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

OK folks. Here's the deal:

No one running for President is really any good.

Furthermore, Republicans are so obsessed with beating Obama, they've completely abandoned the concept of implementing a successful, constitutional, and beneficial agenda. Want proof? Watch the way they've all been fawning over Chris Christie wanting him to run. Chris Christie as President would be little better than Obama in the White House - pretty much what you got with George Bush. Are we REALLY missing Mr. Bush so much that we would want him back again? Christie is Bush and Al Gore combined. In fact, you could probably get both Bush and Gore into one of his suits! Just a little humor there, Mr. Governor!

Don't get me wrong. Chris hasn't done a bad job here in New Jersey. We've long needed someone to stand up to big unions here and he's done that. Still, the economic tailspin continues. That means there's still too much government in Trenton - and it's NOT because there's so much governor!

Today, I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. I seek the Republican nomination, but am willing to run under the Federalist banner as well. It's time Americans got the Constitutional government they have always deserved.

I plan to run a very different kid of campaign. I have no plans to travel all over the country shaking hands and kissing babies. I just can't afford it - and neither can the taxpayers or the people I intend to represent. I will not run ads on television or radio. I will not be encouraging people to give up their precious time with their families or at their jobs to campaign for me. Those who believe in Federalism will surely be willing to spread the word on their own terms, as it is truly the only hope for America.

I will not be attending debates or visiting with foreign leaders. These people have nothing to do with America's true needs, and their opinions mean nothing beyond whether they will cooperate with us. I don't have to travel to their capitals to get those answers. If they want to see me face to face, I am more than willing to visit with them on our soil and at their expense.

I will acquire transcripts of the major parties' debates and answer ALL of the relevant questions here on my blog. I will answer questions honestly regarding other candidates instead of demonizing them in an effort to improve my chances of winning.

If elected, I will implement the Federalist Platform to the best of my ability. I know that I will likely face a hostile Congress and Supreme Court, but in situations involving differences, I will force them to override my veto. My personal opinions on matters will be subservient to the will of the Founding Fathers and their Constitution.

A major tenet of Federalist philosophy is the dismantling of illegal government programs. These will be dismantled in reverse order (meaning newest first). The newest programs would be the easiest to eliminate, since older programs and those using them would be entrenched more deeply. Each program would be released to the authority of the states, where final decisions regarding their fate would be made.

A further tenet of modern Federalist philosophy is the elimination of federal debt. In order to accomplish maximum debt reduction, tax codes must be adjusted so as to maximize revenues instead of to punish success. Initially, taxes would be cut to 1984 levels until the tax code set forth here on my blog could be finalized. This would increase revenues and provide funds necessary for paying down the debt. It should be anticipated that it would take approximately two years to implement the new tax code.

While a robust and state-of-the-art military is essential to American security, our presence overseas is neither needed nor wanted by many we seek to protect there. Therefore, those nations desiring our help will be asked to pay for it. If they don't want our help, they can simply choose not to pay the bill. If they cannot afford it, they will need to dismantle some socialism and cut some taxes to raise the money. Our nation's interests would be much better served with our soldiers guarding our own borders and fighting those who have chosen to fight us. Military action taken during my term will be taken with the purpose of defeating the enemy and coming home. Should a new enemy surface as a result of our departure, we will destroy that enemy as well - and come home. Forward bases overseas would be kept only as needed and only for purposes of protecting US citizens and those who pay for the protection.

It will not be enough to simply have a Federalist president. Americans will need to read the Federalist Platform and elect people who agree to implement it. We will need officials who are not only friendly to our beliefs, but who are willing to stand up for them.

I thank you for your time. God Bless America!

RWR

Dateline January 21, 2011:

I posted a piece just to celebrate that the Phillies had brought back the amazing Clifton Phifer Lee, pitcher extraordinaire.

Fast forward to now:

He's had an amazing season, having been named Pitcher of the Month TWICE in the same season. Were it not for a tough July, Cliff's ERA could be below 1. I sure hope Reuben Amaro enjoyed the shit pie Cliff fed him every five days this season. He even hit two home runs, even calling the one he hit at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Cliff Lee is truly one of the finest to ever take the mound.

But the real news this season in this amazing guy's achievements is a comment from Ol' BC on that very post this past January:

The Phillies just won their 100th game.

As I write tonight, the Phillies are down a run in the 8th. They have won 101 games, tying the franchise record set twice in the 70s. Not only did Cliff Lee contribute to a 100-win season, but get this:

CLIFF LEE WAS THE STARTER AND THE WINNING PITCHER MONDAY WHEN THE PHILLIES RECORDED THEIR 100TH WIN.

That's right. Ol' BC not only predicted a 100 win season for the Phillies, but also backed into predicting the winning pitcher.

I'm definitely looking forward to the postseason. It's going to be a lot of fun.

I attended three minor league games this season, and my teams were 1-1 with a rainout. If, like me, you love the game but money is tight, I highly recommend the minor league experience. Whether you go to an independent league or a franchise, you can't beat the value. At our local ballpark (Camden, NJ), parking is 5 bucks and the most expensive seat in the house is $13. Food and drinks are also fair.

As for the political scene, I'm just hanging out and observing the foolishness. I shake my head every day not only at the Democrat stupidity of the day, but also at the Republican stupid response to it. It's not looking good for 2012, folks. Get ready to be stuck with another liberal loser to vote for.

Then just bend over ... here it comes again.

GO PHILS!

RWR

OK, so the plan to destroy the world with a giant hurricane has failed again. Hell, I couldn't even knock out my own power with this one. Only got some water in my basement.

I even tried to point to storm at New England to try to take out the libs in Massachusetts and Connecticut to no avail. We couldn't even bring about significant damage to New York City. Guys, if we are going to do this, we really have to work harder.

So ...

Let's make sure the next storm really works. Get bigger SUVs and run them more often so that we can make the air dirty and destroy more ozone and cause bigger hurricanes. Make sure you get as much as possible in the way of tax cuts so that the destruction is greater and more widespread.

Seriously, we're really starting to look like wimps here. Where the hell is George Bush when you need him? The kind of hurricane he caused in New Orleans with his tax cuts is what we really need to do to destroy the planet.

Let's get it on!

RWR

I've been quiet through some pretty important shit of late, none of which I have any really good excuses for. It's not like business has been particularly booming (though I can't say it's been particularly dead either). Anyway, here are some thoughts to get everyone caught up.

1. Jim Thome

Congratulations to Big Jim on his 600th home run. I saw it live, though I missed #599 in his previous at-bat. That's right. Jim Thome hit home runs 599 and 600 consecutively. That's big right there. Where I come from, Jim Thome will always be a Philadelphia Phillie, even though everyone knows his heart is in Cleveland. On that same note, congratulations to Jim on his having the opportunity to go back to Cleveland. It is my sincere hope that Jim's homecoming is a pleasant one, and that the Indians' season is everything they want it to be with Jim (except winning the World Series this year, which ain't gonna happen). Jim is one of the very best people the game has ever seen, and with his place in Cooperstown already sealed up, it's only fair that he get to play out his last years in the game where it all started out. Good going, Jim. We'll see you in the World Series.

GO PHILS!

2. The Earthquake

Yes. I did indeed feel the earthquake. Somewhere around 2PM on Tuesday afternoon, I was at my parents' house after a drive with my daughter at the wheel, sitting in a comfy chair. It was very strange. At first it felt like I was riding a wave in a boat, then it was more of a shaking sensation. All I could do was look around trying to figure out what was happening, when my mother asked what was happening. I just responded, "It's like the whole house is shaking." We deduced that there must have been a small earthquake, as there is a fault line here in New Jersey. The neighbor called just as my daughter was explaining what she had experienced in the living room. We put on the news and got the story. Cell phone service was out, and no one was answering the phone at home, so we headed out (this time I did the driving). All seemed fine here in southern New Jersey, so we began making efforts to contact people we knew closer to the epicenter. Everyone is fine, and the big question around here has become, "Did you feel the earthquake?"

I can definitely say I did. For the first time in my life, this week I experienced an earthquake.

3. The Debt Limit

Well what did you think was going to happen? Did you really believe the Republicans were going to get anywhere with this? They are part of the problem (the other part being the Democrats). If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got. Unless the GOP brass decides to make significant changes that they won't make due to having to divest themselves of power, there's just no way holding the nose and voting Republican is going to stop the Left any more than voting Democrat will.

'Nuff said.

4. Irene

It's been a very long time since I've experienced a real hurricane. By the time shit like that gets to my neck of the woods, it's a severely weakened tropical storm that isn't threatening a whole lot. Shows scheduled for the weekend have been rescheduled already, and preparations are being made for the possibility of being hit head-on with a Category 2. Not what you get in Florida by any measure, but definitely more than we're used to around here. This just isn't the "major natural disaster" neck of the woods. Our biggest natural fear around here is the Nor'easter, which pales in comparison to anything like a mid-western twister or a Category 5 hurricane or a California earthquake. With a Nor'easter, you get a shitload of rain or snow dumped on you in a short period of time. Short-term pain in the ass, but very little serious long-term damage like you see with the others. Think Blizzard of '96.

5. Freder Frederson

Six years. Still no sign of Freder. Phht.

6. Cliff Lee

Not the best July ever, but Cliff Lee is showing everyone why trading him after the 2009 season may have been a bad idea. The prize was great, to be sure, but boy are we ever seeing now what the cost may have been with regard to the 2010 season. I correctly predicted that would be the case, and right about now, Reuben Amaro is seeing why. Not only is Cliff Lee pitching his ass off and making Roy Halladay look like a little leaguer, but he's making contributions with the bat that make Chase Utley look like batting practice. OK, so those may be exaggerations to some degree, but it is undeniable that Cliff Lee is currently the best all-around player taking the mound anywhere in Major League Baseball (Wilson Valdez notwithstanding hahaha). At rehearsal the other night, the scuttlebutt was all about how trading him in the first place was a mistake. That's right. The job Cliff is doing has made many Philly baseball fans forget Roy Halladay's incredible historic achievements last season! I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon per se. I knew trading Cliff was a mistake the day it happened, but come on folks. The prize is still in town. The Four Aces rotation is tearing up the scene just like everyone thought it would, and with the callup of Vance Worley due to Blanton's injury, it might was well be the Five Aces rotation. That kid is kicking some serious ass!

Anyway, thanks a million times to Cliff for coming back. My season is made - World Championship or not. I'm already gearing up to possibly be the one who paints his number 3433 on the wall in his honor at Citizens Bank Park.

I'll be powering down completely here for the storm sometime later tonight, and most likely won't be on blog again until after Irene passes. Comments are welcome as always.

RWR

Afterthought: I'd love suggestions on how to improve the platform for 2012. Drop them here in the comments please! - RWR

I was sputtering about the blogosphere tonight and came across this post by my blog-father, Emperor Misha, in which he dropped a euphemism I hadn't seen for the Impostor-in-Chief. I loved it so much, it sparked some memories of others I had seen, including one or two we've seen or used here. So for a start, here are some of them:

"Obambi"
"The One"
"Oh-BLAH-Ma"
"Yo-mama"
"Barack the Schlock"
"Pogo Boy" (inside joke ...)
"Chairman Zero"
"Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure" (Emperor Misha)

Now for the fun part. If you remember one or more that's not here, or want to go ahead and add to the list, drop it in the comment area. I'm down for a few good laughs!

RWR

The liberals in Washington will never do this, because it would require they relinquish control of taxation completely. Any plan that removes power from Washington, DC and places it in the hands of the States and the People is fine by me.

Check THIS out, and see what your Congressman or Senator thinks about it:

First of all, SCRAP THE CURRENT FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE ALTOGETHER. Its purpose is obviously not to bring in revenue for purposes of paying for the federal government. If it were, there would be no deficits or national debt. The purpose of the current federal income tax is to control the behavior of the people. Every tax break or loophole is meant to encourage people to do something, and every new tax is meant to discourage people from doing something. Just look at who gets the breaks and the higher taxes for proof.

Here's how you get the politicians in Washington, DC to stop trying to control people AND force fiscal responsibility on both the federal government and the several States:

1. The federal government must put forth a balanced budget. Every dime paid must be collected in taxes. No deficits or overspending of any kind allowed.

2. Based on the figures from the most recent census, each state pays a percentage of the amount of the federal budget based exclusively upon its percentage of the population. For example, Alabama has 1.53 percent of the population. That state would therefore be responsible for 1.53 percent of the total federal budget. Texas has 8.04 percent of the total population. Texas would therefore pay 8.04 percent of the tax.

3. Each state decides on its own exactly how to come up with the money. If New Jersey wants to have a special tax on imported crude oil for purposes of paying its share of the federal tax, then so be it. If California wants to tax fruit, then so be it. If Massachusetts wants to simply incorporate the additional tax into its income tax, then so be it. Each State would have its own opportunity to design its own collection method based on its own economic strengths. What works for a rancher in Oklahoma may not work for a pineapple farmer in Hawaii.

4. Any surplus must be refunded to the states in the same proportion as it was collected, or applied to existing debt, if applicable.

5. All existing debt must be paid off within five years of implementation.

Of course, in the words of a great musician friend of mine, "They won't do that. It sounds too much like right".

RWR

Cross-posted at The Second American Revolution.

I'm not sure where the reminder came from, but somehow I remembered that Herman Cain had written a piece correctly lambasting American Socialism as "gutless", and that I had covered it here. I ran a little search of the blog, and sure enough, I found it, though the link to his article is better found here. Five and a half years ago, we actually had some good insight into the thinking of Herman Cain. I reread his article, and found the following points useful in election-time decision-making:

Regarding what he regards as "gutless socialism":

* Congressional liberals lack the guts to tell the public their true intentions.
* Enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment
* The Socialist Security system
* Automatic withholding of taxes
* Liberals in state legislatures are attacking capitalism through overt assaults on our free-market system
* Executives have been called to Congress to justify their companies’ profits
* The use of rhetoric that attempts to disguise their socialistic ideology

Regarding his thoughts on solutions:

National security is and must remain our top national priority. But replacing the income tax code, restructuring Social Security, restraining government spending and increasing economic literacy among the public must also be top priorities to end the march toward socialism.

Sounds good to me.

On the negative side, Cain does seem to have some excess love for big business. That's what makes him a Republican, of course. The question is whether he is more of a loyal Republican or more of a Federalist Tea-partier (as he is being portrayed). He certainly does have the proper appeal of a man who has not been corrupted by the system. That has both advantages and disadvantages, of course. The obvious disadvantage is the lack of any sort of voting record to go on, forcing us to go exclusively by his words and associations. The obvious advantage is that he has no experience with doing the wrong things or caving to liberal threats. He hasn't been tested in this area yet, but those who have are failing dismally. Time to try something different. The question remains whether Herman Cain (or any other Republican or Democrat) is the answer.

This leaves us with very little to go on save for things he has written (peruse this stuff for a pretty extensive look into his mind) and positions outlined on his campaign site. Here are some points from the latter:

On National Security

The primary duty of the President of the United States is to protect our people. In fact, it is the principal duty of a limited federal government. They must ensure that our military and all of our security agencies are strong and capable.

This is a good position, and his other words on the subject are just as strong.

On Government Spending

Though it might not be politically popular to modernize and eliminate some of our entitlement programs, responsible leaders should be willing to do it all the same. They must be prepared to make tough choices and learn to simply say "no." This can only happen when our elected officials stop being politicians and start being leaders. Simply put: there is no “Department of Happy” in Washington, D.C.

Not bad here, but he could and should go further.

On Illegal Aliens

We must secure our borders, enforce our laws and promote the existing path to citizenship. Protecting our nation’s sovereignty should be a paramount concern of those elected to lead us, not an afterthought or a reaction once the problem becomes even worse. Further, taking a stand on the issue does not mean one lacks compassion, but instead, that one respects the rule of law and the importance of not becoming a lawless nation.

Very strong, indeed.

On Energy

Subsidies on agricultural products, like ethanol-producing corn, have become a mechanism for the government to pick and choose industries it favors, while doing little to enhance our ability to harness real alternative energy resources. Instead, we must allow all forms of energy the ability to develop in a free market system.

Alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear and hydroelectric are certainly part of the solution long term, but private industry must take the lead for true innovation to be a bigger part of our future energy needs. If alternative energy sources are found to be inexpensive, safe and plentiful, then American consumers will choose to purchase them. Let the markets decide which forms of energy fuel our cars, heat our homes and which ones will keep America working.

In an earlier set of thoughts on Mr. Cain, I mentioned that he was likely to have some government involvement in whatever alternative to the status quo he would support. If this campaign site is to be believed, this may not be the case. These words are very refreshing if he means them.

On the Economy

Currently, the federal government taxes too much and too often. Meaningful tax reform should be implemented immediately to alleviate that suffocating tax burden placed on businesses and individuals in America. This means across-the-board tax cuts to provide long-term relief, including reducing the capital gains tax, suspending taxes on repatriated profits and permanently eliminating the death tax.

This falls WAY short of what he said in the "Gutless Socialism" piece, and though it's a step in the right direction, this in no way goes far enough. I do wonder what Mr. Cain would think of the idea of a tax paid by the states on behalf of the people, as I have often suggested (not on blog - maybe a post sometime soon), based upon suggestions in the New Federalist Platform found at reagan2020.org.

On Health Care

The majority of Americans agree: it's time to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, free market reforms. It's time to institute legitimate tort reforms that let doctors practice medicine without fear of frivolous lawsuits. Loser pay laws would be a great start! That is, require those who lose frivolous lawsuits to pay the legal expenses of those found not guilty. Additionally, loosening the restrictions on Health Savings Accounts would help to empower Americans to save and invest their own money to expand their options for health care.

Or just get the government out of the health care business altogether. Again, while Cain is offering a move in the right direction, he again falls short of what could and should be done.

On Entitlements

The federal government has imposed expensive and often counter-productive social and welfare programs on the states and the people. It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way. This will allow states, cities, churches, charities and businesses to offer a helping hand instead of a handout where they live. People closest to the problems are the best ones to solve the problems effectively.

Yup. These programs, like Oblahmacare, also happen to be ILLEGAL. It would be nice to see someone who swears he is "crazy about the Constitution" actually bring this important fact to the fore. What Cain wants to do here is excellent, but he leaves out one of the most important and persuasive reasons for doing it.

On Regulation

Eliminating the burdens of cumbersome federal regulations would provide an immediate boost for our weakened economy. It would signal to businesses and investors that the federal government intends to get out of the business of over regulating. Where regulations are required the states will do their job. Consumers and investors do not need nanny-state federal regulations to save them from themselves.

These regulations also happen to be illegal, and he should drive that point home. "The states will do their job" - THAT is what Federalism is all about!

On Education

A critical component of improving education in our country is to decentralize the federal government's control over it. Children are best served when the teachers, parents and principals are making the day-to-day decisions, coupled with the leadership of local municipalities, school boards and states. What might work for a third grader in Oklahoma might not work for a third grader in Hawaii.

The federal government had no business getting involved in the first place. Again, federal education programs are ILLEGAL. Yet again, Cain fails to make this important point when putting forth a good idea.

On Faith

Our Founding Fathers recognized a higher power in the formation of this nation when they said in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and that they are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”

'Nuff said.

In reviewing the stuff I showed here, it's easy to want to jump on the Herman Cain bandwagon. His status with me has improved considerably, but I will want to read more of his work and scrutinize it more closely before making that call. Remember that people who aspire to high office are quickly and easily corrupted. Choosing a candidate is serious business, especially with what can and should be an automatic win for conservatives this time around. If the Republicans continue to pass over conservatives as they have been doing of late in White House elections, we may be looking unnecessarily at four more years of Oblahma. Get conservatives with a backbone throughout Washington, DC, and America actually has a chance.

Is Herman Cain conservative enough to be considered a Federalist? That is up to those who believe and vote according to that platform. Just make sure you do the legwork. Four more years of Oblahma (or a liberal Republican), and we may be looking at an armed rebellion.

RWR

Maybe.

Still, not really an opportunity to develop any level of trust for these guys, but if they are able to successfully implement any sort of "Cut, Cap, and Balance", it will be a great thing.

The problem with this is that it's most likely all a bunch of grandstanding. The Republicans are out there doing this because they know it is not only the right thing to do, but that Americans are voting in favor of this stuff in droves (and rightly so). With Oblahma screaming out that he will veto it, it positions them perfectly for the presidential election in 2012.

Think about it and consider history - especially recent history. If Oblahma vetoes this bill and there aren't enough votes to override (which you can be sure there won't be), the economy (and Oblahma) will be so far in the tank by Election Day 2012 there won't be an option to re-elect Oblahma. The Republicans take the White House, and then go on their own spending spree.

Should the bill survive the veto, the Republicans can take credit for the improved economy that will result, easily take the White House (reminding everyone of Oblahma's veto), and then go on their own spending spree. After all, there will be plenty of money with the improved economy.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud the Republicans for doing this (though God knows what illegal bullshit is buried deep inside this thing). At a minimum, it's a positive change in character (at least the visible side) for the GOP. Holding firm on the debt limit will also be key. Only time will tell if it represents an actual move to the right. Their candidate for POTUS will be a very telling choice.

RWR

Note: I'm taking a closer look at Herman Cain. Currently thinking the Republicans could do far worse. More on that when I get some time.

Today we humbly honor the sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers so that we could be free of big intrusive governments.

If only people would do the same today ...

Let the fireworks begin!

RWR

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. (non-)President Barack Obama called on Wednesday for new steps to spur job growth and tax hikes on the rich, hardening a stance that will likely complicate deficit reduction talks with Republicans.

If there were ever proof this moron has no clue whatsoever, this would be it.

This clown wants to spur "job growth" and "tax hikes on the rich", two things that simply do not happen together.

Mr. Obama, I will give you the answer in simple terms. "The rich", as you call them, create jobs. They do it with expendable income. The more they have, the more jobs they can create. The more you confiscate from them in taxes, the less expendable income they have, thus stifling job growth.

You can't have it both ways.

What a fucking moron.

RWR

I was pretty pissed when I got to reading the TIME article about the Constitution. I put it down.

Luckily, someone had the patience to read it and brought forth thirteen factual errors and the kind of proof that we are known for here. Thank you Aaron Worthing.

He had originally tried to show everything that was wrong with the piece, but let's face it - if it came from TIME, you'd be at it for years. Here are the thirteen factual errors posted by Worthing:

1. The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.
2. The Constitution is not law.
3. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
4. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.
5. The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
6. That the original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.
7. Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”
8. The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.
9. We have only declared war five times.
10. Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.
11. Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
12. Naturalization depends on your birth.
13. The Obamacare mandate is a tax.

He gets pretty thorough in his explanations. Complete citations and everything.

I brought up the TIME article, and found a bunch of "hard to say" thoughts, all with incredibly flimsy support. Check this out:

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.

I'll take them one at a "time".

What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think.

George Washington may not have had much knowledge of future ballistic and weapons science, but he sure did know a lot about what justifies military action. I will concede that it is hard to say what Washington would think, but the reason given is a HUGE crock of bullshit. Washington was no proponent of military force, but raised a militia to put down a major rebellion in Western Pennsylvania with no declaration of war from Congress. He did have an opinion from a Supreme Court Justice declaring Western Pennsylvania in rebellion. He therefore did not act alone, but also did not act in accordance with any requirement that Congress declare war. Furthermore, this was a domestic military action, which Washington would clearly have thought to be less acceptable than military action abroad. Drones over Libya is a military action. The fact that US soldiers are not put at risk when drones are used, coupled with the fact that Islamic terrorists were just as big a problem then as they are now, would make the action much less problematic to Washington. He would clearly see the need, even in his day, to keep terrorists at bay. If terrorism were given as the justification, Washington would likely support it. If the justification were "humanitarian", I doubt he would.

What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say.

First of all, what has been proposed and illegally passed in Congress is NOT A TAX. It is a PENALTY; it is a FINE. Madison knew Congress's inability to levy such fines (or taxes for that matter, if you concede that point, which I do not). He wrote the Constitution, after all. If you want to know Madison's position, simply ask the question in general terms: What would the framers say about the government requiring people to purchase expensive items or services under penalty of a fine (or additional tax)? What would Madison say NOW? The question has as much to do with health insurance as the previous one has to do with modern military technology. Just as Washington's answer can be arrived at by simply asking the question in more general terms, Madison's answer comes just as easily. James Madison would NOT have approved.

Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.

Jefferson is on record more than once as wishing for an end to slavery. For his part, he signed legislation passed by Congress at his request ending the slave trade. Jefferson's answer would clearly be one of indifference. If a natural born citizen who happened to be bi- or multi-racial became President of the United States, then so be it. After all, if he fathered any of those children (and DNA evidence eliminates all but one), I am sure he would be quite proud to attend his inauguration. Again, the answer is deceptive. Jefferson freed five slaves in his will. Unfortunately, his estate had some debt that required the sale of the rest of his slaves at that point. Hawaii is a state. Jefferson was no fool (unlike the author of the TIME article). He would gladly have approved of a biracial President born in a state he didn't know. He would NOT have approved of Barack Obama, for reasons we have shown here already. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, and Jefferson would DEFINITELY have supported the Vattel definition. The whole concept of rights as enumerated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, even as edited by the Continental Congress, is derived from Vattel's expression of natural law.

Richard Stengel is either trying to deceive Americans into believing the Founders and the Constitution are things they are not, or he's an idiot. I'm banking on the former. I can't believe anyone would be so stupid (or believe anyone to be so stupid) as to believe a thing he's written given what he wrote in the paragraph cited.

In either case, he's a fucking loser with a job that should have gone to someone else. Kudos to Aaron for putting him in his place.

RWR

... evidently due to GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE.

In this story at NetRight Daily, it's revealed that the "healthcare system" in Venezuela isn't good enough to treat Chavez's condition, so he's been taken to Cuba, where things aren't any better.

Talk about desperate ... and so SWEETLY FUCKING IRONIC!

This quote from the end of the piece sums it up quite nicely:

But in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez would have received mediocre care, and made the gamble that he would be better off in an undisclosed Cuban hospital, where he apparently is still receiving mediocre care. Single payer health systems are bad, and Hugo Chavez is now experiencing this first hand.

So sweetly fucking ironic ...

RWR

Just taking a moment to announce that RightWingRocker.com is now available in a mobile version.

If your phone has Internet, you can now read through the mobile version. I'm also pretty sure there's a link for the web version if that's what you prefer. The mobile version does not support the third party comment system I use.

RWR

You get a lot of bullshit in the blogosphere from people who swear the Founders couldn't possibly have meant that Vattel's definition of the tern "natural born citizen" should apply to the President of the United States. These people are simply ignorant of the overwhelming evidence that they meant just that.

Of course, there are no less than four Supreme Court rulings supporting Vattel. You would think, from what you hear out there, that the court had never ruled at all.

I Took The Red Pill Comments frequently at MichelleMalkin.com. On his blog, he shows more than ample evidence that the Founding Fathers would have supported Vattel.

In his post, he links this post documenting the Founders' direct connection to Vattel via quotes.

Again, people this well-versed in Vattel would clearly have known his definition. People this well-versed in Vattel would have definitely expressly defined the term for us had they not meant Vattel's definition. People quoting Vattel at every turn as a major authority on natural and international law would, without ANY doubt, have assumed his definition would prevail.

An objective and reasonable reader could come to no other conclusion.

RWR