Tag Archives: presidential election

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.

Political Strategy Offered to Defeat ‘The Left’ in 2016

By Paul R. Hollrah

To be elected president or vice president of the United States requires a total of at least 270 votes in the Electoral College. Through the strategic spending of other people’s money, especially among minority populations in our major urban areas, Democrats have fashioned an electoral map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22 blue states with a combined total of 257 of the needed 270 electoral votes. Of the remaining 281 electoral votes, they only have to pick up 13 in order to elect a president and a vice president.

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

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

Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base of 23 red states with a combined total of 191 electoral votes, leaving a total of six swing states… Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral votes. In order for a Republican to win in 2016 and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the red states, plus at least five of the six swing states. They could afford to lose either Colorado’s nine electoral votes or Iowa’s six electoral votes, but not all 15. To lose both Colorado and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia, would leave them with a total of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an electoral majority. It appears to be a nearly-insurmountable obstacle for Republicans, but is it?

With a bit of foresight and strategic planning, Republicans could do a great deal between now and November 2016 to mitigate the Democrats’ electoral advantage. In a December 2012 column, Real Electoral College Reform, I analyzed what would happen to the political balance of power in the United States if all 50 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska method for allocating electoral votes.

In the Electoral College, each of the 50 states are allotted two at-large electoral votes, one for each of their two U.S. senators, and one vote for each of the state’s congressional districts. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the popular vote in each state takes all of the state’s electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, however, the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote is allotted that state’s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of the electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of the popular vote within each of the state’s congressional districts.

If the Maine-Nebraska formula had been in effect in all 50 states in 2012, and assuming that the vote for the presidential candidates of each party would roughly approximate the votes for the congressional candidates of the respective parties in each congressional district, Obama would have lost 115 of his 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney in the 26 states, plus D.C., in which he won a majority of the popular vote. On the other hand, in the 24 red states carried by Romney-Ryan, they would have lost only 39 electoral votes to Obama-Biden.

The end result?  In 2012, instead of a 332 to 206 vote victory for Obama-Biden in the Electoral College, the Maine-Nebraska system would have produced a comfortable 282 to 256 vote victory for Romney-Ryan, an outcome that would have been far closer to expressing the will of the people than the present winner-take-all system.

To understand this phenomenon, one need only look at the county-by-county electoral map of the United States with the counties colored either red or blue. It is reflective of: a) the preference for Republican principles among a substantial majority of the people, and b) the overwhelming size of the vote for the Democratic “sugar daddy” in the inner city precincts. The electoral process is disproportionately skewed by the fact that, in the heavily-populated inner-city precincts, the vote is nearly always 95 percent to 110 percent for Democratic candidates, while in the suburbs and the rural areas the vote is nearly always within the 60-40 range, one party over the other.

If it is true that “all politics is local,” as the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill once remarked, then to replace the current winner-take-all system with the Maine-Nebraska electoral system would help to bring political decision-making much closer to the people because of the increased interest generated in local and congressional elections.

The Maine-Nebraska electoral system would deemphasize the key battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia and require candidates to campaign in all fifty states. As matters now stand, presidential candidates spend little time in states such as California, New York, Oklahoma and Texas because the outcome of presidential voting in those states is almost always a foregone conclusion. Had the Maine-Nebraska system been in place for the 2012 General Election, Obama would have found it necessary to defend the 15 votes that Romney could have won in California and the six votes he could have won in New York, while Romney could not have ignored the 12 electoral votes that Obama might have captured in Texas.

Liberals and Democrats are notorious for expressing appreciation for whatever they see as being most “democratic.” But is there a chance that Democrats in the bluest of blue states… such as California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Oregon… would agree to such a reform once they figured out that the Maine-Nebraska system would cause them to lose a significant number of electoral votes to Republicans, and that the Maine-Nebraska system would all but guarantee that no Democrat could be elected president or vice president for many years to come? Among liberals and Democrats, when it come to a choice between what is best for the country and what is best for their party, the country will always come out on the “short end of the stick.”

Image above represents voting for president by county in 2012 presidential election (i.e., Red = Romney, Blue = Obama).

Image above represents voting for president by county in 2012 presidential election (i.e., Red = Romney, Blue = Obama).

So, while we cannot expect to ever see an electoral system in which all 50 states utilize the Maine-Nebraska formula, is there something that can be done now to level the playing field a bit? The answer is yes, and it can easily be accomplished in advance of the 2016 General Election. Here’s what must be done:

At the present time, there are 11 states with a total of 139 electoral votes that were carried by Barack Obama in 2012 which now have Republican governors. Of those 11 states, the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin now enjoy Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures. What this means is that, if the governors and legislative leaders in those five states understood what could be accomplished, they would take immediate steps to repeal the winner-take-all electoral system and adopt the Maine-Nebraska system. With Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures, Democrats would be powerless to stop them.

Even if Democrats should win the popular vote in each of those five states in 2016, as they did in 2012, the Maine-Nebraska formula would create a much different scenario than the winner-take-all system:  Instead of winning all 29 of Florida’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 12 and Republicans would win 17; instead of winning all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes, Democrats would win seven votes and Republicans would win nine; instead of winning all six of Nevada’s electoral votes, Democrats would win three and Republicans would win three; instead of winning all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes, Democrats would win six and Republicans would win 12; and instead of winning all 10 of Wisconsin’s electoral votes, Democrats would win five and Republicans would win five.

Applying these totals to the expected blue state and red state totals, the Democrats’ expected advantage would increase from 257 electoral votes to 258, while the Republican disadvantage would move from 191 electoral votes to 237. As matters now stand, Democrats have to take only 13 (14 percent) of the 90 swing state votes while Republicans have to take 79 (8 percent) in order to win the presidency. On the other hand, if Republicans in those five states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system in the current legislative sessions, Democrats would have to take 12 (28 percent) of the remaining 43 swing state votes to win, while Republicans would have to take 33 (76 percent) of the remaining 43. Taking 76 percent of 43 votes is easier than taking 88 percent of 90 votes.

But what if many of the low-information Obama voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin decide to stay home in November 2016, giving Republicans popular vote victories in all five states? After eight years of disastrous Obama-Biden-Clinton-style governance, it is a distinct possibility. Under that scenario, Republicans could put another 10 electoral votes in their column.  Democrats would have 248 electoral votes and Republicans 247 electoral votes before the 43 electoral votes of Colorado (9), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13) were won or lost. Democrats would have to win 22 (51 percent) of the remaining 43 swing state votes, while Republicans would have to win 23 (53 percent). The playing field would be substantially leveled.

However, in order to greatly increase their chances of victory, Republicans should not hesitate to target Minnesota, with 10 electoral votes; New Hampshire, with four electoral votes; New Mexico, with five electoral votes; and Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes… all winner-take-all states, and all states that Obama carried with less than 53 percent of the vote in 2012. After eight years of Obama-Biden, at least five percent of the good people in those four states should be anxious for a change.

In the meantime, those readers who live in the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan might wish to place copies of this analysis into the hands of their governors and their legislative leaders. With seven states utilizing the Maine-Nebraska system we may witness the  beginning of a trend as other blue states follow suit. The question is, do Republican leaders in Washington and in the state capitals have the political sense to recognize the advantage they enjoy? Given their past history, we know that they= are not always quick to act when political advantage falls into their laps.  t may be necessary to lean on them a bit.

Paul R. Hollrah is 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.

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.

Bob McCarty Weekly Recap: Aug. 16-22, 2015

Though it’s been quite a while since I offered a weekly recap, I think one is in order this week as I tackled subjects ranging from 2016 presidential candidates to the revisiting a case of military injustice.

Weekly Recap Aug. 16-22, 2015

On Tuesday, I shared news about a milestone six years in the making. In Sixth Anniversary of Military Injustice Observed, I reminded readers of the basics of the wrongful prosecution and conviction of Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart inside a U.S. Army courtroom in Germany during three days in August 2009.

Later that day, I used a headline to ask a question — Did Man’s Confession Save Parents Who Failed Polygraph? — before sharing news about a case I first reported four years ago which should make people think twice about relying upon century-old polygraph technology.

On Wednesday, I warned about the potential impact the release of thousands of AshleyMadison.com (sorry, but no link today) customer records might have on national security. For details, see Military, Government Security Clearance Holders Vulnerable to Blackmail After Hackers Share Ashley Madison Data.

Within hours, I pointed readers to my piece, Though Facing Possibility of Life Sentence on Bogus Charges, Green Beret Refused to Violate Code of Conduct During Trial, about how the Green Beret mentioned in my post one day earlier had displayed extraordinary courage while on trial and facing a possible life sentence.

On Thursday, I shared a message from a former Army colleague of Kelly A. Stewart, the Green Beret about whom I had written two pieces earlier in the week. That colleague said Stewart ‘Always Had Our Backs’.

Also that day, I shared a Facebook note about another case of military injustice involving former Army 1LT Michael C. Behenna, about whom I wrote dozens of pieces over the years. It appears under the headline, Throwback Thursday: Is Army Protecting Someone in Officer’s Chain of Command?

On Friday, I responded to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter‘s invitation to ask him a question in advance of his Worldwide Troop Talk, set to take place Sept. 1. You can read my response to his invitation in my piece, Secretary of Defense Invites Me to Ask Questions.

Before ending the day, I shared guest writer Paul R. Hollrah’s piece, Donald Trump: A Watershed Moment in History, as a way to show what the former member of the Electoral College thinks about what’s at stake in the 2016 presidential election.

Now, as Bugs Bunny used to say, “That’s all folks!”

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.

Off-The-Radar Presidential Candidates Placed in Spotlight

As of today, more than 500 candidates — many more than the nation’s major news outlets are telling you about in articles like this one and this one — have filed the Federal Election Commission paperwork necessary to run for president of the United States. Included among them are some very colorful characters as well as several top names who are not eligible to serve. Below, I offer a glimpse of some of those male and female candidates from across the political spectrum who have, for the most part, remained off the radar of most Americans.

Click on image above to see the FEC's complete list of candidates who've filed to run for president in 2016.

Click on image above to see the FEC’s complete list of candidates who’ve filed to run for president in 2016.

On the homepage of her website, Isis M. Elijah describes herself as an author and poet who is “an African American female Republican candidate for United States President 2016” In addition, she claims to be “the biological daughter of 42nd U.S. President Bill Clinton & Billionaire Oprah Winfrey” and states she has resided in Akron, Ohio, since 1989. Read her FEC Form 2.

On his FEC Form 2, David Edward Baucom Jr. lists a Charlotte, N.C., address. Beyond that, online information about him was difficult to locate. I did, however, find news about a strip club mogul, David “Slim” Baucom, who got Charlotte’s mayor in trouble for accepting bribes. I could not, however, determine whether or not the man running for president as a Republican is related to the man running strip clubs.

The Bull Moose Party‘s Sgt. Hugh Walker has big plans, according to an April 19 letter he submitted to the editor of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in Ontario, Calif.  They include building four “super hospital ships” to be staffed by doctors, nurses and technicians who graduate from the U.S. Navy Medical Academy, the building of which is also part of his plan if elected. I wonder if the man from Upland, Calif., knows anything about building fences? Read his FEC Form 2.

Jack Sparrow of Lincoln City, Ore., is running for office as an independent candidate. Apparently, the Republican and Democrat Parties already have enough pirates. Read his FEC Form 2.

Libertarian Dennis Roger Torii Jr. has big plans for the nation if elected. The Army veteran and inventor from St. Cloud, Fla., plans to expand the nation’s borders southward to include Panama and northward to include Canada and Japan. Think Louisiana Purchase on steroids. Read his FEC Form 2.

Independent Michelle “Hope” Walker hopes the messages she shares in her videos will convince you to vote for her so she can move out of her Los Angeles apartment and into the White House. Read her FEC Form 2.

According to his website, which describes him as an author, scientist and “independent presidential candidate in 2012,” Harry Braun III lists himself as a Democrat on the FEC Form 2 he submitted May 15, 2015. If elected in 2016, he says he’s going to “implement Democracy in the USA and a Solar Hydrogen Economy with wartime-speed.” Whatever that means.

The list of presidential candidates also includes a Rodeo cowboy, an entrepreneur, a conspiracy theorist, a Navy vet who sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and an atheist Democrat who traveled from West Virginia to Ohio for a Jimmy Carter book-signing event. News about the latter brings two words to mind: nut and peanut.

It also includes a candidate named Limberbutt McCubbins. Though this cat from Louisville, Ky., has no political track record or qualifications, I think he’s as qualified as any of his fellow Democrats to run. You be the judge by looking at his FEC Form 2.

While I plan to share news about other candidates in the race — including doctors, lawyers, teachers and pure lunatics — in a future article, you’ll need to visit this page to see them all now.

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.