Tag Archives: Woodrow Wilson

Writer Reveals True Face of the Democratic Party

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. It first appeared on this site Aug. 31, 2012. Almost two years later, it vanished — along with nearly 5,000 others written and published since October 2006 — as detailed in this post. After rescuing it from where it appears on an alternate site, I share it again below with only minor modifications. Please read and share. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

DEMS by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

DEMS by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

It is not unusual for Democrats to say something reasonable and then do what is totally unreasonable.  We’ve come to expect that; it’s the “nature of the beast.”  But when they feel politically threatened, as they now feel threatened by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, it is then we get to see the true face of the Democratic Party.

In recent days, an Obama SuperPAC, funded and managed by people close to President Barack Obama, has produced a TV ad in which Mitt Romney is accused of being responsible for the death of a steelworker’s wife.  The truth is, the steelworker’s employer, which went into bankruptcy, was shut down by Bain Capital two years after Romney left the company.  When the steelworker, Joe Soptic, lost his job, his wife continued to have company health insurance for at least another two years.  She was not diagnosed with cancer until five years after her husband lost his job.

Then, on Aug. 14, in a speech before a largely black audience in Danville, Va., Vice President Joe Biden suggested that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would like to “put y’all back in chains.”  Surely, Biden understands that it is his own party that has maintained black Americans in slavery and in political and economic bondage since the earliest days of our republic.

The saddest part of Democratic Party history took place during the post-Civil War era when they attempted to nullify Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation through Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, and worst of all, the Ku Klux Klan.  Between the years 1882 and 1951, some 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites, nearly all Republicans, were lynched by the KKK, acting as the paramilitary arm of the Democrat Party.  No one knows how many thousands more were lynched by the KKK between the close of the war and 1882 because Tuskegee Institute and NAACP archives don’t contain those statistics.

As a product of the Chicago Democratic political machine, Barack Obama is not what one would call a man of compassion or refined sensibilities.  Like his Democratic forebears of the 19th and 20th centuries, he has shown little respect for human life.

While a member of the Illinois State Senate, he openly supported legislation allowing abortionists to destroy viable fetuses, post partum, who survived late term abortion procedures.  During World War II, Nazi concentration camp guards regularly slaughtered Jewish babies.  So how does Obama distinguish between that and the ghoulish practice envisioned by the partial birth abortion legislation he supports?  The only difference appears to be in methodology, so exactly where does he draw the line?

In the years since the Woodrow Wilson administration (1913-1921), Democrats have attempted to clean up their image by adopting a mostly non-violent approach to political hegemony.  Realizing that votes can be purchased in blocs, they have increased their numbers through the adoption of special-interest constituencies.

As a result, the party now consists primarily of abortion rights advocates; blue-collar unions; teachers unions; public employee unions; race-based minorities; radical feminists; radical environmentalists; radical youth; radical academics; the gay, lesbian, and transgender community; and trial lawyers… all of whom want something from government.

With the recent adoption of the same-sex marriage issue, it is hard to find a radical left issue or agenda that has not already been adopted by Democrats.  When Democrats meet in early September to re-nominate Barack Obama and Joe Biden, many of the party faithful… Christian fundamentalists, Muslims, blacks, and others… will be forced to hold their noses as their party votes to add same-sex marriage to their party platform.  Why?  Because, unable to raise the funds and unable to attract the same adoring crowds he drew in 2008, Obama has cynically flip-flopped on the issue because he needs the money and the votes of the gay and lesbian community.

Although it seems highly improbable that any party could manage a coalition of such diverse interests… many whose interests are in direct conflict with those of other constituencies… it all works because each of the special interests are willing to subordinate some of their secondary interests so long as they can expect the same consideration on their core issues.  As the American people go to the polls Nov. 6, it is critical they understand that the Democratic Party has taken full ownership of the following issues and agendas:

Labor union racketeering and its ties to organized crime, forced unionization through “card check” and National Labor Relations Board interference in private sector economic decision-making;

The monopoly power of public employee unions and the systematic plundering of state and local government treasuries;

The systematic growth of high unemployment rates through promotion of uneconomic minimum-wage standards;

Opposition to reform and restructuring of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps programs;

The systematic destruction of the housing sector through creation and promotion of the sub-prime mortgage market and the systematic corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

The de-construction of the teaching profession, the dumbing-down of public education and opposition to popular reforms such as charter schools and voucher programs;

The destruction of the black family unit, black teen pregnancy rates and the growing incarceration rates of young black males;

The gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual agenda, support for same-sex marriage and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act;

The illegal immigration, open borders, and sanctuary cities agenda;

Late-term and partial-birth abortion;

The exportation of weaponry to drug cartels in Mexico;

The support of fraud, violence, and intimidation in our electoral process; opposition to political reforms such as photo ID laws;

Class warfare and the vilification of business enterprises, large and small;

The overt attack on religious liberty and Roman Catholic Church doctrine; support for Islamic expansionism throughout the Christian world;

The domination of the public sector over the private sector; the use of excessive and oppressive environmental regulations as an anti-business weapon;

The opposition to American energy independence; opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the un-economic subsidization of “green” energy projects;

Support for frivolous lawsuits and opposition to tort reform;

The weakening of U.S. military capability and repeal of the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and

The abandonment of strategic international alliances and longtime allies.

A bit harsh?  Not really.  One of the things that most distinguishes Democrats from Republicans is the extent to which Democrats attempt to mask who and what they are.  And although they may attempt to put a kinder, gentler face on some of their more outrageous policies, all of the above will be included in one way or another in the platform they will adopt at their national convention in Charlotte.

Without mentioning Democrats by name, former Secretary of State Condi Rice, in her rousing speech before the Republican National Convention, described exactly what it is that separates Republicans from Democrats.  She said, “My fellow Americans, ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement.  We have never believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well.  We have never been jealous of each others’ successes.   No, ours has been a belief in opportunity.  And it has been a constant struggle… to try to extend the benefits of the American dream to all.  But that American ideal is indeed in danger today…”

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are both men of honor, men of the highest caliber.  They are straightforward, honest, and trustworthy and those traits are self-evident in every one of their public appearances.

Obama and Biden, on the other hand, never fail to come off as evil, angry and mean-spirited.  They are the true face of the Democratic Party, and it is they who put the American ideal in jeopardy by persisting in their efforts to divide Americans along racial and economic lines.

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.

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.

You’re Not Getting Any of My Chocolate!

I enjoy chocolate and politics, but I’m not a big fan of Valentine’s Day. Therefore, I decided to share some history that combines the first two topics with the commercialized holiday instead of sharing my chocolate.

This illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star on February 14, 1907, and depicts some Valentine’s Day surprises based on then-current political issues.

This illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star Feb. 14, 1907, and depicted Valentine’s Day surprises based on then-current political issues.

An illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star Feb. 14, 1907, and depicted Valentine’s Day surprises based on then-current political issues, including tariffs, congressional staff salaries and defense-related matters.

This illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star on Feb. 14, 1912, and offers some humorous Valentine cards placing major political figures at the time in some positions once difficult to imagine.

This illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star Feb. 14, 1912, and offers some humorous Valentine’s Day cards placing major political figures at the time in positions then difficult to imagine.

A second illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star Feb. 14, 1912, and offered humorous Valentine’s Day cards placing major political figures at the time in positions then difficult to imagine. A look at the cards show topis that remain at issue today, including politicians who love themselves more than anything else, an out-of-control judiciary, campaign promises and even the word, insurgent, in 1912!

This illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star on Feb. 14, 1917, and depicts Woodrow Wilson’s confirmed re-election coming in the form of a Valentine’s Day card.

This illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star Feb. 14, 1917, and depicts Woodrow Wilson’s confirmed re-election coming in the form of a Valentine’s Day card.

A third illustration by cartoonist Clifford Berryman appeared in the Washington Evening Star Feb. 14, 1917, and depicted Woodrow Wilson’s confirmed re-election coming in the form of a Valentine’s Day card.

This 1918 valentine refers to the World War I effort to economize on food for the war effort—called “Hooverizing” in honor of the U.S. Food Administrator, Herbert Hoover. From the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

This 1918 valentine refers to the World War I effort to economize on food for the war effort—called “Hooverizing” in honor of the U.S. Food Administrator Herbert Hoover. From the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

A 1918 Valentine, courtesy of the Hoover Presidential Library, referred to the World War I effort to economize on food for the war effort—called “Hooverizing” in honor of then-U.S. Food Administrator Herbert Hoover.

The graphics above, courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration website, make the presidents of a century ago seem pretty tame compared to the modern-day knuckleheads who’ve held the nation’s highest office.

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.