Tag Archives: republican

Donald Trump: A Watershed Moment in History

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

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.

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.

Paul Hollrah Analyzes Upcoming GOP Presidential Debates

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.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

The Republican National Committee plans to conduct at least nine debates in the 2015-16 presidential primary season, the first of which will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland Aug. 6, 2015. The debate will be co-sponsored by Fox News and Facebook and moderated by Fox News Channel anchors, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. And although the RNC is determined to hold far fewer debates than the twenty held during the 2012 primary season, the party has left the door open to the possibility of up to three additional debates if the need arises.

In a July 28 column, Kristol Clear Straw Poll #5, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol expresses what a great many people have been thinking, which is that the GOP debate format agreed to by Fox News and the RNC falls far short of the ideal.

Fox News has announced that, in order to avoid having as many as 16 candidates on the stage at one time, each vying for their share of face-time before the a national TV audience, they will limit the number of candidates to ten. Those candidates will be the top ten candidates taken from an average of the five most recent national polls… the polls to be selected by Fox.

According to one analysis of five recent national polls, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Scott Walker are almost certain to be selected, while the two remaining slots will be filled by either Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham, each polling at roughly one percent, are apparently out of the running for the first debate.

Kristol has issued a fervent plea to Fox News and the RNC. He asks that they please abandon the “poorly-conceived ten-person, one-main-stage format” while there is still time. He argues that there simply will not be a “statistically significant difference between the 8th through 10th place finishers and the 11th through 13th places.” I would argue that there is insufficient reason to arbitrarily exclude any six of the 16 candidates. Kristol suggests that, out of fairness, the sponsors change the format to two eight-person debates, to be held on successive nights, or, in the alternative, two five-person debates and one six-person debate on three successive nights.

In order to demonstrate how the single ten-person debate would deny primary voters the opportunity to discover what some of the best, most capable, but lesser known candidates have to offer, I have developed a rating system which, as objectively as possible, points to some significant strengths and weaknesses in the candidates that the casual observer might overlook.

The rating system I have developed utilizes six separate factors: eligibility, personal appeal, experience, directness, the Trump factor and position on the issues, each scored on a scale of one to ten. (The “Trump Factor” being a measure of the extent to which each candidate has either adhered to or ignored Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, re: the Trump candidacy.)

A quick analysis of the sixteen candidates produces the following results:

Click on image above to read article that explains the red "0" next to four candidates' names.

Click on image above to read article that explains the red “0” next to four candidates’ names.

Using the above analytical format, the participants in the August 6th debate would be, in order of ranking: 1) Carly Fiorina, 2) Mike Huckabee, 3) Scott Walker, 4) Donald Trump, 5) Ben Carson, 6) John Kasich, 7) Chris Christie, 8) Rand Paul, 9) Marco Rubio and 10) Rick Perry. Those watching the debate on TV would be, in order: 11) George Pataki, 12) Lindsey Graham, 13) Ted Cruz, 14) Rick Santorum, 15) Bobby Jindal and 16) Jeb Bush. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore has just announced and cannot be properly evaluated.

What is most interesting about the admittedly subjective analysis is that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who regularly polls at 2% or less because she lacks name recognition, comes out tied for first place with Mike Huckabee, each winning 56 out of a possible 60 points, while Jeb Bush, the darling of the mainstream media and establishment Republicans, comes in dead last. Bush comes in last because: 1) he is not an appealing candidate, 2) he was one of the first to openly criticize Donald Trump and 3) he has a history of pandering to liberal special interests.

To date, only three of the sixteen candidates have distinguished themselves from the others. Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee have unabashedly taken the fight to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while Donald Trump has created a firestorm with his straight-from-the-shoulder characterization of many of the illegal aliens streaming across our southern border.

What is clear is that the same not-dry-behind-the-ears incompetents who’ve managed Republican presidential campaigns since Reagan left the White House are still hanging around Washington, just waiting to see how many more presidential campaigns they can screw up. In the past two weeks they have blindly led at least seven or eight of the establishment candidates to deal with the Trump campaign in the most counterproductive way, saying some really dumb things about a totally fearless man who can always be counted upon to deliver more punishment than he receives… proving once again that it’s not always a good idea to poke at a hornets’ nest.

The Washington inside-the-Beltway political consultants are unaccustomed to honesty and forthrightness in campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air, is now conducting a graduate seminar for them. As a case in point, two young female guests on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday evening, July 27… young women who were not alive when Ronald Reagan was president, but who now market themselves as knowledgeable campaign strategists… were both asked how the other candidates should react to Trump’s surge in the polls. True to their training, both provided the only answer they knew. They said, “It’s time for them to go on the attack. They need to go negative.” That is precisely what Trump’s opponents should not do.

What GOP establishment candidates totally ignore is the fact that Americans, in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, have been yearning for nearly thirty years for a presidential candidate with the courage to “tell it like it is.” They’ve longed for a conservative willing to take on the mainstream media, bare-knuckled, a leader with enough “rough edges” on him/her to scare the crap out of liberals and Democrats, both inside and outside the mainstream media. For now, at least, Donald Trump looks like a man who fits that description, although if his approach to campaigning has had any impact at all on more conventional Republicans, the GOP debates may yet uncover another contender or two.

In the meantime, while the establishment candidates are busy attacking one of their own, Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina are out there doing “the Lord’s work,” exposing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the frauds they are. But if Trump’s method and message fails to teach the establishment a few powerful lessons, then it looks as if some of us old “graybeards,” veterans of the Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan campaigns, will be forced to come out of retirement to show them how it’s done.

SEE ALSO: Off-The-Radar Presidential Candidates Placed in Spotlight and Joe Biden Misses Opportunity for Another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

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.