Game On, Mohammed!

With no fanfare whatsoever, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on December 20, 2017, effective at 12:01 AM, December 21, 2017, that gives the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Treasury, the power and the authority to prohibit the forces of radical Islam from ever gaining a foothold on U.S. soil, as they have throughout the countries of western Europe.  The Executive Order is titled, “Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.”

In its preamble, the Executive Order states as follows:  “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Public Law 114-328) (the “Act”), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)) (INA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

“I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, such as those committed or directed by persons listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems… The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who commit serious human rights abuse or engage in corruption, as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same persons.  I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”  

The most significant of the above citations is 8 USC 1182(f), which states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”  The powers are clear and unambiguous; they require no clarification.

In a June 18, 2016, column, provocatively titled, “Radical Islam – The Final Solution,” I quoted Oklahoma’s junior U.S. senator, James Lankford, who was responding to my suggestion that, if we are ever to deal with radical Islam on a non-violent basis, we must first agree that Islam is not a “religion” in the same sense that Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc. are identifiable religions.  He said, “The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of all Americans to practice the religion they choose, or no religion, without fear of government interference or retribution.”  He went on to explain, “Religious liberty is vital to a free nation.  The First Amendment to the Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’  Disruption of religious liberty for one person endangers the liberties of us all.”

What the senator was suggesting, without actually putting it into words, is that all non-Muslims in America should view the language of the First Amendment as a suicide pact.  To the contrary, if we in the west are to protect our children and grandchildren from the horrors of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, we must first dispense with the cruel fiction that Islam is just another religious denomination, subject to all of the legal protections afforded legitimate religious sects.

Islam is not a religion, subject to First Amendment protections.  Rather, it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, social, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion.  Wherever we find them, Muslims refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as a separate culture within a culture, not subject to the laws of their host countries.  In order to accomplish their ends, they rely on anti-western directives of the Quran to preach the overthrow of host governments, by force and violence if necessary.

If we are ever to find an acceptable solution to Islamic jihad we must begin by identifying Islam for what it is.  Abandoning the political correctness of the far left, it is imperative that we begin by officially defining Islam, not as a religious denomination, but as a brutal 7th century culture totally foreign to and incompatible with 21st century Western values and cultures.  Unfortunately, Roman Catholics and other Christian denominations are evolving at a snail’s pace in their approach to Islam.  For example, the Vatican II Council Declaration on Non-Christian Religions declares, “Since, in the course of centuries, not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”

“Not a few quarrels and hostilities?”  “Forget the past?”  Does any evidence exist that Muslims are willing to forget the past?  This is in sharp contrast to a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg Lecture of September 12, 2006, a statement that was not well received in the Muslim world.  Benedict quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Yes, as Pope Francis has suggested, we should first ask for reciprocity from the Muslim world, but asking is not the same as demanding, and it’s time that political and religious leaders in the Christian world demand that non-Muslim denominations be allowed to establish churches and synagogues throughout the Muslim world, signaling that serious repercussions… including an outright ban on mosques in Christian nations… will follow if reciprocity is not granted.  Nothing less will suffice.

Needless to say, the response from the Muslim world has not been what the Vatican might have hoped for.  Instead of reciprocating, in kind, radical Islam has pursued a brutal, unrelenting jihad against the Christian world.  A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” states that the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Accordingly, the first step in coming to grips with the Islamic threat is to officially declassify Islam as a protected religion in the hearts and minds of western populations.  Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and Presbyterians do not stone female rape victims to death; they do not behead those who are of a different faith; they do not throw homosexuals from tall buildings; they do not place their enemies in steel cages and lower them into tanks of water, or spray them with gasoline and burn them alive; they do not capture large numbers of women and young girls and sell them into sex slavery; and they do not sexually assault women and girls in public places because they think their style of dress is an open invitation.  No, these are atrocities that are unique to the Muslim world.  They are not, and can never be, protected religious practices.

Just days ago, it was reported that a Muslim immigrant in Finland raped his Finnish girlfriend, then strangled her, doused her with gasoline, and burned her alive.  Such incidents, and worse,  are daily occurrences in countries around the world where Muslim immigrants seek refuge.

The next and final step in dealing with the Islamic threat is for western governments to codify opposition to Islamic jihad.  As recently as the 1950s our country has taken steps to protect itself from domination by foreign ideologies.  For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”

Included among these, Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens “who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization (such as Islam or the Communist Party USA) that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.”  This is precisely what Donald Trump has suggested, and it is precisely this statute that President Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis. Unless we defeat radical Islam in the deserts of the Middle East and in the streets of Europe in the months and years ahead, they will surely confront us at the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and in the streets of America.  If that comes to pass, western civilization will be lost forever.  We cannot bequeath to our children and grandchildren the prospect of fighting, in their time, a bloody battle that should have been fought and won in our time.  By reasserting his powers and duties in his new Executive Order, president Trump has essentially said, “Game on, Mohammed!” to the radicals of the Muslim world.  Now all we need is an attorney general and an FBI director who are willing to enforce the law.

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

More Pieces of the Obama Puzzle?

Readers of this column will agree… perhaps complain… that I have harped on the subject of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility for at least a decade, and that, in spite of all my passion and my never-say-die approach to the issue, that worthless piece of excrement was still able to serve two full terms in the White House.

But, just as Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan were convinced that they could reach the East Indies by sailing west, I am just as convinced that I have been right about Obama’s lack of eligibility from the first day he stepped into the national spotlight.  And, as each new piece of information presents itself, I feel duty-bound to see how it fits into the puzzle.  So please bear with me as I add a new piece or two to the puzzle.

From February 10, 2007, the day that Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president of the United States, millions of patriots who love the Constitution and who believe in the Rule of Law have steadfastly insisted that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, to a 17-year-old American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a 25-year-old African father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony.  Since one Obama parent was a U.S. citizen and the other was a British subject, it is indisputable that Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship, making it impossible for him to qualify as a “natural born” U.S. citizen and disqualifying him from ever serving as president or vice president of the United States.

Nevertheless, when Democratic “king-makers” decided that Obama had presidential potential, they arranged his dramatic “coming out” as keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  In 2006 they elected him to the U.S. Senate, and within months he went to Springfield, Illinois, to announce his candidacy for president of the United States.  Following a bitter campaign against former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama was nominated on August 27, 2008, in Denver, Colorado.

But there is strong circumstantial evidence that the leaders of the Democrat Party knew when they nominated him that he was ineligible for the presidency.  On the closing day of the 2008 convention, as Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary of the convention, respectively, prepared certificates of nomination for the 50 state election boards, so that ballots could be printed, the Democrats tipped their hand.  The certification sent only to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, read as follows:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”  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, the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

Having nominated an inexperienced and unqualified man for president of the United States, the Democrats were past the point of no return.  Accordingly, when WorldNetDaily published the details of a sworn affidavit by retired Chicago postman, Allen Hulton, on March 19, 2012, as Obama was preparing to run for a second term, there was nothing to be gained by attempting to refute Hulton’s affidavit… so they simply ignored it.

In his affidavit, the retired postman with thirty-nine years of service to the United States Postal Service, recounted his experiences delivering mail to the home of Bill Ayers parents in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, a suburb located some 25 miles west of downtown Chicago.  Hulton explained that, on numerous occasions during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, as he delivered mail to the Ayers’ front door, he engaged in brief conversations with Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’ mother.

On one such occasion, Mrs. Ayers explained that she and her husband, Thomas, CEO of Commonwealth Edison, were financially supporting a young black man, a foreign exchange student from either Kenya or Indonesia, with his education.  [Note: This would have been at a time between his first and second years at Harvard Law School, when he worked as a summer intern at the Sidley Austin Law Firm in Chicago.]

Hulton described one occasion on which he had a conversation with the young black man in question, who he identified as being Barack Obama.  After a friendly greeting, Hulton asked the young man what his plans were for the future, after he finished his schooling.  Hulton recalled, “He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States.  There was a little bit of a grin on his face as he said it… He sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant…”

Reading Hulton’s sworn affidavit, I couldn’t help but recall several other odd events that took place during the 108th Congress, in 2003, and during the 109th Congress, in 2005.  On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  The Snyder resolution was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on September 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  The Conyers proposal was similar to the Snyder proposal.  Either of the proposed amendments would have legitimized an Obama presidency.

Then, on January 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress.  And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.  All four of the proposed resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate. All died in committee without being acted upon.

Knowing all of this, one could hardly escape the feeling of having walked in at the middle of a movie.  What was it that made Democrats so anxious to launch constitutional amendments in 2003, a year before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, and again in 2005 when he was just beginning to contemplate a run for the U.S. Senate?

Was Barack Obama a plant, a young communist who was selected and groomed over many decades to become president of the United States?  And, if so, who planted him?  Who was the grand puppet master?  A potential answer to these questions appears on page 158 of Edward Klein’s current best-seller, All Out War – The Plot to Destroy Trump.  Klein tells us that, in organizing the effort to undermine the Trump presidency, “(Valerie) Jarrett arranged a visit by Hillary Clinton, who urged Obama to join her in leading the ‘resistance.’  Jarrett made sure that Obama received assurances of support from George Soros, who had been funding Obama since his early days in the Illinois state legislature (emphasis added)…”

If Klein is correct in his assertion… that Obama and Soros were joined at the hip as far back as the early ‘90s…, he adds credence to a letter published by California software developer, Tom Fife, in 2008.  Fife worked in Moscow in the early ‘90s, developing joint ventures with Russian software engineers.       

As Fife has written, he and his American associates were invited to dinner one evening at the apartment of their Russian partner, referred to as “V.”  As the evening wore on and the vodka consumption went unabated, V’s wife, a hardcore communist, became surly and argumentative.    She said, “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect.  Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now?  Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

Fife and the other Americans assured her that there was nothing standing in the way of a black or female president.  Given the right person at the right time, Americans would vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

After a brief silence, V’s wife asked, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?  Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”  V attempted to change the subject, but his wife was determined to gain the upper hand.  She said, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call “Ivy League.”  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white, and American, and his father is black, from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President… His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma.  He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist… He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

She had many more details.  She went on to say that the young man named Barack, who was being groomed to be president of the United States, was from Hawaii, that he went to college in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he was soon to be elected to the state legislature.  She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Could it be true?  At a time in our history when a billionaire real estate developer from New York, with no prior political experience, can be elected president of the United States, exactly what remains outside the realm of possibility?

Recall the day in March 2012 when Obama leaned over toward Russian  President Dmitri Medvedev during a photo-op, giving the Russian assurances on the potential for future missile defense negotiations.  Unaware that he was near an open microphone, Obama said, “Tell Vladimir (Putin) that, after I’m reelected, I will have more flexibility.”  Who’s side was he on?  Really!

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

Real Electoral College Reform – Part IV

(In Part IV of this series we examine the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact now under consideration in legislatures across the country and the unintended consequences that proponents of the Compact have failed to take into consideration)

Unintended Consequences of the National Popular Vote 

In the November 2000 General Election, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman won the national popular vote by 50,999,897 to 50,456,002 over George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  A switch of just 271,948 votes (0.27%), or one vote out of every 373 votes cast, would have given Bush-Cheney a slim popular vote victory, along with a narrow 271 to 266 vote victory where it really counted… in the Electoral College.

Then, in the 2016 General Election, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine won the national popular vote by 65,853,516 to 62,984,825 over Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  A switch of just 1,434,346 of the total 128,838,341 votes cast, or one vote out of every 90 votes cast (1.1%) would have given Trump and Pence a narrow popular vote victory, along with a comfortable 306 to 232 vote victory in the Electoral College.

Needless to say, Gore-Lieberman partisans in 2000 were outraged to learn that their candidates had won the national popular vote by nearly 544,000 votes, nationwide, but lost the election in the Electoral College by just five votes, 271 to 266 (one Gore-Lieberman elector in DC failed to vote).  After all, they argued, isn’t it a core principle of democracy that the majority rules?  Within a matter of months, an organization called The Committee for the National Popular Vote (CNPV) was launched.

In his introduction to the book, Every Vote Counts: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, the “Bible” of the national popular vote movement, former Republican congressman and 1980 independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson had this to say: “I believe the occupant of the nation’s highest office should be determined by a nation-wide popular vote by legally registered voters.  The current system… can trump the national popular vote.  The system is not based on majority rule, and it fails to provide political equality.”

What Anderson suggests would horrify baseball fans.  What he is suggesting, in baseball terms, is that if the Yankees and the Phillies were to meet in a seven-game World Series, in which the Yankees won three games, 5-3, 6-1, and 3-2, while the Phillies won four games, 5-2, 6-5, 5-4, and 2-1, the Yankees should be declared World Champions because they scored 26 runs in the seven-game series while the Phillies scored only 24.  It doesn’t work that way in major league baseball and it certainly doesn’t work that way when fifty sovereign states vote to select a president and vice president.  Any scheme for selecting a president and vice president by national popular vote would violate the original intent of the Framers and would be unconstitutional.

The National Popular Vote Committee proposes to create an interstate compact, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) subtitled, “The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.”  As CNPV explains, “Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the (member) states’ electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes… that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of the total 538 electoral votes).”

Clearly, the NPVIC was conceived as a means of circumventing Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution without having to resort to the amending process outlined in Article V of the Constitution.  But, is the national popular vote a good idea or a very bad idea?

The primary concern of the Framers was that a foreign power might one day attempt to achieve through corruption and political intrigue, that which they could not achieve on the battlefield.

With that thought in mind, is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with potentially divided loyalties… i.e. a person with dual US-British citizenship… to serve as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy?  To think that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.

Instead, the Framers insisted that “No Person except a natural born Citizen” should ever serve as president or vice president of the United States.  The Electoral College was created to insure the continuation of that restriction for all time.  But now the Electoral College system is under sustained attack by those who fail to fully appreciate the wisdom of the Framers.

On August 8, 2011, California joined Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia (all blue states which normally vote Democratic), bringing 132 of the needed 270 electoral votes under the NPVIC rule.  If, and when, states representing at least 270 electoral votes have joined the NPVIC, then and only then will those states be able to control a simple majority in the Electoral College.  But is it possible that the eight blue states that joined the National Popular Vote movement in August 2011 are merely shooting themselves in the foot?  Let’s play a little “what if,” using the results from the 2000 General Election.

Under the best-case scenario for Gore-Lieberman, let us assume that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to intervene in the Florida recount and that Florida’s 25 electoral votes were ultimately captured by Gore-Lieberman.  Had that been the case, the final Electoral College vote would have been 292 to 246 in favor of Gore-Lieberman.  Al Gore would have been the 43rd President of the United States.

However, the United States Supreme Court did intervene in the recount dispute under the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution and Bush-Cheney were declared the winners of Florida’s 25 electoral votes.  But what if Bush-Cheney had also been able to attract just one additional vote out of every 373 votes cast to win a slim national popular vote victory, along with a narrow 271 to 266 vote victory in the Electoral College?  What would have been the impact on the final Electoral College vote?

Looking at the electoral votes state-by-state (2000 electoral votes in parentheses), if the thirteen blue states of Connecticut (8), Delaware (3), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Michigan (18), Minnesota (10), Nevada (4), New Mexico (5), New York (33), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (23), Rhode Island (4), and Wisconsin (11), with a total of 137 electoral votes, had joined with  the states that joined the Compact in August 2011: California (54), Hawaii (4), Illinois (22), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New Jersey (15), Vermont (3), Washington (11), and the District of Columbia (3), with a combined total of 134 electoral votes, they would have controlled a total of 271 electoral votes… one vote more than a simple electoral majority.

However, with Bush-Cheney having eked out a razor-thin majority in the national popular vote, the twenty-one NPVIC states, plus the District of Columbia, would have been required to cast all 271 of their electoral votes for George Bush and Dick Cheney… in spite of the fact that 21 of the 22 member states in the Compact had cast a majority of their popular votes for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman.

Combined with the 242 electoral votes that Bush-Cheney won on their own in 28 of the 29 non-NPVIC states, and the 25 disputed Florida electoral votes, the 271 NPVIC votes would have created a unanimous 538-0 victory for Bush-Cheney in the Electoral College, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the NPVIC intended, and certainly not an outcome that the Framers would ever have envisioned.

Most Americans will agree with former presidential candidate John Anderson that the occupant of the nation’s highest office should be determined by legally registered voters.  For many years, but particularly in the years since the advent of “motor voter,” “postcard,” “roving registrar,” and “same day” voter registration, unscrupulous political operatives have used those systems to register hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deceased people, illegal aliens, household pets, cartoon characters, and other ineligible entities as registered voters.

Anderson tells us that, “The Framers distrusted democracy.”  Yes, they did, and for good reason.  Their objective was to give us a republic, not a democracy, because they knew that the history of pure democracies was not a good one.  Nevertheless, those in the National Popular Vote movement would have us believe that pure democracy in the selection of a president and vice president is somehow a good idea, but the exact opposite is true.

If Mr. Anderson is serious about having elections determined only by legally registered voters, he should demand that the Congress and the state legislatures impose heavy fines and mandatory prison sentences on those who would vote illegally, and on those who would abet and/or facilitate fraud, violence, or intimidation in the electoral process.

(Next week:  In the fifth and final installment of this series, we will examine the presidential elector selection process currently used by the states of Maine and Nebraska, a system that would represent true Electoral College reform)


Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment