We're In The Big Time

A follow-up to my formal objection to the inclusion of Willard "Mitt" Romney on the ballot in the state of Kansas.
RECAP-
Some guy at the vet school in Manhattan got a lawyer to file an objection to the inclusion of Barak Obama on the presidential ballot in Kansas. A Board of Objections,comprised of the Secretary of State, the Lt. Governor, and the Attorney General can decide who is or is not on the ballot. The vet school dude, in charming legalese, repeated standard birther arguments; Obama Sr not a US citizen, Barak not born in US, etc., etc.), his objection noted some court cases while ignoring others. It occurred to me, here at the TTFFIAT(IAT), that every argument put forward to take Mr. Obama off the ballot also applied to Mr. Romney (Father not US citizen, no proof of birthplace,etc., etc.).
I sent a copy of my objections to each member of the Board and lo and behold! they did not ignore me! I received a letter of Mr. Kobach's office essentially telling me to go to hell (in a nice way) because I had filed too late. But for the first time the Think Tank For Freedom IN America To Think (In A Tank) has finally made a splash in electoral politics!!! OK, maybe just the tiniest ripple, the Assistant Secretary of State Eric Rucker spent three minutes dismissing my complaint - but still - that's something.
Now that our think tank is bigtime, I am now outraged at the Huffington Post's blogger, Jason Linkins, comments concerning Think Tanks:

  Think tanks exist as a vital part of the white-collar welfare industry for parchy white people who lack the courage to actually make material contributions to society like teaching children math or delivering pizza. This nation is amazing, because in actual countries with actual problems, think tankers would be thrown in ditches.

He was actually referring to the American Enterprise Institute, a major league think tank, but now I believe i have also earned the right to be indignant.

An "Entitlement Society"? Yes, indeed.

Despite the efforts of some to make “entitlements” a dirty word, we have always been an entitlement society. The Declaration of Independence says just because we are human beings we a entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson wrote “to secure these rights (One could also call them entitlements) Governments are instituted among men.” Here is one example of how our government protects our entitlements.

My uncle recently had a pacemaker installed, an expensive operation that was largely paid for by a government “entitlement” program, Medicare. Should he have felt entitled to this benefit? He is a citizen of the United States, a veteran of WWII, the father of now-grown productive children, a participant in his community and church.  But most importantly, my uncle is entitled because he paid for his benefits. Social Security and Medicare are financed through payroll taxes that he paid his entire working career. Is he a freeloader dependent government handouts; a person who will not take responsibility for his own life? No way. He is a person, a citizen, a veteran, a taxpayer; you bet he is entitled, in just the same way you are entitled.

We have joined together to form a government that secures for it’s citizens rights that are not always available in other countries; like freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Mr. Obama is not attempting to create an Entitlement Society, he is trying to preserve what we have always had. Mr. Romney would change us to a society where Entitlements are available to only a certain social and economic class.

Formal Objection to Mitt Romney's Certificate of Nomination

A triumvirate of august officials in Kansas is apparently burnishing their TEA Party street cred by considering removing Barak Obama's name from the general election. See article here.
We here at the TTFFIATT(IAT) have realised for some time that the objections to Mr.Obama holding the office are identical to the objections to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. (Father not a citizen, etc etc...)
I have sent a formal objection to Mitt Romey's inclusion on the general election ballot in Kansas Nov. 6. The basis being that Mr. Romney is not eligible to serve in the office for which he has been nominated.

The objection is being delivered to the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Lt. Governor by e-mail and USPS. My letter may make similar arguments to the objection to Barak Obama's nomination, but you may find it superior in both logic and legal acumen.

The formal objection letter is heavy with legal arguments honed from my years of legal training watching Perry Mason and Law & Order, but please wade through it. Do it for America.

Formal Objection to Mitt Romney's certificate of nomination

I wish to  file a formal objection  to the certificate of nomination for Willard Mitt  Romney under KSA 25-308, given allowance that two calendar days following the date of the documents filing (Sep. 6) fell upon a Saturday and Sunday, limiting the ability to access the office of the Secretary of State. Any statutory limitations concerning filing dates should be ignored due to the fact that I had never heard of the  “Objections Board”. I file this objection with and expectation of consistency under Chapter 25 Article 3.

I contest the nomination of Willard Romney under KSA 25-1436(a) through KSA 25-308(e).  As you know, Part A of Article 1436 reads: (a) The person to whom a certificate of election was issued was ineligible to hold such office at the time of the election.”

Willard Romney, purportedly nominated by the Republican Party is ineligible to hold the office of president according to multiple legal precedents. The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates for this office must be born in this country to parents who are US citizens, primarily to a US citizen father.

I reject the popular argument that the framers, when writing Article II, Section 1, used the term “natural born Citizen” to discourage the use of  the obstetric procedure know as “Cesarean Section.’ At the time the ratification this method of delivery was dangerous to both mother and child; hence the use the term “natural born.” It is impractical to go back to medical records and update every American’s Birth Certificate to include the categories “Natural" or "Cesarean". Current legal thinking is that the framers had something else in mind.

The “landmark” case Minor v Happersett supports my contention that Mr. Romney is ineligible to hold the office of president. The case US v Wong Kim Ark does not bolster my argument, so I will label it “controversial”. When comparing the correctness of these aforementioned cases it should be noted that in a subsequent case, Luria v Unites States, the Minor case was cited and the Wong Kim Ark was NOT cited. It should also be noted that Wong Kim Ark was not cited in the comic Spy v Spy or the movie Alien v Predator. So any legal analyst would conclude that Minor v Happersett wins.

Citing well known Swiss lawgiver Emmerich de Vattel, author of “Law of Nations”, a legal source frequently used by the Supreme Court, the dissent to US v Wong Kim Ark included:

    The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are  citizens….The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

It is important to not note that the dissenting opinion is the LOSING opinion. The well-established legal principle that citizenship is passed only through the male parent is universally know as “Moms Don’t Matter”.

Willard Romney was not born to a citizen father. His father was born in the Republic of Mexico, (jus soli) to parents who disagreed with some of the laws of the United States and took up residency in that country, leaving behind their homes and their citizenship. See The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The Romney family snuck back across the border to Texas to escape violence (as Mexicans still do today, but remember, this was pre - Fence), but there is no record of George Romney (Willard’s father) ever taking the test to become a naturalized citizen.

George Romney held elected office in the United States and was, in 1968, on primary ballots for the office of president. However, unlike some candidates of today, there was little or no discussion of his parents’ citizenship, his eligibility, or his birth certificate (long or short form). George Romney sounded American, looked American and had probably not been delivered via Cesarean Section. And he was white.

The Costituion does not, being a concise document, define the term “natural born citizen”. It is up to US courts to apply the term. Willard Romney’s ineligibility is pointed to in  US legal precedent in decisions such as Minor v Happersett, Luria v United States, or Elk v Wilkins. When a court decision may indicate that Mr. Romney would be eligible (US v Wong Kim Ark), we birthers will even cite foreign laws (Law of Nations, British Nationality Act 1948)

Willard Romney has not provided to authoritative bodies in Kansas or anywhere else any documentation of his alleged birth. He has stated publicly that no one has asked to see his birth certificate but this filing is intended to put an end to that.

I am confident in my ability, shared with many fellow citizens, to ascertain that a document has been altered or forged.  This ability applies even to documents that we have not even seen. So, I can state that the alleged birth certificate that has not been released by Mr. Romney is not valid, true, or accurate.
Any public official who might in the future attest to the validity of any such purported document should be deemed incompetent, mendacious and/or pants on fire.

Willard Romney has not provided valid documentation concerning the circumstances of his birth. He cannot meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, in terms established by the Supreme Court of the United States because his old man was a foreigner. The appearance of his name on any ballot in Kansas is illegitimate and unconstitutional. As a registered voter of the State of Kansas with the right to challenge his inclusion, ask that the Board of Objections remove his name from the ballot, refuse to count any votes cast for him, and assign no electors on his behalf.

I am asking  the Board of Objections to ignore legal precedent, ignore the will of the Republican primary voters, ignore the democratic form of government, but most of all, ignore the facts; and prevent Willard Mitt Romney’s  inclusion on ballots for the general election on Nov 6. I also ask that this case not be settled until there has been consultation with authorities in Arizona and Mississippi, for verily, these locations are the two fonts of all wisdom and truth.

Can you believe it? Obama plays golf!?!

Some people have criticized President Obama for playing golf. That is just not right.
If you want to slam him for getting the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 8046 to 12,369; then go ahead.
If you want to castigate him for increasing the number of American private sector jobs in 26 consecutive months; OK.
If you want to denounce him for ending The War to Find Saddam’s WMD; all right.
If you want to disparage his tax cuts for working people (the Making Work Pay Tax Credit and the Payroll Tax Holiday); then knock yourself out.
But, if you condemn the President of the United States for playing golf, then I’m drawing the line. That is NOT OK, here’s why. Golf makes Presidents and presidential candidates more effective and successful. In fact, they should be required to play golf. Look at this list: (Franklin Roosevelt and Bob Dole are excluded from this analysis) Presidents and presidential candidates who did not play golf include Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, and Herbert Hoover. (Mitt Romney wants to join this list?? He can afford a bag of clubs and some lessons).
If you insist on bashing Presidential golfers, then you are smearing the President who led the defeat of the Axis Powers; the President who oversaw the greatest expansion of American wealth and power; the President who installed a putting green in the White House backyard; the President who played 800 rounds during his term of office.
If you just can not stand it that we have a President who plays golf, then you are criticizing General Dwight David Eisenhower and I may have to ask you to step outside onto the first tee.

Mitt's Memory vs My Memory

Turns out that Mitt Romney was a real life Scut Farkus.

A Romney spokeswoman dismissed the reports of Mitt's school days misbehaviour as being unimportant, because it happened so long ago. Her opinion was that this subject was not worthy of discussion.

Below is an e-mail I sent my favorite Sexy Liberal Radio Yak-Show Hostess, Stephanie Miller. It briefly tells about an incident from Manhattan High School way back in the previous century. I have thought about what happened that day but have never talked about it out loud. I can't take it back now.

There was a boy in my high school class who, perhaps was gay; maybe his voice didn't hadn't changed yet; he just sounded different. One day I mockingly imitated him when I yelled out his name across the crowded lunchroom. My buddies and I got a good laugh. He may have had problems other than jocks making fun of him in public, because later that school year he used a shotgun to kill himself.

What I did was mean, thoughtless, and wrong. Unlike Mitt Romney, I remember what I did. It was 1973, but I recall what a horrible thing I did. I remember exactly.

Perhaps Mitt has had so many of these incidents he can not separate one memory from another.

This does matter, even though "it was a long time ago". Jesus was here a long time ago; Joseph Smith was here a long time ago; the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written a long time ago; 9-11 was a long time ago; these things all matter today.

It appears that as a high-schooler, Mitt did not care about people. As a businessman, Mitt did not care about people. As a politician, Mitt does not care about people (unless they are also corporations).

Senator, You Got Out-Voted

The Hays Daily News, March 20, included a letter from Sen. Pat Roberts lamenting Friday’s second anniversary of the passage of Obamacare. One of the reasons he is working to repeal health care reform is that “the law…increases premiums for families by $2,100 a year.” I wondered, “Where does that figure come from?”
A quick search showed that same statement had also been made by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Sen. Mike Enzi, Sen. Mike Johans, and Sen. Orrin Hatch. They reference a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Evan Bayh written when the Affordable Care Act was being debated.  “Buried deep” on Page 5 is a table that indeed shows some family premiums going up; but only for a certain kind of family.
The Expected Premium Increase Before Accounting for Subsidies for a non-group family is listed as +10 to 13%.  This is where the $2,100 figure comes from. However, the CBO expects this to be only about 17% of the public. These would be the people who can not get insurance through an employer. Most of us would be the Small Group, less than 50 employees (premiums +1 to -2%) or the Large Group, more than 50 employees (premiums 0 to -3%).  The Senators are quoting a figure relating to one piece of the puzzle and telling us that this represents the whole puzzle.
Those figures come from the line labeled “Before Accounting for Subsidies”; you see, Obamacare will give those non-group families a subsidy to help pay for health insurance, if their income is less than 400% of the poverty line (this would effect families making less than $92,200 per year). After Accounting for Subsidies most of those families Sen. Roberts claimed would be getting hit with an increase of $2,100 will actually see a substantial premium reduction (-56 to -59%). I’m surprised Sen. Roberts didn’t see this figure; it is on the very next line.
Senator Roberts, two years ago you and your GOP colleagues argued in Congress to ration health care according to the patient’s wealth and to continue putting insurance company profits ahead of the customer’s health. You got out-voted.

This time it is actually true! War on Religion

The follow-up  to It's All True! War On Religion!
This time the letter contains actual truth.

Last week in the Readers Forum section of this paper a letter was published under the headline "Well Done". The letter decried the Obama administration's "war on religion" and extolled the work done on our behalf by our representatives in Congress; Pat Roberts, Jerry Moran and Tim Huelskamp. I trust that most of the readers picked up on the sarcasm; for you see, unlike some other letter writers, I deliberately wrote a letter where not a word was true.
If you have done your taxes for 2011, you know that the $800 tax credit you had in 2009 and 2010, called "Making Work Pay", disappeared in the pointless debt limit fight. When politicians, like our representatives, talk about the "failed stimulus", remember that legislation reduced your tax bill for two years but is gone now.
In fairness, I need to point out that this week Rep. Huelskamp voted for you to pay 2% less in FICA taxes in 2011 (the payroll tax holiday). Sen. Moran and Roberts voted "NO" and "Not Voting".
In 2008 we had a financial meltdown and a recession. In my original letter, I gave our representatives credit for figuring out to keep such a thing from ever happening again. The truth is, they have done nothing of the kind. In fact, they have obstructed other people's attempts to fix the problems by voting against legislation, threatening to nullify laws, and blocking Presidential appointments. "Well Done" is opposite of what we should say to our representatives in Congress.
The Feb. 13th letter , I mentioned a "war on religion", wherein Obama was going to force all women to take birth control pills, whether they wanted them or not. Did anyone really believe that? In reality, women will be able to follow whatever their religious beliefs are concerning contraceptives, regardless of health insurance regulations. There is no "war on religion"; have you heard of anyone doing time in Leavenworth because they are a Methodist?
This time it is all true.

Published in The Hays Daily News



You may have noticed a couple of places where I tried to inject humor in my monologue, but I did it without accusing any particular woman of being a slut and a prostitute.