Michelle Malkin posted this on Friday.

Luckily, she wrote out a transcript so I wouldn't have to listen to any more of what this dirtbag bitch Diane Watson had to say than I had to.

WATSON: You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. And he said early on, "I hope that he fails."

Do you know what that means? If the president, your commander-in-chief, fails, America fails.

First of all, I'm with Rush on this one. If Obama succeeds, America fails, and if he fails, America succeeds. So, Ms. Watson is flat out WRONG to say that just because her sorry-ass excuse for a "president" fails, America fails with him. Just look at the evidence to the contrary, just in the first few months of his crossing his fingers and taking the Oath of Office:

* Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly become the quagmires the liberals accused Bush of making them into - because Obama has SUCCEEDED in reversing Bush's progress there as promised.

* The economic tailspin that was started by Bush is now out of control - because Obama SUCCEEDED in passing his "stimulus" as promised.

* The American automobile industry is in deeper trouble than ever - because Obama SUCCEEDED in continuing the Bush practice of bailing out auto companies.

The only thing that Obama has done that he has been successful with at this point has been a case of completely unintended consequences: His plans to take over the healthcare system has succeeded in waking Americans up to the evil that is big government and socialism, and because of that fact, Obama's healthcare plans will likely FAIL, and as a result, the American healthcare system will be saved, at least from the current onslaught. America will have then SUCCEEDED due to Obama's having FAILED.

This woman does not understand what it means for America to succeed. America's success is not defined by the degree to which an executive succeeds in implementing his plans; its success is defined by the degree to which her people are free and successful on their own without the aforementioned executive. It would be really nice to see a lib or two acknowledge this. I won't be holding my breath.

And remember: They are spreading fear and they are trying to see that the first president that looks likes me fails.

Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what or whom he looks like. Would you be making these statements if Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts were occupying the Oval Office? NO. You'd be bitching about how they were racists or Uncle Toms or something. This isn't about race, Ms. Watson. It's about IDEOLOGY and BELIEFS. It's about the CONSTITUTION and protecting it from socialist fucktards like yourself and Barack Obama. Begging America to believe your racism accusations isn't going to gain them merit. Get over it.

It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, "Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?"

And lemme tell ya, before you say "Oh, it's a commu–", you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. [APPLAUSE]

The fact that you breathed the same air as that rat fucking bastard without putting a bullet through his head says a lot about you and your own leadership abilities. Apparently your definition of a brilliant leader is a man who enslaves an entire population. We in America will have none of that. Oh and as for what Fidel Castro put in place, let's go down there (as requested) and have a look at those wonderful Cuban hospitals, shall we?

The Emergency Room. Yes, those are cockroaches you see.


The Emergency Room Rest Rooms.

Not exactly the cleanest place to be taking a shit...


Here's the ceiling and the floor of the recovery room. First the ceiling.

Now the floor.


Here's some of that new power system they supposedly installed in 1989.

Yeah. Real safe.

(pictures courtesy of Ed Morrisey of Captains Quarters)

I can tell you that I know of not a single American that would willingly step foot into a facility in this condition, let alone to get medical attention or worse for their kids. I sure as fucking hell wouldn't accept it for myself or MY family. Ed Morrissey, whose blog posted the above pictures in 2005, summed it up pretty accurately:

When leftists tell you that Castro may have his faults but he provides for the Cuban people with his marvelous health system, try to remember these pictures. I wouldn't send a stray dog to a facility like this to get put to sleep, let alone receive treatment. And this is what Castro considers a jewel in the crown of the Cuban HMO program.

I wouldn't give a terrorist medical attention in such a place. Well maybe a terrorist. But no American should be forced to deal with THAT kind of shit. Back to Ms. Watson ...

And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found…well, just leave it there (laughs), an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro…

Great. They kicked out the wealthy, making everyone in the country poor. Everyone except themselves, that is. Yeah. Brilliant leader indeed, that Fidel Castro. I'm sure you will be really successful in convincing Americans to live in the kind of widespread poverty Che and Fidel gave their people. You have betrayed the true intentions of your executive and his minions, of which you are one.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. If you want to live like Cubans, just fucking move there and be done with it.

RWR

Michael Vick is now a member of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Many I've spoken with say it's the beginning of the end for Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia.

I say great. Donovan is mediocre at best, and Rush's calling him "overrated" was an understatement.

As a dog lover, I am not in any way condoning Vick's actions, but he is a great quarterback, and will serve the Eagles well. Hopefully, his lesson has been learned. If it hasn't,lock his sorry ass up for life.

In the meantime, he'll be a great addition to the Birds' offense, and a more than appropriate replacement for the has-been who never really was.

RWR

It's being re-revealed that the CIA threatened the family of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

I have three words:

BOO FUCKING HOO!

This scumbag not only threatened people and their children, but carried out those threats. I honestly don't give a flying fuck that his family was threatened.

'Nuff said.

RWR

Much, indeed, has been made of the constitutionality of Mr. Obama's "healthcare reform", which has brought on a nationwide revolt at townhall meetings - to the point where many legislators have chosen not to have them, and others have chosen to hire union thugs to intimidate voters into holding back their opinions in violation of the First Amendment. Well America, welcome aboard, but you've been silent for far too long to demotivate these liberal thugs. For nearly a hundred years, you have stood silent while your rights were taken away, one by one, and your government encroached upon your authority and that of your state. Well, better late than never, I guess. I just hope it's not too little too late.

What's been beautiful about all this is that so many Americans are invoking the Constitution and the Founding Fathers (as we should have been all along) in their passionate defense of the same. Liberals, as usual, have invoked the general welfare clause, saying that Congress has broad power to do just about anything under Article I, Section 8. There were many who publicly argued against ratification because of this very clause. Of course, the Founding Fathers didn't pound us with socialism. Why should the current crop of clowns in Washington, DC?

So why not take a few minutes to see what the Founding Fathers said in defense of the Constitution when faced with this concern. Here's what James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" had to say:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

This was basically a universal theme in the writing of the Founders when it came to the general welfare clause: that Congress could only "provide" for the general welfare as specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution gives a specific list of what is authorized under the clause. Here. Look at the entirety of Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nothing here allows Congress to get involved in anything that remotely resembles healthcare, MediScare, Cash for Clunkers, Socialist Security, or ANY of the government intrusions into the powers of the People that we have seen in the last hundred or so years. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly stipulates that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". The federal government cannot tax people at different rates or levels! So much for "progressive taxation".

Yet Obama and his gang are still committing these crimes. Why shouldn't they? Every administration that has tried has gotten away with it for nearly a hundred years ... or more.

RWR

Last April, I put together a platform for what I believe would be a great party for conservatives. What I did was gather information on the major conservative parties - The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party - and brought their common ground together along with key points of the New Federalist Platform at Reagan2020.org.

The key here was to find the common ground. For example, the new party would not take a position as a party on an issue like abortion because there are many conservatives on both sides of the issue. A Constitution Party-type person would tell you that abortion should be illegal in all cases because there is no situation that would justify taking a human life in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A Libertarian-type person would posit that the government shouldn't be involved in such matters, interpreting the Fifth Amendment differently, and standing on the idea that there is no other provision in the Constitution to justify the federal government being involved.

Both of these positions are arrived at through a direct interpretation of the Constitution, and therefore are both valid for Federalists. Whether pro-life or pro-abortion, the decision regarding the position the individual will take is dictated by the Constitution, not by some political party or other faction. Each Federalist makes his own decision, and the Constitution is the standard by which those decisions are made.

Recently, we had some suggestions for possible improvements to the platform. These were largely good ideas, but some missed the point. It was suggested, for example, that highways and buildings should not be named after living politicians. Buildings and highways need to have names, and those who build them or finance the projects should be able to name them without interference. To implement this would have been foolish at best given the concept of what this platform seeks to accomplish.

Another suggestion was to disarm citizens who had completed sentences and been released from prison for committing felonies. Again, the Constitution would disagree. The Second Amendment does not make exceptions for anyone, and the due process clause isn't correctly interpreted to deprive citizens of their freedoms once their sentences are complete. If they cannot be trusted, then their release into the populace in the first place is what should be questioned, not their rights once free.

Again, the idea of the platform was to seek the common ground among the conservative factions in this country. Much of the platform is taken directly from its parent platforms, and there should be plenty there for conservatives to rally around as we begin to point America in a new direction, safely away from the Republicans and Democrats.

Hopefully, everyone who loves America will consider the concepts set forth, and take them as their own. We will all be better off if we do.

RWR

Here's what to do if your Representative won't hold a Town Hall Meeting!

Press Release
Citizens Invite US Rep to Her Own Town Hall Meeting

FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, A community town hall meeting will be held Aug 25 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Tree Library in Fort Collins. The only thing missing from this meeting might be Northern Colorado’s US Representative, Betsy Markey (D-CO).

After numerous unsuccessful requests to receive Markey’s town hall meeting schedule Kelly Trosper, a Fort Collins resident, and several of his frustrated friends, have taken the unusual step of scheduling a town hall meeting on behalf of Markey — and inviting her to speak.

“With the August recess nearly half way over, we can’t wait any longer. When other Reps across the nation are adding extra meetings, we still don’t have a schedule from her. This is a forum to discuss urgent topics, to include Health Care reform. We’re having to set one up ourselves, because our Rep isn’t making herself available,” says Trosper, who hopes she will attend.

In case Markey doesn’t attend, the group will have a video of the proceedings delivered to her along with letters that come via email to nocotownhall@gmail.com.

Trosper and his friends are calling their grassroots effort the Northern Colorado Townhall Committee, and have set up a Web site for other community members awaiting information, www.nocotownhall.com.

Trosper says the Northern Colorado Townhall Committee’s objective is to provide a forum for community members to discuss what is important to taxpayers in Northern Colorado.

“If she won’t put together a town hall for us, the folks of Northern Colorado who elected her to represent our views to D.C., we’ll put one together for her.”

Now THIS is how America is SUPPOSED to work!

I can't say enough about Americans finally waking up to the goings-on in Washington, DC. I hope this continues, and for along time to come. Socialism MUST be stopped, and it must be stopped NOW.

So far, the Revolution is being televised ... on FOX NEWS (hopefully Murdoch will continue to see the profitability of the truth) ... but sooner or later the rest will have to come along.

It will be unavoidable.

You go, America!

RWR

I've been finding myself linking Delfts a lot lately.

Here's one that REALLY makes sense!

DAMN FINE EXPLANATION

The wife came home early and found her husband in their bedroom making love to a very attractive young woman. And she was somewhat upset. 'You are a disrespectful pig!' she cried. 'How dare you do this to me -- a faithful wife, the mother of your children? I am leaving you... I want a divorce right away!'

And the husband replied, 'Hang on just a minute love so at least I can tell you what happened.'

Fine, go ahead,' she sobbed,' but they will be the last words you will say to me!'

And the husband began -- 'Well, I was getting into the car to drive home, and this young lady here asked me for a lift. She looked so down and out and defenseless that I took pity on her and let her into the car. I noticed that she was very thin, not well dressed, and very dirty. She told me that she had not eaten for three days.

So, in my compassion, I brought her home and warmed up the enchiladas I made for you last night, the ones you would not eat because you're afraid you'll put on weight. The poor thing devoured them in moments.

Since she needed a good clean up, I suggested a shower, and while she was doing that, I noticed her clothes were dirty and full of holes, so I threw them away. Then, as she needed clothes, I gave her the designer jeans that you have had for a few years, but do not wear because you say they are too tight. I also gave her the underwear that was your anniversary present, which you do not wear because I do not have good taste.

I found the sexy blouse my sister gave you for Christmas that you don't wear just to annoy her, and I also donated those boots you bought at the expensive boutique and don't wear because someone at work has a pair the same.’ The husband took a quick breath and continued - 'She was so grateful for my understanding and help that as I walked her to the door, she turned to me with tears in her eyes and said,

'Please ...

Do you have anything else that your wife doesn't use?'

Right on the money yet again!

RWR

This comment was recently received regarding the Federalist Party Platform:

The platform sounds good overall, however there is some tweaking that needs to be done.

"That no American considered sane and safe enough to be at large shall be deprived of the right to arm himself however he wishes..." Uh, no. There are convicted felons that have been released from prison that are supposedly sane and safe enough to be at large. They should not be allowed firearms.

"and American soldiers must never be subversive to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag." I think you mean "subservient"?

Under "Policies" you need to add that the States have the right to invoke the Doctrine of Nullification if the Federal Government passes a law that is in violation of the Constitution, particularly in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Under "Legislatively" you need to add that all appropriation bills will deal with one subject only. For example, no hiding pork projects such as a Blueberry Museum in the Military Appropriations bill.

And, no highway or building may be named after any living politician. (Direct smack in the face to Sen Robert Byrd, there.)

Also under "Legislatively", Congress may not except themselves or any branch of the Federal Government from the laws they pass.

Ogrrre

I responded in the comment area as follows:

Uh, no. There are convicted felons that have been released from prison that are supposedly sane and safe enough to be at large. They should not be allowed firearms.

If their debt is paid, then they have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. If there is a problem with that, keep them in jail.

"and American soldiers must never be subversive to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag." I think you mean "subservient"?

Yes we do.

Under "Policies" you need to add that the States have the right to invoke the Doctrine of Nullification if the Federal Government passes a law that is in violation of the Constitution, particularly in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

That right is part of the 9th and 10th Amendments and needs not be restated, as the Constitution is already recognized as the basis for the platform itself.

Under "Legislatively" you need to add that all appropriation bills will deal with one subject only. For example, no hiding pork projects such as a Blueberry Museum in the Military Appropriations bill.

I like this, but simply requiring that all legislation be constitutional from the get-go with written justification should achieve this end without issue. Still, it is a great suggestion. Let's put it in.

And, no highway or building may be named after any living politician. (Direct smack in the face to Sen Robert Byrd, there.)

Eh. Who cares?

Our platform must deal with issues, not non-issues like what name a building or highway has. In fact, if Congress is busy mulling over those things, then they are not engaging in debate or voting on unconstitutional (illegal) legislation, and that is a good thing.

Also under "Legislatively", Congress may not except themselves or any branch of the Federal Government from the laws they pass.

An excellent addition. Thanks!

RWR
RightWingRocker

A few additional comments:

1. The Bill of Rights protects ALL Americans, not just the ones you like or I like. When one is sent to prison, his rights are not revoked, they are SUSPENDED. This applies to ALL God-given rights, and neither you nor I has the right to take them away. The right to bear arms is as sacred as the right to life itself, since without the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to life because you have surrendered the means of defending that right. Therefore, if someone cannot be trusted with arms, leave them in prison where they belong.

2. The rest of Ogrrre's ideas are very good, though highway and building names are as relevant to what this country needs as the highway and building names in East Beijing. With all that needs to be done to save this country, I'll gladly pass on making a stink over that.

3. Ogrrre's last idea would fall under the repeal of laws, programs, and policies that violate the federalist structure and/or the rights of the States and People, but wow, what a strong statement we make in supporting it!

4. Probably the best addition to the platform is the "one subject" idea. Make Congress vote on EVERY ITEM and justify EVERY ITEM with a Constitutional Authorization Report. Make the president sign or veto EVERY ITEM. Furthermore, it would probably be a good idea to require that all legislation be written in simple English and be limited in length and scope. One page should be sufficient. If the people don't understand it, then exactly how do you expect those same people to follow it?

All in all, I agree with most of what Ogrrre suggested, except where noted. The idea of disarming Americans is totally unacceptable. No one is "allowed" firearms. The government is "allowed" to suspend that right as a means of bringing justice to a victim. If a man's crime is so heinous he can't ever be trusted with a weapon again, then lock him up and throw away the key.

RWR

I received an email today asking questions about the Federalist movement. It was quite encouraging:

Since leaving the Republican Party when 10 GOP senators voted to acquit Clinton in 1999 I have been investigating every political party and movement I could find on the net. So far I have not found any party or movement that I would be comfortable supporting, and I have reached the point where I don't want to invest any time or effort in anything without knowing ahead of time whether or not I could support the end result. I would appreciate having your thoughts on certain matters.

I will leave the writer's name out of the post, but the questions he asked were very important to someone searching for a new party to support. Here they are, with my answers:

First of all, let me stipulate that the idea of the Federalist movement is designed to meet the needs of conservative Americans, and the Platform that came about last spring was largely drawn from the common ground among the Reagan2020.org New Federalist Platform, the 2008 Constitution Party Platform, and the 2008 Libertarian Party Platform. It stipulates that as Federalists (conservatives), we are free to have whichever opinion we wish on a position, as long as we are using the Constitution as our guide. This is a very important point, as many conservatives are "pro-life" on the basis that a baby is a human life that should be protected (under the 5th Amendment), while other conservatives, largely Libertarians, are "pro-choice" on the basis that allowing the government the power to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term would be unconstitutional (they don't believe the 5th Amendment applies).

A lot of information can be found on my blog regarding these parties and what they are about, as well as the Reagan202.org New Federalist Platform. Here are some links for your perusal:

Reagan2020.org:
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/09/new-federalism-part-i-preamble.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/09/new-federalism-part-ii-honoring-our.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/09/new-federalism-part-ii-honoring-our.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-federalism-part-iv-establishing.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-federalism-part-v-ensuring.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-federalism-part-vi-common-defense_10.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-federalism-part-vii-general.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-federalism-part-viii-secure.html

Federalist Party:
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/federalist-party-new-conservative.html
http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2005/10/where-we-all-agree.html

What is your position on interpreting the Constitution- do you believe that there is such a thing as original intent, or do you believe that the Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted to fit the times without formal amendment?

Strictly Original Intent

What are your views on large corporations such as as Walmart and Home Depot- are they good for the country or do they need more government regulation?

They are great. Government regulation always causes more problems and in most cases solves very little.

What is your position on the legalization of drugs?

Legalize away, but people's consequences for choosing to use drugs are their own, not yours, mine, or the government's.

What is your position on marriage?

One man and one woman. Some of us would support the states making these rules without interference from the federal government at all, others would support something along the lines of an amendment defining marriage as noted.

What role do you think the federal government should play in public education?

Exactly the role that the Constitution authorizes: NONE.

Do you support the war in Iraq?

Yes, but with the caveat that the war was not fought aggressively enough.

What policies do you/would you support in the Middle East?

Support our allies, and destroy our enemies (my position). The position of the Federalist movement, however, is more flexible than that, ranging from isolationist to involvement as national security dictates.

What government policies do you/would you support regarding the use and conservation of natural resources?

Get the federal government out of the business of dealing with these things altogether. If the states want to deal with it, that's their business.

My answers would reflect those of most of those who come around here. Some with variations. I hope this person can understand the concept of voting for a candidate and not a party. This is what America REALLY needs, but if a party is desired, the Federalist Platform would be a great place to start looking.

RWR

I'm a "birther".

I have taken on that label because for standing up for the Constitution, I'm supposed to be some kind of nutcase akin to a "truther". A "truther" I am not.

But I am a "birther".

Even people on my side of most issues are siding with Oblahma and the MSM on this issue, but there are some very important things that they are overlooking. These things are very important to the future of our Republic and the survival of the Constitution. To dismiss those who take a stand as "birthers" is to simply not care about the Constitution or its future. Think about this:

1. Regardless of the content of Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro's original birth certificate, whether issued in Kenya or Hawaii, he has gone to great pains to keep it from being revealed to the public. This means one of two things: 1. That he was not born in Hawaii, as he claims, or 2. There is something else that would be revealed that would further damage his credibility and/or status as "President of the United States".

2. As a child, Obama traveled to countries where Americans were not allowed to go.

3. As a child, Obama attended school under documentation that showed him as something other than a citizen of the United States.

4. He has openly admitted that his father was not a citizen of the United States.

5. The only other person to hold the highest office in the country without being born of two American citizens also went to great lengths to keep that fact from the public, and that fact was not discovered until many years after he had left office and died. This is evidence that both Barack Obama and Chester Arthur KNEW that they might not be eligible for the presidency under the Constitution. Obama is the first person to take the office in a situation where the public had been alerted to the problem beforehand.

6. There has never been an interpretation by the courts on the definition of a "natural born citizen", and the wording of the Constitution,

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

suggests that Obama could have a problem here.

* He's 35 or older. Check.

* He's lived in the United States at least 14 years. Check.

but ...

* No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

What exactly is a "natural born citizen"? And why did the Founders include the phrase "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"?

While there has never been a clarification from Congress or the courts on this matter, the fact that this phrase was included suggests that the Founding Fathers DID NOT consider themselves "natural born citizens". They were, after all, largely born in the colonies, and there is no question that the man they had in mind for the job was born in Virginia. Still, his parents were not citizens of the United States.

Obama's place of birth, then, may be irrelevant if it is determined that a natural born citizen of the United States must be born of two American parents. Think of the consequences of the opposite. What if a person is elected who was born of an American mother and an Iranian father? Suppose that person turns out to be a supporter of the Ayatollas, and this fact isn't discovered until after he is inaugurated? What are the chances of that happening with a natural born American citizen as opposed to someone whose loyalties are divided as in this case? Think about it.

In all honesty, two of the very best potential Presidents in this country are foreign-born. I would vote for Emperor Misha in a heartbeat, and the same for Delfts. Well, that is, except for their eligibility issue. Both were born abroad to foreign parents. Both would do an infinitely better job than Barack Obama or anyone else the Donks or Pubs would present, but to change the rules and allow the potential for the above scenario would present more dangers than benefits.

This is why the birth issue is so important. It is already quite clear that Barack Obama has no intention of ever deliberately acting within the best interests of the United States. For evidence, look to the bailouts, the so-called "stimulus", the taking over of private companies, and the current attempt to take over the healthcare system, all blatantly illegal under the Constitution - the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend, and all completely opposite the best interests of this country. We had enough problems with his predecessor doing stupid shit like this, and Bush's natural born citizenship wasn't even at issue.

So here's the bottom line:

With regard to the birth certificate, I want to know what Barack Obama has to hide. Why hasn't he just let everyone see it? What damning information is on that document even if it WAS issued in Hawaii? The headaches and expense this man has endured to keep it from us is more than enough to make the whole thing suspect.

With regard to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America despite being born to a foreign father, I call upon the Supreme Court to read the applicable clauses in the Constitution carefully and make a ruling - not one based on whom each judge would have liked to have as President in this last election, but based on WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. Sonia Sotomayor must recuse herself in the case, having been appointed by someone who would be affected by the ruling.

This is really all anyone wants. Obama could release the birth certificate with one phone call and a check for the applicable fee (probably less than twenty dollars). The court needs simply to take one of the many cases in the country that it has been asked to take, hear the arguments, and make the ruling. What did the Founding Fathers mean by "natural born citizen"? My opinion on the matter is shown above, and many Americans have expressed opinions. So must the Supreme Court.

RWR

When Mr. Obama took over the White House, I did say that when he did something good, I would assign him credit here at the RWRepublic.

This kudos is really more for his military guys, but Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. He gets the same credit George Bush did when we celebrated Zarqawi's KABOOM.

Baitulla Mehsud

Baitulla Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban, I hope you enjoy your special place in Hell. You've earned it you fucking terrorist prick. Enjoy Satan's hot hard cock in your virgin ass.

RWR

Delfts posted this today, and it bears repeating, because as always, Delfts is right on the money.

Disconnect From Reality, or, How To Be A Good Democrat

21 WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT


1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.


2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.


3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.


4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.


5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.


6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.


7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.


8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.


9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.


10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.


11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.


12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.


13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.


14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison & A.G. Bell.


15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.


16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.


17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.


18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.


19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.


20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.


21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

Like I said - SPOT ON.

Shame he's not a natural-born citizen. Delfts would make a great President.

RWR