House Intelligence Committee Chairman’s Conflict of Interest Slows Benghazi Investigation

Like so many people, I’ve wondered why members of the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives have dragged their feet so long on investigating the Benghazi debacle.  Now Dick Morris offers the answer:  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) is to blame!  Watch the video!

In a just-released video, Morris reports that Rogers has been dragging his feet on the matter, because his wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was president and CEO of Aegis, L.L.C., the company that had the security contract at the time the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked.

Shocked?  Don’t be!  This isn’t the first time the Michigan congressman has been accused of acting in ways that would benefit his wife.  TechDirt reported on another issue less than a year ago under the headline, Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing….

And does anyone think it’s a coincidence that the House Intelligence Committee chairman is giving up his seat for a job in talk radio after his current term ends?  I’m not!

SEE ALSO:  Dots Connect Bradley Manning, Benghazi, Afghanistan and Nation’s Top Intelligence Official.

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.

Senator Claire McCaskill Trying to Fool Missouri Voters

Incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would love for Missouri voters to think she is fiercely independent and not the dyed-in-the-wool Barack Obama supporter that she truly is.  Perhaps that’s why, according to this June 29 report by KOMU-TV in Columbia, Mo., she won’t be attending the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

Clearly, “Claire Bear” is trying to fool Missouri voters into thinking she’s opposes President Obama’s healthcare plan (a.k.a., “ObamaCare”); in reality, she supports it, voted for it and wants it to remain the law of the land.

If you do your homework, Missourians, you can reach only one logical conclusion:  The Show-Me State needs a new U.S. senator, and the person for the job is Todd Akin.

Which State Has Highest Per-Capita Budget: California, Illinois or Missouri?

Elected officials in the states of California and Illinois have built quite a reputation over the years, specializing in corruption, fraud and fiscal irresponsibility.  Today, however, it appears their colleagues in Missouri are striving to gain similar notoriety in at least one of the aforementioned categories.

I reached that conclusion over the weekend after some simple math led me to answer the headline-shaping question above, “Which State Has the Highest Per-Capita Budget: California, Illinois or Missouri?”

According to the 2010 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, California’s population was 37,253,956 while Illinois’ population was 12,830,632 and Missouri’s was 5,988,927.

The FY2013 state budget for California is, according to the Sunshine Review website, $92.1 billion.  The Illinois state budget is, according to the same source, $33.7 billion.  Missouri’s state budget, according to the Missouri Senate Blog, is $24 billion.

When you round and crunch those numbers, you get the following close approximations of how much money is budgeted per person in each of the three states:  California budgets $2,626; Illinois budgets $2,472; and Missouri budgets a whopping $4,007!

Perhaps most disturbing about the numbers is something I didn’t spell out in the graphic above. The lines of data for California and Illinois are shown in BLUE to indicate the legislative bodies (i.e., house and senate) in both states are controlled by Democrat majorities while the lines of data for Missouri are shown in RED to indicate Republicans hold majorities in both houses of the Show-Me State legislature.

Surprised?  Me, too!  The information above stands as solid evidence of why we need to elect true fiscal conservatives — in Missouri and elsewhere across the nation — in 2012.

FYI:  I’m not an economics wizard; therefore, I welcome any input that might prove wrong the conclusions I offer.

SEE ALSO:  Brian Hook at Missouri Journal has been reporting on the state budget.

My second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, is set for release this fall. is NOW ON SALEWhile you await its release, be  Also, be sure to order a copy of my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.  Both books will make your blood boil!

Marco Rubio Eligibility Question Clouds 2012 Race

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

For more than three years, those who love the U.S. Constitution and who respect the Rule of Law have debated endlessly the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States.  Those who’ve studied the issue with an open mind are convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Obama, born to an American mother and a father of Kenyan/British citizenship, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

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

It is not unusual for liberals and Democrats to argue that the term “natural born Citizen” is undefined.  This argument has been most recently advanced by Fox News anchor Bret Baier.  It is an argument that fits neatly with the liberal view that the Constitution is a “living” document, meaning nothing more than what they would like it to mean on any given day.  However, they ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

The facts of Minor v. Happersett are these:  On Oct, 15, 1872, a woman named Virginia Minor… a white female resident of St. Louis County, Mo.,… attempted to register to vote in the November 1872 General Election.   However, Missouri law in 1872 did not permit women to vote; women did not win the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

Accordingly, when the St. Louis County voter registrar, Reese Happersett, refused to accept Minor’s registration, she filed suit in Missouri state courts, claiming voting rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment reads as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.”

While the 14th Amendment would appear to protect a broad array of “privileges and immunities” for all citizens, regardless of gender, the Constitution of the State of Missouri stated that, “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”

In arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for Minor argued that:

  1. As a citizen of the United States, Mrs. Minor was entitled to any and all “privileges and immunities” that are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.
  1. The right to vote is a “privilege” of citizenship; it is the means by which all citizens participate in their government.
  1. The denial or abridgment of the right to vote must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government, the U.S. Constitution, and that no inferior power or jurisdiction (e.g., the State of Missouri) could legally claim the right to confer or deny it.
  1. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly declares that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
  1. The provisions of the Missouri Constitution and registry laws are in conflict with and must yield to the higher authority of the Constitution of the United States.

As the case proceeded through the courts… the trial court, the Missouri Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court… all ruled in favor of the State of Missouri.  The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone,” and that the decision of who should be entitled to vote was left to the Congress and the state legislatures (in 1872, only the State of New Jersey allowed women to vote, and then only those women who were property owners).  And although from the perspective of the early 21st century it appears logical to assume that the arguments of Minor’s attorneys would prevail, it was not on that basis that the courts decided the case.

In determining whether Minor had the right to vote, the Court first determined that she was a U.S. citizen because she was a member of the class of “natural-born” citizens.  They then proceeded to define the term “natural born Citizen” by stating, …(A)ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...”

In that differentiation, the Court established binding precedent, making it clear that persons born in the country, of parents (plural) who were citizens, are “natural-born” citizens.  By implication, that finding would appear to established the corollary, which is that those born in the country to one or more parents who are not citizens, are not “natural born” citizens.

Those who support the notion of Obama and Florida Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s eligibility argue that, if one is at the time of  birth, a U.S. citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen.  That is false because it fails to take into account the nationality of the parents.  All natural born citizens are “citizens,” but all citizens are not “natural born” citizens.

Baier’s entry into the debate was brought about by a flood of emails and correspondence complaining that certain Fox News anchors and contributors… Hannity, O’Reilly, Krauthammer, and others… have been promoting Rubio as the 2012 GOP candidate for vice president.  This in spite of the fact that Rubio is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States (Rubio’s parents were citizens of Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until four years after he was born).

In support of his argument that Rubio is eligible to serve as president or vice president, Baier insists that the issue is resolved by federal law.  He points to 8 USC § 1401, contending that all that is required for status as a “natural born” citizen is for the mother to be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of these years after the age of 14.  Baier asserts that those born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of the parents; those born outside the U.S. to parents who are both citizens, even those born outside the U.S. to one parent who is a U.S. citizen are all “natural born” U.S. citizens.

In refuting Baier’s assertion, constitutional law professor Herb Titus set the record straight.  He said, “Under Mr. Baier’s view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law (emphasis added).  If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship by birth.  And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the Constitution…”

What Baer fails to understand is that “natural born” citizenship is inherent.  It either exists or it does not.  If a child is a natural born citizen at birth, it can never be taken away, and if a child is not a natural born citizen at birth… born to parents who are both U.S. citizens… it can never be acquired.

But what is most significant about Baier’s entry into the eligibility debate is not his opinion on the matter.  It is the fact that a news anchor for the top cable news network in America… a network that claims to be engaged in a vetting of Obama, while studiously avoiding any mention of his background and experience prior to his days as a Chicago community organizer, a network which in recent months has taken a decided drift to the left… has finally chosen to comment on the Rubio eligibility question, suggesting that the issue merits a commitment by Fox to air a full debate on the issue.

But what is most significant about Baier’s entry into the eligibility debate is that any debate on the issue of Marco Rubio’s eligibility must, of necessity, include a discussion of Barack Obama’s eligibility.  It cannot be avoided.  That public discussion is at least four years overdue, and if Baer’s entry into the Marco Rubio debate is only a backdoor way of opening the debate on Barack Obama’s eligibility, then so be it.

Paul R. Hollrah

SEE ALSO:  Senator Marco Rubio Not ‘Natural Born Citizen’

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.

Order a copy of Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Senator Marco Rubio Not ‘Natural Born Citizen’

As United States Senator Marco Rubio prepares to deliver what his office describes as a “major foreign policy speech” Wednesday at The Brookings Institution, it’s understandable that many Americans see this fresh, young conservative leader as a good choice to serve as Republican Mitt Romney’s running mate this fall.  Unfortunately, the Florida Republican of Cuban ancestry is not a Constitutionally-eligible choice to serve should the GOP ticket prevail in November.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

If you think I’m crazy, think again.  In an article published nine months ago, longtime conservative Beltway insider Paul R. Hollrah outlined the reasons why neither the Florida Republican nor his Louisiana Republican colleague, Gov. Bobby Jindal, meet the Constitutional requirements for eligibility to serve as either vice president or president of the United States.  Below is a lengthy excerpt:

The performance of these two young men, Jindal and Rubio… one the son of Indian immigrants, the other the son of Cuban refugees… has caused many conservatives and Republicans to think in terms of a future President Bobby Jindal or a future President Marco Rubio.

There is no doubt that either of these men, on their worst day, would make a more capable and competent leader than the narcissistic bungler, Barack Obama, on his best day. Unfortunately, neither of these men can ever hold that office because they are not “natural born” citizens, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Contrary to widely-held “birther” opinion, it is not necessary to be born on American soil to qualify as a “natural born” citizen.  Former Michigan Governor and American Motors CEO George Romney, a 1968 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, was born in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.  However, Romney qualified as a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were American citizens.  Similarly, Sen. John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, qualifies as “natural born” because both of his parents were U.S. citizens.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.)

Governor Jindal was born on June 10, 1971, in Baton Rouge, La.  However, according to a WorldNetDaily report of May 22, his father, Amar Jindal, a permanent legal resident of the United States, did not become a U.S. citizen until December 4, 1986.  His mother, Raj Jindal, also a permanent legal resident, became a naturalized U.S. citizen on Sept. 21, 1976.

Senator Rubio was born on May 28, 1971, in Miami.  Both parents, Mario and Oriales Rubio, were born in Cuba and came to the U.S. as refugees from Castro’s communist regime.  Both were given political asylum and permanent legal residency; however, the Rubios did not become citizens until Nov. 5, 1975, four and one-half years after Marco Rubio was born.

While some, liberals and conservatives alike, are fond of saying that the Founding Fathers did not define the term “natural born” in the Constitution, the fact is they did.  By direct implication, they defined the term “natural born Citizen” by describing what a “natural born Citizen” is not.  Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

At the time the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land on June 21, 1788, there were two categories of citizens:  there were “citizens” and there were “natural born” citizens.  Those in the “citizen” category included the former British subjects who became citizens on July 4, 1776, the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, as well as those later naturalized by act of law and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.

The “natural born” citizens were the children born after July 4, 1776 to parents who became U.S. citizens on that date.  They were the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all were less than twelve years old when the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

As WorldNetDaily reminds us, the first U.S. Congress, which included eight members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause, defined a “natural born citizen” as a child born of two American parents.  The Naturalization Act of 1790 (later repealed) specified that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil.  It proclaimed, “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens… ”

The subsequent repeal of that law does not alter the way in which the first Congress, and those who authored the “natural born citizen” clause, understood the meaning of the term.

John Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The above represent rather clear parameters showing that neither Governor Jindal nor Senator Rubio can claim status as “natural born” citizens… but neither can Barack Obama.  Barack Obama’s mother was a 17-year-old girl, an American citizen, but his father was a Luo tribesman from the African village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, in Kenya.  Not only was he not an American citizen, he was not a permanent legal resident and was kicked out of the country because he was a self-confessed bigamist.

In a November 2010 broadcast, speculating on a future Rubio candidacy, Rush Limbaugh suggested that liberal “birthers” would almost certainly demand to see Rubio’s birth certificate.  He went on to say, “I’m not worried about it.  If Obama’s taught us anything, it’s that the news media doesn’t care where our presidents are born…  Well, let’s see if it does.  Let’s see if all of  a sudden the media starts caring where Republicans are born…”

Clearly, Limbaugh makes a rather common mistake.  He confuses “native born” with “natural born.”  Assuming their birth certificates are all valid (Obama’s birth certificate leaves much doubt in that regard), Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama are all “native born,” but none are “natural born” and are, therefore, ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

When asked specifically if Senator Rubio considers himself to be a “natural born” citizen, his press secretary, Alex Burgos, is quoted as saying, “Yes.”  Similarly, Kyle Plotkin, Governor Jindal’s press secretary, is quoted by WorldNetDaily as saying, “The governor is obviously a natural-born citizen.”

Not so fast, gentlemen.  It’s nice to demonstrate loyalty, and it would be nice to have a common sense conservatives such as Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio in the White House, but we can never forget that, unlike Democrats, we Republicans not only believe in the rule of law, we actually demand that our laws be enforced and that the demands of the U.S. Constitution be adhered to.

The American people deserve to have at least one political party that can be counted on to do what’s right, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Paul R. Hollrah

While not popular, especially among conservatives who long for real leadership and new blood in our nation’s capitol, Hollrah’s explanation of why neither Senator Rubio nor Governor Jindal are eligible for the nation’s highest office is rock-solid.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Something Hollrah didn’t point out could, in my mind, be equally important.  If Senator Rubio’s name appears on the ticket, it will be as if the Republicans are tacitly agreeing to set aside the evidence and overlook the widely-held belief that Obama is not eligible to serve as president of the United States.  That, my friends, should not happen.

Be sure to check out my new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Missouri Governor Candidate Needs ‘Easy Button’

Unfortunately for Republican gubernatorial candidate Dave Spence, there is no “easy button” when it comes to running a state like Missouri.

Though loaded with money and able to flood the airwaves with slick advertisements, Spence demonstrated his lack of issues awareness during the Greene County Lincoln Day GOP Gubernatorial Forum March 3.

In the video above, he passes on the opportunity to address the question of where he stands when it comes to selecting a president based on the national popular vote movement instead of the electoral college.  Conversely, Bill Randles tackles the question easily and delivers the kind of polished and informed response Missourians expect from their next governor.

This isn’t the first time Spence made a poor showing in public.  It should, however, be the last.

While I’m not endorsing Randles yet, I am suggesting that someone tell Spence, the Missouri Republican Party’s “chosen one,” that it’s time to withdraw from the race.  After all, we need to defeat Democrat incumbent Gov. Jay Nixon in November.

UPDATE 4/3/12 at 11:55 a.m. Central:  Prompted by comments from a supporter of the popular vote movement, I encourage everyone to read my Aug. 15 post, Should We Save the National Popular Vote Enthusiast Before He Shoots Himself in the Foot?

Order a copy of my book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

St. Charles County GOP Hasn’t Changed Much

In a post published Friday, I shared news of how members of the St. Charles County (Mo.) Republican Party were involved in the process of redrawing township boundary lines in the county earlier this year and how that involvement was indicative of a pattern.  Today, I share evidence of how that pattern seems to date back as far as 2007.

For reference, I turned to a Nov. 26, 2007, post published at, a site that bills itself as “An Independent Conservative Voice.”  Under the headline, HERE WE GO AGAIN!, author Chuck MacNab shared news about partisan shenanigans going on inside the county GOP.  A lengthy excerpt of that post appears below with permission:

In September, Central Committee members eligible to vote in that District were summoned to a nominating meeting.  In what has become business as usual, the “word” prior to that meeting indicated the Party choice was Mark Parkinson, a former Bond staffer, with the clear inference that everyone should vote accordingly. This ignored the fact that Ray Stone, also a viable candidate with considerable political experience and professional credentials, was running.  Despite continuing strong direction from the Committee “leadership” in favor of Parkinson, the vote was close and Parkinson emerged with a narrow victory.  Some voting members, including at least one Parkinson supporter, were outraged at the Party / Committee leadership’s display of favoritism.

State Rep. Mark Parkinson

Ah, but enter a new wrinkle.  It is discovered that the validity of the election could be subject to court challenge since it was not conducted within the geographic area of District 16.  Despite vigorous attempts to redefine the area to include the original location and avoid a second vote, a second meeting was subsequently called.  In a follow-up letter, 16th District Committee Chair, Fred Henke, wrote: “The Missouri Republican Party requested another meeting as a formality to affirm our selection of Mark Parkinson as candidate for the 16th legislative district representative.” (Emphasis added)

Now, either an election is valid or it isn’t.  Right?  You can’t have it both ways.  Nevertheless, the Committee, not easily discouraged, attempted to establish the second vote as one merely to endorse the initial selection, without recognizing any other candidate.  Parkinson was informed of the meeting; Ray Stone was not.  One member of the Committee, Brandy Pedersen, in frustration, reported the “disconnect’ to the media. This seemed, after conversations with both Henke and the Central Committee Chair (Jon Bennett), to be the only way to get their attention.   Perhaps, as a result of media attention, committee members were “permitted” to vote on both candidates. After two tie votes, Parkinson won the nomination on the third ballot.

The irony of it all is that, had the Party leadership and their allies simply allowed the candidates to run on their own without the “meddling,” Parkinson would likely have won. But the Committee leadership had to prove they were “in charge” by “delivering this victory” and so they blundered around in the most amateur way “playing politics.”  By doing so, they almost lost it.  Well, they voted in the Party choice by pressuring one poor soul to switch from Ray Stone to Parkinson, but it was ”messy” and would certainly have turned off any professional political operative who viewed the process.  (Hello, Jeff City!)

For those doubters, who still might question the allegations of favoritism and behind the scenes maneuvering, please note the following.  (1) Penny Henke, wife of the 16th Legislative District Chair (Fred Henke) who conducted these meetings, is Parkinson’s Campaign Treasurer.  (2) A campaign solicitation letter from Parkinson was mailed just prior to the 2nd vote and his official nomination.

None of this is news to those who watch the techniques employed by the Party in St. Charles County.  But not many citizens, like Pedersen, will step forward to publicly expose these inequities. Experience has shown that those who do are systematically demonized. An apparently unshakable belief in contrived and corrupt politics is a hallmark of many of the “cronies” on the Committee, their associates and their leadership. We observe that ambition unmatched by ability tends to create this result. Meanwhile, the “cronies” continue to control the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee.  Our thanks to those like Brandy Pedersen and others who are willing to “hang in there.”

What do the events that took place in 2007 have to do with events that have taken place so far during 2012?  Plenty.  For instance:

In much the same way as local party power brokers tried in 2012 to keep a fair and equitable process from determining a winner at the St. Patrick’s Day caucus, some of the same people appear to have done everything possible to put their special election candidate into office in 2007;

In much the same way as Jon Bennett was involved in the 2007 events as county GOP chair, he served as a member of the group assigned to redrawing the township boundary lines or, in the words of County Council Member Joe Brazil, “picking winners and losers”;

In much the same way as Penny Henke was involved in the 2007 events as meeting organizer and treasurer for the Parkinson campaign, she is vice chair of the county GOP and is serving as county coordinator for Chair Eugene Dokes’ campaign for the District 70 seat in the Missouri House of Representatives; and

In much the same way as Pedersen went to the news media in 2007 to expose party insiders’ crony politics, she went to the media in 2012 to expose the underhanded manner in which those same insiders tried to manipulate the process of redrawing township boundary lines and of selecting delegates at the presidential caucus.

Perhaps as a reaction to what took place at the March 17 GOP caucus, some 60 Republicans have filed for 28 township committee member posts as of Friday afternoon.  That number, according to St. Charles County Election Authority Rich Chrismer, represents the largest number of candidates he’s seen file for those posts during any election he’s overseen since 2003.

If registered Republican voters react in a similar fashion when a new GOP caucus is held April 10 at 7 p.m. at the St. Charles Convention Center, we should hope to see tens of thousands of people turn out for that event.  Let’s hope that happens!

UPDATE 4/11/12 at 7:25 a.m. Central: Ron Paul wins do-over St. Charles County caucus.

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.