A preview of the coming 2012 campaign – any criticism of King Barak the Man-Child will be de-legitimized as racism.

I’ve decided simply not to interact with people who deploy this argument.  There’s no having a rational discussion with those people, so I’m not going to waste my time trying.

However, it is funny to watch the media and those on the Left act like this was some big ordeal for the president.  As if releasing a birth certificate, a task slightly less difficult than signing up for Paypal, has a waste of his mighty resources and precious time.  Yeah, ‘birtherism’ was kind of a silly little conspiracy, but he could have put an end to it two plus years ago with a simple document release – a document that just about every American has to produce when getting a job, or a driver’s license.  When a man spends a few million in legal fees to fight the disclosure of a simple document, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder why.  Yet now that he has released a very simple document, that turned out to have NOTHING on it that would embarrass him in the slightest, we’re left wondering why he fought it so hard?

And don’t forget that Lt. Col. Larkin was sent to PRISON for questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s birth status.  Rather than produce a simple document that would assuage the concerns of an honorable military officer, he was just fine with watching that officer go to jail.

Only when it was politically expedient for HIM did Obama release the document.

Nice work, champ.

But I guess I’m still a racist.  Whatever.

Addendum: I see that Ace covered this today.  As usual, better than I could have.

Addendum II:  More on the topic.

I love my friends.

But for many of them, their world views are so strange and perplexing, I just can’t take it.

I hate to be the cranky guy at a party mumbling about deficits and doomsday, but things really are quite bad in our fiscal and political system.  In most times, we have the luxury of ignoring it and getting on with our lives.  After all, people have been grousing about this stuff since the 1700s.  In normal times, I viewed politics and news as an aggressive hobby.  Today, it is far more serious than that, and we’re hurtling towards the brink of some transition that will leave us in a world we won’t recognize.

Debt, spending, feckless leadership, and the rise of that death-cult known as Islam – these things matter a great deal.

Yet those I interact with in the social sites either don’t see it, are immune to persuasion, or subscribe to a world view that I just cannot fathom.  Those on the ‘left’ are particular frustrating – I can’t tell if they really believe the things they say (which terrifies me), or they simply are so ill-informed that they can’t help it (which at least could be fixed if they were motivated).  It drives me over the edge, and it is all I can do not to burn bridges with some.

I love my friends.  Even those in this aforementioned category.  I respect them as people, but the frustration remains.

In normal times, this would all be a sign that I’m taking this stuff far too seriously.

These are not normal times.  I know that each generation thinks things are worse now than ever.  I get the fad of the apocalypse.

But objectively, by every measure, we are in new territory – territory that sovereign nations generally don’t return from with their character intact.

As the 2012 electoral season starts, it is going to get far worse.  The child-president in office is simply not up to the task, and even the most aggressive reformer on the political stage (Paul Ryan, or maybe Rand Paul – tossup) does not have a plan of sufficient depth to reverse our position.

And the voters simply have not come to grips with the reality of our situation.  Our people are unplugged, ill-informed, and still living in a fantasy land when it comes to fiscal reality.

Yeah, I’m not hopeful for the future.

And it pains me to see my friends whistling past the graveyard.  When things do go to crap, they are going to be the first who will ask ‘what happened?’, and inevitably, the first to draw the wrong conclusions about how we got here.

I have no answers.

When was the last time the Democrats lost a close vote?  It is almost miraculous, isn’t it?

The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Link is here.

The greatest evil perpetrated by both sides of our political class has been convincing us that this bastardized mixed economy of convoluted legislation and distorted market forces is called ‘capitalism’, and then crowing about the failure of ‘capitalism’ when the whole damn thing begins to break down.  Hey, let’s pile on more of the things that destroyed it in the first place!

Republican and Democrats.  To hell with all of them.

In Gov. Deval Patrick’s Massachusetts, if you’re on the dole, you may be eligible to get a free car. So much for the budget Armageddon they keep talking about at the State House.

Let the taxpayers worry about those billion-dollar deficits. If you’re on welfare, come on down!

Nice enough that the layabouts get a free car – plus the state picks up the tab for insurance, excise tax, title, registration, inspection, and approved repairs. The absolute frosting on the cake is a free AAA membership.

Link

The House wants to increase Members’ office budgets next fiscal year by almost 15 percent, partly because 2010 is an election year and lawmakers anticipate a surge in franked mail.

In a recently released budget request, the House Chief Administrative Officer asked appropriators to raise the Members’ Representational Allowances — which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, travel and supplies — by $90 million, citing increases “due to the election year cycle.”

Never mind laws that overtly prohibit the use of public funds for campaigns (outside of the legal matching funds approved by the FEC).  Why let a little thing like the law get in the way of winning an election?

There is a better way.

Resolution for Congress to Convene a Convention to Propose Amendments Constituting a Bill of Federalism

Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as the Tenth Amendment affirms; and

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation of the powers of the several states and of the people;

To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people to which the Ninth Amendment refers, the legislature of the State of ________ hereby resolves that:

Congress shall call a convention to propose the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

[The Bill of Federalism]

Article [of Amendment 1] — [Limits of Federal Power]
Congress shall make no law nor delegate any authority, pursuant to its powers in the eighth section of article I, respecting any activity confined within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress has power to reasonably regulate pollution between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 2] — [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]
The legislative power shall not be construed to allow Congress to impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, an obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall the legislative power be construed to allow Congress to place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds unless the requirement imposed by the condition would be within its power if enacted as a regulation.

Article [of Amendment 3] — [Reserved Powers of States]
Subject to the requirements of Article VI, every state has the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place within its borders, provided that no state regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, liberty, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 4] — [Recision Power of States]
Upon application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states, any law, regulation or order of the United States shall be rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 5] — [No Federal Death Tax]
Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes upon personal gifts or estates.

Article [of Amendment 6] — [No Federal Income Tax]
The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, and Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes upon personal incomes, consumption or expenditures, but nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to deny Congress the power to lay and collect an excise or sales tax that is uniform throughout the United States. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 7] — [Term Limits for U.S. Senators and Representatives]
Section 1. No person who has been elected or served for a full term to the Senate two times shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. No person who has been elected for a full term to the House of Representatives six times shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives.
Section 2. No person who has served as a Senator for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected or appointed shall subsequently be eligible for election to the Senate more than once. No person who has served as a Representative for more than one year shall subsequently be eligible for election to the House of Representatives more than five times.
Section 3. No election or service occurring before this article becomes operative shall be taken into account when determining eligibility for election under this article.

Article [of Amendment 8] — [Balanced Budget Veto]
Section 1. For purposes of this article, the budget of the United States for any given fiscal year shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the debt of the United States held by the public at the close of such fiscal year is greater than the total amount of the debt of the United States held by the public at the close of the preceding fiscal year.
Section 2. If the budget of the United States is unbalanced for any given fiscal year, the President may separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States, and which is presented to the President during the next annual session of Congress.
Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to section 2 of this article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed under section 7 of Article I for bills disapproved by the President, separately reconsider those reduced or disapproved monetary amounts.
Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 5. This article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] — [Protecting the Rights Retained by the People]
The rights of citizens of the United States include all the enumerated and unenumerated liberties, and privileges recognized by this Constitution. Nothing in this constitution shall be construed to create any conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that a law, regulation, or order of the United States or of a State does not infringe such rights. In any case or controversy in which an abridgment of such rights is alleged, no party shall be denied the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an unreasonable restriction on such rights and therefore is unconstitutional.

Article [of Amendment 10] — [No Judicial Alterations of the Constitution]
The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V.

I am still 100% behind the invasion of Iraq, even if it has been botched.  I believe the best way to confront Islam is to ‘plant the flag’ over there and engage the region.  I’ve written buckets on the details behind that belief, and I’m prepared to write more buckets if needed.  Iraq was merely the most convenient nation to overturn.  They had a hostile leadership with known ties to regional terrorism with Palestine.  It was a lawless nation harboring many known terrorists.  It had continued to defy the UN on technologies inspection.  The leadership failed to account for materials in their position, as required by the UN.  While we have found a bunch of chemical artillery rounds, the WMD hasn’t turned up.  I’d still like to know about the truck conveys from Iraq to Syria in the days before the war, but our President has utterly failed to press that issue.

Iraq lined up as the easiest choice.  Invading Iran would have been a bolt from the blue (even though I think it would have been a better choice, public opinion be damned).  Syria as well, with little previous history.  Saudia Arabia is supposed to be our friend, so invading them wasn’t on the table.  But with Iraq, you already had the 1991 war, which was never officially ended.  You had plenty of pretext to go in.

I know a lot of people don’t agree with pre-emption.  I respect that.  Many think the best choice was to not invade anyone.  A few years back I would completely agree with those people.  Islamic insanity and regional butchery were unfortunate, but it wasn’t our problem. 

However, even before 9/11, evidence was mounting that some day there would have to be a reckoning.  WMD technology will filter into the hands of butchers.  Going into Iraq simply to knock off the WMD wouldn’t have been enough.  Stomping out fires isn’t enough.  We have to remove the fuel.

So going into the Middle East forces the confrontation today, while the Islamic regimes lack nuclear technology.  The plan was to establish civilization and let that force erode the barbarism of twelfth century Islam. 

That isn’t easy.  But I believe the alternative of containment leads to eventual misery as the radicals increase their capabilities.

I think reasonable people can debate this perspective reasonably. 

So, moving forward into 2008, I’m looking for a candidate that agrees with continued confrontation, agrees that the Bush handling of Iraq is not the way to continue, and has the presence and charisma to engage America and convince people that this is indeed our best course.  Every other issue is secondary.  I don’t care about party, domestic issues, gun control, abortion, and all the other September 10th crap that drove politics for so long.

As it stands today, I have to go with Rudy Giuliani who just announced as a candidate.

If you’ve heard Giuliani give a press conference, I think you’ll agree he’s a breath of fresh air after years of wooden men reciting empty positions.  The man simply ‘is’.  I think he communicates even better than Reagan, and that will be essential in the coming years.

This incident, to me, suggests he has a proper perspective on Islam.

Here’s video of Rudy talking about his intention to run.

Take a look.  Start paying attention to him.  He might be our best hope going forward.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

It does undermine the argument that marriage is strictly a matter of procreation.