparate interests of a large coalition of special interests, each demanding some self-serving policy or program from government. However, it is probably too much of a stretch to think that they would be so reckless as to adopt the anti-American, counter-cultural, agenda of radical Islam. Given the danger that radical Islam represents, they would do so at their own peril. Even they are smart enough to understand that an ant should not contemplate swallowing an elephant.

Such was the case when the Communist Control Act of 1954 was under consideration. The Communist threat during the early years of the Cold War led most liberals to overlook the fact that the CCA suspended citizenship rights of Communist Party members. Few liberals and Democrats offered more than token opposition; most ardently supported the CCA, as they did the unconscionable internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 made membership in the Communist Party a criminal act, conviction of which carried a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for five years, or both. However, it should be noted that, while no administration has ever attempted to enforce it, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the CCA. Provisions of the act outlawing the Communist Party have not been repealed and could easily be customized in our efforts to protect our country and our culture from the internal threat posed by radical Islam.

Reading Section 2 of the CCA, it is easy to see how the act could be tailored to meet the threat of Islamic jihad. By removing references to Communists and the Communist Party and substituting references to Islam, Section 2 of the Act could be paraphrased to read as follows:

Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, the policies and programs of Islam are secretly prescribed by the foreign leaders of Islam. Its members have no part in determining its goals and are not permitted to voice dissent to Muslim objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Islamic community are recruited for indoctrination with respect to Islamic objectives and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry out assignments given them by their leaders, including the order to kill and maim innocent men, women, and children by acting as suicide bombers. Unlike political parties, Islamic jihad acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small numerically and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.

As the prominent sociologist Ernest van den Haag said at the time of passage of the CCA, there is “no place in a democracy for those who want to abolish [it], even with a peaceful vote.” Nor is there a place in a democracy for Islamists who acknowledge no respect for U.S. constitutional principles or the rule of law.

Perhaps the next Republican president will sign legislation expanding the Communist Control Act of 1954 to cover the activities of radical Islam. His signing statement might echo President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s CCA signing statement of August 24, 1954, declaring, “The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be “religious,” in the accepted sense of that term, are actually conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by violence and force…”

The Muslim infiltration of old Europe is such that some very old cultures are in serious danger of extinction. In Sweden, for example, one in every four Swedish women are victims of sexual assault, while more than three out of four convicted rapists in Sweden are Muslim immigrants from North African nations. They demonstrate no respect whatsoever for the people or the laws of nations that have thrown their doors open to them, making the great liberal experiment in multiculturalism a complete failure.

Radical Islam poses a clear and present danger to the lives and property of the American people, and to the continued existence of western civilization. So that the American people can be fully cognizant of the subversive activities of Islamic jihad and to the dangers posed thereby, the Congress should take immediate steps to outlaw Islamic fundamentalism and to document its eradication by reestablishing HUAC.

It matters little to Muslims whether the conquest of the West takes 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years. They have endless patience and the only way to deal with the threat is to confront it courageously and forthrightly. Islam must be made to understand that they will never gain full acceptance in the Western world until such time as they renounce all forms of violence against non-Muslims, and Christians, Jews, and other religious denominations are accorded full religious freedom throughout the Muslim world. That is the line in the sand that must be drawn… nothing less will suffice.

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.

WE’RE CLUCKED: Obama’s ‘Chickens’ Have Come Home

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

In a March 26 article in The Jerusalem Post, writer Caroline Glick reports on the efforts of Vassar College earth sciences professor Jill Schneiderman’s abortive attempt to arrange a field trip to Israel to study water-supply issues in the Holy Land.

Sick ChickenThe trouble started when Professor Schneiderman conducted a pre-trip seminar for students who intended to participate in the field trip to Israel.  When the Vassar student chapter of an anti-Semitic hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine, picketed her seminar, pressuring earth science students to drop Schneiderman’s class and to forego any plans to travel to Israel, Schneiderman complained to Vassar administrators, seeking redress for her students whose civil rights and academic freedom were under attack by the SJP.

Instead of taking action against the thuggish actions of the pro-Palestinian students, college administrators once again demonstrated the sort of cowardice that has become so common among college and university administrators across the country.  They referred the issue to the college’s Committee on Inclusion and Excellence.  But when those vested with the responsibility for “inclusion and excellence” at Vassar convened to discuss the anti-Semitic outrage, Professor Schneiderman was, as she noted in a post on her blog, “knocked off-center by a belligerent academic community dedicated to villifying anyone who dared set foot in Israel.”

As Schneiderman and her Vassar students proceeded with plans for their trip to Israeli, the University of Michigan student government was voting on a motion to suspend debate, indefinitely, on a resolution submitted by an anti-Jewish student group, calling upon the University to boycott and divest from all companies that do business with Israel… precipitating yet another confrontation in which Jewish interests came in second to the interests of Muslims on a traditionally-liberal college campus.

According to the aforementioned Post article, a Michigan students group calling itself Students Allied for Freedom and Equality “responded with rage and violence,” staging sit-ins at the student government offices and cursing Jewish members of the council, hurling epithets such as “kike” and “dirty Jew.”

HONOR DIARIESThen, on March 27, fascism reared its ugly head on the Dearborn campus of the University of Michigan.  On that evening the Council on American-Islamic Relations was successful in blocking the screening of a documentary film, “HONOR DIARIES.”  The film tells the story of the unspeakable horrors endured by women throughout the Muslim world, including such brutal practices as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings, the forced marriage of eight- and nine-year-old girls to 30- and 40-year-old men, the lack of educational opportunities for women, and restrictions on their freedom of movement.

However, according to a Fox News report, CAIR wasn’t doing its own dirty work, or even its own research.  The group relied on facts and arguments presented by Richard Silverstein, a liberal blogger who argued, “One has to ask why a film about the purported abuse of Muslim women was produced by Jews… ”  In other words, how could a group of Jews possibly produce a film that profiles human rights abuses against Muslim women?  It flies directly in the face of Muslim sensibilities… the truth of the matter be damned.

In the end, those who sponsored the screening of the film were fearful that the showing would be seen as “Islamophobic.”  Wishing not to offend the Islamic community… and perhaps in fear of violent retribution… university administrators canceled the screening, proving once again that intimidation works.  But, as the Fox report asks, “Who is being offended when we are talking about mutilation and women setting themselves on fire to escape marriage before puberty?”

Then, just days later, Frontpage Mag reported that Brandeis University, a longtime bastion of liberal orthodoxy, had conferred an honorary degree on leftist anti-Semite writer, Amos Oz, who has described religious Jews as “Hezbollah in a skullcap.”  Brandeis is the very same “progressive” institution which yielded to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as CAIR and the Muslim Students Association, causing the university to withdraw a similar honor intended for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a noted Somali critic of Islam and co-producer of “HONOR DIARIES.”

So what’s happening on our college and university campuses?  Haven’t the most-liberal colleges and universities always been places where Jewish academics hold forth and children of Jewish families are prepared for lucrative careers in medicine, academia, and the law?

For answers we might refer to a Feb. 1 article by Glick, “Column one: The New York Times Destroys Obama.”  In that column, Glick quotes extensively from a Times report by David Kirkpatrick on Barack Obama’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.  Glick writes that Kirkpatrick “tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.”

Glick reminds us that “Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University.”  It was his first venture abroad as president and is best remembered for his warm embrace of Islam, for his unprecedented bow to the King of Saudi Arabia… described in the Washington Times as a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate”… and for the cold shoulder he delivered to Israel, America’s most steadfast ally.

The thought that a newly-inaugurated president of the United States would take a major overseas trip, passing within 50 miles of Israeli territory, and not pay a courtesy call on the Israelis… the only functioning democracy in the Middle East… was a snub of gargantuan proportions and a major diplomatic faux pas.  It was also a portent of things to come in Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

Reassuring his friends in the Muslim world of his belief that the violent extremists in the Muslim world were but a “small but potent minority of Muslims,” Barack Obama went on to say that he had traveled to Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”  Instead, he asserted, “they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

The Israelis, listening to his words from less than 220 miles away, must have been shocked and dismayed to hear Barack Obama refer to Islam… the most violent and intolerant force on the face of the Earth, where Christians, Jews, and others are brutally murdered and persecuted simply because they are not Muslims… as sharing American principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of human beings.

Barack Obama Caricature by Political GraffitiThen Barack Obama went on to say that Islam had “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.  It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed… And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

It was then that he shocked Americans, describing how “Islam has always been a part of America’s story…”  He reassured Muslims that “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the (Sharia) laws, religion, or tranquility of Muslims.”  He claimed that, “since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.  And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.”

So, if we wonder how radical Muslims have come to feel as if they are welcomed with open arms at our institutions of higher learning, and if we are wondering why Muslims feel as though they can shut down major portions of Americans busiest cities by holding prayer sessions in the middle of public thoroughfares, we may have struck on the answer.  It is Barack Obama who has set the stage and who has invited them to take full advantage of American tolerance and generosity.

Since the first day that Barack Obama occupied the White House, he has extended the hand of friendship to the most brutal and intolerant people on the face of the Earth.  In doing so, he has denied the Judeo-Christian origins of our great nation.  He has caused the gloom of a declining culture to fall across the face of America; his chickens have come home to roost.

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.

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.

The Week That Was Featured Murder, Mail, Muslim Brotherhood

I’ve been busy since my last weekly recap.  Among the topics covered were a murder mystery, a mail system malfunction and a Muslim Brotherhood infiltration.

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009. Host for the event was Col. Andrew Smith, Marine Barracks Washington Commanding Officer, and Guest of Honor, the 34th Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway and wife Annette. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss/Released)

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

On Saturday, Feb. 22, I gave readers a frightening look inside Barack Obama’s head, courtesy of guest writer Paul. R. Hollrah.  Fair warning:  Words like “ego” and “incognito” appear in this piece along with a story about some top-flight Marines.  Read it here.

On Monday, I shared a counterintelligence expert’s opinion about a report by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the D.C. Navy Yard shootings five months earlier.  In short, the expert said a business-as-usual approach is harmful to national security.  Read about it here.

On Tuesday, I published my opinion about the hard-to-miss similarities between the sexual assault prosecutions of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair and Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, the man whose wrongful conviction is chronicled in my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August.  Read about it here.

On Thursday, I revealed photograph evidence proving the U.S. Postal Service is doomed to fail.  I challenge you to reach any other conclusion after considering the photos in this piece.

On Saturday, I offered two important stories that had crossed my radar.

Click on image above to read the six-part series, What Really Happened to Jarret Clark?

Click on image above to read the six-part series, What Really Happened to Jarret Clark?

In the first article, I shared good news more than four years after publishing a six-part investigative series, What Really Happened to Jarret Clark?  An arrest has finally been made in the 2006 murder of the 18-year-old resident of Broken Arrow, Okla.  Read about it here.

In the second article, I explained why, as the man who wrote the book on “insider threats,” I was not surprised by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin’s claim that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the highest levels of our government — including the Pentagon!  Read this article here.

When I wasn’t busy writing the pieces above, I had my nose to the grindstone, banging out my first realistic-fiction novel.  FYI:  I’m on the homestretch now, and hope to finish this thing and get it on sale by SUMMER 2014.  Hope you’ll add it to your reading list after you read my first two nonfiction novels ON SALE NOW.

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.

A Look Inside Barack Obama’s Head Would Prove Interesting

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah

In the Aug. 18, 2011 edition of American Thinker, writer Matt Patterson published an article titled, “Obama: The Affirmative Action President.”

The article began this way:

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. 

Barack Obama Caricature by Political GraffitiLooking at Obama from a distance, Patterson provides an accurate picture of how any objective observer might see him.  But how does Obama see himself?  Putting ourselves inside his skin and inside his head would be a far more interesting and instructive exercise.

Just imagine a young black man living in a family of all white people… mother, grandfather, and grandmother… after having been deserted by his black father.  Just as welfare recipients come to resent the hand that feeds them, it is easy to see how a young black man growing up in a white family, his skin color a constant reminder that he was “different,” would come to resent his white parent and grandparents… and by extension, all white people.

Obama stressed his struggle with self-identity in his book, Dreams From My Father.  Regarding white people, he said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

In describing the man who gave him the only job he ever held outside the halls of government, his job as a “community organizer” in south Chicago, he said, “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe.  And white.”

By the time he entered college, Obama was fully committed to the racial divide between blacks and whites.  Of his years as a student at Occidental College, he wrote, “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names… I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.  It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

We have all been confronted on occasion by challenges for which we felt totally unprepared…  challenges that appeared insurmountable.  That being the case, it is all the more mystifying how a man of Obama’s meager background and experience could believe that he should be seen as a viable candidate for president of the United States.  How could a young man, such as Patterson describes, suddenly see himself in that role, knowing that he has never run so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand, knowing that he has no qualifications whatsoever for the job?

What must it be like to one day look into a mirror and say to the person reflected therein, “You’re a pretty good looking guy.  You were lucky enough to grow up in the tropics, in Hawaii and Indonesia, and even though your parents and grandparents weren’t wealthy, you were lucky enough to go to a private prep school and Ivy League colleges on someone else’s dime.  You spent several years working with black activists on the streets of Chicago and you spent a few years as a back-bencher in the Illinois state senate.  Hey!!  You’re something really special!  You should run for president of the United States.”  What sort of man could have that conversation with himself… and do it with a straight face?

Fortunately for Obama, there was an oversupply of pent-up white guilt within the ranks of the Democrat Party.  And in spite of the fact that party leaders knew him to be not only unqualified, but ineligible as well, he was the sort of “rock star” politician who would appeal to white liberals and young white Democrats.  It mattered little that he would be incapable of governing; all they cared about was that he would look good before the TV cameras and that he could read convincingly from a teleprompter.  They would put the necessary words in his mouth.

But, of all of Obama’s current responsibilities, his relationship with the military is where he appears to be most out of place and ill at ease… a pair of brown shoes at a black tie ball.  In neither of his memoirs does he give the slightest hint that he ever considered enrolling in the ROTC programs at either Occidental College or Columbia University.  Yet, just 16 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he stood before the American people and proclaimed that he felt capable of serving as commander-in-chief of the largest and most powerful military machine in the history of the world.  What sort of outsized ego would that require?

Those of us who’ve placed our lives on the line as members of the uniformed services can’t help but experience a stomach-turning revulsion each time we see Obama bounding down the steps of Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, flashing a sloppy half-salute at the well-turned out young Marine standing at the base of the stairs.  Any normal person of Obama’s background and experience would feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.  But what goes though Obama’s mind?  And what goes through the minds of those young Marines?

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009.  (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

To serve as a member of the Silent Drill Platoon and Color Guard at the 8th & I Street Barracks in Washington… the Marine contingent responsible for guard and escort duty at the White House… is a much coveted assignment in the Marine Corps.  But it would be interesting to know what went through the minds of all those young Marines when they first learned that Barack Obama,  a man who was too cowardly to wear the uniform of the U.S. military, a usurper who was ineligible to serve in the office, would be occupying the White House for at least the next four years.  How could they bring themselves to salute a man so undeserving of their respect?

Most Marines would rather take their chances on the field of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan than to suffer the embarrassment of standing in the rain next to Barack Obama, dressed in spiffy blue-white dress uniform, holding an umbrella over the usurper’s head while he addressed a small group of fawning sycophants in the White House Rose Garden.

And while it is easy to understand the revulsion felt by the men and women of the enlisted ranks, what goes through the minds of long-serving generals and admirals, their chests covered with row upon row of medals and service ribbons, evidence of their long service to God and country,  when they are forced to salute him and address him as “sir” or “mister president?”  What sort of colossal ego does it take for such an unremarkable man to expect that kind of treatment from men and women of real accomplishment?

What all of this tells us is that what motivates Barack Obama is far more than a super-inflated ego, far more than pathological narcissism.  He is, as some have described him, a “total incognito with zero accomplishment.”  But even that does not describe how Obama sees himself, what goes on inside his head.  Instead, we can only conclude that Obama’s opinion of himself is simply beyond human comprehension.  Just as the human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, neither can the human mind comprehend the boundaries of what Barack Obama appears to see in himself.

When Barack Obama proclaimed in his June 4, 2008, nomination acceptance speech that, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” most of us laughed because we knew that just the opposite was true.  But there were many who actually believed him and were inspired by his soaring rhetoric.  What those of us who laughed knew, intuitively, is that what appeared to be bravado was actually a cover for nothingness.

What best describes Barack Obama is a brief two sentence quotation from Eric Hoffer, the renowned longshoreman/philosopher, who said, “Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness.  The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”

Yes, Barack Obama is an evil man and the political philosophy that guides his every word and deed are truly ugly.  It is that evil and that ugliness that Obama seeks to hide by his bravado and his pretentiousness; it is the emptiness of his promise of hope and change that is at the heart of his pretentions.

And while a majority of Americans still find Barack Obama to be “likeable,” an even larger majority have come to see that there is no real substance to him.  As Hoffer tells us, “The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”   Where Barack Obama is concerned, there is no there, there.

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 Offers ‘Final Word’ on Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President of the United States

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah

In recent days, I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years without so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to “beating a dead horse.”  Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document in 1787.

What generated my recent exchange on the subject of presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert, the newsletter of the Pennsylvania Business Council.  The article in question was titled, “SANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.”

pegAlert 1-31-14 pg 3

In response, I asked the question, “Who keeps propping up Santorum’s ambitions… other than Rick Santorum?  Unless I’m wrong, his father was still an Italian citizen when he was born.  That makes him ineligible for the presidency.”  To which a representative of the Business Council replied, “That might be so, but Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.”

To that nonsensical assertion, I replied, “… If Santorum was born in the U.S., which I assume he was, that does make him a ‘citizen.’  But that’s not what is at issue.  What is at issue is his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for president.  In order for him to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, both of his parents must have been US citizens.  If Santorum’s father was still an Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen…”

The final response from the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the issue.  The reply read, “Under (that) definition, none of our initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.”  Bingo!!  Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point.

U.S. ConstitutionOnce again, I found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous… that to be a “citizen” equates to being a “natural born” citizen.  That simply is not true.  One would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the phrase, No person except a natural born Citizen,” with the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Even the most unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word “or” requires an implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either “natural born citizens,” or citizens of the United States” on the day that the Constitution became the law of the land.

On the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen of the 13 original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United States of America.  And the very first child born to newly-minted U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry on John Hancock’s signature, became the nation’s very first “natural born” citizen.


The Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least 35 years of age.  There were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a president and the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under 12 years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible for newly-minted U.S. citizens, none of them “natural born,” to serve as president.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to U.S. citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age 35.

George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Va., Feb. 22, 1732, 44 years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Mass., Oct. 30, 1735, 41 years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.

Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Va., April 13, 1743, 33 years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia March 16, 1751, 25 years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia April 28, 1758, 18 years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens,” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.

However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, N.Y., Dec. 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least 35 years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

What a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americas refuse to accept is the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

This web archive image of an article published in the June 27, 2004, edition of the Sunday Standard, Kenya’s oldest newspaper includes the headline, Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate.

This web archive image shows an article published in the June 27, 2004, edition of the Sunday Standard, Kenya’s oldest newspaper.

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, under Chapter VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of Dec. 12, 1963, Kenyan Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on Aug. 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday.  However, his eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3, Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on Aug. 4, 2010, he became a citizen of Kenya “by birth” and is required to obey the laws of Kenya, should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White House.

The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation.  Barack Obama provides, if nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the president must be a “natural born” citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign allegiances.

Doctored Certificate of Live Birth?Although Democrats have successfully defended Obama’s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans.  This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)… all born to one or more non-U.S. citizen parents… are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.

In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama’s background and qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency.  Without question, he would have been declared ineligible.  Yet, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the office.  By what tortured reasoning, what conceivable standard, they won’t say.

Liberals and Democrats being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both ways.  But conservatives and Republicans believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law, and we simply cannot allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution.  So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and Rick… we love you all and you’re a great credit to our country, but you just can’t play in our presidential sandbox.

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.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Though Hollrah did not mention Mitt Romney in the piece above, he has raised questions about Romney’s eligibility.  And he’s discussed other hot-button topics, including Obama’s true identity.  To read more of his columns, click here.

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.

Americans Must Improvise, Adapt and Overcome to Defeat Obama

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

In almost every field of endeavor, we find those who display an indomitable spirit laboring side by side with those who are only too anxious to throw in the towel when the going gets tough or when the odds appear too long.

Donald Rumsfeld

Donald Rumsfeld

As a case in point, I remember being summoned to the Chicago home of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld July 7, 1986.  Those in attendance, some 21 individuals, included political operatives from all regions of the country, as well as corporate executives and former top government officials.  We were there to help the former defense secretary think through the question of whether it was still possible to defeat George H.W. Bush for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination… in spite of the fact that Bush already had a large and experienced campaign organization in place, left over from his 1980 campaign against Ronald Reagan, and in spite of the fact that he had served as Reagan’s vice president for five and one-half years and had staffed every agency of the federal government with loyal campaign aides.

And, although we all came from widely varying backgrounds, with but one or two exceptions we all shared one thing in common: we were all military veterans.  The consensus we reached was that, in spite of the odds against us, we could still defeat George H.W. Bush and Sen. Bob Dole for the 1988 GOP nomination.  There was no trepidation.  We were confident that, if we followed the advice of the U.S. Marines… improvise, adapt, overcome… we could be successful.

A week after that initial meeting, I went to work full time on the campaign as principal deputy to the campaign manager, and in the days and weeks that followed I saw some of the most notable and accomplished men and women in the country drop whatever they were doing to devote themselves to our cause.  And, in spite of the fact that some were people that George H. W. Bush was counting upon to take responsibility for major portions of his campaign, no one asked for a guarantee that we would ultimately be successful in our quest.

When I was the last to leave the campaign in August 1987, I sent a letter to the Rumsfelds in which I attempted to put into words exactly what it was that had made so many men and women of accomplishment drop whatever else they were doing to enlist in our “dark horse” campaign for the presidency, a campaign that was not even a “blip” in the presidential preference polls.

Describing the Rumsfeld campaign as a three-legged stool, I used Barbara Tuschman’s definition of the word “quality” as the first leg of the stool.  She said it is “… achieving or reaching for the highest standard as against being satisfied with the sloppy or fraudulent.  It is honesty of purpose as against catering to cheap or sensational sentiment.  It does not allow compromise with the second rate.”

As the second leg of the stool, I quoted Sidney Hook’s proposition to William F. Buckley regarding the essence of true leadership.  As Hook described it, the essence of true leader ship is “great intelligence… in combination with great moral courage.”

And finally, and most importantly, as the third leg of the stool, I quoted the guiding philosophy of Edwin Land, the inventor of the Polaroid camera, who advised, “Don’t do anything that someone else can do.  Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible.  If it is manifestly important, then you don’t have to worry about its significance.  Since it’s nearly impossible, you know that no one else is likely to be doing it.”

That is precisely what we in the Rumsfeld organization were trying to do, and although we were not able to elect a “dark horse” candidate as president of the United States, in spite of the fact that he was arguably the best qualified and best prepared candidate ever to seek the presidency in all of American history, it was not for the lack of trying; we simply ran out of time and money.  However, the experience contributed much to my understanding of the people who are the “movers and shakers” of the world.  It was then I began to understand that those who have served in the military, both men and women, have an extra dimension to them that non-veterans simply do not have.

That difference in “dimension,” although I have never before been able to put it into words, has never been more evident than in the attitude of many pundits and commentators who consider the question of what impact a series of major scandals will have on Barack Obama and his ability to lead the nation.

Doctored Certificate of Live Birth?At this very instant, we have a man sitting in the Oval Office who has no right to be there.  It is indisputable that he was born with dual US-British citizenship and that he is currently, by reason of his own claim of parentage, a citizen of Kenya “by birth.”  It is entirely possible that he holds Indonesian citizenship, as well, and is not even an American citizen.  Beyond that, the document he has presented as his long-form birth certificate is, in fact, a rather poorly-crafted forgery; his draft registration card was created for him in 2008, at age 47, after he launched a campaign for the presidency; he currently uses a stolen Social Security number that was originally issued to a man named Harrison J. Bounel in 1940; and a simple Social Security Administration E-verify test, using Obama’s name and Social Security number, produces a “no match” response.

And now, having usurped the most powerful political office on Earth through the most audacious political crime in recorded history, this man finds himself embroiled in a multiplicity of scandals that would have landed any other chief executive, not only out on the street, but in prison.

Nevertheless, respected commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and others, none of them military veterans, throw up their hands in surrender, declaring that the full weight of crimes in the Obama Administration will never find their way to his doorstep.

They reason that the number and seriousness of his crimes are of little importance because the mainstream media will throw a blanket of protection over him such that he will not be blamed for any of the crimes committed in his name.  They argue that fighting to blame Obama is a waste of time and energy.

On the other hand, an even larger number of political pundits and commentators, all military veterans, are of a far different opinion.  Those of us in the “never say die” category understand that, in order to defeat a sitting president, no matter how powerful the phalanx of apologists around him, we must follow the advice of the U.S. Marines: we must improvise, adapt, and overcome.

Twenty-six years ago we were unsuccessful in our attempt to elect a supremely-qualified man to the presidency.  Now, in 2013, we find ourselves up against a man who is not only ineligible for the office he holds, but who is profoundly ill-equipped for any sort of leadership role.

It would be helpful to have the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world with us, using their substantial influence to support our effort, but if need be we will march on without them and we will be victorious.  As believers in Constitutional principles and the rule of law, we are superior to Barack Obama.  We will improvise as necessary, we will adapt to whatever roadblocks he throws in our path, and we will overcome.  The house of cards is beginning to fall.  Don’t bet against us.

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.

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.