Tag Archives: Rick Santorum

Paul Hollrah Analyzes Upcoming GOP Presidential Debates

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

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

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

The Republican National Committee plans to conduct at least nine debates in the 2015-16 presidential primary season, the first of which will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland Aug. 6, 2015. The debate will be co-sponsored by Fox News and Facebook and moderated by Fox News Channel anchors, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. And although the RNC is determined to hold far fewer debates than the twenty held during the 2012 primary season, the party has left the door open to the possibility of up to three additional debates if the need arises.

In a July 28 column, Kristol Clear Straw Poll #5, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol expresses what a great many people have been thinking, which is that the GOP debate format agreed to by Fox News and the RNC falls far short of the ideal.

Fox News has announced that, in order to avoid having as many as 16 candidates on the stage at one time, each vying for their share of face-time before the a national TV audience, they will limit the number of candidates to ten. Those candidates will be the top ten candidates taken from an average of the five most recent national polls… the polls to be selected by Fox.

According to one analysis of five recent national polls, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Scott Walker are almost certain to be selected, while the two remaining slots will be filled by either Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham, each polling at roughly one percent, are apparently out of the running for the first debate.

Kristol has issued a fervent plea to Fox News and the RNC. He asks that they please abandon the “poorly-conceived ten-person, one-main-stage format” while there is still time. He argues that there simply will not be a “statistically significant difference between the 8th through 10th place finishers and the 11th through 13th places.” I would argue that there is insufficient reason to arbitrarily exclude any six of the 16 candidates. Kristol suggests that, out of fairness, the sponsors change the format to two eight-person debates, to be held on successive nights, or, in the alternative, two five-person debates and one six-person debate on three successive nights.

In order to demonstrate how the single ten-person debate would deny primary voters the opportunity to discover what some of the best, most capable, but lesser known candidates have to offer, I have developed a rating system which, as objectively as possible, points to some significant strengths and weaknesses in the candidates that the casual observer might overlook.

The rating system I have developed utilizes six separate factors: eligibility, personal appeal, experience, directness, the Trump factor and position on the issues, each scored on a scale of one to ten. (The “Trump Factor” being a measure of the extent to which each candidate has either adhered to or ignored Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, re: the Trump candidacy.)

A quick analysis of the sixteen candidates produces the following results:

Click on image above to read article that explains the red "0" next to four candidates' names.

Click on image above to read article that explains the red “0” next to four candidates’ names.

Using the above analytical format, the participants in the August 6th debate would be, in order of ranking: 1) Carly Fiorina, 2) Mike Huckabee, 3) Scott Walker, 4) Donald Trump, 5) Ben Carson, 6) John Kasich, 7) Chris Christie, 8) Rand Paul, 9) Marco Rubio and 10) Rick Perry. Those watching the debate on TV would be, in order: 11) George Pataki, 12) Lindsey Graham, 13) Ted Cruz, 14) Rick Santorum, 15) Bobby Jindal and 16) Jeb Bush. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore has just announced and cannot be properly evaluated.

What is most interesting about the admittedly subjective analysis is that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who regularly polls at 2% or less because she lacks name recognition, comes out tied for first place with Mike Huckabee, each winning 56 out of a possible 60 points, while Jeb Bush, the darling of the mainstream media and establishment Republicans, comes in dead last. Bush comes in last because: 1) he is not an appealing candidate, 2) he was one of the first to openly criticize Donald Trump and 3) he has a history of pandering to liberal special interests.

To date, only three of the sixteen candidates have distinguished themselves from the others. Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee have unabashedly taken the fight to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while Donald Trump has created a firestorm with his straight-from-the-shoulder characterization of many of the illegal aliens streaming across our southern border.

What is clear is that the same not-dry-behind-the-ears incompetents who’ve managed Republican presidential campaigns since Reagan left the White House are still hanging around Washington, just waiting to see how many more presidential campaigns they can screw up. In the past two weeks they have blindly led at least seven or eight of the establishment candidates to deal with the Trump campaign in the most counterproductive way, saying some really dumb things about a totally fearless man who can always be counted upon to deliver more punishment than he receives… proving once again that it’s not always a good idea to poke at a hornets’ nest.

The Washington inside-the-Beltway political consultants are unaccustomed to honesty and forthrightness in campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air, is now conducting a graduate seminar for them. As a case in point, two young female guests on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday evening, July 27… young women who were not alive when Ronald Reagan was president, but who now market themselves as knowledgeable campaign strategists… were both asked how the other candidates should react to Trump’s surge in the polls. True to their training, both provided the only answer they knew. They said, “It’s time for them to go on the attack. They need to go negative.” That is precisely what Trump’s opponents should not do.

What GOP establishment candidates totally ignore is the fact that Americans, in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, have been yearning for nearly thirty years for a presidential candidate with the courage to “tell it like it is.” They’ve longed for a conservative willing to take on the mainstream media, bare-knuckled, a leader with enough “rough edges” on him/her to scare the crap out of liberals and Democrats, both inside and outside the mainstream media. For now, at least, Donald Trump looks like a man who fits that description, although if his approach to campaigning has had any impact at all on more conventional Republicans, the GOP debates may yet uncover another contender or two.

In the meantime, while the establishment candidates are busy attacking one of their own, Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina are out there doing “the Lord’s work,” exposing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the frauds they are. But if Trump’s method and message fails to teach the establishment a few powerful lessons, then it looks as if some of us old “graybeards,” veterans of the Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan campaigns, will be forced to come out of retirement to show them how it’s done.

SEE ALSO: Off-The-Radar Presidential Candidates Placed in Spotlight and Joe Biden Misses Opportunity for Another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

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’s Weekly Recap: Jan. 11-24

Since my last weekly recap, I’ve spent more time working on my next fiction novel than I have in following news of the day. That in mind, I ask a question: It is possibly to cover two weeks of work in a single weekly recap at BobMcCarty.com? Answer: It is, and I prove it today!

A U.S. Sailor, foreground, assigned to the Navy Expeditionary Guard Battalion conducts an early morning patrol while detainees stand by in the background at the recreation yard inside Camp Delta at Joint Task Force (JTF) Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, July 7, 2010. JTF Guantanamo provides safe, humane, legal and transparent care and custody of detainees, including those convicted by military commission and those ordered released by a court. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

In a post Jan. 12, I made the point that Americans deserve more facts about the activities at Guantanamo Bay and about the Oklahoma City and Boston Marathon bombings. Click on the image above to read the post.

In a Jan. 12 post, I made the point that Americans deserve more facts about the activities at Guantanamo Bay and about the Oklahoma City Bombing and Boston Marathon Bombing. I can’t blame you if you struggle to grasp how the three might be connected, but I think you’ll get it after you read the article.

In a Jan. 17 post, I shared guest writer Paul R. Hollrah’s take on bloody massacres and “solutions”  to the “Muslim problem,” some of which he describes as “totally useless and pointless” and others as “quite draconian.”

The word balloon of the cartoon that appeared on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo -- renamed Charia Hebdo ("Sharia Hebdo") -- reads "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

Click on the graphic above to read a guest piece about “solutions” to the Muslim problem.

Due to a fly-there-drive-back three-day round-trip to South Texas, I produced little in the way of writing products online or offline Jan. 18-20. Upon returning home, however, I shared news about the courtroom portion of another Oklahoma City Bombing trial that ended recently in Salt Lake City federal court. Don’t feel bad if you find yourself among the millions of Americans unaware another trial was even taking place. Instead, read and share my Jan. 21 post and my Jan. 23 post mentioned in more details near the end of this recap.

After reading about Air Force Maj. Gen. James Post allegedly saying Air Force personnel committed treason when they exercised their right to free speech, I used the headline of a second Jan. 21 post to ask the question, Is Speaking Out in Favor of A-10 ‘Warthog’ Treasonous?

In a third Jan. 21 post, I shared another Amazon customer’s 5-star review of my just-released crime-fiction novel, The National Bet. You can read about the review under the headline, Reader Enjoyed The National Bet ‘From Start to Finish’.

In my fourth and final Jan. 21 post, I explain why my reasons for watching the blockbuster film, American Sniper, are unlike anyone else’s.

In a Jan. 23 post, I hammered away at the subpar journalism taking place in my birth state of Oklahoma when it comes to covering the aforementioned Oklahoma City Bombing trial in Salt Lake City. Read about it under the headline, News Media Fails to Provide Thorough Coverage of Latest Oklahoma City Bombing Trial in Salt Lake City Federal Court.

Away from BobMcCarty.com, I’ve encountered numerous articles and Facebook status updates about the growing crop of Republican presidential hopefuls. In response, I’ve shared the link to another guest piece by Hollrah, a former two-time member of the Electoral College. Sadly, his facts seem to upset some of my fellow conservatives. You can read it where it appears under the headline, Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common. I’d love to hear your reaction.

That’s all for now!  I hope you enjoy my work. Please buy my books to ensure it keeps coming! Thanks in advance!

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.

Author Asks for Your Presidential Straw Poll Write-In Vote

I came across a 2016 presidential straw poll at Townhall.com and started thinking it might be fun to ask my online friends to enter my name as a write-in candidate. So help me out, have some fun and write me in!

Straw Poll 2016

If I get enough write-in votes, I might just run in 2016. Let the voting begin!

>>>>> Click here to visit poll website! <<<<<

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

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

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

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.