Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

Dial ‘O’ for Murder: Should Barack Obama Face Murder Charge When ObamaPhone Used for Criminal Purposes?

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

Mugshot: Skyy Durrell Barrs, 30.

Mugshot: Skyy Durrell Barrs, 30.

On the evening of June 30, my longtime friend Chuck de Caro, a Pentagon consultant, and his wife, Lynne Russell, former anchorwoman for CNN Headline News, checked into a Motel 6 at 6015 Iliff Road, NW, in Albuquerque. Chuck, Lynne and their 12-year- old semi-incontinent Weimerauner, Oliver, were traveling on a combination business and first anniversary road trip from Washington, D.C., to California. They stopped at the well-lighted and apparently-secure motel because of its pet-friendly policy and easy access to the hotel dog park.

After checking into their room and unloading their bags, Chuck prepared to take a shower while Lynne returned to their car for a supply of dog food. However, as Lynne was inserting her key card into the electronic door lock to reenter their room, she was attacked from behind by a large black male, pushed into the room, and thrown onto the bed.

At that instant, Chuck emerged from the shower, naked and soaking wet, only to find Lynne and a black male, Tomorio Walton, facing each other. Walton, a parole violator from Memphis with a long list of felonies to his credit… including 28 guilty pleas in the 7½ years between June 5, 2007, and Dec. 29, 2014… held a shiny, large-frame semi-automatic pistol in his hand and was demanding their money and their valuables. At this point, trying to take cover was out of their question.

Both Chuck and Lynne have concealed-carry permits and their handguns were laying side-by-side on a night table next to the bed (Lynne also has two martial arts black belts and is a former deputy sheriff). As Chuck attempted to calm the obviously drug-agitated intruder, Lynne said, “Let me see what I can get you,” and moved to the bedside table to retrieve her purse. However, as she did so, she discreetly placed one of the two handguns inside the purse, handed it to Chuck, and said, “Is there anything in here that you might give him?”

Chuck reached inside the purse, grasped the handgun and waited for the right moment. Then, as Walton seized a computer bag, he began firing at close range. Chuck’s military training kicked in and, although wounded three times, he quickly closed the distance from ten to six feet before emptying his seven-round magazine into Walton, striking him seven times as he staggered toward the door. Seconds later the intruder fell, mortally wounded, in the motel parking lot.

When Albuquerque police later examined surveillance tapes, they saw Walton exit the left rear door of a black 2015 Chevrolet Malibu Sedan. The Chevy is then seen driving slowly through the Motel 6 parking lot with what appeared to be a male driver and a female passenger in the front seat and a third individual in the right rear seat. Surveillance tapes then show Walton proceeding along the walkway in front of the rooms, speaking on a cell phone, while another individual walked nearby, also speaking on a cell phone. Apparently, no one on the Motel 6 staff — not even the motel’s armed security guard — was watching the video monitors.

Albuquerque police were later contacted by a “source” who asked to remain anonymous. The source advised them that the driver of the black 2015 Chevy Malibu was a black male named Skyy Barrs and that the automobile used in the holdup attempt was registered to his girlfriend, Bonica Amarillo. When the occupants of the Chevy Malibu heard gunfire, they drove again through the motel parking lot, and when they saw Walton lying on the pavement, covered with blood, Barrs stopped to examine him. Surveillance tapes show that Barrs held Walton in his arms briefly, and when he concluded that his accomplice was dead, he dropped him onto the pavement, reentered the automobile and drove away. Police also found some interesting in-tell on his phone thanks to various reverse phone lookup services used by the State.

When police obtained a search warrant for Walton’s cell phone they found an individual named “Ski” on the contact list. They also found that calls were made between Barrs and Walton at 9:06 p.m., 9:07 p.m. and 9:08 p.m., and a missed call from Barrs to Walton at 11:35 p.m., approximately the instant that Walton attacked Lynne Russell and forced her into her room. Police also found a text message from Barrs to Walton, dated Saturday, June 27. The message read, cryptically, “We about to Hite (sic) some licks,” street slang for “we are going to commit a robbery.”

According to the arrest warrant, the source told Albuquerque police that Walton worked as a criminal “slave” for Skyy Barrs, an arrangement in which Barrs provided the planning, the transportation and the weaponry necessary to commit a crime. As such, Barrs is now behind bars, charged with felony murder, kidnapping (two counts), armed robbery (two counts), aggravated battery with great bodily harm, assault with intent to commit a violent felony, felon in possession of a firearm, aggravated burglary and six counts of conspiracy. Under the law, all those who participated in the crime, including Barrs’ girlfriend, Bonica Amarillo, and the unnamed rear seat occupant, will face the same charges when taken into custody.

What causes me to dwell on the exchange of cell phone calls between Walton and Barrs is the fact that the cell phones used in the commission of the robbery and attempted murder were “ObamaPhones,” free cell phones provided with few questions to the “poor” by the Obama administration. So the question arises, if those who provide material support in the commission of a crime, such as transportation and weaponry, are equally as guilty as the person who actually commits the crime, how far does that liability extend?

Under criminal law, an individual is complicit in a crime only if he or she is aware of impending criminal activity and has the ability to either prevent it or report it, but fails to do so. In such an event, the individual effectively allows criminals activity to occur despite being able to prevent it, either directly or indirectly by contacting the authorities.

The offender then becomes a de facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.

So, while Barrs, his girlfriend, and an unnamed third party were all aware of Walton’s intended crime and had the ability to either prevent it or report it, the fact that Barack Obama indirectly participated in the commission of the crime by providing the cell phones used in the commission of a crime does not make him “complicit” because he had no personal knowledge of the crime.

A visit to the ObamaPhone website tells us that, “Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money… and it’s hardly new.” The website explains that the ObamaPhone program is paid for by the telephone service providers. What they fail to mention is that each and every one of us who has a land line or a cell phone account finds a charge on our monthly statements that covers the cost of the ObamaPhone program. Obama administration “social engineers” fail to understand that government-imposed fees that are ultimately passed on to consumers are, in effect, indirect taxes.

The Obama administration and their supporters are so sensitive to criticism of the ObamaPhone program that they have, as always, attempted to lay the blame elsewhere. The ObamaPhone website goes into great detail, explaining that the program, which has increased from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion in 2012, did not begin with Barack Obama. Although Obama is given credit for it, the website explains that the George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan administrations played significant roles in launching the program, as did the FDR and Woodrow Wilson administrations.

Unaccustomed as the Obama administration is to taking responsibility for any of their actions, the ObamaPhone website tells us that the Safelink Wireless program offered the first free government cell phones in Tennessee in 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, three months before Obama was inaugurated. They lay blame on the Clinton administration, because it was during the 1990s that the Federal Communications Commission authorized a subsidy for landline telephones as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They lay blame on the Reagan administration, because it was during the 1980s when the FCC created the original Lifeline Assistance program. And they lay blame on the Roosevelt administration, because it was in 1934, during FDR’s first term, that Congress created the FCC, promising “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

And, believe it or not, there are those who insist that the ObamaPhone program began in the early part of the 20th century, during the Woodrow Wilson administration, when the first telephone companies were founded and the phone service offered by a company in one town was often incompatible with the phone service offered by another company in another town. It was then that the Wilson administration gave AT&T a monopoly over phone service, allowing them to set nationwide technology standards and to determine the nation’s future telephone system.

Inasmuch as cell phones did not come into widespread use until very early in the 21st century, Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt might have acted differently had they known what was coming. But Barack Obama sets the rules of the blame game. If his administration believes that it is even remotely reasonable and logical to think that the Wilson administration bears some responsibility for the existence of the ObamaPhone program, then it is equally reasonable and logical to assume that the Obama administration bears some responsibility for the horror that happened to Chuck de Caro and Lynne Russell in Albuquerque.

If they are truly serious about what is good for the poor, why not expand the scope of this $2.2 billion government give-away program by mandating a warning to all who sign for and receive a free cell phone. The warning: “Any person who utilizes this device in the commission of a crime is guilty of a federal offense and is subject to both fine and imprisonment.”

SEE ALSO: Second Amendment’s Value Evident After Motel 6 Incident

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

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

The Founders’ Worst Fears Coming True

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. It comes several months after another piece raised hackles among conservatives, in part, because of it’s headline, Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common. Even if you disagree with Paul, this piece will make you think long and hard.

INELIGIBLE: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

Click on image above to read Paul R. Hollrah’s previous piece on four prominent GOP hopefuls who are ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

As the Founding Fathers met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1778, producing word-for-word the greatest governing document in all of recorded history, they were haunted by a number of major concerns. Among their most critical concerns was the long-term sustainability of the constitutional republic they were creating. How could they prevent it from being subverted?

General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, read a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It was just five years and eleven months since Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and Jay was concerned that the administration of our federal government might one day fall into the hands of a man who might find it difficult… because of divided loyalties… to always do what was in the best interests of the country. He was especially concerned over what might happen if command of our Army and Navy should ever fall into the hands of such a man.

In his letter, Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”

John Jay, National Portrait Gallery.

John Jay, National Portrait Gallery.

In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the prevailing concern of foreign influence in the affairs of government. He wrote, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”

Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a constitution under which only two of the 145,400,000 jobs in the United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.

So, precisely what was it that the Founders found so worrisome about future presidents… so worrisome that they placed tight restrictions on access to the position?

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would learn to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized 221 years later when a usurper named Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.

Barack Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States. However, under the tutelage of her liberal parents she grew up to be a radical leftist, while his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a devout Kenyan-born socialist. Obama spent most of his formative years as a citizen of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, where his name was changed to Barry Soetoro and his school records list his religious preference as Islamic. Then, upon returning to Hawaii at age 10, he was mentored during his teen years by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party,USA, Frank Marshall Davis. It was not the sort of environment conducive to the political and intellectual development of a man who would one day follow in the footsteps of patriots such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Obama went into office promising the most transparent administration in history, and that he would bring an end to the revolving door of lobbyists moving into and out of the White House. Instead, the revolving door at the White House has been set spinning with lobbyists coming and going, while even the most liberal media outlets insist that his is the least transparent, the most secretive, and the least responsive administration in history.

He went into office promising to depolarize American politics and government and to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans. Instead, he pokes his thumb into the eyes of Republicans at every opportunity, and what has always been a healthy mistrust between the major parties now approaches bitter animosity.

He went into office promising to reduce unemployment and to spur economic growth. Instead, he has steadily shrunk the size of the U.S. workforce, increased the ranks of the unemployed, and, with little understanding how the U.S. economy works, he has stymied economic growth.

He promised to provide healthcare insurance for some 30 million uninsured, while improving the quality of healthcare and reducing the cost of healthcare for everyone… and all of that without increasing the number of doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Instead, many workers have lost their insurance, doctors are giving up their practices, and employers are reducing the working hours of employees so as to avoid paying the burgeoning cost of healthcare benefits.

He went into office promising to close the budget deficit and reduce the national debt. Instead, in the six years he’s been in office, he has not produced a single balanced budget and the national debt has increased from $9 trillion to $18 trillion… more than all previous presidents combined.

By David Donar

By David Donar

He went into office promising to reduce poverty and to shrink the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Instead, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has gradually increased, nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the wage gap between the rich and the poor has steadily widened.

He went into office promising to heal the scars of racism in America and to bring our people together. Instead, he has played the race card at every opportunity and race relations are now more tenuous than at any time since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan.

He went into office promising to solve the illegal immigration problem by first securing our borders. Instead, millions upon millions of illegals from Mexico and Central America stream across our borders, while he uses every conceivable device to insure that the invaders can stay in the U.S. and that they will one day become reliable Democratic voters.

He went into office promising to improve relations with the Russians; to bring peace to the Middle East; to draw “red lines” in Libya and Syria that radical Islamists would not dare cross; to promote friendship and cooperation throughout the Arab world; and to heal any rifts that may have developed between us and our allies. Instead, relations between the U.S. and Russia are at an all-time low; every nation in the Middle East is either at war or about to be at war; “red lines” were crossed but Obama failed to respond as threatened; our enemies throughout the Middle East are emboldened; the most dangerous purveyor of state-sponsored terror is just weeks or months away from having a nuclear weapon; our Arab allies no longer trust us; and our long-time allies in Israel and in Europe must now face a dangerous world without our leadership.

In short, Barack Obama is precisely what the Founders feared most when they wrote Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, limiting access to the presidency only to those who are natural born citizens. In just six short years he has become the poster boy for national suicide.

Unfortunately, the intellectually lazy in both major parties, representing the entire ideological spectrum, have failed to satisfy themselves of Obama’s fitness for the presidency. Those on the left were so anxious to recapture the White House, especially with a young attractive black man as their standard bearer, that they paid no attention whatsoever to warnings that he was lacking in qualifications. While on the right, it is all but impossible to find a conservative commentator or a political leader with the courage to challenge the bona fides of a black Democrat… fearing that they may be forced to defend themselves against charges of racism.

What they have done, in fact, is to create a de facto amendment to the U.S. Constitution without going to the trouble of consulting the provisions of Article 1, Section 3; Article II, Section 1; or Article V of the Constitution.

Now, because of the duplicity of the left and the cowardice of the right, we are confronted with a potential constitutional crisis involving the candidacies of Sen. Ted Cruz (D-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)… all prominently mentioned as potential Republican presidential nominees in 2016, but none of whom are eligible for that office because they fail to meet the “natural born” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Will Democrats, knowing that they supported and elected a usurper in 2008 and again in 2012, allow Republicans to do the same in 2016? Are we to simply accept that two wrongs make a right? Anyone who believes that Democrats are not so duplicitous as to glorify Obama’s illegal presidency while crucifying a Republican candidate guilty of the same offense, simply does not know Democrats. The wisest course would be for Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio to do what is best for their party and their country by removing themselves from consideration. The worst fears of the Founders has been realized in Barack Obama. Republicans should not repeat the outrage.

SEE ALSO: The Obama Eligibility Question Revisited Again.

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

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Challenger Disaster Recalled 29 Years Later

Twenty-nine years ago today, I was a young Air Force second lieutenant attending the Public Affairs Officer Course at the Defense Information School, then located at Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis. During a break from morning classes, I gathered with a dozen or so of my classmates from the Army, Navy and Marine Corps in front of a breakroom television to watch the Space Shuttle Challenger launch. Back then, shuttle launches were still big events. None of us imagined what would happen before our eyes.

The Challenger crew takes a break during countdown training Jan. 9, 1986, at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Left to right are Teacher-in-Space payload specialist Sharon Christa McAuliffe; payload specialist Gregory Jarvis; and astronauts Judith A. Resnik, mission specialist; Francis R. (Dick) Scobee, mission commander; Ronald E. McNair, mission specialist; Mike J. Smith, pilot; and Ellison S. Onizuka, mission specialist. (NASA photo)

The Challenger crew takes a break during countdown training Jan. 9, 1986, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. Left to right are Teacher-in-Space payload specialist Sharon Christa McAuliffe; payload specialist Gregory Jarvis; and astronauts Judith A. Resnik, mission specialist; Francis R. (Dick) Scobee, mission commander; Ronald E. McNair, mission specialist; Mike J. Smith, pilot; and Ellison S. Onizuka, mission specialist. (NASA photo)

Seventy-three seconds after launch, the shuttle exploded in flight high above the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Fla., killing all seven crew members — including the nation’s first teacher in space, Christa McAuliffe.

Later that day, President Ronald Reagan spoke to the nation during a televised address that ended with the following words:

“There’s a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, ‘He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.’ Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake’s, complete.

“The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and ’slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.’”

It was a day, much like April 19, 1995, and Sept. 11, 2001. Days I will never forget.

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

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

One Trillion Carbon Offsets Go On Auction Block

Six years ago this month, it took about 10 seconds to “purchase” a free Certificate of Carbon Offsets (below) from this site.  According to my certificate, I became the owner of one trillion carbon offsets. Now, I’m ready to sell them to the highest bidder.

My Carbon Offsets Certificate

Why would I sell such a valuable document? Because I no longer feel worthy of owning it.

After all, I failed to follow the advice of the people at  FreeCarbonOffsets.com who issued the certificate which, according to the site’s About section, was created with me in mind. In a nutshell, I did not display my certificate for all to see. I did not show others that I cared about the environment. As a result, I spoiled my opportunity to live “worry and guilt free” while helping to fight global warming.

Save me from my self-inflicted pain. Make me an offer. Any offer! Highest bid wins ONE-TRILLION CARBON OFFSETS.

As Ronald Reagan might say, “The bombing bidding begins in five minutes.”

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Intel Boss ‘Truly Insane,’ According to Former CIA Director

In a McClatchy News article today, Marisa Taylor reports that Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. issued a new polygraph policy Sept. 14 which requires federal government agencies conducting polygraph exams to ask applicants and employees if they have leaked classified information to the media. Doing so places him among the “truly insane,” according to one former CIA director.

Former CIA Director John Deutch quoted in New York Times 12/10/1995.

Former CIA Director John Deutch quoted in New York Times 12/10/1995.

On page 6 of a New York Times article published Dec. 10, 1995, reporter Tim Weiner quoted former CIA Director John Deutch talking about the CIA, saying, “Their reliance on the polygraph is truly insane,” and I couldn’t agree more.

What Clapper, the nation’s top intelligence official, ignores by issuing a new polygraph policy and, more importantly, by remaining joined at the hip with backers of century-old polygraph technology, is a long list of polygraph failures.

In Chapter 15 of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, I not only challenge readers to conduct their own research of convicted spies such as John Anthony Walker Jr., Jonathan Jay Pollard, Ana Belen Montes, and other U.S. government employees, but I let them know what they’ll find — that is, that the vast majority of those convicted of spying for foreign governments had been subject to regular polygraph examinations as a condition of their federal government employment. Some spied for years and years before being caught! Edward Snowden is merely the most recent example of an intelligence professional with a high-level security clearance to make reliance on the polygraph appear foolish.

Further into the same chapter, I share details about other well-known top government officials and their feelings about the polygraph.

I cite an article published Dec. 20, 1985, in the Los Angeles Times. In it, Norman Kempster reported that George Schulz, then serving as President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, was not a fan of the polygraph and, in fact, had threatened to resign rather than submit to a polygraph examination.

I also point to an article, published in the March 8, 1994, edition of The New York Times. In it, Ronald Kessler shared details about how former CIA Director R. James Woolsey seemed to harbor the same sentiment about the polygraph:

The day after the arrest of the accused spy Aldrich H. Ames was announced, the Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey, met with several hundred C.I.A. employees in the agency’s auditorium at Langley, Virginia. After recounting what employees already knew from the news media, Mr. Woolsey — whose address was seen on closed-circuit television by every C.I.A. employee — spent five minutes explaining why he himself had refused to take a polygraph test, as other recent directors had done. Besides the fact that political appointees are not required to take such tests, Mr. Woolsey said he remained “skeptical” about the polygraph’s effectiveness.

Why does Clapper stick with this highly-suspect technology? To answer that question, I conducted a four-year investigation into the federal government’s use of so-called credibility assessment technologies, including the polygraph. My findings appear inside The Clapper Memo, a book that has received rave reviews from several top-flight people whose names you might recognize.

To learn more about the findings of my investigation, read other posts about the book.

To understand everything I’ve uncovered, order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.