Writer Offers ‘Final Word’ on Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President of the United States

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah

In recent days, I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years without so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to “beating a dead horse.”  Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document in 1787.

What generated my recent exchange on the subject of presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert, the newsletter of the Pennsylvania Business Council.  The article in question was titled, “SANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.”

pegAlert 1-31-14 pg 3

In response, I asked the question, “Who keeps propping up Santorum’s ambitions… other than Rick Santorum?  Unless I’m wrong, his father was still an Italian citizen when he was born.  That makes him ineligible for the presidency.”  To which a representative of the Business Council replied, “That might be so, but Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.”

To that nonsensical assertion, I replied, “… If Santorum was born in the U.S., which I assume he was, that does make him a ‘citizen.’  But that’s not what is at issue.  What is at issue is his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for president.  In order for him to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, both of his parents must have been US citizens.  If Santorum’s father was still an Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen…”

The final response from the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the issue.  The reply read, “Under (that) definition, none of our initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.”  Bingo!!  Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point.

U.S. ConstitutionOnce again, I found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous… that to be a “citizen” equates to being a “natural born” citizen.  That simply is not true.  One would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the phrase, No person except a natural born Citizen,” with the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Even the most unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word “or” requires an implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either “natural born citizens,” or citizens of the United States” on the day that the Constitution became the law of the land.

On the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen of the 13 original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United States of America.  And the very first child born to newly-minted U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry on John Hancock’s signature, became the nation’s very first “natural born” citizen.

JohnHancock

The Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least 35 years of age.  There were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a president and the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under 12 years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible for newly-minted U.S. citizens, none of them “natural born,” to serve as president.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to U.S. citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age 35.

George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Va., Feb. 22, 1732, 44 years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Mass., Oct. 30, 1735, 41 years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.

Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Va., April 13, 1743, 33 years before the Declaration of Independence.  He was a “citizen,” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia March 16, 1751, 25 years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia April 28, 1758, 18 years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens,” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.

However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, N.Y., Dec. 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least 35 years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

What a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americas refuse to accept is the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

This web archive image of an article published in the June 27, 2004, edition of the Sunday Standard, Kenya’s oldest newspaper includes the headline, Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate.

This web archive image shows an article published in the June 27, 2004, edition of the Sunday Standard, Kenya’s oldest newspaper.

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, under Chapter VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of Dec. 12, 1963, Kenyan Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on Aug. 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday.  However, his eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3, Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on Aug. 4, 2010, he became a citizen of Kenya “by birth” and is required to obey the laws of Kenya, should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White House.

The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation.  Barack Obama provides, if nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the president must be a “natural born” citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign allegiances.

Doctored Certificate of Live Birth?Although Democrats have successfully defended Obama’s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans.  This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)… all born to one or more non-U.S. citizen parents… are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.

In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama’s background and qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency.  Without question, he would have been declared ineligible.  Yet, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the office.  By what tortured reasoning, what conceivable standard, they won’t say.

Liberals and Democrats being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both ways.  But conservatives and Republicans believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law, and we simply cannot allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution.  So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and Rick… we love you all and you’re a great credit to our country, but you just can’t play in our presidential sandbox.

Paul R. Hollrah is a two-time member of the Electoral College and a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Though Hollrah did not mention Mitt Romney in the piece above, he has raised questions about Romney’s eligibility.  And he’s discussed other hot-button topics, including Obama’s true identity.  To read more of his columns, click here.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Barack Obama Advocates ‘Mob Rule’ During Statement on Syria

“Disappointed” doesn’t begin to describe my feelings about statements President Barack Obama made Saturday afternoon during a session with reporters.  My disappointment has nothing to do with his stance on Syria; instead, it has everything to do with him describing the United States as a “democracy” — a concept Thomas Jefferson equated to “mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49″ — instead of a “republic.”

Four times, as shown in the video (above) of the session in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama used the wrong word to describe the Constitutional framework upon which our nation was founded:

“I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.” (2:47)

“I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” (2:51)

“This morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our Democracy.” (4:53)

“Our democracy is stronger when the president and the people’s representatives stand together.” (9:38)

Why did he do it?  I think it’s wishful thinking to believe he never learned the differences between the two, outlined in another video (below).  More likely, he used the wrong word, because it lines up with his political ideology as a Democrat who believes heartily in the concept of mob rule.

Sadly, none of the mainstream news media outlets — including, most recently, NBC News, USA TODAY and The New York Times — ever call out the democrats on this particular leaning. You, however, can call them out!

Please share this post with your fellow Americans — especially Democrats — so that all might understand the critical differences between a democracy and a republic like the one mentioned in the pledge of allegiance:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Thanks in advance!

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Are FBI Informants Working Inside America’s Churches?

Jesse Trentadue’s ongoing effort to obtain information from the FBI continued this week when he filed a motion (PDF) Wednesday aimed at convincing a federal judge in Utah to allow him access to information about the FBI’s “Sensitive Informant Program.  The move was made one month after the Salt Lake City attorney filed his first motion — the details of which appeared in a post Jan. 30 — seeking, among other things, to learn whether the FBI has informants working inside American churches.

Trentadue Motion for Limited Disc 2-27-13

Click to download motion (PDF).

Why is Trentadue seeking the information?  Because he believes it will lead him closer to the truth about the 1995 death of his brother, Kenneth Trentadue, under suspicious circumstances while in custody at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.

Below, I share the fascinating details of his most-recent motion (PDF).  Beginning with the “Background” which begins on page one of the document, the details contained in the document appear below, minus the footnotes contained in the actual document:

The FBI devotes a considerable portion of the Memorandum that it submitted in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to arguing that this is a typical Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case involving the adequacy of the FBI’s search for responsive documents and/or the applicability of the exemptions claimed by the FBI for not releasing the documents/records.  But this is not a typical FOIA case. Neither is it an isolated or stand alone case. This case, as the FBI well knows, is the latest front in Plaintiff’s long war with the Bureau to discover and uncover the truth about the Oklahoma City Bombing and a related matter: the murder of his brother, Kenneth Michael Trentadue.

Untold Stories of the OKC BombingThe first battle in this almost decade long FOIA war was fought before this very Court in Trentadue v. FBI, which revealed that persons other that Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier had participated in the Bombing. That first battle, and the documents/records that Plaintiff obtained as a result, also disclosed: (1) the existence of the FBI’s I-Drive and S-Drive computer systems wherein evidence related to the Bombing was kept hidden so as not to be subject to a FOIA request and/or not made part of the FBI’s official Bombing case file; (2) the CIA’s involvement in the Oklahoma City Bombing; (3) “Patriot Conspiracy” or “PATCON” that was a decade or more long FBI undercover operation designed to infiltrate and monitor or perhaps even incite various right-wing organizations; and (4) the existence of a surveillance camera videotape taken on the morning of April 19, 1995, which according to federal government documents purportedly shows not only the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, but also the persons who carried out that attack.  That first FOIA battle also disclosed the existence of the FBI’s “Sensitive Informant Program,” which is at the heart of this current FOIA discovery dispute.

The Sensitive Informant Program is the FBI’s disturbing practice of using private citizens as spies on the staffs of members of Congress and perhaps even federal judges, in the national media, within other federal agencies, on defense teams in high profile federal and/or state criminal prosecutions, inside state and local law enforcement agencies and even among the clergy of organized religions. The Sensitive Informant Program is designed to and does result in the circumvention of the protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

In response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for the policies, rules, protocols and/or procedures governing the FBI’s recruitment and use of such informants in this secret surveillance program which spies on United States’ citizens on United States’ soil, the FBI produced 205 pages, which appear to be but a small portion of its: “Corporate Policy Directive” on the use of confidential human sources, “Confidential Human Source Validation Standards Manual,” “Confidential Human Source Policy Manual,” and “Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide” (collectively the “Manual”). Those portions of the Manual that the FBI actually provided to Plaintiff were heavily redacted. The FBI withheld all of these portions of the Manual on the basis of various exemptions from disclosure under FOIA.

It is Plaintiff’s belief, however, that NO exemption can be asserted to conceal this unconstitutional domestic spy/surveillance program. Simply put, FOIA, which has as its stated purpose the disclosure of the federal government’s wrongdoing, cannot and should not be used to shield the FBI’s unconstitutional actions undertaken on what appears to be a national scale. However, in order to properly frame and present to the Court his challenge to the FBI’s claims of exemption Plaintiff needs to conduct limited discovery into the scope and duration of this Sensitive Informant Program.

In the “Summary of the Argument,” beginning on page four of the motion, he presents the latest details:

Plaintiff’s need for this discovery is simple. If, for example, the FBI has never embedded a Sensitive Informant on the staff of a member of Congress and/or a federal judge, in the national media, within another federal agency, on the defense team in high profile federal and/or state criminal prosecution, inside of a state or local law enforcement agency or among the clergy of an organized religion, it will admittedly be difficult for Plaintiff to assert that NO FOIA exemptions should apply to those portions of the Manual being withheld from him. This is so because a rare or isolated violation of the Constitution by the use of Sensitive Informants may not be sufficient for the Court to override the FBI’s exemption claims.

However, if the FBI’s Sensitive Informant program has been in operation for years and/or involves the placement of many Sensitive Informants on the staffs of members of Congress and perhaps even federal judges, in the national media, within other federal agencies, on defense teams in high profile federal and/or state criminal prosecutions, inside state and local law enforcement agencies or among the clergy of organized religions, then it is obvious that the Manual is designed to and/or does result in the circumvention of the protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. If this is so, then it is Plaintiff’s position that the FBI cannot lawfully assert any FOIA exemption to keep secret a clearly unconstitutional nationwide program of domestic spying.

The information that Plaintiff’s seeks by way of this discovery will also be necessary for the Court to determine whether the (b)(1) exemption claimed by the FBI applies. Exemption (b)(1) allows the FBI to exempt certain records provided it declares them “secret” on the basis of national security AND pursuant to an Executive Order allowing for that “secret” designation.

In order to obtain information with respect to the scope and duration of the FBI’s Sensitive Informant Program, Plaintiff has moved to conduct limited discovery consisting of just eleven (11) Interrogatories, the answers to which will document the unconstitutionality of the FBI’s Sensitive Informant Program, thereby allowing Plaintiff to challenge the FBI’s assertion of FOIA exemptions to conceal and/or withhold the Manual from Plaintiff and the American public, and the Court to determine the validity/applicability of those exemptions to the Manual. The FBI, however, vehemently opposes that Motion.

Of course, there is a lot more to the case, but Trentadue’s approach, summed up under the “ISSUE” section of the motion and shared below, seems brilliant to this non-lawyer:

The issue in this case is not the adequacy of the FBI’s search for the Manual. The FBI found the Manual. The issue for the Court to decide is (1) whether the FOIA exemptions advanced by the FBI for withholding portions of the Manual apply and (2), even if they do apply, can those exemptions be lawfully asserted to conceal FBI activities that clearly subvert the Constitution? Furthermore, this issue cannot and should not be decided without the discovery that Plaintiff is seeking to obtain through his Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery.

During an email exchange late Friday, Trentadue used layman’s terms to boil the matter down to one key issue.

“The FBI argues that the discovery (he) seeks would be futile since ‘illegal’ activity by the federal government is shielded from disclosure under FOIA if covered by an exemption,” he explained.

He went on to question how the FBI can, in good faith, claim that a national security exemption allows the Bureau to declare its unconstitutional domestic spying program “secret” and, in turn, allows them to keep their illegal activities hidden from the public.

“It is an absurd — no, arrogant — position for the FBI to take,” he said.

Stay tuned for details about how this case turns out.  Also, be sure to read earlier articles in my series, UNTOLD STORIES of the OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING.

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Communists Around the World Cheering Barack Obama

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union during the 1980s by bankrupting the “evil empire,” forcing the Kremlin to try to compete with his “Star Wars” missile defense program.  They couldn’t keep pace in the arms race and the Soviet empire imploded.

Reagan vs. Obama

So, as we now find ourselves racing headlong toward the so-called “fiscal cliff,” is this payback time for international communism?  Is that what Barack Obama is all about?  I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist… I try as best I can to stick to what we actually know to be true… but I’m beginning to see the outlines of a major international conspiracy.  So humor me for a few moments, if you will.

In early 2008, when it looked as if Barack Obama might actually defeat the vaunted Clinton political machine, an article titled “The First Time I Heard of Barack” circulated on the Internet.  It was written by a man named Tom Fife who claimed to have made frequent trips to Moscow in the early 1990s, working on a software-development joint venture with Russian partners.

On a trip to Moscow in early 1992, he and several other Americans were invited to dine at the apartment of their Russian associate.  As he describes the evening, everything went well until late in the evening when their Russian partner’s wife, a hard core communist, launched into an anti-American tirade.  She said, “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect.  Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now?  You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it… Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The Americans expressed the opinion that, yes, there was nothing to prevent a black man or a black woman from being elected president.  The right person, at the right time, could easily be elected.  To which the woman responded, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?  Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”

As her husband tried vainly to change the subject, one of the Americans said, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

According to Fife, she replied, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President.”

I tried several times to locate Tom Fife so that I could ask him to confirm or deny the story attributed to him, but with no success.  However, a four-part interview — Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 — with Fife, by Jeff Rense, has recently surfaced:

Fast forward to the late ’80s or early ’90s, when Obama would have been in his late 20s.  Postman Allen Hulton regularly delivered mail to the home of Bill Ayers’ parents in Glen Ellyn, Ill., a Chicago suburb.  The Ayers family was quite proud that they had helped finance the education of a young black foreign student.  One day, Hulton met the young man, who he claims was Barack Obama, on the sidewalk in front of the Ayers home.  And when Hulton asked the young man about his plans for the future, he replied that he was going to be president of the United States.

Barack Obama Caricature by Political GraffitiFast forward once again some ten or twelve years when a young black Illinois state senator first emerged as a rising star in the Democratic Party.  On June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Victor Snyder (D-AR) introduced House Joint Resolution 59, a proposal for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on Sept. 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers, a radical black Democrat from Michigan.  The Conyers amendment would have required only that presidents be U.S. citizens for 20 years, eliminating the “natural born” requirement.  Few members could see the need to amendment the Constitution.  Both proposals died in committee.

However, on July 27, 2004, an unknown young black man, Illinois state senator Barack Obama, delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, creating immediate speculation among Democrats that he might one day be a candidate for president.

Just over five months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Representative Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress.  And on April 14, 2005, Representative Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.

Since the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution had never before created a shortage of presidential candidates, why did the congressmen feel the need to overturn the desire of the Founders that all presidents must be “natural born” citizens?  Perhaps we should be asking them what they knew about Obama’s lack of eligibility, and when did they know it?

Barack Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004 and was sworn in during the first week of January 2005.  Within weeks after taking the oath as a U.S. Senator, he launched into a campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

His principal opponent for the Democratic nomination was U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), but the powerful Clinton political machine was no match for the Chicago Democratic machine and on Aug. 27, 2008, a man with no real world experience… literally no experience of any kind… and who failed to meet the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, was handed the Democratic presidential nomination.

However, as the convention drew to a close on Aug. 28, 2008, the chairman and secretary of the convention, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, respectively, had one final task to perform.  It was their job to prepare certifications for all fifty state election boards, officially certifying the names, home addresses, and constitutional eligibility of the party’s candidates.

The certification sent only to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113 which requires that all certifications must contain eligibility language, read 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 remaining forty-nine states 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 Pelosi and 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.

So when did Pelosi first learn that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States?  And who else was involved in the conspiracy to make him president?

And now, as the greatest nation in recorded history rushes headlong toward fiscal ruin, that same community organizer from Chicago who hoodwinked enough voters, or stole enough votes, to get himself elected to two terms in the White House, stands alone with the power to either save or to bring down our nation.

As he sits across the desk from Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), refusing to make real spending cuts and refusing to discuss entitlements reform, it is quite clear that he has no desire to prevent our country from plunging over the “fiscal cliff.”  Instead, as the committed communist he is, he would much prefer to see the capitalist system destroyed, and all of its adherents along with it.  In the dark crevices where communists gather around the world, they are drinking to his health and cheering him on.  This is known as “payback” time.  Am I wrong?

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate andthe New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” coming soon.

Oklahoma Senator Wrong on ‘Natural-Born’ Citizenship

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

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.

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.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

It is always interesting, and instructive, to hear how liberals view the term, “judicial activism.”

A June 26 New York Times op-ed by conservative Ross Douthat framed the issue.

“It’s a great pleasure,” he wrote, “in this week when the entire political world is hanging on the Supreme Court’s health care ruling, to welcome so many liberals to a cause dear to my heart: The crusade for judicial restraint.”

Putting the subject of judicial activism into context, Douthat explains:  “The experience of the civil-rights era taught liberals to regard an aggressive judiciary as their natural ally, and over the ensuing decades the left came to rely on expansive (some might say fanciful) court rulings as a kind of trump card on issues where liberalism had not won public opinion to its side.”

In other words, whatever parts of the liberal agenda could not be achieved through the legislative process, liberals could expect leftist judges to accomplish for them by judicial decree.

“When conservative intellectuals complained that the Court’s approach to abortion (or civil liberties, or religious expression, or criminal justice… the list was long) amounted to a kind of ‘judicial usurpation of politics,’” Douthat continued, “liberals rolled their eyes and called the conservatives paranoid.  When right-wing politicians ran too hot in their attacks on liberal judges, liberals often responded with high-minded paeans to the importance of judicial independence.

“This changed only gradually as the influence of Republican appointees inevitably tilted the court rightward.  In the 1990s, liberals sometimes found themselves reaching for conservative-sounding rhetoric about judicial activism to critique court rulings they disliked.  In the wake of the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, some of them reached for harsher rhetoric still.  But the Court’s swing votes, Sandra Day O’Connor and then Anthony Kennedy, leaned leftward often enough… and on the hottest issues, crucially, from gay rights to Guantanamo Bay… to prevent the traditional liberal deference to the United States Supreme Court from breaking down entirely.

“Now it has… but the mere possibility that five justices (might have invalidated) part or all of (Obamacare) has persuaded liberals that the Court has become a purely ideological actor, a rogue body unmoored from any cause save partisanship, a crucial participant in what The Atlantic’s James Fallows described as a ‘long coup’ perpetrated by the political right.”

It is particularly instructive that Douthat would cite the Bush v. Gore decision of December 2000… which brought an end to the patently illegal Florida recounts… that liberals most often use to convince themselves that decisions of the Rehnquist court were ideologically driven.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Had it been possible to poll the members of the court on their level of interest in hearing the case, chances are the justices would have been unanimous.  They would have preferred not to get involved… but for vastly different reasons.

To review what was in dispute, when it appeared that the final results in Florida would show the two sides separated by less than one percent of the vote, Democrats dispatched hundreds of lawyers across the state, asking the courts to disqualify the ballots of overseas military personnel, based on mostly bogus technicalities.  And when that disgraceful effort failed and the Palm Beach County ballots became a major problem, the Gore campaign approached the heavily-Democratic Florida Supreme Court to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

The Florida Supreme Court, with absolutely no jurisdiction in the selection of presidential electors… Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests the state legislatures, and ONLY the state legislatures, with the duty to determine the manner by which each state’s electors are chosen… ordered recounts in only the four most heavily Democratic counties in the state.  The Bush-Cheney campaign, fully aware that the Democrats would be certain to “find” several hundred ballots in the trunk of someone’s car or in a dark recess of a voting machine storage warehouse, took the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Looking at it from the liberal point of view, where the end always justifies the means, it is all but certain that Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter would have been more than happy to let Florida Democrats work their special magic with the ballots, arguing that a “dimpled” chad was the same as a “hanging” chad, and that dimpled chads and hanging chads were the same as “cleanly-punched” chads… so long as the chads in question were next to Al Gore’s name.

The remaining members of the court, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas… aware that the winning of an election will always trump constitutional principles and the rule of law in the minds of liberals and Democrats… would have preferred not to get involved because they knew that they would be accused of partisanship if they heard the case and decided it based on the “equal protection” provisions of 14th Amendment.

Liberals were convinced then, and it has since become a part of Democratic orthodoxy that, based solely on partisan considerations, the court sided with the Bush campaign to prohibit a recount that would have thrown Florida’s 25 electoral votes to Gore-Lieberman.  In the present case, Douthat tells us that liberals remain convinced that “the Court has become a purely ideological actor, a rogue body unmoored from any cause save partisanship…”

As silly as that might sound, what it tells us is that any decision by the court that is inconsistent with the liberal view of federal-state relations must be, by definition, ideologically motivated.  It totally ignores the possibility that the conservative members of the court might actually attach some importance to the limitations of federal power outlined in the 10th Amendment.

Douthat reports that others “have cast around for reforms that might limit the influence of the court’s current right-leaning majority: a big expansion in its membership, term-limits for the justices, or even a 6-3 supermajority requirement for overturning an act of Congress.”

An FDR-style expansion of the court to 11 members would be just fine with liberals, but only in the event that a Democrat would have the opportunity to appoint a liberal to the Ginsburg seat and two additional liberals to the expansion seats for a reliable 6-5 liberal majority.  To suggest to them that a Republican president might be able to appoint a conservative to replace Justice Ginsburg and two additional strict constructionists to the expansion seats, for a reliable 7-4 conservative majority, would cause them to immediately discard the idea.

What it all boils down to is that, when liberal justices manufacture new rights out of thin air to benefit a voting constituency important to Democrats, it is only because the Constitution is a “living document” which must evolve with the times.  However, when conservative justices honor their commitment to the actual written word of the Constitution, in support of conservative ideals, liberals can always be expected to see a partisan motivation behind the decision.

In his June 28 op-ed in the Washington Post titled “Why Roberts Did It,” the normally reliable Charles Krauthammer argues that Roberts voted with the court’s liberals “because he carries two identities.  Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative.  Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.”

In writing for the majority in the Obamacare decision, the chief justice wrote, “… we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

So there you have it.  Krauthammer believes that the Chief Justice is not only the leader of the high court, he is also its PR flack who sees it as his job to punish us because a majority of the American electorate was dumb enough to elect Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress.  If he is correct, then we have the greatest anomaly of all time on our hands because Roberts has succeeded in accomplishing precisely that which he sought to avoid.  In ruling as he did, he has destroyed forever any faith the American people might have in the one institution that was designed to stand between the rule of law and the barrel of a gun.

Justices of the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments.  The Founders designed the court in that way so as to insulate the court from political pressure.  But if Roberts truly sees his job as Krauthammer describes it, he should resign immediately so that we can begin the long and painful task of repairing the damage he has done to our republic.

If the United States Supreme Court can be manipulated by liberal Democrats and the mainstream media, then what took George W. Bush so long to identify a replacement for William Rehnquist?  If all we needed was a PR flak to uphold the court’s reputation in the eyes of liberals, he could have nominated almost any inside-the-beltway political hack who would do almost anything for a buck.  Jack Abramoff was out of a job and looking for something interesting to do.  He would have been perfect for the job.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.

Prediction: Barack Obama ‘George Washington of Africa’

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama, President of Kenya.  Farfetched?  Out of the question?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Allow me to make my case.

On May 30, 2011, I published a column, Barack Obama for President — of Kenya!  In that piece, I reminded readers that Obama will be only 55 years, 5 months, and 16 days old, a relatively young man, when he completes his four-year presidential impersonation on Jan. 20, 2013.  That will be the day when he walks out of the White House for the last time, having brought the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation on Earth to the very brink of disaster.

I asked, what should we do with such a man… a man who promised a bedazzled electorate in 2008 that his goal was to totally transform our constitutional republic into a European-style socialist state?  Should he be arrested for his crimes and sentenced to spend the rest of his days behind bars?  Or would the members of his party insulate him, insisting that his sham presidency was just their way of having a little fun with us…“water under the bridge,” so to speak?

I suggested that Obama may have his long term future already planned… assuming that he would be allowed to leave the country, a free man.  As a man whose boundless narcissism has led him to “sweet-talk” his way into the presidency of the United States… the most unqualified man ever to set foot in the Oval Office… would it be too much of a stretch to imagine him returning to his beloved Kenya, the land of his forebears, to serve as president of that country?

If that sounds a bit farfetched, consider this:  With little notice by the U.S. media, the people of Kenya have paved the way for Obama to do just that.  With the help of $23 million in U.S. Agency for International Development funds… spent in support of a “yes” vote… the people of Kenya adopted a new constitution on Aug. 4, 2010, Obama’s 49th birthday.  (Nice touch, eh?)

Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961 to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Luo tribesman from Kenya, a British colony.  Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth.  Therefore, under British law, it is indisputable that Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.  However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted constitution went into effect.

Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the 1963 constitution provided as follows:

“(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963… ; and

“(2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

In other words, on Dec. 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Barack Obama became a citizen of Kenya, giving him, at least temporarily, dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship.  He did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his Kenyan father.

However, at the time of their independence in 1963, Kenyans were not too keen on the idea of adults holding dual nationality.  Chapter VI, Section 97[1] of the 1963 constitution provided the following:

A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”

Since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship on or about his 21st birthday.  However, the newly adopted 2010 Kenyan constitution brought Obama back into the fold by creating a new category of Kenyan citizenship called “citizen by birth.”  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 Kenyan constitution provides as follows:

(1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).

“(5) A person who is a Kenyan citizen by birth and who, on the effective date, has ceased to be a Kenyan citizen because the person acquired citizenship of another country, is entitled on application to regain Kenyan citizenship.”

In other words, Chapter 3, Section 14, Subsections 1 and 5, invest Obama with status as a Kenyan “citizen by birth” and allow him to apply for reinstatement as a citizen of Kenya.  The 2010 constitution also reverses the Kenyan policy on dual citizenship in Obama’s favor.  Chapter 3, Section 16 of the new constitution provides that, A citizen by birth does not lose citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country.”

What this tells us is quite disturbing.  It tells us that, since Aug. 4, 2010, Barack Obama has been a “citizen of Kenya by birth.  It is precisely the reason why the Founding Fathers insisted that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president or vice president.  Having been born with dual U.S.-British citizenship, Barack Obama does not qualify as “natural born.”

But the 2012 Kenyan constitution is even more Obama-friendly.  Chapter 9, Section 137 of that constitution provides that:  (1) A person qualifies for nomination as a presidential candidate if the person… is a citizen by birth;”  However, in order to prevent a person with divided loyalties from ever becoming President of Kenya, Chapter 9, Section 137 provides that: “(2) A person is not qualified for nomination as a presidential candidate if the person… owes allegiance to a foreign state.”

In short, upon completion of his four years in the White House, Obama will be eligible  to serve two five-year terms as president of Kenya… so long as he first renounces his U.S. citizenship.

A suspicious person might suspect that the $23 million spent in Kenya in 2010 might have been a mere down-payment on Obama’s long-term plans, a mere pittance when compared to what we are spending in Kenya in 2012.  According to a June 20, 2012 World Net Daily article by Steve Peacock, “Barack Obama administration spending and projects in Kenya have become so voluminous that (USAID) must hire more contractors to oversee endeavors other providers already carry out across the African nation.”  In other words, Obama is spending so much money in Kenya that he needs to hire more overseers to oversee the overseers.

The $480 million now being spent by USAID in Kenya, Peacock reported, encompasses numerous assistance projects in general areas such as health, population, and HIV/AIDS; basic education; youth; governing justly and democratically; and economic growth, environment, and natural resources management.  However, this amount of money represents just over half of the total that is spent in Kenya, the largest recipient of U.S. aid in sub-Saharan Africa.

If one were a bit Machiavellian, one might suggest that, for Obama to spend the equivalent of $23 for every man, woman, and child in Kenya (not an insignificant sum in that country), he has learned his vote-buying lessons well in the Democratic precincts of south Chicago.

And to those who suggest Obama may not be happy ruling over a population of only 39 million people, after having used a population of 314 million as his own private socialist laboratory, allow me to suggest that Obama may have something far more grandiose in mind:  After winning election as President of Kenya, what’s to stop a man who’s seen as God-like in Africa from confederating all of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa into one large union, much like the United States of America?  He might even call it the United States of Africa (USA), while he advertises himself as the “George Washington of Africa,” the most powerful black man in world history.

Obama would have yet another distinction to add to his Nobel Peace Prize… after having done absolutely nothing in the interest of world peace.  He will serve as president in a country where they’ve erected a statue of him before… not after… he served as president of the country, a truly remarkable achievement.  And finally, renouncing their American citizenship and acquiring Kenyan citizenship will give Michelle Obama something she’s always longed for… a country she can be truly proud of.

Barack Hussein Obama, president of Kenya?  Who knows?  When a man of his meager abilities can work his way into the U.S. presidency, we should not be surprised at anything he might do.  Just remember… you read it here first.

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.  Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.

Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.