You have got to be fucking kidding me.

The same big government asshats that insist that everything sold in stores must have nutrition information and/or warning labels are now out there saying that requiring doctors to tell patients the truth about abortion is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

While this may or may not be true, the hypocrisy here is out of control.  Here we have a bunch of people who couldn't give a rat's ass what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say about protecting a person's life to begin with, but will turn around and try to use that same Bill of Rights to try to protect those who want to violate provisions protecting people from being put to death without a fair trial.

These people don't have any problem whatsoever with Chris Matthews hypocritically calling Mormons and Catholics "cultists" and no issue whatsoever with the Left's lies about the Tea Party.  They have no problem with their impostor "president" publicly and loudly proclaiming that those who pay the overwhelming majority of taxes aren't "paying their fair share".  Why, all of a sudden, do they somehow care what the Constitution says about speech when they want it to serve their purposes?

Here again, we have the issue that brought the RWRmy into its first (and so far only) excursion into the Leftosphere.  It seems, yet again, that I was right.  These people DO know what the Constitution says, and they ignore and subvert it because it is contrary to their bullshit philosophy.  Sorry Delfts, the proof is marching around the streets of Boise, Idaho.  Americans, particularly liberals, are not stupid.  They are more than smart enough to find ways around the very law they and their big, bloated, out-of-control government are required to obey.  They believe that the Constitution is wrong, but they know that they will never be able to win any sort of repeal effort, because those of us on the right are just as smart and then some.

The fools in this country are those in the center - those who vote according to whom they think is going to win any given election.  These people are simple followers.  They believe what they hear not based upon their own knowledge and diligent research, but rather based upon the source from which they hear it.  I guarantee you will have a large contingent of people who love warning labels and "Nutrition Information" labels, but will jump and scream in defense of these jackweeds who wish to promote infanticide by morbidly contending that requiring doctors to tell patients the truth about abortion is a violation of First Amendment rights.  If your local supermarket is required to present the truth, then so must your doctor, at least until First Amendment rights are universally restored.

It's evidently time to ask again: Has anyone taken into consideration the babies' First Amendment rights?

RWR

Not likely.  Once again, the Republican Party has chosen its biggest available loser to run for POTUS in a situation where they could have taken their pick.  Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, and Mickey Mouse would all have wasted Oblahma in a landslide.  Instead, the Republicans have yet again chosen the worst candidate available.

What the fuck are they thinking?

Advantage Romney on the economy.  That's it.  So we are going to nominate someone who can beat Obama on the economy, but will do nothing at all to restore the freedoms we have lost over the last hundred years.  None of the above would have been ideal, but they ALL would have done just as well on the economy, and they ALL would have done at least a little better on liberty.

On healthcare, Romney is a complete waste.  Obamacare was designed based on the Massachusetts Failure presided over by Romney himself, and this is likely to be the issue over which the upcoming election battle is fought, unless ...

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT NULLIFIES OBAMACARE IN ITS ENTIRETY

Then, and only then (I put the chances at about 35%) would Romney be able to beat Obama.  Still, there is another nail waiting to be hammered into Romney's coffin ...

MARCO RUBIO

According to the 12th Amendment, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."  Per Article II, Section 1, "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President."

We have chronicled here the meaning of the term "natural born citizen", given that the current occupant of the White House is ineligible due to his father being a foreign national.  This does not change just because the subject of the discussion happens to lean closer to us politically.  Rubio's parents, unlike Obama's father, did ultimately naturalize as US citizens, and that is certainly to be commended.  However, it does not change the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution.

Mark Steyn would make a great President.  So would my blog-father Emperor Misha.  Guess what?  They aren't natural born citizens either, so they cannot be.

So, on the conditions that Obamacare is taken off the table by the Supreme Court (in its entirety) and that Marco Rubio (or any other ineligible candidate) is not selected as the vice presidential candidate, it looks like I may be briefly returning to the ranks of the LOTEs.  Just remember this: in either four or eight years, you are getting another D, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else does.  There is no liberal Republican that can do so great a job as to be able to keep the office in the party.  There is also no alternative to the party that will gather enough support in time to beat either of the big government parties.  Republican voters just aren't that smart.  They'll just keep voting LOTE expecting a different outcome.  We will ALL have to keep our eyes, ears, and gunsights on Mr. Romney.

Time for a good old-fashioned revolution.  Bring in on, Sage!

RWR

I am NOT making this up. This guy rode a BMW motorcycle and had a hard-on for 20 months (allegedly from the seat). Now he's suing BMW.  I think after a week or so of banging every hot chick I could find, I think I would probably see a doctor.

After that, I think I would go back to banging hot chicks.

This is just so reminiscent of the bitch who ordered hot coffee at McDonald's and sued because the coffee was hot.  Only difference here is that the guy didn't ask for a boner when he got on the bike.

If ever it was appropriate to use the abbreviation "SMH", this would be it.  His significant other is probably unavailable for comment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

RWR

Tyranny is never more than a generation away...

Mike Adams takes a look at the First Amendment in academia.

With my oldest daughter joining the ranks of university students, this one really hit home. Seems a good thing she will not be attending a public university.

RWR

Ozzie Guillen
Ignorant Commie Scumfuck

OK. I think it's important that I comment about this.

First of all, I think that anyone who believes that it is ok to admire a fucking commie rat scumbag like Fidel Castro is, at best, misinformed. In most cases, I'd say anyone taking that position is as big a scumfuck as Castro himself. This I say of Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen - he's a jackhole commie scumfuck, plain and simple.

That having been said, Mr. Guillen, naturalized as an American citizen in 2006, has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to say the stupid commie scumfuck things he said and was suspended for. The Miami Marlins and those who support their actions can go fuck themselves. Wrong, ignorant, and stupid as he may be, Mr. Guillen has a legal right as an American to have and voice his opinion. This is not to say he has the right to implement it, as the Constitution has provisions preventing him from doing so (at lest legally). He has the absolute right to say what he said, and even advocate changing the law through persuasion to something more in line with his views if he so chooses.

Instead of going public with phony apologies and confessions about being stupid, Mr. Guillen should sue the shit out of the Marlins for violation of his protected First Amendment rights. If the Marlins, or for that matter the Cuban immigrants in Miami, have disagreements with Mr. Guillen, let them exercise THEIR First Amendment rights in response. THAT is the American thing to do.

I stand strongly against what this stupid commie dipshit said, but will, as always, defend to the death his right to say it. To Ozzie I say, stick to baseball. Politics ain't your thing.

RWR

Check out this list of successful conservative entertainers.

I will note that I have a personal connection to one of those shown, though through a very liberal friend who was involved. Also, there is one instance of "not really". Guitarist Jeff Cook is part of the band Alabama, so they should not be listed separately.

A few interesting surprises: Britney Spears, 50 Cent, Meat Loaf, Prince, Styx, Mariah Carey, Eazy-E, Gene Simmons (of KISS fame), and the amazing Gloria Estefan.

A very interesting list. I was not listed, incidentally. My circles are highly liberal, and I do work mostly incognito.

RWR

I am pasting this in its entirety so that it stays here permanently.

Chris Matthews Calls Gingrich, Santorum and Romney "Cultists" For Religious Beliefs
by Senior Editor Noah Rothman

Guess what Mormons and Roman Catholics? MSNBC host Chris Matthews believes you are all adherents to a cult-like religion. Well, at least, that’s what he believes about the three most prominent Republicans running for their party’s presidential nomination.

In MSNBC’s live coverage of election results on Tuesday night, with a panel of fellow MSNBC hosts, Matthews went off on a tangent that he probably wishes he could take back this morning.

“I think religion matters,” Matthews opened his latest rant. “I mean, the majority in one of those states [Mississippi and Alabama] thinks he is, the other 30-some percent don't know. In other words, they don't know whether he's lying about his religion, which is a pretty strong indictment right there. So, culturally, they are out to lunch for the president. There not going to vote for President Obama. So who they going get to beat him. That seems to be on their mind's now, not who they like. They are willing to outsource it to a Mormon."

To translate, Matthews is saying that the hopelessly bigoted Republican electorate in the South is obviously prejudiced against both Mormons and Catholics, but they’re willing to put aside their religiosity for the moment just to ensure that the candidate they chose is most likely to get Obama, who they all wrongly believe is a Muslim, out of the White House.

… And Republicans are the [bigots].

Matthews continued, “I said it's almost like calling up India, or somewhere in the third-world to get your computer fixed. You don't care who is fixing it, just fix the damn computer.”

I’ll ignore the India comment for the moment, because its bias is self-evident. But I am forced to correct Mr. Matthews on his use of “third world” to describe South Asia – the preferred term in the polite circles that make up modern academe is “the developing world.” Please take note.

Finally, Matthews dug his rapidly widening hole even deeper calling Roman Catholics Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (a church to which Matthews belongs - emphasis added) and Church of Latter Day Saints member Mitt Romney “cultists.”

“They have three, or two RCs -- Roman Catholics running and a Mormon so the three cultists running. I have to pick one of the three cultists as they see them. This isn't as funny as I'm making it, but it's ridiculous to pick a guy they really think is the other, the heretic, the Muslim, what a strangest of religious prejudice is at work here, they pick the guy they don't like to pick a guy they hate worse," said Matthews.

There is no commentary necessary to accompany this vicious, prejudicial rant. What is most appalling is not the sentiments expressed, but that Matthews thinks he was being funny. If this is what his audience laughs at, they should try to reassess their nearly universal and unearned superiority complex. Yes, MSNBC viewers, you are plagued by it. Get over yourselves; this is trite, substanceless garbage.

I will remind everyone here that I, like Santorum and Gingrich, am Roman Catholic. I think Pope Benny is doing a pretty good job (not perfect, but pretty good), considering his following the greatest leader in Church history.

I suppose Mr. Matthews thinks Americans are so stupid as to believe that no matter what negative he throws out there to get his guy elected, they'll buy it hook, line, and sinker. I imagine he also thinks they won't check Wikipedia or do other research to see exactly who is talking to them. Matthews makes a bigoted statement such as this and expects people to just suck it up and not ask questions. Would they buy this crap if they knew he graduated from St. Joseph's High School in Philly and Holy Cross College in Massachusetts? If Matthews is to be believed, then in addition to being a bigot for spewing this shit, he's also as much a cultist as Gingrich or Santorum and a hypocrite.

Mr. Matthews, religion does matter. You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.

RWR

Jimmy Ellis
1937-2012

The Sound of Philadelphia has today lost yet another of its great voices. This time, hitting us right here at the RWRepublic, as we have this time lost a personal friend.

The Lead singer for the Trammps', Jimmy Ellis's voice is well-known. Most of their hits, including DISCO INFERNO, featured his amazing tenor. Jimmy was also an amazing person. He will be missed by all whose life he touched.

Jimmy, may you rest in peace.

RWR

Here's a thought for the nose-holders out there. These people swear they want a conservative for POTUS, but will gladly grab their heels and let their party cram Mitt Romney up their ass. If they were serious, they would consider pushing for that brokered convention and running this man:

Not only would Justice Thomas Completely WASTE Obama in the general election, he would make child's play of every debate. He would govern as a Constitutional Conservative, and both Democrat and Republican would be forced to live by the rules.

Want originalist judges? I can think of very few who could succeed in that area by doing nothing more than looking in the mirror and choosing someone similar to the man staring back.

This a guy of impeccable character and unwielding conservatism to the point of libertarianism.

The Republicans could do much worse, and it looks like they are about to do just that - but what a great idea this is. Conservatives could remove Obama, save the GOP, and fix America in one election. Don't count on it, though. It sounds too much like the right thing to do.

RWR

Wow.

In my last post, I revealed that the reason the GOP gives Obama a pass on his ineligibility for office is so that they can run Marco Rubio sometime in the future. Two weeks later, at Michelle Malkin's blog, we are already seeing people advocating it:

On February 21st, 2012 at 9:32 am, conservative hispanic said:
Rogue Cheddar:

You want to stick it to the Establishment, vote Santorum. Don’t waste your vote on RP. Which part of “He’s not going to win?” don’t you get?

Santorum/Rubio 2012

Kudos to Rogue Cheddar for standing up:

On February 21st, 2012 at 9:36 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

Hey CH, what part of ‘Natural born citizen’ do you not get? Rubio is ineligible.

You would think that with all the damage that has been done by having an ineligible occupant in the White House, that would be taken as a reminder. Of course, that's far too much to expect these days:

On February 21st, 2012 at 10:53 am, conservative hispanic said:

Rogue Cheddar:

Rubio is ineligible.

One word: PRECEDENT.

Not only that: there’s NO DOUBT Rubio was born in Miami, and I believe his parents were in the process of becoming U.S. citizens when he was born. That’s better than Obowtome’s record. And if it’s good enough for Barry, then it’s good enough for Marco. You guys better knock it off with the eligibility meme. Makes you look like kooks, stupid AND racists (even if you’re not.)

Racists for insisting that the Constitution be followed? Stupid? Kooks? All for insisting that the supreme law of the land be followed? All for recognizing that the very predicament we find us in was caused by people refusing to follow the Constitution? Who is the stupid racist kook? The person who recognizes that allowing the Constitution to be usurped and circumvented has caused virtually every problem that has plagued the people of this country, or the person who points to the one currently at the helm and suggesting that what is good for the goose must also be good for the gander? Isn't that exactly what we hear from the Donks? That it's ok for Obama to spend America into oblivion because Bush had done the same thing?

Precedent does not overrule the law. The United States Constitution cannot be legally violated by a Republican any more than it can a Democrat. Obama having held office illegally is no more a justification for allowing Rubio in than Bush spending out of control being a justification for Obama to do the same.

It is up to the people to make sure the Constitution is followed to the letter. CH is ignoring his constitutional duty as a citizen of the United States by demonizing those of us who do his job for him. Again, what part of natural born citizen do these people not understand?

RWR

Two words:

MARCO RUBIO

Let's face it. Marco Rubio is a GOP sweetheart who has sold himself to the American people as a true conservative. He talks a great game, looks great, and is said to have halfway decent conservative credentials (no RWReview of that yet available).

The problem the GOP faces with Rubio is that his parents were both Cuban nationals at the time of his birth (they were later naturalized), which disqualifies him from ever being President of the United States under the natural born citizen clause - just as Obama is similarly disqualified.

If the GOP were to stand up against Mr. Obama and fight for the Constitution, there would be no chance whatsoever they could run Rubio for POTUS at any time, now or in the future. His name is being floated as a possible vice presidential nominee candidate, but if Obama is ruled ineligible, then Rubio is out the door as well.

The problem the GOP has at this time is that the Constitution trumps the quality of any candidate. Mark Steyn would make a great president, as would Emperor Darth Misha I himself. There are countless amazing people out there who would make amazing presidents, but without being natural born citizens, they are unable to hold the office due to constitutional restrictions. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of quality candidates available to run. This is the same problem faced by the Donks. Had they had a legitimate candidate that could compete with Mr. Obama, he would not be holding the office today. This should have worked out as an automatic win this year for the Republicans, but again, there are no quality candidates in the running. The only constitutionalist in the crowd has a history of racism and weirdness that easily keeps victory at bay. The GOP party bosses have anointed yet another liberal scumbag to run against the loser-in-chief, a recipe for easy defeat.

This is all proof that the GOP is serious about neither winning nor conservatism. The former being problem enough; the latter being completely unacceptable. They are in denial of the obvious fact that the two go hand in hand. Romneyfart provides little contrast to the extremism of the Donks' phony president, while Paul's baggage makes him unattractive as a candidate. The proof is in the message. Which candidate has an actual following, as opposed to a bunch of LOTE voters who would vote for Hitler or Satan just to keep a Democrat out? That would be Ron Paul. Get a candidate without Paul's baggage to articulate his message, and lo and behold, the White House is won.

Of course, supporting a constitutionalist Tea Partier would disqualify Rubio, so the party takes to further demonizing those who would enforce the law.

Conservatives need to wake up. The GOP is not the party of conservatism today, nor will it ever be - unless conservatives stop kissing ass and start denying these clowns their votes.

'Nuff said.

RWR

Another anniversary of the founding of the RWRepublic has come and gone. Seven years. Wow.

I can imagine my evolution from base Republican conservative voter to constitutional Tea Party libertarian would be interesting, to say the least. There have been times that I have looked over my older writings and considered how much I have changed, and there have been others where I have looked over my older writings and noticed how these positions are still alive and strong.

Instead of giving a set of highlight links this year, I prefer to encourage everyone to pick the thought of your choice and type it into the search field. Pick out something of interest that comes up. I am sure you will find something that is fun to read, especially in the older rants.

Thanks, of course, to my esteemed blogfather Emperor Misha, my most loyal reader Ol' BC, to QK and PBP and PB and OT, and of course to The Old Sage, whose friendship both predates the blog and continues today hopefully ad infinitum.

Seven years is a great milestone. I'm definitely very proud to be able to be a voice for the Constitution and true conservatism. I hope all of you will stick around for the long haul.

Let's roll!

RWR

The correct definition of the term natural born citizen has prevailed in Georgia.

By not showing up or providing the ordered documentation, Oblahma has legally admitted:
1. That he is not a natural born citizen, as is constitutionally required to hold the office of President of the United States,
2. That the birth certificate he submitted in April is fraudulent,
3. That his social security number is stolen,

ALL BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Default judgment was filed, and the court's recommendation will be to remove Oblahma from the Georgia ballot.

Don't hold your breath. The Georgia Secretary of State has the final word. He's a Republican, and is no doubt afraid of being called a racist.

What this case does do is open the door for citizens in the other 49 states to bring up similar charges, and have this judgment entered into evidence. Don't expect that to go anywhere either, as both Democrats and Republicans are all socialist nutbags who don't want their candidates scrutinized in this fashion. Don't believe me? Listen to the clamor surrounding the idea that Marco Rubio might be chosen as a possible VP candidate, despite his ineligibility as stated in the Twelfth Amendment.

Get ready for four more years of this bullshit, regardless of who wins.

RWR

A judge in Atlanta, Georgia has ordered President Obama to show up at a hearing concerning a complaint filed by a citizen of the state who contends that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore should be removed from the ballot in the Georgia Presidential primary.

On Friday, Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi denied a motion for dismissal of a subpoena that requires the President to attend. The hearing is set for Thursday.

If this judge applies the same standard to the term "natural born citizen" as the Founding Fathers did, Obama will not be on the Georgia ballot in November. Of course, all Foster (nutjob extraordinaire) can do is cry racism.

The fact that racism is the only thing these people can come up with should tell you something: They've run out of legitimate arguments. There's a reason that Rush Limbaugh defines a racist as "anyone winning an argument with a liberal".

It's been proven here. Natural born US citizenship requires two things: 1. Birth on US soil, and 2. two American citizen parents. Not only was Obama's mother not old enough per Hawaii law at the time to confer citizenship upon Barack, but his father was a British subject. To prove natural born citizenship, Obama must furnish proof not only of his birth in Hawaii (which is still being challenged), but of his parents' US citizenship. He must prove that his mother was a US citizen (which is known to be true - all he has to do is furnish the proof), and that his father was as well. This last is going to be the huge sticking point. It is known that the senior Obama was born in the then-British province of Kenya, and that he was active in Kenyan politics after the junior Obama's birth. No US naturalization documentation has ever been produced.

So now standing up for the implementation of the Constitution is akin to racism. Yeah, ok Skippy. All you have to do is look at his headlines to know this clown is either a hate-America communist or a very convincing satire troll.

Sadly, there are too many of the former to believe he's the latter.

We've said it time and again, and it looks like it bears repeating: If Obama can prove he meets the standard, we will accept him as a legitimate President. Until then, no way. I'd also love to know exactly how a bunch of Herman Cain, J.C. Watts, and Alan Keyes supporters are being called racist. Something to think about, isn't it? I voted for Keyes in the last election, and never gave a single thought to the man's race. I wonder how many people voted for Obama for the simple reason of his race. Is that a legitimate reason to vote for a person to lead your nation? Something to think about, isn't it? Who are the real racists?

You go, Malihi! Give 'em hell!

RWR

Update: Here is the case that is to be made. Exactly the case we have been making. Finally! - RWR

Gary Johnson announced today that he's going to run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket (provided he could win their primaries). My assessment: fat fucking chance.

Gary Johnson is no more a Libertarian than FDR. This clown rated BELOW Newt Gingrich on my conservative percentage scale, coming in at a whopping 64%.

If Newt Gingrich can't convince me at 76%, how the hell will Gary Johnson do it at 64%? If he can't convince me, still technically a Republican, how will he convince a full-blown Libertarian? What a fucking joke.

In other news, O-BLAH-ma wants to raise the debt limit by another $1.2 trillion. More proof that he is not only woefully inept, but also criminally insane. In this election season where the Republican Party would have to nominate Mickey Mouse in order to lose in the general, it appears they are about to do just that - AGAIN!!!!

With the only conservative getting any sort of attention (Ron Paul) having more than enough baggage to hold him down while Obama spanks his sorry ass in November, you can count on four more years of either Obama or Newt-ack McRomney. Count on Romney to win the primaries. He is the one that has been anointed by the party this time around, and his chances of beating the Schlock are slim to none. It's 2008 all over again.

Since the Republican Party clearly wants nothing to do with the White House, and similarly wants nothing to do with conservatives, how long so you think will it take for the nose-holders to come around? I'm betting on NEVER, as they are hard-headed to the point of being so busy blaming conservatives for standing their ground ("a vote for someone other than the Republican nominee is a vote for Obama") that they will continue to be James Madison's worst nightmare.

To the LOTE voter, I say this: The time to come around is NOW. If you want a real leader to EVER get into the White House willing to govern according to the Constitution, you will have to make your move now, and either leave the party or get on with the task of taking it over, as you keep saying you want to do ("change it from within", you keep telling us). Let Obama, Gingrich, Romney, et al get elected, and there may not be a Constitution by 2016. It could easily be argued that there isn't one now.

As long as you keep voting for these clowns, the party will continue to give you ONLY these clowns as options, and demonize the Cains, the Pauls, and any truly worthwhile candidates that may come down the pike.

Where was your party when Herman Cain, the only conservative-talking candidate with any chance at all of winning, was being assaulted by the Left? Where were YOU when he needed your help to get around that stupidity? Furthermore, where will you be when, inevitably, Ron Paul is demonized for once allowing some bigot to publish an article in his magazine, then continuing to allow the same? If you won't defend Cain when he didn't do anything wrong, and now you are left with Ron Paul, who is going to believe you would even think to defend Paul for something he DID do that was wrong? Of course, to you it doesn't matter because Ron Paul doesn't have the Party's support, so to your eyes, he can't win anyway - but where were you for Cain, who could have EASILY run away with ALL OF IT, Party be damned?

So now we are stuck with Ron Paul as the last hope for the Constitution.

That truly sucks, and it's all thanks to the LOTE voter. I wonder if your typical LOTE voter would understand the clear logic in the following:

A vote for a liberal Republican in the primaries is two votes for Obama in the general.

Somehow I doubt it.

Get ready for another four years of The Interloper.

RWR

EVERY American, freedom-loving or not, had better line up on this one.

The article is self-explanatory, though it does leave out the fact that it kills jobs and only creates jobs for oppressive government regulators.

Enough already!

RWR

Uhh ... how about ...

No.

He's John McCain all over again. Figure about 76% conservative by my usual method of estimation. McCain came in at 77%.

Do you even want to think about where Romney would come in?

Phht.

I would vote for Ron Paul just to keep these clowns out!

RWR

Blagojevich is going to jail.

Add him to the list of Illinois politicians in the can.

Now for Hitlery and the Schlock ...

RWR

I'm not sure where the libs are getting off going after Herman Cain because he has not responded to allegations that haven't even been made, but let's face it: They are clearly afraid of him. How else could this foolishness be explained?

These are the same people who defended Bill Clinton and his "slick willie" for eight years, even after it had been proven that he had engaged in far worse than Mr. Cain is currently not even being accused of, including lying about it under oath (an imprisonable offense). For his actions, Clinton was disbarred and impeached. And the liberals had his back the whole way. I can still hear James Carville echoing in my head saying, "It's just sex. This whole thing is PAWTISAN!". Please.

These same people are out there acting as if Herman Cain has done something terribly awful, even though no one has come forth with an allegation of any kind.

These people are desperate. The fact that Cain is scaring the communists to this degree has gained him some favor with me, though I don't think it's yet enough to abandon my bid for President of the United States. Still, if he gets the Republican nomination, I will have to consider voting for him. After all, if he pisses the liberals off this much without even taking office, we could be in for a lot of fun over the next four years once he does.

Whether it's Cain or Rocker in the White House, Oblahma is toast.

RWR

We got a question for the campaign in on the last post. I will address that today as well as the questions from the recent Republican debate.

Regular reader TomJW presented the following question:

Will you tackle the dismantling of entitlement programs first or eliminate nearly all the the spending that comes after defense or entitlements?

As I mentioned earlier, the best way to do this would be to dismantle the newest illegal programs first. Each would be placed into the hands of the states for its final fate to be determined. States would be responsible for deciding whether the program should at the state level be continued, altered, or dismantled altogether. My objective here is to place these programs into the hands of those who are legally responsible for the things they were put into place to accomplish, not to necessarily do away with them. If the people of New York want a particular program, for example, they should be able to have it without interfering with the right of the people of New Hampshire to not have it if they so choose.

Before continuing to the debate, I must address the 9-9-9 tax plan put forth by Herman Cain. While it is better than the status quo, it fails to accomplish one very important and necessary objective: removing the power of direct taxation from the federal government. Nine percent flat corporate tax, nine percent flat personal tax, and nine percent retail tax ... Think about it. There are already corporate and personal taxes in place. Does it make sense to allow the federal government to continue to tax given its track record of abuse? I say no. Cain's tax plan doesn't do anything to divest the federal government of its power to tax. In fact, it adds a new consumption tax to the mix - yet another potential abuse for the federal government.

Best to stick with my tax plan, which taxes the states instead of the people directly. Each state would pay a portion of the federal budget equal to its percentage of the population. It's simple, it's fair, and it takes the power to tax away from those who have so flagrantly abused it.

Now on to the debate:

Question 1 (to Herman Cain): When Standard & Poor's downgraded American credit, they noted not only the economic difficulties, but the political dysfunction. So we begin this evening with the question: What would you do specifically to end the paralysis in Washington?

The political dysfunction has nothing to do with paralysis in Washington. Quite the contrary, it has to do with the wrong things succeeding in passing. Political dysfunction starts with power-hungry politicians who are too busy lining their own pockets and amassing power to bother to obey the basic law of the land, and ends with economic difficulties and downgraded credit ratings. As President, I will do the only thing I can do: use my veto pen to keep this in check. If the Congress wants to pass an illegal law that violates any aspect of the Constitution, it will have to override my veto in order to do so. There is much more the people of this country can do than that.

Each American must read the Constitution and insist, under penalty of electoral defeat and/or the exercise of Second Amendment rights, that it be followed to the letter. The people have much more control over this than any president.


Governor Perry, are you prepared -- even though you've said that you want to make Washington inconsequential -- to go to Washington and, as Ronald Reagan did, compromise on spending cuts and taxes in order to produce results?

When it comes to the Constitution, there will be no compromise from my office. If an expense or a tax is constitutional, it will be supported if it is necessary, if it is neither constitutional nor necessary, it will be vetoed. No dog-and-pony shows, no "showdowns". Either Congress sends me legal and constitutional bills for my approval, or they will be forced to override my veto, period.


Governor Romney. The paralysis there, and everybody's concerned about it. What specifically would you be prepared to do to make the country moving again on addressing its problems?

It's not gong to be enough to get the country moving again. It won't do anyone a bit of good to get the country moving in the wrong direction. By electing me, voters will be doing more to address America's problems than they have in nearly a hundred years. The only thing any president can legally do is see to the things that are outlined for him in the Constitution, and stand firm against things that violate that Constitution. The rest is up to the people.


So it's essential to deal with Democrats and be prepared to compromise on the big issues of our time?

If the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter) are prepared to implement the Constitution instead of stomping on it year in and year out, I'll consider "dealing with them". The problem is that the major parties and their illegal big government agendas ARE the big issues of our time. Until those issues are addressed, there would be no compromise from me. Any compromise I make will be within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.


Governor Perry, this plan that you would like to lay out, because Governor Romney has said you have had two months to produce a plan, an economic plan, he's had a 59 point plan, what is the plan? What will you say specifically?

I have a three point plan. 1. Cut spending and work to eliminate programs the federal government should not be involved in, 2. Cut taxes and divest the federal government of the power to tax the people directly, and 3. Restore the rights of the American people and let their genius take over. There's a fourth point as well, and that is to do everything I can to put into place the means to keep the federal government out of people's business for good.


Bachmann, three years after the financial meltdown, Main Street continues to suffer. People have lost their jobs, they've lost their homes, they've lost their faith in the future. But Wall Street is thriving. The banks not only got bailed out by the government, they have made huge profits, they've paid themselves huge bonuses.

Do you think it's right that no Wall Street executives have gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy?

I'm not sure about Wall street executives not having gone to jail for the damage they did to the economy, but I would love to know whether anyone thinks it is right that no presidents, senators, or congressmen have ever gone to jail for the damage they have done to the economy, which is just as bad. Do you really expect Americans to believe that earning profits and making bonuses as rewards for keeping people employed is worse than breaking the law by not only offering bailouts, but requiring businesses to accept them whether they need or want them or not? If you are going to lock up the beneficiary of the problem, you had better make sure you are locking up the cause as well.


Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like Congresswoman Bachmann does not believe that Wall Street is to blame for the financial mess. You've said that the current protests on Wall Street are, in your words, "the natural product of Obama's class warfare."

Does this mean that these people who are out there protesting on Wall Street, across the country, have no grievance?

They are barking up the wrong tree. Gingrich is right when he says these people are the natural product of class warfare, but he acts as if Obama invented it. It goes back much further. If the whole point of Affirmative Action wasn't to get class warfare started, it sure has been its effect. These people's grievance is with the micromanagement of the economy by the federal government. Anyone with some risk capital can become a Wall Street investor, and anyone with a job an earn some risk capital.

What does that tell you about the protesters? It tells you that many of them probably don't have a legitimate gripe with Wall Street at all. There are some protesters making good points, but there are many out there who are just venting jealousy that some people have more money than they do. Well in all honesty, I'm not financially wealthy. My wealth lies in my heart, and I'm quite all right with that. The federal government could satisfy the legitimate protesters there by simply reinstating the gold standard, which would also go a long way in stabilizing the economy. Of course, that would divest them of a significant amount of power, so don't expect to see it happen under any Democrat or Republican administration.


GINGRICH:The fact is, in both the Bush and the Obama administrations, the fix has been in. And I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be angry. But let's be clear who put the fix in: The fix was put in by the federal government.

And if you want to put people in jail -- I want to second what Michele said -- you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.

ROSE: Clearly you're not saying they should go to jail?

If Charlie Rose is talking about putting Wall Street executives and investors in jail, then lock up Frank and Dodd with them. As far as politicians who profited from nutty environmentalism and who put this country in trouble, Gingrich would be wise to keep his trap shut, as his own suggestion would result in his incarceration.


Senator Santorum, I want to turn to jobs, because you've said that when you were growing up in a steel town in Pennsylvania, 21 percent of the country was involved in manufacturing. Now it's down to 9 percent. Can those jobs ever return? And what would you do to create jobs now?

Cutting taxes and divesting Washington of the power to tax directly would force states to tax responsibly, as the states with responsible, fair, and consistent tax codes will recover, and any that are oppressive will not. States with oppressive tax codes will face the wrath of their people, and either replace those tax codes with ones that are responsible, fair, and consistent, or be forced out of office. That's the way it's supposed to be. As far as jobs returning is concerned, it depends on the market for those goods and services. If there is a market for those jobs, there will be people to fill them. If there isn't, then there won't. There isn't anything a president can do directly to create jobs. The Constitution doesn't allow that sort of government meddling in people's lives, for good or for bad.


Governor Huntsman. From the Erie Canal to the Internet, innovation is what has always fueled economic recoveries. So shouldn't the focus now not be on trying to create the innovative jobs of tomorrow? And what do you think those are?

I'm running for President of the United States, not of Microsoft. The innovative jobs of tomorrow are not going to arrive until the government stops fueling economic disaster. What those jobs may be is not my concern as President of the United States. What is my concern is whether something the government is doing may be getting in the way of a successful economy, and doing what I can to put a stop to anything that is. Governments are at best evil, and therefore cannot and should not be relied upon to do good things. The important thing is to get the government to stop trying to fix the economy, and let the people, who are good, take care of that. Those wealthy studs on Wall Street could wind up with some competition when that happens.


Speaker Gingrich, Medicare is going broke. Consider the fact that half of all Medicare spending is done in the last two years of life, and research that has been done right here at Dartmouth by "The Dartmouth Atlas" would suggest that much of this money is going to treatments and interventions that do nothing to prolong life or to improve it. In fact, some of it does the opposite.

Do you consider this wasteful spending? And, if so, should the government do anything about it?

What the government should do is get out of the business of deciding whether treatments are "wasteful spending". The fact that the government wouldn't know the difference between wasteful spending and non-wasteful spending isn't even the issue. The issue is the blatant illegality of the government getting involved in people's personal health decisions in the first place. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows for a program like Medicare to be instituted by the federal government. If a given state has a constitutional provision allowing it, then let them take it on. Otherwise, it needs to go away and be replaced with something paid for directly by those who use it.

Getting rid of Medicare is likely going to be a three-step process. The first step would be to transfer Medicaid authority to states with legal provisions for it. The remainder of the states would follow a two-step process by which people over a certain age would continue on the program if they so chose, while people under a certain age would be able to seek private sector options. This makes sense, and unlike Medicare, it's legal.


Congresswoman Bachmann, of course no one wants the government to come between a doctor and a patient. But do you think that Americans are getting the most for their money in Medicare spending? And how can we make sure that the money that is being spent is being spent on the treatments and the preventive treatments that do the most?

No. To make sure, see my previous answer. Put it all back into the hands of the people who pay for it directly and get the federal government out of it.


I want to talk about advisers and appointees. Tell me, Governor Huntsman, whose advice do you seek on economic issues? And who -- what's the profile of the kind of person you'd like to have advising you in your White House?

Art Laffer was probably the most effective economic advisor to any president. The kind of person I would like to have advising me as President would be someone like James Madison. Thankfully, he published some of the best advice available during his lifetime, and we should all heed it.


So what we have today, Charlie, we've got a professional governing class of people on one end and then you've got private- sector people on the other.

ROSE: And so what would you do about that to change that, to attract those kind of people so that they would be willing to serve a cross-section of people from every gender...

There's nothing I can do. That is entirely up to the people of the United States of America. If private sector people want private sector people to serve, they will simply have to demand it under penalty of losing their vote. Nearly 100% of the American people voted in the last election for candidates they wouldn't support for dog catcher. If you want your party to stop offering you John McCain or Barack Obama, it is imperative that you stop voting for John McCain or Barack Obama. There really isn't anything more to it than that.


When you mention a flat tax, does that mean that you look with some favor upon 9-9-9 that Herman Cain mentioned at the beginning of this conversation?

I only support a flat tax if by flat tax you mean every citizen is taxed at the same rate. I would also be ok with having a standard level that was untaxable. However, the better plan is the one that takes the power of direct taxation away from those who have abused it for so long. My plan does exactly that.


[Whom] do you turn to for political advice and for economic advice?

Our Founding Fathers. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington. Can't go wrong with them.


What would you do differently than what President Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke did in 2008?

I would implement a fair and responsible budget and get started in paying off some debt. It's important that we see that the cause of those crises is out of control borrowing and debt. Our best defense against having it happen here is to reverse our own similar trend.


Would you get the federal government out of housing? Yes?

Yes.


No Freddie -- no Freddie Mac, no Fannie Mae, nothing?

Exactly. They were all started in violation of the law anyway.


RONALD REAGAN, 40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The single most important question facing us tonight is, do we reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share? Or do we accept a bigger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment simply because we disagree on certain features of a legislative package which offers hope for millions of Americans at home, on the farm, and in the workplace?

Do you agree with the former president?

In 1980, I might have. Today, the single most important question facing us is whether we want to re-orient ourselves back onto the path set forth by our Founding Fathers, or just scrap the whole thing and become another future failed socialist country. The reason for America's success over the last two hundred-plus years has nothing to do with what the government did, it's what the government did not do. Look at history and you will see America's biggest failures occurring at places and times when the government stepped in and did something it should not have. I don't even have to get into specifics. We all have seen it in our own lives.


And if, in fact, they can't find an agreement, you are going to have a trigger with automatic cuts, including defense.

So doesn't that demand some kind of compromise, as Reagan suggested?

No. It demands standing firm on the things that make legal and economical sense. What good is it if they agree on something that's bad for the country and her Constitution?


... some mix of revenues and cuts or these draconian automatic spending cuts that would include defense, which of those two, if that is the choice, would you prefer?

First of all, taxes must be cut to increase revenues, accompanied by spending cuts, especially in areas where the law does not allow the federal government to be involved.

right now, the president has a jobs bill.

That bill is the perfect example of something bad for America that should be stood hard and firm against. If Congress were to pass that bill and send it to my desk, they had better have the votes to override my veto if they want it to become law.


The American people want to see growth and jobs, and they believe that the right way to do it is by cutting back on the scale of government, and they're right.

ROSE: Without any increase in revenue?

Charlie, when you say "increase in revenue", you are talking about tax increases. Tax increases do not increase revenue. Check the books. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all instituted tax cuts that resulted in increased revenues. Increases in the deficit were the result of spending more than the increase in collected revenues, which is yet more reason the government should be cut back to its bare minimum.


It imposes a 9 percent business flat tax, a 9 percent personal flat tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax.

See my earlier comments.


A competitive agenda of yours would be what?

Getting the government out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy would have the greatest effect.


So which Federal Reserve chairman over the last 40 years do you think has been most successful and might serve as a model for that appointment

The Federal Reserve is a joke. As such, there is more reason to consider shutting it down than who would serve as a model for an appointment there. Bozo the Clown could do as well as anyone else there for all it's worth.


Businesses like mine have great difficulty obtaining credit. What specifically would you do to make bank lending more accessible to small businesses?

Nothing. It's not part of the job I seek. You would probably be better off starting your business without borrowing money. Borrowing money is a recipe for economic disaster on all levels.

taxpayers stand to lose half a billion dollars in the collapse of Solyndra, which is a solar energy firm that was a centerpiece of the Obama green jobs initiative. Do you think there were inadequate safeguards there, or do you think this is just the risk we run when the government gets involved in subsidizing new industries and technologies?

It's the risk you run when you refuse to play by the rules. The government isn't legally allowed to do that.


is the American dream of owning a home no longer a realistic dream, and is it too easy in America?

If the government gets out of the way, the sky is the limit.


If the payroll tax cut is not extended, that would mean a tax increase for all Americans. What would be the consequences of that?

Ditch the payroll tax altogether too.


Is this acceptable (high poverty rates)? And what would you do to close that gap?

No, but it is not the place of government to intervene. What I would do is get the government out of the business of trying to deal with a problem that it is neither properly equipped to deal with, nor legally authorized to.


I want to talk for a moment, as a last impression, a sense of what it is about you that you want to say here and let the American people know about you and your sense of recognizing their own pain, as well as their hope?

I have never experienced wealth. This economy hit me hard. That is their pain too. I also believe that the return to the Founders' plan is the answer. That is America's only hope, and Americans relate to that as well. I am not a politician. I run my campaign from a dingy basement in New Jersey. I don't spend money on commercials or attack ads. I am who I am, and if the people want someone who will stand firmly in favor of the Constitution and the men who created it, they will vote for me. If they don't, then the America they get is the America they get. They have no one to blame but themselves if their hopes are destroyed by the continuation of these big government shenanigans.


Very tedious, but I am pretty sure I got the job done.

Comments are welcome.

RWR

It's time to open the floor for questions. As I have promised to keep my personal matters out of my presidency and govern exclusively by the US Constitution, it will not be necessary to ask me anything personal. All questions should relevant to that end.

Here we go!

RWR