Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

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.

Is Writer ‘Beating Dead Horse’ or Adhering to Constitution?

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 whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. In the email message that accompanied it today, Hollrah wrote, “While my wife… and millions of others… insist that I continue to beat a dead horse, I am equally as insistent that the words of the U.S. Constitution still mean something and must be adhered to.” I agree with that sentiment. Whether or not you agree, this piece should make you think. So get to it!

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 earlier piece on eligibility to serve as president of the United States.

Now that the Iowa Freedom Summit has officially kicked off the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, it’s time that, as a matter of party policy, Republicans agreed on who is a natural born citizen and who is not. Three conservatives… Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)… are prominently mentioned as potential candidates. But the question arises, are they eligible to serve? And, if not, are conservatives and Republicans willing to turn their backs on the U.S. Constitution, cloaking themselves in the specious argument that, if the Democrats could get away with it for eight years, why shouldn’t they? In other words, are Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio supporters willing to make the case that two wrongs make a right… the Constitution be damned?

If Republicans wish to avoid embarrassment and a potential constitutional crisis midway through a presidential campaign, party leaders would be well-advised to resolve the question before the issue blows up in their collective faces. By doing so, they can kill two birds with one stone: 1) they can prove to the American people that, unlike Democrats, Republicans still honor the words and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) they can permanently stain the Obama legacy by shining the light of day on his ineligibility… eight years too late, but better late than never.

Some Republicans may be foolish enough to think that Democrats, after nominating and electing an ineligible candidate in 2008 and again in 2012, would hesitate to make a political issue out of the “natural born” status of Cruz, Jindal, or Rubio. Those who make that assumption simply don’t know Democrats. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld remarked in his book, Rumsfeld’s Rules, “Never assume the other guy would never do something you would never do.”

When the Founders drafted Article II of the U.S. Constitution, they were highly concerned that the chief executive of the United States should not, under any circumstance, be even remotely subject to or encumbered by foreign influences.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, sent a letter to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, expressing his concern over the prospect that an individual with some level of potential foreign allegiance, however remote, might be elected to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy. He wrote:

By David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com

By David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com

“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 (italics added).”

On March 12, 1788, in Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the widely held fear of foreign influence on the president of the United States. He wrote:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches 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 (presidency) of the Union?”

It should be noted that the Framers did not require the president and vice president to be devoid of all friends and acquaintances in foreign lands; they did not choose to limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without living relatives in foreign lands; nor did they limit the presidency and the vice presidency only to those without material offshore assets. But they did produce language in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural BORN.”

Accordingly, the final product of the Constitutional Convention contained the following language, unchanged and unchallenged in the past 227 years. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution reads as follows:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of  President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As the Constitution was being drafted, southern Democrats demanded, as a means of increasing their representation in the U.S. Congress, a provision that allowed each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person. However, nearly a century later, the states ratified the 14th Amendment, a Republican-sponsored proposal granting full citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil.  While the amendment was designed to give full citizenship to emancipated slaves, the authors could not have foreseen an age in which international travel would be so commonplace that expectant foreign women could travel to the U.S. just to have their babies born on U.S. soil, creating a class of citizens known as “anchor babies.” Had they been able to predict the future, they would likely have limited the amendment to full time legal residents of the United States,  almost all of whom were emancipated slaves.

The 14th Amendment does not confer, nor was it ever intended to confer, “natural born” status on children of emancipated slaves or on today’s “anchor babies” because, like our first seven presidents… Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Jackson…  none of whom were “natural born” citizens, those infants were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth. And while none of our first seven presidents were natural born, all were “citizens” on the day the Constitution was ratified and were “grandfathered” under the phrase, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

Most Obama apologists, while insisting that Obama is a “natural born” citizen, even though he was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father, will agree that Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, is not a “natural born” citizen because he was born in Austria to Austrian parents and became a “naturalized” citizen after emigrating to the U.S.

When an alien seeks to become a naturalized citizen, he/she must demonstrate that they have been of good moral character for the statutory period prior to filing for naturalization. Then, upon being found suitable for U.S. citizenship, applicants must swear the following oath:

By David Donar

By David Donar

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

As a “citizen of Kenya by birth,” under terms of the August 4, 2010, Kenyan constitution, Barack Obama has failed to renounce his Kenyan citizenship and is required to obey the laws of Kenya whenever he happens to visit that country. Therefore, he has not “absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty…” Nor has he shown himself to be a man of good moral character.

Any investigation into who is natural born and who is not, must have as its starting point, a realization that there are only two jobs in the entire United States, public sector or private sector, that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those who are naturalized citizens or regular citizens can serve in state and local office, in state courts, in the U.S. Congress, and in the federal courts. They are even eligible to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but they may not serve as president or vice president of the United States.

The Framers obviously intended the qualifications for president and vice president to be far and above the qualifications for any other office in the land. As such, those who insist that the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous have an obligation to explain to the rest of us exactly what they see as the exclusivity factor that make eligibility requirements for president and vice president different from those of all other offices.

The acid test for those who claim natural born citizenship involves two factors, and two factors alone. The first is “place” and the other is “parentage.” Individuals born in a foreign land, to alien parents, can become “naturalized,” but never “natural born” citizens; “anchor babies” born to one or more non-citizen parents on U.S. soil can be “citizens,” but never “natural born” citizens; and those born anywhere on Earth to one American citizen and one who is not, can be American “citizens” with dual nationality, but never “natural born” citizens.

In January 2009 and again in January 2013, it was the obligation of congressional Republicans to question Barack Obama’s eligibility when they met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College, but they lacked the courage to do so. Nor did they have the courage or the political will to hold public hearings on the question. Now they have the opportunity to shine the light of day on the question of Obama’s ineligibility by openly questioning the eligibility of three Republicans. Such hearings will show that, in terms of eligibility for the highest office in the land, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all “birds of a feather.”

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.

Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common

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. Even if you disagree with him, 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).

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

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

As we enter the 2016 campaign season with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) mentioned as potential presidential candidates, a great many Americans remain confused about the definition of the term “natural born Citizen.” Although each of these men are eligible to serve as governors, as U.S. Senators, as members of the U.S. House of Representatives, or even justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, none are eligible to serve as president or vice president because they are not “natural born Citizens,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father; Jindal was born in the U.S. to a father and mother, both of whom were citizens of India; Rubio was born in the U.S to parents, both of whom were citizens of Cuba; and Santorum was born in the U.S. to an American mother and an Italian father. Under provisions of the 14th Amendment, all are “citizens at birth,” but none are “natural born” citizens because of their non-citizen parentage.

Writing in a MinuteMenNews.com article while aware that Senator Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father, Greg Conterio relies on language contained in 8 USC §1401 to support his contention that Cruz is a “natural born” citizen. That statutory language defines a “citizen at birth” as “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is… not a citizen of the United States.” At no point does the statute mention the term “natural born Citizen,” nor does it attempt to show that the terms “natural born Citizen” and “citizen at birth” are synonymous. To the contrary, when the Founders inserted the words “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, as a principal qualification for those who wished to serve as president of the United States, it was their intention that all those born with any taint of foreign allegiance should be barred from the presidency and the vice presidency. Hence, the term “natural born Citizen.”

Under the 14th Amendment, all those born in the United States to American citizen parents, as well as those born to foreign nationals or parents of mixed nationality, are “citizens at birth.” In other words, all “natural born” citizens are “citizens at birth,” but not all “citizens at birth” are “natural born.” However, Conterio contends that the terms “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen at birth” are synonymous, just as the terms “dog” and “domestic canine” are synonymous. That simply is not true. Those terms are no more synonymous than the terms “apple” and “orange.” But then, Conterio goes on to argue that, “Based on U.S. law, the terms ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen at birth’ are synonymous.” However, in the next breath he reverses course, saying, “The Founders said ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ and the U.S. Code says ‘Citizen at Birth,’ which mean two completely different things.” So which is it? Either the terms are “synonymous” or are they “two completely different things?” They can’t be both.

What many who support the eligibility of Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, and Santorum refuse to consider is that there are only two jobs in all of America that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those jobs are president and vice president of the United States. Every other job in America, in government or in the private sector, can be filled by natural born citizens, by citizens at birth, by naturalized citizens, or, in some cases, by non-citizens with work visas. Those who agree that there are several categories of citizenship, but then argue that the Constitution puts no unique requirements on candidates for president and vice president, have an obligation to explain what they see as the difference between a “natural born” citizen and any other kind of citizen.

In his analysis, Conterio relies heavily on an April 3, 2009 memorandum prepared by attorney Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service. The Maskell memorandum, which has been widely discredited, was produced for one reason and one reason alone: to give political cover to members of Congress who voted to certify Obama’s Electoral College votes, knowing or strongly suspecting that he was not eligible for that office.

The gist of Maskell’s argument is that “…there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government… Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility… ”

No specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility? Upon being sworn into office in early January, following each biennial General Election, all members of Congress are required to swear the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The congressional oath of office clearly requires all members of Congress to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That includes all those who would seek to gain access to the presidency without the necessary qualifications.

The presidential selection process provides three vetting opportunities for president and vice president. Unfortunately, all three vetting opportunities failed miserably in 2008-09. The first occurred at the close of the Democratic national convention, in Denver, when the convention chairman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the convention secretary, Alice Travis Germond, certified Barack Obama and Joe Biden to the 50 state election boards so that ballots could be printed.

Because Hawaii has specific certification requirements under Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, Pelosi and Germond certified to the State of Hawaii, as follows: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The certifications sent to the other 49 states read, simply: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively.” Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.

Other than that, all of the documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Democrats knew when they nominated him that Obama was not a “natural born” citizen and, therefore, ineligible to serve. Pelosi was aware that certifying falsely to Obama’s eligibility was a criminal offense, so the question arises, what did she know, and when did she know it?

The second vetting opportunity occurred on Dec. 15, 2008, when the Democratic members of the Electoral College met to elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Even though most electors had been warned in advance that Obama did not meet the constitutional requirements to serve as president, all 365 Democratic electors, anxious to have another Democrat in the White House, violated their electoral oaths and cast their ballots for Obama.

The third and final vetting opportunity occurred on Jan. 8, 2009, when the Congress met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. Prior to that date, essentially every member of Congress had been advised that Obama’s citizenship status was seriously in doubt. So, if a member of Congress suspected that the Electoral College had erred, it was his/her solemn obligation to make those suspicions known and to object to the certification of the Electoral College vote. Yet, all 535 members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, purposely violated their oath of office by failing to demand an examination of Obama’s qualifications.

Why did they do so? Although we can’t read the minds of 535 members of Congress, we can “bet the farm” that most failed to question Obama’s eligibility because they were terrified at what would happen in the streets of America if the first black man ever elected by the Electoral College was turned away at the last moment on a constitutional “technicality.” Instead, the double-redundant “fail safe” system envisioned by the Founders suffered catastrophic failure.

But now, with the potential candidacies of Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Santorum, Republican principles will soon be put to the test. We will see whether Republicans, who, unlike Democrats, believe in the strict construction of the Constitution and the rule of law, will have sufficient reverence for the words of the Constitution to deny the nomination to a candidate who does not meet the necessary qualifications. Knowing Republicans as I do, I feel certain that they will distinguish themselves by refusing to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.