Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Información de Proposición de California

Información sobre proposiciones de boleta de California en español está disponible aquí

PROPOSICIÓN 28Límites de mandato de los legisladores en la Oficina

Proposición 29: impone impuestos adicionales sobre los productos del tabaco.Otro nuevo impuesto de California:

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Don't Tread on Ford

The legendary Ford Mustang is not named for the horse. It is named in honor of the P-51 Mustang, the legendary American World War II fighter plane. The fighter plane inspired the car's design with speed and the bubble canopy which provided an advantage due to a 360 degree view. The increased field of view enhances what pilots call "situational awareness."

P-51D MustangAwareness of the situation around you can be the all that stands between success and ruin. Reacting to the situation also requires a framework to help decide what action to take in the midst of uncertainty.  This framework is also key to success. Pilots might call this framework "training" or "experience."

In America we have a  framework for success. Our framework has created telephones, cars, medical cures, nuclear power, airplanes, moon landings, and built America into the world's super power. Ford recently found itself relying upon it's situational awareness and historic corporate framework. The company engaged in a struggle for it's very existence.

In 2006's Ford ranked third among the three American car companies in financial stability. It needed to renovate and increase liquidity. Ford Shares were hovering around $8 per share. In 2005, Ford lost it's investment grade status. It was racking up billions in losses as the SUV boom went bust due to rising gas prices and the end of the housing boom and easy credit. The economy and Ford were shaking and the situation required a decision.

CEO Bill Ford fired himself and hired Alan Mulally from Boeing to manage a "giant home improvement loan" -- to close plants, shed brands and cut its global workforce by one-third. Funding was acquired from Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, and J.P. Morgan Securities in the amount of $18 billion. The influx of cash helped Ford to revamp its cars and trucks and, unlike rivals GM and Chrysler Group, avoid bankruptcy protection. How was so much money given to the troubled company?

Ford laid all of it's assets on the table. Ford had to back its promise to repay that debt with collateral such as its property, U.S. automotive assets, Ford Motor Credit Co. and Volvo stock, and up to $4 billion of cash. In 2006, Ford went all in.

The iconic Ford logo itself, valued at $7.5 billion by Interbrand, was put on the table.

It took something that "the home of the brave" has in short supply recently, courage. It took the capitalist spirit of betting on yourself.

With the election of progressive President Barack Obama, Ford stock plummeted to $1.81/share by January 2009. The Automotive Industry Financing Program, created under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), provided $79.69 billion to GM, GMAC and Chrysler. Ford refused the bailout:
Ford is "in a different place and much further along" than the other two Detroit automakers, Mullaly said. Although it is seeking a $9 billion line of credit from the government, Ford is not part of the $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, which comes with the requirement that the two companies show how they can reduce costs and debt, Still, "from ongoing conversations we're having with all the stakeholders and the U.S. government, we will not be disadvantaged," Mullaly said.
The DOE reported in June, 2009:
Ford Motor Company will receive $5.9 billion in loans through 2011 to help finance numerous engineering advances to traditional internal combustion engines and electrified vehicles.
This money was not related to TARP and had been part of negotiations starting in December 2008.

Ford loans totaled around $23 billion, with no "too big to fail" protections and without big government intervention. Critics pointed to TARP bailout protections from the UAW secured for GM and Chrysler. They claimed Ford to be the UAW's only remaining profit center and that negotiations would be brutal.

The critics were wrong. The UAW voted overwhelmingly for the Ford Agreement. The company turned around drastically in comparison to Chrysler who was sold to Fiat, and General Motors which now requires government loans to pay back older government loans. Ford is now the most financially stable American automaker. Ford stock is currently trading at $10.60 or 26.5% higher than at the beginning of the retooling.

BusinessWeek wrote in "Ford to get blue oval back after second upgrade" (May 2012):
Ford Motor Co. is getting its blue oval logo back.
Moody's Investors Service raised Ford's debt ratings to investment-grade Tuesday for the first time in seven years. The upgrade means that all of Ford's U.S. assets, including factories, the blue oval and the trademarks for the F-150 pickup and Mustang sports car, are back in the company's hands and will no longer be used to secure the company's debt.
The company has approximately $20 billion in cash, and it has been disciplined about cutting costs, controlling production and lowering spending on incentives, Moody's said.
When the executives at GM and Chrysler took the bailout and retired to their country clubs, Ford fought to survive. Government solutions are no match for the will to survive. When the will to survive is paired with experience and situational awareness, when the heart and the mind align, anything is possible.

In the words of the September 2011 Ford advertisement pulled due to White House pressure:
I wasn’t going to buy another car that was bailed out by the government. I was going to buy from a manufacturer that’s standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That’s what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta’ pick yourself up and go back to work.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Happy Memorial Day 2012

Happy Memorial Day to All who have sacrificed for our liberty and the U.S. Constitution.

Failed Obama Twitter Hashtag List

Conservatives have been vanquishing the Obama campaign on twitter. Twitter is fast becoming the new talk radio which has prompted the joke that "Conservatives are ruining twitter."  A list of #EpicFail Obama twitter hashtags would be a nice resource and needed documentation for the politically curious. So here is a list that will require comments and updates.
  • #Forward
  • #ObamaEconomics
  • #BecauseOfObama
  • #BeforeBlackPresidents
  • #ReadyToGo
  • #QuestionsMittLikes
  • #ILikeObamaCare
  • #LifeOfJulia
  • #AskMichele
  • #WHChat
  • #Gen44
  • #PromiseKept
  • #AttackWatch
  • #DontDoubleMyRate
  • #WarOnWomen
  • #RomneyYachtNames
  • #WeCantWait
  • #IStandWithObama (5/21/12)
  • #DescribeObamaInThreeWords (5/27/12)
It is tempting to add several conservative hashtags, but it must be resisted. In tweetglish such resistance would be named #Resist44. Enjoy, tshirts available.

Friday, May 25, 2012

The War on Conservative Women and S.E. Cupp

My only limited interaction with S.E. Cupp has been on twitter. From her site bio on

S.E. Cupp is author of the new book "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity," which comes out April 27th (Simon & Schuster). She is also co-author of "Why You're Wrong About The Right," which was published by Simon & Schuster in June of 2008. "After two terms of George W. Bush, it’s harder than ever to know what it means to be a conservative, though for a working definition, this book is an excellent place to start.. Cupp and Joshpe have thought it through, and write with the sort of easy wit we could use more of on the right." -- Tucker Carlson.
S.E. is a political columnist and culture critic.
She has a much larger following than this blog, or even the San Diego Local Order of Bloggers. So, this post is more for me than her. She was able to answer the recent attack on her via Glenn Beck. Further, even feminists have come to her defense, which is rare for conservative women. The View came to her defense. Of course, NOW has remained silent as she is not a liberal woman.

If you do not know, Hustler magazine used Photoshop to create an image of S.E. Cupp with a penis in her mouth. They published it in their magazine along with attacks on her conservative views. Hustler claims, "It's Satire," but this quote from the article explains the motivation in full:
S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.
They want to shut her up. By "they" we mean "progressives" or "liberals." So they have targeted her public persona and career. S.E. is an attractive woman who often goes on MSNBC and HBO's Real Time to engage with the left. Her public persona has been carefully and skillfully crafted to take advantage of her looks, likability and wit. S.E.'s credibility is her career and that is what has been assaulted.

We politically active types know about S.E. Cupp, but the public at large does not. Their first perception of her will be shaped in light of this fake picture. It is truly a disgrace and injustice!

On the left, they are defending Hustler by pointing to comments made by Rush Limbaugh toward Sandra Fluke. Comments made without deliberate effort, and then apologized for. They are tweeting and posting justification due to jokes about Michelle Obama's large posterior. Progressives are following up on President Obama's #WarOnWomen campaign, equating the defense of abortion and government interference into what we eat with creating fake porn photos. They deny that an image is worth a thousand words.

What if this image was of Michelle Obama, or for that matter Barack Obama? What if the gay marriage debate was approached in this way by conservatives?  Socialist/progressive issues that can be portrayed with vile images.

This debate goes to the core difference between the philosophies of the conservatives and progressives. Philosophies that differ fundamentally on the idea of peace and the very nature of successful debate.

Conservative peace is equilibrium between those who disagree. You can disagree with me and we can
still find peace.

Progressive peace is when no one disagrees.  If you disagree, there will be no peace.

If you subscribe to the progressive view of peace, then anyone who disagrees is trying to assault or change some part of you. They are trying to force you into submission. Peace through subjugation.  This helps explain why "liberals" in our lives are so unwilling to listen to facts and reason.  Debate is not just confrontation, it is assault.

It has been a personal mission of mine to find a way to get through to progressives and liberals. A mission much like S.E. Cupp's journey onto left-wing media outlets. My only successes come from reaching people at a deep interpersonal level.  When you present progressives with a reasonable argument from a credible, likable source or kindly point out that they are wrong or on the wrong path, they get defensive and try to "shut you up, like S.E. Cupp."

Remember this the next time you see a peace symbol. Consider how the peace you envision can occur. It may not be the peace you imagine.

Quick Word on Gold and Other U.S. Markets

Consumer Confidence should stay about 76 today, which is unchanged. This is a four year high, but remember that 100 is the baseline.

Gold is down recently, Stocks and Bonds are down or sideways. However, the U.S. market appears to be receiving an influx of European investment in dollars. The Gold market is being pushed down by a strengthened dollar vs the Euro. The Gold market is doing well vs other currencies.

Reports have been surfacing of European banks runs and ATM's being turned off. The risk of the Euro is real. It is so real that the even our dollar looks attractive. Greece is being talked about in the context of leaving the European Union, which I think is unlikely. It is more likely that compromises will be reached, but the fears are real.

The European Union itself is being talked about in the light of breaking up.

When Europeans get their cash, much of it will be invested in the stock markets. Some will go to the Asian markets, but most will come over here. This is an obvious occasion for a bump in the stock market. The question remains what will happen when President Obama starts printing more money to get reelected.

Note: This is not to say that this flight from the Euro is a recipe for recovery in America.

It is still painfully obvious that because of U.S. national debt levels, the Fed can no longer significantly raise interest rates. This will eventually drive down savings, but the influx of European money may delay this.  More consequently, bond yields are likely to stay very low and thus interest rates will also stay low.

9:15 A.M. UPDATE: Consumer Confidence actually rose to 79.3. Let's hope that this indicator is accurate!
Michigan’s reading for May contrasts with the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index, which has lost ground after reaching a four-year high a month ago.

Friday, May 18, 2012

The 2012 Economy IS NOT the Issue

My background is finance and technology. Most of my younger days were spent on developing my understanding of supply and demand models and advanced math. It would be terrific for my blogging commentary if the 2012 economy was the issue of the election, "but it ain't".

The economy will spatter and sputter and probably crash around December. It may be a little late to this prediction and wait until 2013 due to some QE or other psychological trick. (According to fellow SLOB, The Liberator Today, The 2012 economy may improve.) It will be anemic and surrounded by blatant lies about jobs numbers and growth. However, neither Obama nor Romney can do anything about the economy for the moment.

Romney today deflected the issue of some super-pac getting scooped by the New York Times, by saying something to the effect of "don't talk about Obama's past, people want to know where the jobs went." Several talk radio personalities piled on with kudos and other praise. "People want to know where the jobs are!"

This tactic is fine for the moment, but if you think that winning on the economy is going to work, let me explain in excruciating, infuriating detail why it will not.

Remember a guy named John McCain? Do you remember his one trick pony "maverick" campaign? If not, here is a reminder:
From Conservapedia:
McCain ran as the outsider, the maverick who went his own ways and opposed corruption and the same-old-politics. He electrified the nation and solidified his base among conservatives by naming Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. One of his TV commercials summed it up:
"The original mavericks. He fights pork barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. He took on the drug industry. She took on big oil. He battled Republicans and reformed Washington. She battled Republicans and reformed Alaska. They'll make history. They'll change Washington. McCain. Palin. Real change."
Did anyone care about "corruption and the same-old-politics" when the Democrats crashed the 2008 economy? Nope.

Most people did not understand why they were losing their homes or why gas prices were so high. Americans did not understand that it was radical Democrats in Congress who voted to kill 10.5 million jobs or why they would do such a thing.

Voters did not understand because John McCain and his campaign ads did not tell them. The campaign would not let Sarah Palin tell the people either. The campaign was a one trick pony, stuck in an irrelevant strategy and thus using irrelevant tactics.

Republicans did not "vet" Barack Obama or adequately explain that Democrat policies starting in January 2007 had crashed the housing market and locked up America's energy resources. The proof is that to this very day the Democrats, "BLAME BUSH."

Enter Mitt Romney and the 2012 Economy

Romney is "the man to fix the economy."  Barack "Spread the wealth around" Obama is inept when it comes to the economy. In a one-on-one economic showdown, Romney has the advantage.  The problem is: OBAMA KNOWS THAT! Everyone knows it!

By this summer, social issues, austerity and class/race violence will be tearing apart the fabric of America. ObamaCare will be declared unconstitutional, George Zimmerman will be free, Occupier's paychecks will be drying up, and Europe is likely to collapse financially. It may take until September or October, but the main issue will not be the 2012 U.S. economy.

Diversions from the Obama camp right now are designed to force the Republicans to solidify the "it's the economy" message. David Axelrod today tweeted at 5:29 a.m.:
"Stunning! Will Mitt stand up, as John McCain did? Or allow the purveyors of slime to operate on his behalf?"
Gov. "Mitt" responded by rejecting the use of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama exactly like Sen. John McCain did in 2008. The truth will not be televised.

Obama Donor and alleged comedian Bill Maher is already on the talk show circuit joking that "The Republicans said 'lets go to plan B; calling women whores'" and other alleged jokes aimed to guide Gov. Romney back to economic issues. (The link provided is just prior to the comment. The segment and comment are from TBS' Conan, show 256, 5/15/2012.)

ABC News ran a story today, Political Sideshows: Birth Certificates and Dogs Trump War, Economy:
So while polls show that the economy is the No.1 issue on voters' minds this election, here's a look at the tantalizing sideshow stories that have instead captured the country's attention
Conservatives are buying it.

Sen. McCain "the maverick" was out of position to battle the "Blame Bush" narrative of the 2008 economy. Gov. Mitt "the economy" Romney is currently out of position to battle the "race/sex/class warfare" 2012 social unrest narrative. The uber-progressive President will portray that he is "TEH ONE" to negotiate with endangered unions, angered minorities, anti-capitalist activists and occupiers.

At best, the issue should be changed to the cause of the bad economy and social unrest. Unconstitutional ObamaCare, massive debt, taxes, czars, entitlement dependence, environmentalism and other big government policies that stagnate employment, individual initiative and economic growth. The issue is not the 2012 economic environment or jobs. The issue is socialist policies that create an environment of poverty, dependence and hopelessness.

Let the 9% of undecided voters choose between socialism and capitalism. Gov. Romney's campaign slogan should be "Socialism is wrong and we should get rid of it."

Monday, May 14, 2012

Scytl Voting via Mobile Phone: iFraud

Scytl, the Spanish company which will famously be processing 2012 election results is claiming the ability to vote by iPhone and Android. 
Scytl has successfully implemented its online voting encryption technology on Google Android™  and Apple® iOS smartphones and tablet computers. By encrypting the ballot on the voter’s device before it is cast, Scytl is now able to guarantee end-to-end security - from the voter to the final tally - not only for computer-based online voting but also for mobile voting, setting a new milestone in the field of mobile election software security.
 BusinessWire, Scytl's PR firm, released more information:
By encrypting the ballot on the voter’s device before it is cast, Scytl is now able to guarantee end-to-end security - from the voter to the final tally - not only for computer-based online voting but also for mobile voting.

Encrypting the ballot on the voter’s device (computer, smartphone or tablet computer) before it is transmitted to the digital ballot box server to be stored is one of the critical security features offered by Scytl’s online voting systems. This prevents anyone, including system administrators, from violating voter privacy or jeopardizing the election results. Alternative solutions that encrypt the ballots only once they are received on the digital ballot box server open the possibility for malicious attackers or system administrators to intercept, read or modify the ballots while they are being sent or upon arrival at the server, before they are encrypted while they are still in clear-text.

“By leveraging its pioneering security technology with Google and Apple’s mobile device platforms, Scytl has become the premier election technology provider to offer an online voting system that guarantees the highest standards in terms of both voter privacy and ballot integrity both on personal computers and mobile devices”, said Gabriel Dos Santos, Scytl’s Vice President of Software Engineering.
As a programmer and someone paying attention of how political fraud works, the primary problem here is the black box. This is the same strategy used by the IPCC's Climate Research Unit and NASA who collected data, manipulated it and then distributed to scientists for research. The manipulated data led good scientists to garbage conclusions in efforts to "hide the decline" of global temperatures. The CRU and NASA controlled the data without transparency.

There is no check or transparency into the software black box collecting votes. Scytl will give their word and make self-serving pronouncements of security. No one will be in position to argue with what they proclaim to be the truth. Transparency is fundamental to the process of vote counting. There will be no transparency here.
Scytl’s specialized security technology has been internationally recognized by both industry and academia for protecting privacy and results integrity. Scytl’s security technology has been audited by independent international organizations and academic experts in the field of election administration that have consistently found its security and technology to be accurate and reliable. These organizations include the Florida Department of State, the Center for Advanced Security Research, the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology, the French Security Agency, Fribourg University in Switzerland and Trondheim University in Norway.
If a Scytl decides that the "encrypted" ballot is marked as for candidate A instead of candidate B, there is no one else to look at the ballot. It would be a security risk to give the decryption code to a secondary party. Individual voters will never know if their vote was correctly counted. If fraud is uncovered, Scytl will blame the end device. Mobile phones are not under the control of Scytl or poll watchers. Hacking of phones or transmissions can be blamed with plausible deniability for Scytl.

Now I understand how the inventor of this technology must have felt when he died at 35 in a traffic accident on March 11, 2006. Terrified.


We trusted scientists, so our would-be slave masters exploited our trust with Global Warming. We trust technology and now this is being exploited. This is a really bad idea unless voter fraud and Marxist-style control of voting is the aim.

Sometimes I think we are living in a James Bond movie. 


This should have been titled "Phoney Votes" somehow...

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Dianne Feinstein Senate Opponent Launches Onion Video

Conservative candidate Dan Hughes is opposing "evil doer" Dianne Feinstein for Senator from California. His campaign devised a The Onion or Colbert Report style to gain attention. It is unclear if the campaign literature will feature "Oh Yeah!" or screaming eagles.

Dan Hughes Donations

Investigation: Indiana Judge Rules Obama Natural Born Citizen - Ankeny v. Governor

While investigating legal issues surrounding the term "Natural Born Citizen," the case Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana popped up. In the Marion, Indiana case Judge David J. Dyer dismissed a challenge to the eligibility to run for president. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and also proclaimed that Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen based upon his birth place.

This goes against long-standing tradition in America. A tradition summarized by Breckinridge Long and published in the Chicago Legal News on 7 December 1916:
"Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."
This common definition has been upheld in several supreme court cases.  We have further detailed the reasoning behind the constitutional requirement for presidency with regard to both Republicans and Democrats.

Judge D.Dyer worked for Democrat Senator Evan Bayh at Bayh, Tabbert & Capehart. Republican Governor Mitch Daniels filed action to dismiss case. The case argued that Gov. Daniels failed to do his duty and should have rejected the Presidential Candidate(s) based upon Natural Born Citizenship.  Judge Dyer Reasoning for dismissal:
"failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that they are barred from bringing the action under the legal doctrine of laches, which means the plaintiffs waited too long to assert a time-sensitive claim."
The case was upheld upon appeal by Judge Elaine B. Brown (former elementary school teacher),  Judge Terry A. Crone and Judge ? May of the Indiana Court of Appeals.  (Full text)
The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint. A motion to dismiss [**4] for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. [...]

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of theUnited States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States

Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' case.
...(noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor's motion to dismiss. Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty -four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural borncitizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478

We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the  fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the  only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES,GENTLEMAN BOSS THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4  (1975).

During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.
The Indiana Court of Appeals based "natural-born citizen" upon English Common Law's "natural-born subject":


This is flawed reasoning because a subject and a citizen are not the same. A citizen is a sovereign where as a subject is not party to decisions of the sovereign, much like a slave or serf.

America is founded on the tenant that all people have rights from God. Only natural-born citizens of the United States of America are entrusted with protecting those rights and enforcing our laws by the citizenry. How can a citizen lawmaker create laws over other sovereign citizens? Because the enforcement of those laws is entrusted to a natural born citizen, a patriot with no other allegiance but to fellow Americans and our Constitution.

When was the last time an American Congressman or President referred to constituents as subjects? Never, because they would no longer be trusted with the duty of creating or enforcing laws in the interest of We The People. In America only partisan judges make such pronouncements.

Except for this report from the Congressional Research Service (April 3, 2009 p.4) which interchanges the terms natural-born subject and natural-born citizen.

Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirement


Because the term "natural born Citizen" is not defined within the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised from time-to-time as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.

As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is well settled from common law Principles of jus soli ("law of the soil") extant in England and the Colonies at the time of Independence,23 as well as from subsequent constitutional provisions, as well as subsequent 'statutory law, that all persons born "in" the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States "at birth.",24 As such, any person physically born "in" the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would appear to be a "natural born" citizen eligible to be President of the United States.
This CRS document has muted debate in Congress. Many of our elected congress people and their staffs are ignorant of the difference between the terms. The document (p.7-9) relies upon Charles Gordon, "known as a liberal and someone in favor of a more open, fairer immigration policy,'' according to Maurice A. Roberts, retired chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals at the Justice Department.

Moreover, one cannot base legal matters on foreign laws when John Jay was the man who presented the idea of natural-born citizen to George Washington during the drafting of the Constitution. Direction should be taken from the intent of those Americans who wrote the document. Direction on the meaning of the term natural-born citizen cannot be gained from similar wording in English Common Law of which the founders were expressly revolting against.


The Indiana State Court is wrong. 

Either the Judges involved are incompetent or politically biased.  Citizen Wells News, a "birther" blog goes into excruciating detail on this aspect of the case.

Mario Apuzzo, legal expert and attorney, also dissected the Indiana Appeal Court ruling and the improper references to English Common Law.
“Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.”

Friday, May 11, 2012

War On Moms: Breeders Are Freaks

Over the last few days, Time's cover on "Attachment Parenting" has grabbed a lot of attention. It is obvious to those of us paying attention that this is just another round in the War on Moms. The portrayal of mothers as freaks who borderline abuse their children with dependence is an appeal to conservatives. It is an appeal to demonization.

We are looking at the typical Saul Alinsky tactic of isolate, demonize and destroy being carried out against mothers. The left knows that women are the force behind the tea party, and this is how extreme left women view Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and every other conservative mom.

See more tea party points of view at The San Diego Local Order of Bloggers (

Twitter #BecauseOfObama Ad Usurped by Tea Party

In an effort to stem the eruption of bad poll numbers, Democrats released a new ad touting the auto industry bailout and sale to Fiat. The campaign did not go viral as intended on twitter. The flow of facts on twitter is countered weakly by Democrats, but once again Team Obama has proven to be socially inept.

 If you follow @DooDooEcon, you already knew this. Comments seen:

Why don't they just stay off twitter?

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Doo Doo Economics: Unions Intimidating Job Creators

In Philadelphia the unions have got ugly in order to stop two brothers, Matthew and Michael Pestronk, who want to developing apartment buildings. One building used to be the "vacant and decaying Goldtex textile factory." Another is a "300-unit-plus building in the Historic Germantown neighborhood."

Unions have resorted to:
  • Throwing urine bottles on the site and blaming "immigrant workers."
  • Planting asbestos in the walls
  • Put up posters on site of Mike's dead dog
  • Put up posters on site of Mike's wife with a penis superimposed on her face.
  • Using slogans like "The Pestronks Are the 1 Percent. They Are Killing Our Communities" and "Post Brothers Exploits Minority Workers."
The head of the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, Patrick Gallespie, demands $63 per hour according to an article by Claire Gordon titled Urine Bottles, Asbestos And A Dead Dog: Philly Union Battle Gets Ugly:
$63 an hour is an appropriate wage for a skilled carpenter. Working an average of 1,800 hours a year, that's an annual salary of $113,000, including health insurance and pension.

"It's a wage rate that has a fair middle-income life to it," he says. "So you can afford tuitions, a vacation once a year, two televisions in your house, and maybe buy your wife a car. The Pestronks are assaulting all that." The Pestronks say there's no way to be cost effective using only union labor.

Gallespie denies any dirty tactics this time around. It wasn't union-member urine, he says. The immigrant workers on the Germantown site regularly pee in bottles, and "throw them out the window."

And that unfortunate poster of Mike's wife? "I hope that wasn't a union member," he says. "Who in god's name would do that?" But that doesn't mean the union members aren't playing the game. "When people assault and bully you in the construction industry," he says, "you punch back."

"And we're allowed to protest their actions. We're allowed to tell the world they stink."
Is anyone ready to go invest in Philadelphia when you are required to deal with Gallespie and his followers?

In 1972, after union members refused a developer's offer of 70 percent union labor, 30 percent not, they attacked his construction site with smoke bombs, firebombs and hand grenades, in a scene described by a local paper as "right out of Vietnam."

In 2004, MTV bailed on its plans for a Real World Philadelphia over disputes with unions, only to be lured back after Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell personally called the producers to apologize.
Anyone investing in that hot mess studied some serious Doo Doo Economics at Harvard. Bring on the stimulus and food stamps!

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Polling Drives Obama Gay Marriage "GutsyCall"

A recent Pew poll is driving Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage. Gay marriage is ranked as Pew's least important issue, down 6% from 2004.

Pew reported:
As in recent campaigns, social issues rank relatively low in importance. About four-in-ten (39%) say that abortion will be very important to their vote, 34% rate birth control as very important, and just 28% say the same about gay marriage – the lowest percentage for any issue.
Democrats in general are becoming more concerned with gay marriage (+5%@2008), as are women. Republicans and Independents see the issue as less important. Republicans have deprioritized gay marriage by 13%, which is logical considering the economic concerns of the country. Independents have also become more budget aware, but results are mixed on gay marriage.

Women see the gay marriage issue as "very important" 5% more frequently than men.

Understanding the numbers behind the president's "evolution" exposes the cynically political ploy.  Gay marriage is not as important to Republicans, Independents or to the overall electorate, but it is a growing concern among Obama constituents. This is another opportunity to jump in front of the parade like a typical politician.

Gutsy call Mr. President!

Forward:"Crazy Liberal" Wife Treads On Conservative Husband With SUV

Wisconsin recall news, per the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
A Chippewa Falls man who repeatedly tried to block his estranged wife from driving to the polls Tuesday was hospitalized with head, neck and back injuries when she struck him with her sport utility vehicle.

Jeffrey Radle, a Gov. Scott Walker supporter, was on foot.

Amanda Radle, a recall proponent, was in a Dodge Durango.

The pair had been arguing early Tuesday afternoon over who she was going to vote for in the gubernatorial recall election primary, said Chippewa Falls Police Chief Wendy L. Stelter.

"She was planning on voting for a certain candidate, and it wasn't the candidate he wanted her to vote for," Stelter said.
"These crazy liberal nuts are always pulling this crap," said Radle's brother, Mike Radle, describing himself and his brother as firm supporters of Walker, the subject of the recall.

Mike Radle said his brother was in stable condition but had suffered serious injuries and was still unconscious Tuesday afternoon.

"He'll be in the hospital at least overnight," he said.
In the woman's defense, the president does urge his supporters Forward, but this adds a whole new dimension to the Tea Party slogan "DONT TREAD ON ME."

The report adds:
When Amanda Radle, 30, attempted to pull out, Jeffrey Radle, 36, stood in front of her, according to a police department statement. She nudged him with the vehicle several times.

Each time he would "retreat and re-establish his ground," the release said. "At one point he climbed onto the hood."

When she finally attempted to drive around him, Jeffrey Radle jumped in front of the vehicle and was hit. Aman da Radle left the scene and went to the police department to report the incident, the release said

Police have been called to the residence several times in the past, and the couple was believed to be separated, Stelter said.

Stelter did not know what candidate Amanda Radle wanted to vote for or whether she planned on voting in the Democratic or Republican primary. Mike Radle said it was "one of the women candidates" - either former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk or state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout of Alma.

Until Tuesday, the worst election day dispute Stelter had seen was a stolen bumper sticker or a damaged lawn sign.

"This certainly raises it to another level," the 27-year law enforcement veteran said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon.

The matter has been referred to the Chippewa County district attorney's office for possible charges.

"To think that people would become that distraught over an election is very concerning," the chief said.
Obviously, the husband had no right to try to stop the woman from voting, but she didn't have to hit and run. Someone please inform progressives that Motor Voter is not a legal defense.

The moral to the story is you can't reason with progressive zombies. They feel that theirs is the only justified position and rationalize anything to ignore the truth. Somewhere out there, other progressives are cheering the bailout of Chrysler because "it was a Dodge Durango that ran over the tea party."

Human Events
The Blaze

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Killing Osama Bin Laden: The Real Story As It Came Down

The following viral email has circulated relating to the death of Osama Bin Laden. There are many conspiracy theories surrounding the terrorist's death as the body was never shown to the public. The following email, includes both an in depth account and a picture of the dead Osama Bin Laden along with who specifically killed him (including photo).

(begin email)

How It Really Happened.....
   The real story as it came down.....Now you know!
How I did it

One Kick

Inside compound


the shot

Osama Bin Dead


Would Romney make the call?

(end email)

It is obvious that we conservative bloggers have not given enough credit for the #gutsycall made by our glorious President Barack Obama.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Marco Rubio Not Natural Born Citizen: A Reasonable Counter Argument

After spending many hours studying natural-born citizen legal cases, arguments and opinions, an interesting argument has been found for Marco Rubio. (previous article) A U.S. Supreme Court ruling should be made to clarify the legal issues surrounding natural born citizenship (The Constitutional requirement to be president of the United States of America). A requirement summarized by Breckinridge Long and published in the Chicago Legal News on 7 December 1916:
"Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."
This common definition has been upheld in several supreme court cases.  We have further detailed the reasoning behind this constitutional requirement for presidency with regard to both Republicans and Democrats.

The argument supporting Marco Rubio goes like this: Since Cuba was freed from Spain in 1898 by the USA and was not fully independent until 1934, Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were born while the island was "Americanized."  Lame Cherry Blog states it as:
Cuba gained formal independence in 1902, but these United States retained the right perpetually to intervene in Cuba, therefore making it and it's Citizens Americanized.

It does not matter what John Kennedy pooched up at the Bay of Pigs or how the Rockefellers installed dope lord Castro for money laundering..........Cuba and Cubans are Americanized.

This is especially true in Marco Rubio's parents in Mario was born in 1927 and Oria born in 1931 were fully under the US protectorate status as much as Barack Hussein Obama sr. was under British Mandate status making him British.
The specific argument is that under the Platt Amendment (1901), America had rights to lands on Cuba including Guantanamo Bay and as such it was an American territory protected from Spain and other powers until 1934. Further, Rubio's parents, born during this period, fled Cuba for America as political refugees who cut all allegiance to Cuba.

There is one big problem with this excellent point. It is the Teller Amendment (1898).
The following resolutions were passed without opposition by both houses of Congress on April 20 1898. The fourth is the one referred to as The Teller Amendment, and is named after its author, Henry M. Teller, Senator of Colorado.

[..]Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.
A review of the Platt Amendment reveals that it does not claim any jurisdiction over Cuba. The goal of the Platt Amendment was to 'leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people.' There is no claim that Marco Rubio's parents were U.S. citizens. The best that can be argued for is an ethereal "Americanized" status.



This argument begs for Supreme Court clarification of the term Natural Born Citizen in this very specific case. I believe that Senator Rubio is assimilated to American culture, ideology and values and is a loyal American with no other allegiances. However, the U.S. Constitution does not rely on my opinion to ensure our hard won republic. Currently, if Marco Rubio is chosen as the vice presidential candidate, does that mean that children of Iraqi or Afghan refugees who made it to America could run for the highest office in the land?

Current TV commentators and other "experts" argue that anyone born on U.S. soil can be our President regardless of allegiance, ideology or culture. This is directly counter to John Jay's original argument to protect America from rich foreigners who would seek to install themselves as our rulers.  My now studied opinion is that this "expert" argument is treasonous and directly assaults the U.S. Constitution and We The People who bestowed upon it the duty and obligation to protect our inalienable rights.

America has many enemies, both foreign and domestic, who will pour unlimited resources into our open democratic system to grab the office of President and then lay waste to our country. Individual patriotic candidates cannot match the power of anti-American nations and movements. Allowing the de facto removal of the Natural Born Citizen clause from Article II, Section I is lethal to our Republic because it leaves us exposed to the enemy battle plan of insurgency.

When beginning my look into natural-born citizenship, I drafted a post titled "Debunking Obama 'birthers'." It focused on some information about birth certificates and eligibility. When I began investigating and confirming the snopes information it proved to be biased, cherry-picked straw men arguments and completely false. It was appallingly wrong.

The natural-born definition exposed may rule me personally ineligible to be president. My father met my mother in a foreign country and married her. I was born many years later in northern Indiana per jus soli ("right of the soil"). As a patriotic American and a truth seeker these are the facts. This is despite the fact of my eligibility to the Sons of the American Revolution and Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. It is clear that had my mother not been pro-American, had my father not been a patriotic American and if the culture around me had not immersed me in Americanism, I might have been indoctrinated with hate and ill-will towards America.

Most Americans do not know that the American electorate is the group who vets candidates, not the FBI, CIA or any other governmental agency. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with campaign finance for federal candidates. Once first voted into federal office, security clearance is granted based upon vetting by the people. It is all up to We The People

If the SCOTUS ruled that anyone born on American soil can be president, our duty would be to amend the Constitution and restore the protection. The amendment is assuming our republic survives long enough for such action to be taken. My fear is that this information has come late. It may be our own president who someday shouts, "WE HAVE BURIED YOU! YOUR CHILDREN ARE COMMUNISTS!"

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Facebook Censorship

“This comment seems irrelevant or inappropriate and can’t be posted. To avoid having comments blocked, please make sure they contribute to the post in a positive way.”

This is what you are about to see when you post or comment upon a link when Facebook decides. For years we have seen hints of bias and collusion with tyrannical regimes by Facebook, but now we are about to see it's true cowardly colors shine. A detailed article is available here, please read.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Star Wars Day: May the 4th be With You

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Natural Born Citizenship: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

The following is a direct excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully it will resolve questions about the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen. Please be patriotic enough to read the entire excerpt, direct references to the term and context are in red.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community such as a nation is implies an

Page 88 U. S. 166

association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are in this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose, the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense, it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States,"  and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several states that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of

Page 88 U. S. 167

friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, "
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also.
U.S. Supreme Court
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

Notes: each U.S. Supreme Court determination of Natural Born Citizen uses the plural "parents" or "citizens" referencing that both parents must be citizens.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Visualization: Small Business in America

Small Business's view of the National Debt
While May Day protesters, new regulations, class warfare taxes, the highest corporate tax rate on Earth and the Utopian economic burdens of entitled redistribution push down small business, the economy struggles to climb out of recession. A recession which must be measured against $16,000,000,000,000+ national debt. America cannot begin to fill in it's debt hole until small business gets back on its feet, and it is a big hole!

By contrast, the vast Grand Canyon in Arizona is:

  • 5,896,937,613.6 square yards (1,218,375.54 acres) in size.
  • 5-6 million years old
  • The oldest rocks in the canyon are 2,000,000,000 years old.
  • The oldest rocks on Earth are 4,000,000,000 years old

To get a number that would put the grand canyon in the ballpark of our national debt you would have to measure it in square inches: 7,642,431,147,225.6 (1,218,375.54 acres x 6,272,640 square inches)!

Unless my math is wrong, President Obama has added nearly a dollar to the national debt per square inch of The Grand Canyon!

Keep that shovel ready with your BS Mr. President as small businesses attempts to climb back.  We do politely ask that you shovel your BS in another direction for a while...




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...