The 28th Amendment

Just six weeks away from retiring the worst president in U.S. history, many Americans are justifiably concerned about what Barack Obama will do to occupy his time when he is no longer in the Oval Office. Is there any chance that he will pass quietly  and gracefully into retirement as Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (41), and Bush (43) have done?  Or will he follow the example of Democrats such as Carter, Clinton, and Gore, men who found it impossible to abandon the national spotlight?

As a presidential usurper who did great damage to our republic during his eight years in the White House, will Obama have the decency to simply accept his less than admirable place in history? Not likely.  Instead, he will likely hang around Washington “like stink on a skunk,” offering up his opinions on every conceivable issue and burnishing his tarnished image.

Under that circumstance, it behooves Republicans… in Congress and in the White House… to give Obama something to think about. And since Democrats have resurrected the “birther” issue during the recent campaign… charging that President-elect Trump is somehow unfit to serve because he once raised questions about Obama’s birth certificate… we are left with a bit of unfinished business.  What greater service could Republicans provide than to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of presidential eligibility so that we will never again be confronted with the possibility of being governed by a bogus president?  The most direct way of achieving that much-needed clarity is through the adoption of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Article II. Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, states that, “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.” We know that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all at least thirty-five years of age, and we have sufficient evidence that they had all been U.S. resident for at least fourteen years, but were they “natural born” U.S. citizens?  What is a “natural born” citizen, and why did the Framers limit access to the presidency only to “natural born” citizens?

When the Founders met in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a thoroughly preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.

For example, in a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, addressed to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, Jay expressed his concern over the prospect of allowing an individual with any form of potential foreign allegiance to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He 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.

Further expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that motivated and inspired the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”                                                                 

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the concern that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or an ideology in which he might come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Taking into account those concerns, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a draft Constitution under which only two (2) jobs in the entire United States of America… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.

At the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens:

  1. The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances, became citizens of a sovereign American nation on July 4, 1776,
  2. The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the   first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and
  3. A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized after July 4, 1776, having     taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.

In addition to being a “natural born” citizen and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, the Constitution required that those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age. However, the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a “grandfather clause,” making it possible for newly-minted citizens… all U.S. residents for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them “natural born” because they were born to parents who were British subjects prior to July 4, 1776… to lead the nation.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.

For example, our first seven presidents… George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson… were all “citizens” because they were born in what later became the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were all British subjects at the time they were born. 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…”

Were that not the case, and had the Framers intended that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” be considered synonymous, they would simply have written, No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to U.S. citizen parents after July 4, 1776. Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was reportedly a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat 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, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

For all of the above reasons, and to clarify and validate the original intent of the Founders, the Republican members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, should introduce a Joint Resolution for an amendment to the United States Constitution, as follows:

Amendment XXVIII

For purposes of Article II, Section 1 of this Constitution, the term “natural born Citizen,” as it applies to candidates for President or Vice President of the Unites States, shall mean an individual born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth. Nor shall any person be eligible to the office of President or Vice President who has at any time in his or her lifetime been a citizen of a foreign nation or a dual citizen of the United States and any foreign nation.

Inasmuch as millions of Republicans threw their support behind Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal, without first assuring themselves of their presidential eligibility, congressional Republicans need not make the case that the amendment is intended to correct a great wrong that has been perpetrated against the American people during the Obama years. However, if Barack Obama and other Democrats take it personally, they have every right and every reason to do so.  Only they can feel the guilt associated with having elected and served a usurper president who did nothing but take up space during his eight years in the White House.  Only they can know the shame of having added a large asterisk to the history of U.S. presidents.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

The National Popular Vote Fallacy

My most recent column exposing the fraud that is the national popular vote movement has finally struck home. On Tuesday, November 15, I received a lengthy response from a staff member of the National Popular Vote (NPV) organization, attempting to refute my claims for the superiority of the Maine-Nebraska system of electoral vote allocation.

As I read their arguments, it could not help but consider the political risks of making false and unsubstantiated claims for the national popular vote to members of the state legislatures, none of whom are dummies. The following is my response to the national popular vote email:

NPV: “Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.”

PRH: I can’t respond to that statement because I have no idea what “worst features of the Electoral College system” you refer to.  Anyone who reads the Federalist Papers will understand that the Framers wanted the members of the lower house of the legislative branch, the U.S. House of Representatives, selected by the popular vote of the people.  They wanted the upper house of the legislative branch, the U.S. Senate, selected by the political institutions of the states (the state legislatures), and they wanted the president and vice president to be chosen, not by the people and not by the political institutions of the states, but by the states themselves.  That’s why electors are state officials for a day.  I suspect that few Americans have taken the time to learn this distinction.  To short-circuit the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote is to totally reverse the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

NPV: “If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system.”    

PRH: That simply is not true and cannot be proven.  How is it fair for all of California’s 55 electoral votes to go to a single presidential candidate when the voters in 14 of the state’s 53 congressional districts vote for Republicans up and down the ballot?  And how is it fair for all 20 of Illinois’ electoral votes to go to one presidential candidate when voters in only 10 of the state’s 18 congressional districts prefer Democrats over Republicans?

NPV: “In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.”      

PRH: This is not an anomaly of the Electoral College system.  It is a function of the Democrat Party’s long campaign to capture the votes of large political constituencies by promising them “stuff.”  This electoral anomaly is created by those political constituencies that want something from government that they could not have earned at the ballot box or in a competitive market.

NPV: “With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally… The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, or organize in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state.”

PRH: That simply is not true.  The exact opposite is true and if anyone had ever tried to tell me a whopper like that one I’d take it as an insult to my intelligence.  For example, had the Maine-Nebraska system been in effect in all states in November 2016, Donald Trump could not have ignored the 14 electoral votes available to him in California or the 9 electoral votes available to him in New York.  Conversely, Hillary Clinton could not have ignored the 11 electoral votes available to her in Texas or the 5 electoral votes available to her in Michigan.  By assigning more importance to local elections under the Maine-Nebraska system, interest in local politics would be enhanced and much of the negative impact of the 17th Amendment would be reversed.

I can understand why Democratic presidential candidates tend to ignore all but the coastal states, as well as the states of Illinois and Minnesota in “fly-over” country. Just one cursory glance at the county-by-county electoral map of the past five presidential elections… all but totally red with an occasional splotch of blue… to convince any candidate that campaigning anywhere but in the population centers of the east and west coast could be a waste of time.  For example, in 2012 Obama carried 653 (21.06%) of the 3,100 counties in the country, compared to Romney’s 2,447 counties (78.94%).  In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried just 568 counties (18.32%), compared to Donald Trump’s 2,532 counties (81.68%).  So is it any wonder that Republicans control the governors’ mansions and both house of the legislature in more states than ever before?

NPV: “Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.”

PRH: Again, that simply is not true.  And again, I’d take it as an insult to my intelligence if someone tried to make me believe that bit of nonsense.  In order for that assertion to have even a smidgen of truth, you’d have to give me a list of congressional races that have been won by third party candidates.  They are “scarcer than hens’ teeth.”

If there is a problem with the Electoral College, it is the lack of knowledge and training among individual electors. When I was elected to my first term in the Electoral College I took that responsibility very seriously.  I researched and read everything I could find on the origin and the purpose of the institution. For example, as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that motivated and inspired the Framers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

Clearly, we don’t have to look far to find examples of exactly what Hamilton was referring to.  In 1996, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran for reelection to a second term, a major portion of their campaign funds came through intermediaries from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Is it any wonder then that, at the behest of the Chinese and Japanese governments, the Clinton administration attempted a legislative coup d’etat in 1997 that would have destroyed a core function of the U.S. government, the engine of our economy and our standard of living, the U.S. patent system?  What was it that Barack Obama promised in exchange for the huge sums of money, from unknown sources, that was funneled into his 2008 campaign after being laundered through the United Bank of Switzerland (UBS)?  And what was it that Bill and Hillary Clinton promised to foreign political and business leaders in exchange for the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed to the Clinton Foundation?  It was precisely these kinds of people that the Electoral College was intended to identify and deter.          

In Federalist Paper No. 68, arguing in favor of the Electoral College, Hamilton explained that, “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

Reading those words, it is easy to see how the Electoral College has failed in its responsibility in three presidential elections: 1880, with the election of Vice President Chester A. Arthur, and in 2008 and 2012 with the election of Barack Hussein Obama… both of whom were sired by men who were not American citizens.  Both of their fathers were British subject at the time they were born.  In each instance, it was the responsibility of members of the Electoral College to assure themselves that these men were “natural born” U.S. citizens.  In each instance they failed to do so.  The Republican members of the Electoral College in 1880, and the Democratic members of the Electoral College in 2008 and 2012, lacked “the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

In fact, I am aware that letters were sent to a large number of Democratic electors in 2008 advising them that Barack Obama was ineligible for the office he sought and that it was their duty to reject him.  However, when the electors voted, every single one of the 365 Democratic electors were so anxious to elect the first black president that they violated their oaths and cast their votes for Barack Obama.  If Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or Niki Haley had won the Republican nomination for president or vice president during either of my two terms in the Electoral College, could I have voted for any of them?  Absolutely not!  Like Barack Obama, all are products of foreign parentage; none are “natural born” citizens.

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. What this tells us is that the national popular vote movement is merely an attempt to obtain through trickery, that which the left could never achieve at the ballot box.

As one who has spent a career as chief lobbyist for a Fortune 25 corporation, I am acutely aware of the consequences of purposely misleading members of Congress or the state legislatures.  Those who are selling the “virtues” of the national popular vote in state legislatures all across the country are seriously misleading and misinforming legislators.  When the legislators finally see the truth of the matter they will not be pleased.  More and more states will consider leaving the NPVIC.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Electoral College Reform

As New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.”  According to latest reports on the outcome of the 2016 General Election, Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton enjoys a 390,048 vote advantage in the national popular vote, while her Republican opponent, New York real estate mogul Donald Trump, enjoys a decisive 306 to 232 majority in the U.S. Electoral College.  It is reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election in which Democrat Al Gore enjoyed a 543,900 vote plurality in the national popular vote, while Governor George Bush won a slim 271 to 266 vote majority in the Electoral College.  In that election, out of a total national popular vote of 101,455,900, Gore won a razor-thin popular vote majority… 50,999,900 votes (50.26%) to Bush’s 50,456,000 (49.74%).

In the present case, out of 120,527,246 votes cast, Democrat Hillary Clinton won an even thinner popular vote plurality: 60,458,647 (50.10%) to 60,068,599 (49.08%) for Donald Trump. In the 2000 General Election, a switch of just 271,951 votes would have given Bush a narrow popular vote victory, along with a 271 to 266 vote victory in the Electoral College.  In 2016, a switch of just one vote out of each 618 votes cast would have given Donald Trump a razor-thin plurality in the national popular vote and a comfortable 306 to 232 vote victory in the Electoral College.

The 2000 Bush-Cheney victory in the Electoral College caused liberals, Democrats, and some moderate Republicans to search for ways in which to bypass the Electoral College. In response, and with the active support of Republicans such as former Illinois congressman John Anderson, they’ve created an organization called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

The NPVIC actively seeks support among the legislatures of the various states in support of a rule requiring that all of their state’s electoral votes be cast for the candidates for president and vice president who receive a majority of the national popular vote… regardless of the popular vote count in each of those states. The national popular vote victory by the Democrats in 2016 is certain to reinvigorate the NPVIC effort, but do they really know what they’re doing?  Are they aware of the potential unintended consequences if they are successful?

California’s adoption of the NPVIC rule on August 8, 2011 brought 131 of the needed 270 electoral votes under the popular vote umbrella. If and when states representing at least 270 electoral votes have joined the Compact, then and only then will those states be able to eliminate any possibility of ever again electing a president and vice president with less than a majority of the national popular vote.

If the supporters of the NPVIC would do their homework, they would understand that, had the NPVIC rule been in effect in 2000, in every blue state in the nation, and if Bush-Cheney had been able to attract just one additional vote out of every 373 votes cast… to eke out a narrow victory in the national popular vote… the states of the NPVIC would have been required to automatically cast all 270 of their electoral votes for George Bush and Dick Cheney, in spite of the fact that 21 of the 22 states in the Compact would have cast a majority of their popular votes for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman.

Combined with the 267 electoral votes that Bush-Cheney won in the 29 non-NPVIC states, the Electoral College vote would have been a unanimous 537-0 victory for Bush-Cheney. In other words, the proponents of the national popular vote would have insured a unanimous Electoral College vote for Bush-Cheney, a result that the Framers never envisioned and the exact opposite of what the NPVIC supporters hoped to accomplish.  The same is true for the 2016 results.

If supporters of the NPVIC are truly interested in Electoral College reform that is more democratic and closer to the will of the people than the winner-take-all system now utilized by 48 states and Washington, DC, they might want to consider adopting the allocation system now used by the states of Maine and Nebraska. Under that system, the winner of the statewide popular vote receives both of the state’s two at-large electoral votes.  The remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of the popular vote in each of the state’s congressional districts.  A comparative analysis of the 2016 Electoral College outcome shows the following:

Winner,

Electoral      Popular     Winner-Take-All   Maine-Nebraska  Difference

      State             Votes          Vote               HRC     DJT          HRC     DJT      HRC    DJT 

Alabama               9           Trump                   0         9                 1         8              +1      -1

Alaska                  3           Trump                   0          3                0         3                0       0

Arizona              11            Trump                   0        11                 4         7              +4      -4

Arkansas              6           Trump                   0          6                 0         6                0       0

California           55           Clinton                55         0                41        14              -14   +14

Colorado              9           Clinton                  9         0                  5          4                -4     +4

Connecticut          7           Clinton                 7         0                  7         0                  0        0

Delaware             3            Clinton                  3         0                 3          0                 0        0

D.C.                       3           Clinton.                 3         0                 3          0                 0        0

Florida                29          Trump                   0        29              11         18               +11     -11

Georgia                16           Trump                  0        16                4        12                +4       -4

Hawaii                    4          Clinton                  4          0                4         0                  0         0

Idaho                      4          Trump                    0          4                0         4                 0         0

Illinois                  20          Clinton                20           0              12         8               -8       +8

Indiana                 11          Trump                     0          11               1        10              +1        -1

Iowa                        6          Trump                     0           6               1          5               +1        -1

Kansas                    6          Trump                     0           6                1         5               +1        -1

Kentucky                8          Trump                     0            8               1         7               +1       -1

Louisiana                8          Trump                     0            8               1         7              +1        -1

Maine                     4          Clinton                      3             1               3         1                0         0

Maryland              10          Clinton                   10             0               9         1               -1       +1

Massachusetts      11          Clinton                    11             0              11         0               0         0

Michigan              16          Trump                        0           16               5        11             +5        -5

Minnesota           10          Clinton                      10             0               7         3              -3       +3

Mississippi            6          Trump                         0             6               1          5             +1         -1

Missouri               10          Trump                         0           10               2         8             +2        -2

Montana                 3          Trump                         0             3               0         3               0         0

Nebraska                5          Trump                         0             5                0         5               0         0

Nevada                   6          Clinton                         6             0                5          1             -1        +1

New Hampshire     4        Clinton                         4             0                 4         0             0          0

New Jersey          14          Clinton                       14              0                 9          5          -5        +5

New Mexico          5          Clinton                          5              0                 4          1          -1         +1

New York            29          Clinton                        29              0              20          9          -9        +9

North Carolina    15        Trump                            0             15                3         12         +3        -3

North Dakota         3        Trump                            0              3                0           3            0         0

Ohio                       18         Trump                            0            18                4         14          +4       -4

Oklahoma               7         Trump                            0               7                0           7            0        0

Oregon                   7          Clinton                            7                0               6          1             -1      +1

Pennsylvania        20        Trump                            0              20               5         15            -5     +15

Rhode Island          4         Clinton                           4               0                 4           0            0         0

South Carolina       9          Trump                           0               9                  1           8         +1         -1

South Dakota          3         Trump                            0               3                 0           3            0         0

Tennessee             11          Trump                            0               11                 2           9         +2       -2

Texas                    38          Trump                             0              38                11         27        +11    -11

Utah                        6          Trump                             0              6                   0          6           0         0

Vermont                  3          Clinton                           3              0                   3          0           0         0

Virginia                13          Clinton                           13              0                   7           6         -7       +7

Washington           12        Clinton                           12              0                  8           4         -4       +4

West Virginia         5          Trump                            0              5                   0           5           0         0

Wisconsin            10          Trump                             0            10                   3           7         +3       -3

Wyoming                3          Trump                             0              3                  0           3            0       0

232         306              237      301

Under the winner-take-all system in 2016, essentially all of the campaigning took place in twelve states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. However, had all states used the Maine-Nebraska system, that intensity would have expanded to six additional states: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington… four of the six among our most populous states.

Under the Maine-Nebraska system, Clinton would have gained electoral votes in nineteen states and lost votes in twelve states. Under the winner-take-all system, Trump shut out Clinton in thirty states, while Clinton shut out Trump in nineteen states and the District of Columbia.  Under the Maine-Nebraska system, Trump would have shut out Clinton in only eleven states, while Clinton would have shut out Trump in just eight states.

But the most telling aspect of the analysis is provided by a comparison with the U.S. map on which each of the 3,100 counties are colored in either red or blue. When viewing the map one might question how the map can be almost entirely red, while the distribution of the popular vote and the electoral vote, state by state, is relatively equal.  The answer lies in the occasional splotch of blue on the county-by-county map, indicating the popular vote in major population centers where the Democratic vote is often greater than 90 percent, and the rural and suburban areas where the partisan vote split is relatively equal… generally within the 40-60 percent range.

Electoral College critics would be well advised to do a bit more research into what could be the unintended consequence of scuttling the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote. While it is understandable that they would see unfairness in recent presidential elections… 2000 and 2016… in which the candidates receiving a plurality of the national popular vote lost the election in the Electoral College, they will be far more upset if, after convincing state legislatures to adopt the NPVIC formula, they find that their efforts have produced unanimous 538 to 0 votes in the Electoral College for candidates who came in second in the popular vote. Clearly, electoral stupidity is a bi-partisan affliction.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment