Eight years ago this month, I was in fairly-regular contact with Bruce Chapman, the part-time producer of short and funny politically-incorrect videos. One of his spots touted the fictitious pharmaceutical product, “Tryphorgetin,” as it poked fun at Hillary Clinton in the fall of 2007 before seeming to disappear from the web after the 2008 elections. Today, it resurfaced in my Facebook feed, and I decided it was worth sharing again as the former first lady, senator and secretary of state makes another run for the White House.
Worth noting, this spoof ad was such a hit at the time that conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh played it during the Oct. 5, 2007, broadcast of “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” Now, I hope Rush will play it again as we approach the homestretch of the 2016 presidential campaign.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.
Donald J. Trump
After weeks of agonizing by establishment Republicans and the mainstream media… agonizing over the question of what a bull-in-the-China-shop candidate like Donald Trump is doing among the largest-ever field of well-qualified Republican presidential candidates… Trump has announced a simple, straightforward plan for immigration reform, a plan that could represent a “watershed moment” in U.S. history. The Trump Plan is based on three core principles:
1. That the U.S.-Mexican border must be secured by building a wall or a fence along the entirety of our southern border,
2. That all immigration laws currently on the books must be fully and rigidly enforced, and
3. That the number one priority for any future immigration plan must be based on what is in the best cultural and economic interests of the American people… and nothing else.
As part of his immigration plan, Trump calls for a nationwide system to identify and locate all illegal aliens… those who have entered the country illegally, as well as those who’ve entered legally and overstayed their visas. To accomplish that end, Trump proposes tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
What he suggests is precisely what conservatives and Republicans have been promoting ever since mass illegal immigration began. However, Trump departs from Republican orthodoxy by taking a totally no-nonsense approach to the problem of the so-called “anchor babies,” defined as infants born to pregnant foreign women who come to the Unites States, illegally, just to insure that their babies can acquire U.S. citizenship by being born on American soil.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves and their children who were born on U.S. soil. The authors of the amendment could never have conceived of a time when pregnant women would travel great distances from foreign lands for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment. The “anchor baby” concept has created an entire underclass of undocumented aliens who are allowed to remain in the country under an unwritten law that protects families from being separated and prevents infants with U.S. citizenship from being forcibly deported along with their illegal alien parents. Trump, who says what conservatives and Republicans have always feared to say, merely scoffs at suggestions that to deport all illegal aliens would separate foreign parents from their minor children. In an Aug. 16 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he made his position on “anchor babies” crystal clear, saying, “We have to keep the families together, but they have to go.”
He also ventures outside Republican orthodoxy by taking a no-nonsense approach to the status of Obama’s so-called “Dreamers” -– non-citizens who were brought to the United States illegally as children, who’ve grown up here, who’ve been educated here, and who would be political and cultural strangers in the native lands of their parents. He expresses no desire to separate “Dreamers” from their illegal alien parents by allowing them to remain in the United States while their parents are deported. Instead, he insists that Obama’s executive order shielding the “Dreamers” from deportation must be rescinded.
So what is it about Trump’s immigration reform plan that would qualify it as a “watershed moment” in American history? Its significance is not that it has a chance of being enacted and fully implemented; as a nation we are still far too politically correct and we have far too many “squeaky wheels” among liberals and Hispanic activists to accomplish that anytime soon. No, the significance of Trump’s immigration reform proposal is much more subtle. Just as Rush Limbaugh’s major contribution to our national persona is not that he has caused elections to be won or lost, but that he has caused millions of politically uncommitted Americans to understand where they fit in the political spectrum, Trump’s straightforward approach to solving the illegal immigration problem has made it okay for previously hesitant Americans to openly agree with his no-nonsense approach. It is what most Americans have always believed, but were afraid to put into words for fear that they would be branded as racists or xenophobes.
The point is, Americans are fair and reasonable people. Scratch almost any American and you’ll find a person who would fully expect to be deported from a foreign country where they were living illegally. So why would they not expect foreigners living in the United States illegally to react in the same way? In short, it’s time we expected our uninvited guests to act like grownups, and Trump’s no-nonsense approach to the problem of illegal immigration gives us all license to finally put those expectations into words.
But more importantly, his courageous stance on illegal immigration also provides us with the opportunity to bring other critically important issues to the fore… issues that, until now, have been stuck in quagmires of constitutional uncertainties and/or political correctness. Of these, none are more important than the unrelenting invasion of radicalized Muslims and the chilling threat of Islamic terrorism inside our own borders.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Islamists arrive in the United States despising the country and all it represents, intending to make converts, exploit the freedoms and rights granted them, and build a movement that will effect basic changes in the country’s way of life and its government. The superpower status of the United States makes it especially attractive to those who wish to change the world order; what better place to start? Islamists do not accept the United States as it is but want to change it into a majority Muslim country where the Qur’an replaces the Constitution.”
The United States has already provided refugee status for more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined. Yet, in spite of that insanity, the Obama administration has recently announced that we are prepared to receive an additional 70,000 unvetted Muslim refugees, including many with strong ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda. Some come seeking safety, some come seeking a better life, but many others come in the hope of doing us great harm.
In order to neutralize and reverse radical Islam’s contribution to the cultural infestation of the United States, we must attack the problem of Muslim immigration with the same level of courage with which Donald Trump approaches illegal immigration. In short, we should not hesitate to confront Muslim infiltration by enacting new legislation, tailoring the language of the Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:
SEC. 1. PREAMBLE. The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence. Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.
SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS. Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence, or the government of any State, Territory, District, possession, or political subdivision thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.
With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islamic jihad illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of, ccausing them to self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Islamists could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.
American policymakers could take a lesson from the Slovakians. When asked by United Nations officials to accept “their share” of Muslim refugees, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, Ivan Metic, replied, “We could take 800 Muslims, but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?” Clearly, what Metic was saying is that building permits for mosques might be very difficult to obtain in Slovakia. Officials in the United States and other western nations should learn to be equally “welcoming” to Islamists.
What Donald Trump’s straightforward no-nonsense approach has done is to finally make it acceptable to debate some of our major national problems by putting political correctness behind us. When all is said and done, Trump may not be electable. However, if his presence in the race ultimately makes it permissible for us to deal with racial discord, immigration reform, and the threat of radical Islam without fear of being branded racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, or politically incorrect, his candidacy will truly be seen as a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.
Six years ago today, I shared news about a liberal political strategy that endangers our nation. Today, because many in the conservative universe seem to forget these details as often as they remember them, I’m sharing the news again, pulled from what remains of the BobMcCarty.com archives, and updated as necessary.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” said President Barack Obama, directing his comments at Republican leaders in Congress early during the week of Jan. 26, 2009. During a 15-minute segment on Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends program Jan. 29, 2009, Limbaugh responded by saying the 44th president was attempting to employ Rule #13 of the late Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
Not familiar with Saul Alinski or his socialist “Rules”? Fear not.
Part of a no-longer-online document, What Every Public Official Should Know About Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” Rule #13 reads as follows:
PICK THE TARGET, FREEZE IT, PERSONALIZE IT, AND POLARIZE IT.
Reread President Obama’s comment above, and you can see that Limbaugh was right: President Obama picked his target (i.e., Limbaugh); he personalized his message; and he turned the conservative radio talk show host into a polarizing figure by telling Republicans they can’t get things done by listening to Limbaugh.
Did President Obama continue to employ Alinsky’s 13 “Rules” during his six years in the Oval Office? Take a look at them below and decide for yourself:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
From race-baiting and out-of-control spending to reckless foreign policy and cover-ups of massive proportions, the Obama Administration has not only employed these Rules, but it has employed them in ways once thought unimaginable by all except the most radical politicos. And did I mention executive orders?! Damn!
I encourage you to print these “Rules” and use them as tools via which to keep track of Obama’s actions and the actions of other liberals, democrats and socialists of his ilk as the 2016 election cycle draws near. Then, in 2016, vote as if your life depends on it!
FYI: A film crew from Los Angeles will be visiting soon to interview me as part of a documentary they’re shooting. Though I can’t divulge more details at this time, I can tell you that the findings I share inside my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, will be front and center. Meanwhile, I hope you’ll read and share my pieces and, of course, buy my books — including the one endorsed by Santa Claus. Thanks in advance!
Much like Rush Limbaugh, who’s threatening to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for defamation, I’m staunchly against sexual assault. At the same time, however, I advocate for fair and impartial justice for those facing sexual assault allegations.
Kelly A. Stewart is one of the Green Berets shown in this undated unit photo.
In my October 2011 nonfiction book, Three Days In August, I offer an in-depth look at one example of military justice that turned out to be anything but. In fact, New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter read my book about Army Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart‘s brush with the military justice system and described it as painting “a convincing portrait of a military justice process that appears to have lacked one essential element – justice.”
Over the years since publishing the book, I’ve heard from dozens of individuals who, like Stewart, have personally experienced similar “railroading” — and I’ve heard from their friends and relatives, too — under the gavel of political correctness. In fact, I could write a library full of books about such cases. Unfortunately, Americans simply don’t seem to care much about such cases — at least it seems that way to me — unless they or a loved one are directly involved.
Among the many new faces arriving in Washington, D.C., next year, I hope some of them seize upon the opportunity to undo what people like Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have done in recent years and restore the military justice system so that it delivers one thing and one thing only: JUSTICE.