Tag Archives: birth certificate

FLASHBACK: A Presidential Candidate Lied to Me in 2011

EDITOR’S NOTE: Four years ago today, I published a piece about my trust in then-Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain being placed in peril and, eventually, broken more than eight months after I’d asked him a serious question during a phone call. Hoping the 2016 candidates are paying attention, I share it again (only slightly modified for republication) below:

My question to Herman Cain March 14, 2011.

Above: My question to Herman Cain March 14, 2011.

On March 14, 2011, I participated in a conference call with a number of online writers — including bloggers, citizen journalists, reporters and others.  During that call, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain answered plenty of questions, one of which was mine.

At the time, I didn’t intend to write a post based on what transpired during the call; instead, I simply wanted to hear the man speak and answer some questions.  Little did I know almost nine months later how important the question I asked him would become.

Though I don’t remember the exact wording of my question, it went something like this:

“When the opposition research folks start digging into your background, are they going to find any skeletons in your closet?”

I found what appears, based on my recollection of the call, to be an accurate recap of Cain’s answer to my question on the Sundries Shack blog:

Herman Cain's answer to my question March 14, 2011.

Above: Herman Cain’s answer to my question March 14, 2011.

“They’ll find I have a 20 handicap in golf and it never got lower.  I have an original copy of my birth certificate.  I have no illegitimate children, I have no mistresses.”

So, did Herman Cain tell me the truth?  Is he telling the truth today?  At this point, it appears he did and he is — unless, that is, one wants to count as indisputably true the numerous accusations made in recent weeks without evidence to back them up.

Still, many Americans think Cain isn’t telling the truth, and I suspect much of their skepticism stems from a combination of two factors:

• First, the boneheaded statement Linn Wood gave to an Atlanta television station did not help the candidate’s cause [Note:  See the paragraphs in italics at the end of this report to read Cain’s lawyer’s statement]; and

• Second, the mainstream media’s penchant for smearing black conservatives.

Have I completely given up on the “Cain Train” because of recent events?  No.  Do I think he’s off track?  Yes.

Today, he needs to come back with both fists swinging, demanding someone show proof — beyond phone bills, that is — that he is a philanderer.  After all, his name isn’t Herman Kennedy.

UPDATE 11/30/11 at 5:03 p.m. Central:  See also Brent Bozell’s recent column.

UPDATE 12/02/11 at 8:37 a.m. Central:  When news broke yesterday afternoon that Cain had been paying Ms. White money without his wife knowing about it, I had to end my ride on the “Cain Train.”  After all, if he’s willing to keep things from his wife, he’ll probably do the same thing to taxpayers – and that’s not good!

With the 2016 presidential election season running full steam ahead, remember to ask your favorite candidates questions. Tough questions. A lot of tough questions. In short, make them earn your trust.

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.

‘Natural-Born’ Citizenship Explained Again Four Years Later

EDITOR’S NOTE: First published Aug. 10, 2012, the post below was written 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. I share it again for the benefit of those who might disagree with Hollrah regarding the eligibility of four GOP presidential hopefuls.

Former Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.)

Former Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.)

Over the past two years, I have engaged in an ongoing debate with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) over the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States.  Although Senator Coburn is an exceptionally fine senator, one of the top three in the senate, his views on the issue are not unlike those of other members of Congress.  They are simply wrong.

In all of our exchanges, Senator Coburn has relied on the same “boilerplate” language, insisting that, “First and foremost, while I disagree with most of President Obama’s policy positions, I believe he is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president of the United States.  My belief is based upon the fact that he was born in Hawaii, as the release of his long-form birth certificate proves, and his mother (was) a U.S. citizen.  My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.  I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results.  Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”

There are at least three major errors and misconceptions in Senator Coburn’s response.

First, he accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, provides proof of that claim.  If the senator would examine the extensive forensic evidence developed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Ariz., he would know that the document provided by Obama is simply a poorly-constructed forgery.

Sheriff Arpaio has made it clear that anyone who feels that his Cold Case Posse… a team of highly respected and experienced lawyers, detectives, and forensic experts… was mistaken in their conclusions, they are free to submit the posse’s work to examination by a team of experts of their own choosing.  To date, none of the doubters have been doubtful enough to accept Sheriff Arpaio’s challenge.  Consequently, it is only the credibility of the doubters that is found wanting.   Rather than allow themselves to be proven wrong, they simply deny the validity of the posse’s findings without ever attempting to support their opposing position.

Even if it could be shown, conclusively, that Obama was born in Hawaii, his forged birth certificate notwithstanding, he still cannot claim status as a “natural born” citizen because, by his own admission, his father was a citizen of Kenya.  The place of one’s birth is not the determining factor in who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen.  Just as hundreds of thousands of “native born” children born in the U.S. each year are not “natural born,” because their parents are not U.S. citizens, tens of thousands of “natural born” babies are born abroad to American parents each year.  These children are “natural born” citizens because both parents are U.S. citizens.  Senator Coburn makes a common mistake, assuming that to be “native born” is to be “natural born.”  It is not.  The two terms are not synonymous.

Barack Obama's alleged certificate of live birth.

Barack Obama’s alleged certificate of live birth.

Second, the senator argues that, “My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.”  The only thing to be said in response is that, when one fails to look for evidence, it is unlikely that one will find evidence.  Senator Coburn would be well advised to order his staff to utilize their own investigative resources and to take at face value the opinions of their friends on the Washington cocktail circuit who are armed with nothing more than inside-the-beltway “conventional wisdom,” which is almost always wrong.

Finally, the senator writes, “I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results.  Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”

The senator must know that few states have laws requiring their state election board to certify the qualifications of candidates for president and vice president.  To the contrary, it is an implicit constitutional duty of the party nominating conventions to nominate eligible candidates and to certify the eligibility of candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.

For example, in 2008, all of the certifications provided to the 50 state election boards by the Republican National Convention contained language certifying that John McCain and Sarah Palin met all of the constitutional requirements for the offices of president and vice president.  The documents were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform.  The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, which requires certification of constitutional eligibility, contained the following affirmation:

“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 remaining 49 states, which do not require a statement of constitutional eligibility, received the following certification:

“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 documents were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, chairman and secretary, respectively, of  the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.

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 absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.  Clearly, Democrats knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was not eligible to serve as president of the United States.  The question is, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?  She should be put under oath in a court of law and made to answer that question.

Contrary to Senator Coburn’s assertion, the obligation to properly vet candidates for president and vice president lies only with: a) the party nominating conventions, b) the members of the Electoral College, and c) the members of Congress, in joint session.  The party responsibility is implicit; the responsibilities of the Electoral College and the Congress are explicit.

In a Dec. 8, 2008, discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.”  Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’ (emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.

In other words, the matter of Obama’s eligibility is still a matter before Congress because the Congress has not questioned and evaluated his eligibility, and in spite of the fact that the state election boards printed his name on the 2008 General Election ballot, the responsibility for vetting him is still on their collective plates.

In 2008, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention failed us, the 365 Democratic members of the Electoral College failed us, and the 535 members of the U.S. Congress failed us.  In order to clarify the issue and to avoid a future constitutional crisis over presidential eligibility, the Congress should take immediate steps to establish, by law, the definition of the term “natural born Citizen.”  To clarify the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the term should be defined as: “an individual born to parents, both of whom were United States citizens at the time of the birth, and neither of whom owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty at the time of the birth.”

The American people will come to know that, between Jan. 20 2009, and Jan. 20, 2013, the man who occupied the Oval Office was not eligible to sit in that chair.  And while it would be all but impossible to reverse four years of presidential acts and appointments, by codifying the definition of “natural born Citizen” the people can be satisfied that we will never again suffer the likes of Barack Obama.  But the wrong that has been done to the American people will not soon be forgotten.  The delegates to the 2008 Democrat National Convention, the Democrat members of the 2008 Electoral College, and the members of the 111th Congress, of both parties, will carry the shame of their treachery to their graves.

SEE ALSO: Other pieces by Hollrah

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.

Comprehensive Election Reform Needed ASAP

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. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Click on image above to learn more about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project.

Click on image above to learn more about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project.

Now that Republicans have working majorities in both houses of Congress, the American people can once again enjoy the benefits of the constitutional republic that the Founders designed for us. Right? Well, not so fast. To expect the current crop of congressional Republicans to do what is necessary to restore constitutional government and repair the damage done by Barack Obama… let alone know what must be done… is entirely problematic.

As a case in point, the recent battle over construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrates the complete fecklessness of congressional Republicans. From the instant the last ballot was counted in November, it was clear that one of the first bills to pass in the 114th Congress would be a bill to approve construction of the pipeline… a bill that Barack Obama promised to veto if and when it reached his desk. Does Obama care about the environment or the leftists who politicize it? Of course not. What he does care about are the many millions of dollars that pour into Democrat Party coffers from a handful of radical environmentalists.

What congressional Republicans apparently failed to recognize was the immense political gains to be made if the issue was properly handled. By developing best estimates of the number of engineers, contractors, welders, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, and laborers required to complete the project, along with the generous salaries, wages, and benefits that those workers would command, Republicans could have armed themselves with the most potent political weapon they’d ever been blessed to have. By seeing to it that every Republican in Congress had that information at his/her fingertips, with instructions to repeated it in every radio, TV, and print media interview, and in every public appearance, Republicans could have driven a very large wedge either between the Democrat Party and radical environmentalist, or between Democrats and organized labor.

By signing the pipeline bill Obama would reap the anger of the radical environmentalists and win the approval of organized labor. Conversely, by vetoing the bill he would win high praise from environmentalists, but organized labor would be angered enough to split the Democrat vote in many national and state elections. For Republicans, it was a win-win proposition. However, instead of using that opportunity to their advantage, making a veto override a real possibility, congressional Republicans treated that opportunity as if it were a sexually-transmitted disease.

While Democrats can be counted upon to always play hardball, Republicans seem intent upon playing political softball. So, if congressional Republicans aren’t smart enough to recognize a political advantage when one falls into their laps, how can we expect them to recognize the political damage to be done if Obama is successful in giving Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and voter registration cards to millions of illegals, none of whom are eligible to vote?

Even though they are seriously victimized by fraud, violence, and intimidation in every election, congressional Republicans appear to be blithely unaware of the problem as Democrats continue to liberalize the electoral process. In fact, it is unlikely that election reform is even on their wish list. Although election law is generally a matter of state law, a comprehensive election reform law targeting federal elections would supersede state law. A comprehensive election reform bill… one that would put Obama and congressional Democrats in a tight box… would contain the following elements of reform:

1. Voter registration must be done only in person. Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, Internet, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded. In same-day registration states, Democrats have recruited teams of college students to travel from precinct to precinct, registering to vote and voting numerous times in the same day. In a heavily-Democratic county in Minnesota, an undercover investigator visited a county election board to ask whether or not it was necessary for new voters to register in person, saying that he had two friends, Tom Brady and Tim Tebow, who were unable to appear in person. The investigator was given twenty registration forms and was told that he could register twenty voters with the forms.

2. Registrations must be done only by full-time registrars, employees of counties and/or township government, and only in the state, county, and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence. Third-party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited. In 2012, a voter registration study showed that, in North Carolina alone, some 35,570 voters shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals registered to vote in other states. Another 765 North Carolinians had the same first names, last names, birthdays, and final four digits of a Social Security number as those who voted in other states. As a requisite for voter registration, each voter should be required to show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (drivers license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).

3. Before voting, each voter must show an official government-issued photo ID (drivers license, passport, etc.), or an official state-issued voter registration card complete with telephone number, home address, Social Security number, and precinct number. As an alternative, and as a means of preventing voters from voting more than once in a single day, states may require voters to dip a finger into a vial of indelible ink after voting.

4. Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony. Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations rolls of all felons at least ten days prior to any election. County Coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates. All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.

5. Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must be required to obtain voter registration transfer documents from their local election board. This document must be presented, in person, to voter registrars of the voter’s new place of residence.

6. Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election. Absentee ballots, other than those of overseas military personnel, must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close in any election. Absentee ballots completed by residents of hospitals, nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.

7. Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary place of residence. Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded. Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials.

8. The Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:

a. Vote in the name of another person;
b. Vote or attempt to vote more than once in any election;
c. Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person;
d. Vote in more than one state or political subdivision;
e. Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship;
f. Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process; or
g. Cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

In an April 10, 2014, speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Barack Obama attempted to rally his base by charging, falsely, that Republicans were attempting to suppress the black vote in the 2014 elections. Demonstrating once again that he is either totally dishonest or ignorant of the facts, he said, “The principle of one person-one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo. You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore.  But the stark, simple truth is this:  The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago.”

In truth, what Obama would like to see is a system in which only Democrats and illegal aliens get to vote twice. If Republicans had any courage at all they would insist on tightening the noose around vote fraud and stop ignoring Democrat efforts to create more fraud-friendly processes. They might use comprehensive voting reform as yet another issue that would require Democrats to identify themselves for who and what they are.

As Obama has said, one would think that there would no longer be a question about holding open and honest elections in the United States, but that’s not the way things are. Decent, honest, men and women will endorse the reforms outlined above. Democrats, on the other hand, are certain to oppose them.

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!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.