Nobody cares where McCain and Obama were born

As Sen. John McCain clinches the Republican nomination, it is important to analyze issues regarding the Arizona senator, which, up until now, have gone largely overlooked. A little-known fact about John McCain is that he was, in fact, not born in Arizona. He was actually born in Panama, on a military base called Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 (yes, he is that old).

Why is this relevant to his presidential run? Because the Constitution makes a clear determination as to who is eligible for the highest office of the United States, and non-natural-born citizens need not apply. Unfortunately for McCain, the Panama Canal Zone has never been an official territory of the United States.

The fact that his father was a member of the U.S. military and he was born on a military base is irrelevant as well. Contrary to popular belief, foreign military bases are not considered to be U.S. soil, and those born there must become naturalized. This issue is addressed specifically by the State Department in 7 FAM 1111.2(c), which states that a child born on a military base overseas “does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

But allow me to be perfectly clear: His status as a United States citizen is not in question. The rights of natural-born and naturalized citizens are equal, as decided by the Supreme Court case of Schneider v. Rusk in 1964, and none of this would have any impact on his status as a senator. But it does raise questions as to his eligibility as a potential president.

McCain’s staff is confident that this is not going to be an issue. The senator ran for the office of president in 2000, losing the Republican nomination to Bush, and they are sure that the issue was satisfactorily investigated then. Theodore Olson, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said in a New York Times article titled “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out,” stated that he doesn’t “have much doubt about it,” but added that he would continue his research.

In the end, this should be the least of his issues. I have yet to see a poll in which “McCain’s citizenship” has been a major influence in how people are planning to cast their ballot come November.

Besides, issues such as national origin are antiquated, and aren’t seriously considered by us conservatives. That’s why we don’t care if McCain was born in Panama, or that Sen. Barack Obama spent four years growing up in Indonesia training to be a Manchurian candidate that will destroy us all.

We don’t reduce ourselves to such lows.

The Mauve Hand - The Homosexual Agenda Invades Soap Operas

As if As the World Turns didn't give us enough to cringe about, my friends at the American Family Association - the noted defender of free speech for white evangelical Christians - inform me that they have gone so far as to show a gay couple in an open, committed relationship:

The American Family Association is calling on Procter & Gamble to adopt a neutrality policy on controversial issues, especially when it comes to pushing the homosexual agenda on network television.

Procter & Gamble (P&G) owns the long-running soap opera As the World Turns, which features a fictional romance between two young men. In fact, last August the CBS daytime soap became the first to feature two homosexual men kissing.

The Homosexual Agenda is more than a witty name to give your persona in City of Villains. It is a reality that has dominated our nation's discourse and turned this Judeo-Christian nation away from the one true God (the one that Supports Our Troops). Luckily they know just how to respond:

"What Procter & Gamble has done by not having a neutrality policy on any controversial issue [is] they've now put themselves in the middle of this battle between homosexual activists and those who aspire to more traditional family values -- especially on network TV in the public forum," argues Sharp.

The AFA spokesman is hopeful P&G will simply opt not to get involved in controversial topics, such as a homosexual kiss on television, and adopt a policy toward that end. But "the best thing that they could do," he suggests, "is to go ahead and drop these two characters [from the show]."

I will give a great, heaving "Amen!" to that, sister. What many Americans fail to realize is that "neutrality" towards a controversial social issue does not mean "approaching an issue with the intent of dismantling stereotypes and prompting discussion", but means "abhorring the practice completely and damning all who think otherwise."

Americans should contact P&G and express their outrage at this blatant support of the homosexual lifestyle. How can we as a nation conduct a reasonable, rational discussion on gay rights when gays are constantly being flaunted in soap operas as "human beings" who "express genuine emotions" or otherwise attempt to garner our sympathy? The audacity!

And if that wasn't enough, can you believe that they have managed to infiltrate Christian programming as well! Imagine my horror when I witnessed this debauchery:

"The contents don't squirt in your face?"

"A point at the top for ease of entry?"

"Just the right shape for the human mouth and curved towards the face?!"

I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it...

EPA Demonstrates Proper Judgment

Normally organizations whose titles contain the word "environmental" and "protection" make their way onto my prestigious "List of Objectionable People". I pretty much assume that such groups are in league with America's enemies, be they Communists, hippies, peaceniks, terrorists, Muslim extremists, communist terrorists, hippie extremists, Muslim communists, terrorist peaceniks, or any other mortifying combination of those terms.

But recently the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated that it was willing to defy the snarling of left-wing lunatics, and start doing its job objectively and without influence.

Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.

Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.

If there's one thing that scientists should be, it's objective. We conservatives understand that. That's why when a situation like this arises, we feel obligated to speak out. For too long our environmental policy has been shaped by the misguided notion that the industry should be wholly removed from the process of determining whether their products are potentially harmful to the American people. As if they have something to gain from manipulating the process in order to mask dangerous elements of their products.

The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.

Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low doses of deca and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the environment and people.

Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.

Exactly. How are we supposed to trust the panels findings when they are chaired by individuals who have actively studied the effects of the chemical in question? It is absurd that we should expect the EPA to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation into deca when their scientists release scientific findings showing that it has the potential to cause serious damage to living organisms.

EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality."

Luckily this system has its checks and balances. When the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group representing the chemical industry, felt that their product might be getting a raw deal, they demanded that Rice be removed from the panel.

Think of it kind of like the Executive and the Legislative branches of our government, with
the EPA as Congress and the ACC as the President. When Congress looks like they might not agree with everything the President wants them to, the President just starts removing senators he doesn't like. This ensures that the whole process runs as smoothly as possible, and that there are no unnecessary conflicts of interest.

Because the only people truly qualified to determine impartiality in the EPA are the ones who stand to maintain millions in revenue based on their decisions. That's why we call America "The Land of the Free".

Just Be Glad You're Not Dead Yet

FISA expired. Consider every second since a personal gift from that Judeo-Christian God you probably don't believe in. The Heritage Foundation had an overtime clock going, but it seems to have disappeared from their website. No doubt a result of AQ or NOW or some other sinister acronym. So I've made one of my own. It's not quite up to par with the original, but it gets the job done and sends the same important message...

In Defense of Clinton - Part II

I wasn't interested in politics around the time that this famous commercial was aired. Most of what I remember in terms of significant public events from the 1990s was the OJ Simpson trial and the emergence of Pokemon.

Yet as national politics begins to slowly and methodically become America's favorite pastime I am becoming more and more interested in the discourse of the Clinton era. French philosopher Henry Bergson once said "the present contains nothing more than the past." And Hillary Clinton is a shining example of that.

Arguably the most aggravating thing about following politics is the general public's complete inability to recall any history past the last episode of Lost. That goes for us conservatives as well as our liberal counterparts. Those of us who pride ourselves in digging through campaign contributions and reading up on past policy implosions often see our hours of painstaking research and analysis go unheeded, as people inevitably flock towards the candidate who will whisper sweet nothings in their ear.

This has also been the case with me. While many in the Republican party are disenchanted with the prospect of running a McCain ticket, most if not all will, without a doubt in my mind, bow down and vote for him regardless. Even the Dobsons of the world, despite their bawling and moaning, will fill in the bubble next to the Mad Dog when November rolls around.

But I am here to offer up a different path, perhaps one thought of as unorthodox to some. For a staunch conservative to toss his support behind a Democrat seems unreasonable, but I have devoted myself to explaining just why this is a step in the right direction for our nation. It is important that Americans, especially conservatives who are seeing their party wane and begin to crumble, vote for the candidate who shares their ideology, regardless of what party they affiliate themselves with.

A letter is a letter, and there are many prominent examples of people for whom the letter "D" means absolutely nothing.

Am I suggesting that Clinton is equitable to Lieberman? Certainly not. We can't wish for the impossible. But she is certainly not someone deserving of the vilification she is often exposed to. Especially on issues such as health care.


The American Health Choices Plan (in pdf format here) is about as moderate and pro-corporation as any platform you'll find. And that pleases me in ways I'm not allowed to describe on this page. What we have here is a reconfiguring of the insurance industry, though fundamentally nothing drastic is being done, certainly nothing on the Conyers/Kucinich level. It's a lot like turning the living room couch to face the other direction, then calling up your friends and telling them you bought a new house.

Easily the most appealing part of this whole plan is the portion entitled Shared Responsibility. Essentially what happens under a Clinton health care system is that everyone is ordered, for fear of punishment, to purchase health insurance, while insurance and pharmaceutical companies have to compete to to provide high-quality, affordable health care.

In short: companies do what they're doing now, but now everyone is required by law to do business with them. If that's not capitalism at its finest, someone tell me what is!

As you read on, you also see some very comforting statistical information from our friends at the RAND Corporation. And let me tell you, nothing woos me quite like an endorsement from the RAND Corporation. This research group has a board of trustees that exemplifies what it means to be "pro-business". Nothing says, "I'm here to provide independent research" quite like a board of trustees that boasts the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, the former Senior VP of Dow Jones, a former Secretary of the USAF, and a number of former White House secretaries.

That's not to mention my main man, Mr. Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, who has been a signatory on a number of pro-Iraq war statements made by Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. If you don't know who they are by now, you watch too much MTV.

Some of you will undoubtedly ask, "But Matt, you Irish stallion, this is nothing like what the Republicans are offering. And we all know that big business is in bed with the Republicans." At which point I will flash a devilishly-handsome smile and hand you a copy of a NY Times article by Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear entitled "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton". I will leave you with this excerpt, and remind you that for the good of American conservatism and American business interests, I urge you to support Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.

Some of the same interests that tried to derail Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. The Health Insurance Association of America ran the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials mocking the Clinton health care plan as impenetrably complex. Some companies that were members of that group are now donating to Mrs. Clinton.

Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as “ancient history,” and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because “she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.”

Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering.”

(Author's note: Senator Rick Santorum lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. This makes Senator Clinton the No. 1 recipient of health insurance donations.)

In Defense of Clinton - Part I

After the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton at the hands of her opponent, Barack Obama (and an opponent is what he is, despite the friendly rhetoric) in the Potomac primaries, us Clintonoids were feeling a little despondent. The significant lead which the Clinton campaign had been enjoying was finally eroded, the race becoming a dead heat despite her commanding lead in superdelegates. It was time for a shift, and Hillary made the right move by shaking up her staff and ejecting unneeded support.

Not Goldman Sachs or Time Warner, of course. She has enough experience to know that, thankfully, business interests are the one thing you don't want to tinker with, despite what your constituency may think.

But more than issues with staff, I feel that the Clinton campaign has had too difficult a time trying to pander to the "far left" by explaining away Clinton's war record. I will address this sentiment in the Daily 49er soon, but I wanted to take a moment to outline some of the key details here.

The piece that brought my attention to Hillary Clinton's war record blundering was a clip from Countdown. Take a look:

Others have expressed similar sentiment about Clinton's position on the war, feeling that while she expresses a desire to end it eventually and routinely criticizes the current administration, they feel that there hasn't been much of an official apology. When asked to officially apologize for her Iraq vote by Roger Tilton at a New Hampshire campaign stop, Clinton replied that "Knowing what I know now I would never have voted for it."

Valid. Certainly a few of our minor assumptions about the war were a bit misguided, but it's not like anyone knew any better at the time. Cut her some slack, libs! Your poster-boy in 2004 said that he "agree[d] completely with this Administration's goal of regime change in Iraq." You were smart enough to want to put him in the White House, so why not someone like Hillary?

I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating: Hillary is strong when it comes to foreign policy. Not McCain strong; not "Bomb-bomb-Iran" strong. But that's to be expected from the Democrats. It's sort of like when a boy pretends to shave with his dad and uses a tongue depressor to peel the shaving cream off his face. He's got the right idea, but he's not quite ready for the multi-blade. Or, in McCain's case, the K-bar sharpened against the jawbones of his enemies.

Hillary Clinton refuses to back away from her war vote, sticking to her husband's mantra of "strong and wrong beats weak and right." Despite the wail of the moonbats, she remains unwavering. And that is the kind of resolve I love to see in a President. In reality, I believe all Americans, Democrat or Republican, admire someone who will intentionally defy the will of his own people and the restraints of Constitutional law in order to advance his/her own ideological goals.

Clinton has demonstrated that she will do that, and do it she must.

Why I'm Voting for Hillary Clinton!

I bet you never expected to see that image here, did you? Perhaps there is a pang of fear, a howling, shrieking hurricane of horror tearing its way up the back of your neck and going Katrina on the very nether regions of your soul. If so, you know exactly how I felt only a few days ago.

You see, for many conservatives like myself, the mere utterance of the name "Clinton" has the same effect as shouting "Fire!" in the middle of a crowded room. The only difference being that someone is liable to actually set the building on fire in a blind rage.

I have long been of the belief that Hillary Clinton was a communist, the antichrist, or at least married to him. The guilt-by-association was undeniable proof of everything Ronald Reagan warned us about before he went senile and parked Air Force One inside his library. The Reds were infiltrating, and only the Republicans were the wiser.

In an attempt to better understand the inner workings of this sinister movement, I decided to do some research of my own. What I discovered, my friends, was nothing short of astounding. Not a hammer nor a sickle to be seen. In fact, her record...impressed me.

There was the shock, the wrench of the stomach! No, get a hold of yourself. You're falling in to their clever ruse. It must be hidden somewhere between the lines, between the pounds and pounds of lipstick and rouge. But the more I looked, the more I admired.

My friends, I am here today to tell you that I am officially endorsing Hillary Clinton for President.

Hear me out, my fellow conservatives. Sure, there are a lot of things about Clinton's record that we don't particularly like. But can you not say the same thing of McCain or Romney or Huckabee? You know the answer to that question; nobody running for President has a pure record. And Hillary has the punch where it counts. If she had cajones, I'd tell you they were huge.

First, look at these two quotes. One of them is spoken by our current President, the other by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

and...

"Every nation has to be either with us or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or finance them, are going to pay a price."

I couldn't tell which was which either.

The truth is, Clinton has been with us on the most important issues of our time. We've just been too blinded by our hatred of the Clintons to recognize all the good the two have done for our nation as well as for businesses. Did you know that while Bill Clinton was President, not only did the Republicans take back both houses of Congress, but we also saw the passing of the Telecommunications Act which further consolidated major broadcast media, even surpassing the level which Reagan himself achieved?

Clinton also oversaw the creation of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA, which have allowed international businesses to bypass the industry and labor regulations of sovereign nations in the name of global commerce, as well as allow subsidized US agriculture to put Mexican farmers out of work. I cannot think of a single Republican who has done more to advance the interests of global business more than Bill Clinton. Without him, entities like Wal-Mart may not have become the local-economy-crushing juggernauts that they are today (Fun Fact: Hillary Clinton once served on the board of directors at Wal-Mart).

And even if we ignore the work of her husband, Clinton offers us one of the most trustworthy voting records when it comes to national defense. From the liberal trashcan known as Collingwood's:

YES on the Patriot Act
YES on authorizing pre-emptive war in Afghanistan and Iraq
YES on funding for both wars, up until around the time polls showed it wasn't politically viable anymore
YES on funding for a border fence along Mexico
YES on funding for the REAL ID Act
YES on declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization
YES on conformation of Tom Ridge
YES on confirmation of Michael Chertoff
YES on confirmation of John Negroponte

As the moonbat says: "Right away we see a number of votes that, in all honesty, look more at home on the resume of John McCain or Rudy Giuliani than someone purporting to be a liberal." And may that be the last time the two of us agree on something.

So with this in mind, it is my distinct honor to finally offer my valuable endorsement to a presidential candidate who shares my concrete and unwavering vision for this nation. I hereby announce my support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of these United States. May she serve at least as well as her husband, and like her husband, ensure that the Republicans maintain control of the Legislative Branch for decades to come!