Open letter to al-Qa'ida

Following is the full text of an e-mail I received from The Federalist. I felt it worth passing on:

From a Marine officer on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan...

(This is an open letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "Islamic Response," and the rest of the so-called al-Qa'ida "insurgents" in Iraq and elsewhere. We don't have an e-mail address for these swine -- though we are closing in on their snail-mail address, but we are forwarding this letter to Federalist Patriots around the world in the hope you good people will forward it to as many other Patriots as possible to rally prayer and support for our fellow Marine, Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun. Should these al-Qa'ida pigs spill his blood, we want them to rest assured that the contents of this letter will eventually be nailed to their foreheads. Thank you for your assistance.)

To al-Qa'ida terrorists in Iraq:

I see that you have captured a U.S. Marine, and that you plan to cut off his head if your demands are not met. Big mistake. Before you carry out your threat I suggest you read up on Marine Corps history. The Japanese tried the same thing on Makin Island and in a few other places during World War Two, and came to regret it. Go ahead and read about what then happened to the mighty Imperial Army on Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They paid full price for what they did, and you will too.

You look at America and you see a soft target, and to a large extent you are right. Our country is filled with a lot of spoiled children who drive BMWs, sip decaf lattes and watch ridiculous reality TV shows. They are for the most part decent, hard working citizens, but they are soft. When you cut off Nick Berg's head those people gasped, and you got the media coverage you sought, and then those people went back to their lives. This time it is different. We also have a warrior culture in this country, and they are called Marines. It is a brotherhood forged in the fire of many wars, and the bond between us is stronger than blood. While it is true that this country has produced nitwits like John Kerry, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jane Fonda who can be easily manipulated by your gruesome tactics, we have also produced men like Jason Dunham, Brian Chontosh and Joseph Perez. If you don't recognize those names you should. They are all Marines who distinguished themselves fighting to liberate Iraq, and there will be many more just like them coming for you.

Before the current politically correct climate enveloped our culture one of the recruiting slogans of our band of brothers was "The Marine Corps Builds Men." You will soon find out just how true that is. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women. If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight. Instead, you are cowards who hide behind masks and decapitate helpless victims. If you truly represented the interest of the Iraqi people you would not be ambushing those who come to your country to repair your power plants, or sabotage the oil pipelines which fuel the Iraqi economy. Your agenda is hate, plain and simple.

When you raise that sword over your head I want you to remember one thing. Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun is not alone as he kneels before you. Every Marine who has ever worn the uniform is there with him, and when you strike him you are striking all of us. If you think the Marines were tough on you when they were cleaning out Fallujah a few weeks ago you haven't seen anything yet. If you want to know what it feels like to have the Wrath of God called down upon you then go ahead and do it. We are not Turkish truck drivers, or Pakistani laborers, or independent contractors hoping to find work in your country. We are the United States Marines, and we will be coming for you.

(Circulation of this message is being sponsored by The Federalist Patriot, the most widely read conservative e-journal on the Internet. If you have not already joined the ranks of Patriots receiving The Federalist Patriot, we encourage you to do so. This highly acclaimed conservative digest of news, policy and opinion will be delivered FREE by e-mail to your inbox each week. Simply link to -- http://Federalist.com/subscribe/patriots.asp If you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to and you will be subscribed automatically.)

Hillary the Communist

Hilary Clinton takes off her glasses and reveals her communist soul:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

All communist and socialist countries have a common thread – a dwindling or non-existent middle class. The elite liberals run everything in opulence for the drab and dreary little people.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." It sends shivers.

No News, Just Commentary

I just feel like writing for a bit. I have been scanning the news - lots of headlines, a few stories.

The USSC issued three rulings yesterday on combatant detentions. A sophomoric reading of one ruling seemed to cut against W. The press ran with it. Setback. Defeat. Loss. Dozens of headlines. All sky-falling material. Then I read the WSJ editorial take and it all was put into focus. W actually got a whole lot more than he lost. And the ACLU got slapped. Did the press miss it? Maybe. But they didn’t want to see it anyway.

Debra Saunders at the SF Chronicle heads a piece something like, “There is No Victory that cannot be Painted as a Defeat.” How true. That saying should be set to cross-stitch and sent to the heads of the mainstream media, lest they ever forget.

And it was those two above paragraphs that got me thinking about Sen. Howard Baker’s Silent Majority. Remember that time? The press would cry and moan after an election, “Oh, how did we get it so wrong?” Well, for one, numbskulls, you reported your opinion not the news. You gave column inches to yesterday’s versions of Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand (remember when that vacuous idjit tried to spell “Gephardt”? I used to have a tough time spelling “sergeant,” but that was in the 3d grade. Oh yeah, now thanks to Bravo! we learn that her favorite sound is an orgasm; at first that made me ill, then in a flash I pictured her with eyes crossed staring at her nose like she always does, all sweaty like a rodent in a puddle – and I laughed just long enough to get control of myself and move on to another thought, any thought). You, the press, didn’t get the mood of the electorate wrong – you didn’t even try. You were doing something different. You were interviewing loudmouths that can’t honestly research their own genealogy let alone someone else’s policies.

Al Franken? The promise of great things to come for Air America makes page after page of press; then it turns out to be a ranting, hate-filled enterprise. No press comment. Then ratings in NYC in one market segment viewed at a 47-degree angle with something in the plane of Venus and a waning Moon over some Roman God named Arch-something indicates better viewership than Rush and out comes page after page of press; then the next month comes along and Franken gets buried. No press comment. Air America has scads of money from investors making page after page of press; now things are so bad that seek to avoid their creditors by selling the assets to a new entity in a move generally viewed as fraudulent. No press coverage. You want to take the blinders off for a second? Look at the location of their channels – Alaska for crying out loud. Take out NYC and every market put together gets less coverage than the Farm Report I used to listen to everyday in Iowa.

Kerry issues this “Misery Index” that bends, shapes, and contorts economic data in such a way that – surprise – shows good trends under Clinton and bad under W. One of about seven data points was tuition in public colleges. Page after page of press. Turns out nobody can or wants to understand it. So the press coverage ends. But wait – now it turns out that tuition in public colleges which “went up so high and had such a disproportionate effect on the working poor who just want to get ahead” actually went down. Kerry forgot to take into account the increase in grants and other financial aid. Turns out that students on average pay about 25% of the sticker price. So net tuition actually went down. No press. None.

“The Iraq handover was nothing, means nothing, form over substance”? No wonder we don’t believe you anymore. We took out a murderous ruler, rebuilt infrastructure, and stabilized an economy; and then in the midst of all of this turned control over to the rightful owners – even as we continue to work. That only means nothing if you are predisposed to such a conclusion. Personally, I am rather awed by it all. I pray everyday for our soldiers. And everyday, I know some blinded-by-hate terrorist is emboldened by words coming from American liberal politicians. Does that make these politicians unpatriotic? No, but I’m even sure what that means. It is a word used only by liberals anyway. It does make them something, though – stupid. I learned a long time ago how to criticize someone to their face, to get my point across, without giving a listener ammunition. Liberals seem too cranially challenged to accomplish a similar feat. Oh well. What do you expect from a party that looks to Teddy (Make yourself useful, get me a drink) Kennedy as a patriarch. There is one way in which Teddy could be a beacon to the world – remember when funeral pyres were all the rage? With all the liquor in that fool, you could set him aflame onto the Charles River and track him by satellite as he lit the way through the Irish Sea, around the Horn of Africa, and everywhere man has traveled. Just think, another eternal flame, just like his brother got.

Al Gore screams his speeches like a raving lunatic, spittle washing the first three rows. His eyes popping out like one of those stress toys you squeeze. The press says, “Well, if you read the speech rather than watch it, he makes some cogent points.” How can they separate the message from the messenger in such a way? They never do when it is a conservative. Never. Not even once.

No, the press doesn’t miss some underlying trend. They try to create one. Then when something hard and unavoidable like a nationwide vote comes along, they go into a period of self-analysis. Unfortunately, they arise like a phoenix only to editorialize again.

The Silent Majority will prevail in November: the economy is strong, Iraq has little bad but a lot of good news left in it, W is reliable and consistent, and Kerry can lull an ADHD’r to sleep (I can say that – I am one); the Senate majority will be expanded thanks to the South; and the House will stay in our hands. Then the press will be wondering how they got things so wrong. Amazing, eh?

News to Watch Today - Canadian Elections

Seems the liberals are running scared in Canada. PM Paul Martin's strong government fell apart within months. And now the Conservatives have the very real chance to win a majority. Typical liberal response, though - if the electorate votes in a majority Conservative government, the liberals say that they are leaders "with whom you would share very little in common as prime minister - not priorities, not values and certainly not a vision for this great nation."

Hunh? This statement becomes operative only if the Canadian electorate casts the majority (or workable miniority) of their votes for them ... voter by voter ... oh yeah, forgot, liberals know what is best for us. Sorry.

News as a misnomer.

Boy, was the news stupid this weekend.

Le Papier de Rapport starts with this tortured piece about how the Bible says nothing about abortion. This guy wrote a book called Why I am a Catholic (let me guess, so you can sin with impunity?), and through all of his "knowledge" reduces the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion to so much political grandstanding. Let's start with the concept of dominion and read Psalms 139:13.

The news of the weekend continued to slide downhill as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) elected some guy as their “titular head” that supports practicing (ahem, excuse me, the correct word is “non-celibate”) homosexuals as ministers. Homosexuality is a sin. No different than other sin. It won’t keep people out of Heaven of and onto itself. There is only one unpardonable sin (see Matthew 12:32). And, yes, we are all sinners. But the point of Christianity is to turn from your sin, to repent. Not to relish in it, be proud of it, wear it like a badge of courage. Beware, oh Presbyterian Church leaders, of the clear warning in Matthew 7:23.

The U.N. pulls a Howard Dean by saying we don’t necessarily agree, but other people are saying that the nuclear industry is still carrying a rep rap over Chernobyl. This coming on the heels of them suggesting that the company Caterpillar be boycotted because a product they sold is moving (or may move) Jewish dirt. The U.N. is a collection of spineless anti-Semitic fools.

Then get this - Dean feels vindicated because “most” people think invading Iraq was wrong. That was, he shouts from the rooftops, his position during the campaign. I thought he would feel vindicated because he said Kerry could not beat W - and it appears he’s right. W is up nationwide head-to-head and three-way; and is up in Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Boy, Dean should feel deeply vindicated. And forget the transitory Iraq numbers – bad news day. Fickle data.

And some Muslim group is boycotting Cadbury because of the “prison torture.” The Muslims think we tortured them? Give me a break. We are not children here. Do we torture people for information? Of course – but through surrogate countries. And they give us the information we want. Oh yeah, they also want Caterpillar boycotted. Something about Jewish dirt. Surprise, surprise.

Then 9 out of 10 papers like that fat guy’s movie. Moore’s movie is worth the price of admission? It’s a child’s version of contemporary events. It has the factual depth of a puddle. For my money, I prefer Woody Allen’s Zelig in this genre.

And how many times do we need to hear about the money Kerry is raising? “Campaign war chest,” get tossed around. Le Papier de Rapport reports “From Poorhouse to Penthouse.” Gag me. Forget receipts - let’s talk cash on hand: W $110MM; Kerry $28.5MM. Next.

Finally, I find out that Marlon Brando is less than broke - he’s down $20MM and hides from collection agencies. Marlon … boy, he coulda been somebody.

Enough for useless information. Let’s go to the Straight Dope and learn something useful - Urinal 101: Aim for the back wall or the water?.

I’m going back to bed.

Liberal Math: 4 + 34 > 293,577,434

As I wrote a few days ago, the vote on the proposed Marriage amendment to the US Constitution coming before the Senate, then the House, should not be based solely upon the legislators’ personal feelings. The matter is ours to decide. There are almost 300MM of us out here. We should be allowed to voice our opinion more directly than through 100 Senators, of which only 34 need to vote against the amendment for it to die. Let the matter come to the several States. If not, then for the first time our our country’s history, we may be taking the alternative path to amendment – calling a Convention.

I am not suggesting that the process can or should begin and end with the same proposed text (here is one present version: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”)

Of interest, consider the path the familiar 1st Amendment Establish and Free Exercise Clauses took:

James Madison's Proposed Amendment, June 8, 1789. "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

Madison's Interpretation of His Proposed Amendment. "Congress should not establish a [national] religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

House Committee Report, Proposed Amendment, July 28, 1789. "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

Samuel Livermore's Substitute Amendment, August 15, 1789. "Congress shall make no laws touching religion or infringing the rights of conscience."

Amendment Approved by the House, August 24, 1789. "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed."

Amendment Approved by the Senate, September 9, 1789. "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Compromise Amendment Approved by Congress, September 25, 1789 (This is the version which was added to the Constitution in the First Amendment.). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

From first proposal to final language to present-day interpretation, much has changed.

Article V of the US Constitution provides the amendment process: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Through our history, 33 amendments have been approved through the federal legislature: 27 have been ratified by the required number of States; two have died; the remaining four are on life support and will probably stay that way (although the Child Labor Amendment may someday be revived). Many dozens of amendments are proposed each year but never leave the Capitol Building.

So let’s presume that the liberals vote “their conscience” and muster 34 votes against the proposed Marriage amendment (the same “conscience,” btw, that supports the killing of babies-in-uteri and the indefinite prolonging of life for adults that murder; that dichotomy will forever confuse me). The next alternative is for the States to call a Convention.

FindLaw provides this discussion of the Convention method (the original text has footnotes; since I have drawn out a selected portion, I have included the full text of the footnotes in (italics surrounded by parentheses):

“Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. (The matter is treated comprehensively in C. Brickfield, Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention, 85th Congress, 1st sess. (Comm. Print; House Judiciary Committee) (1957). A thorough and critical study of activity under the petition method can be found in R. Caplan, Constitutional Brinksmanship--Amending the Constitution by National Convention (1988).)

When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration. (Ibid. See also Federal Constitutional Convention, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, 90th Congress, 1st sess. (1967).)

This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. (C. Brickfield, Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention, 85th Congress, 1st sess. (Comm. Print; House Judiciary Committee) (1957), 7, 89.) Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates. (Id., 8-9, 89.) The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time. (R. Caplan, Constitutional Brinksmanship--Amending the Constitution by National Convention (1988), 73-78, 78-89. )”

It seems, then, that if Liberal Math dominates the day, our country will be faced with several new issues to be resolved. Clearly, the process will take a substantial amount of time and will be argued from trial through the USSC at every opportunity – both state-to-state and at the federal level.

The matter is one which should be decided upon its merits, not through procedural delays. Mr. Liberal Mathematician: Tear down that wall!!

Edwards: By the Company He Keeps

You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps – and the company he chooses not to keep. Since all the trial balloons seem to indicate Senator Edwards to be the sacrificial Veep, let’s review his special-interest acquaintances in politics.

Special interest groups issue rankings of politicians based upon votes that they consider to be important to their causes. Below are the rankings assigned by various groups for votes cast by Edwards in 2003. I have only included the rankings at the extremes of -0%- and 100%. Many other rankings were given in between by other groups. I considered (under the theory that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while) but rejected including those groups that ranked him with ten points of perfect or a complete loser. I found that the picture did not change that much with their inclusion. Regardless, to get a broader picture, I have included the National Journal rankings.

Names of organizations can be misleading. For example, one would naturally think that something called “Air America” would fly or perhaps move along the airwaves in some fashion. Instead, in reality, it is something that consumes endless amounts of money, is present almost exclusively in small media markets, and exudes an obnoxious odor. Rather than its plain meaning, Air America seems more akin to a liberal version of Cow Pie Bingo. In light of this, each special interest group name below is also link to that group’s website.

The source data was compiled primarily from one of my favorite sites on the net - Project Vote Smart.

They love him … all 100% ratings:

Abortion Issues: National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL is known as“America's most aggressive pro-abortion organization”). Civil Rights: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (the LCCR opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment through secondary means – instead of saying that they support same-sex marriages, they state that they are troubled by the infringement on civil rights and the use of the precious little time available to Congress). Family and Children Issues: National Network for Youth. Gender Issues: American Association of University Women (follow the site’s link along the top to “Issue Advocacy.” Seems the AAUW cares a lot about a continued right to have an abortion and doesn’t want school vouchers to be used in primary and secondary schools. I wonder why? What does either issue have to do with being a woman at a university?). Health Issues: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health Association ("Seniors should be protected against situations where private insurers can charge premiums that fluctuate from state to state or that force them to change plans, pharmacists or current prescriptions should a private insurer decide to stop offering coverage in a particular community." Georges C. Benjamin, MD, FACP, APHA Executive Director. Oh, so we should socialize medicine, George?). Labor: Transportation Communications Union; AFL-CIO. Senior and Social Security Issues: Alliance for Retired Americans (Quotes: “$330 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest American threatens the financial stability of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds,” and “Senator Kennedy, D-MA, introduced an amendment a tax bill that would shift $150 billion in dividend and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to the Medicare Trust Fund.” Anything else need be said?). Social Issues: Population Connection (aka, We-Be-Abortions); NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby (opposes W’s tax cuts, wants to socialize health care, opposes extending NAFTA to South America – these are Catholics, right? What do these issues have to do with spreading God’s Word?).

They love him not … all -0%- ratings:

Budget, Spending and Taxes: Americans for Tax Reform (Their site shares: "Earlier this year, a senior Democratic House staffer, discussing a draft opinion column written by opponents of personal accounts, admitted in an email that their arguments were 'not entirely factually accurate' and were 'scaring seniors.' The email was mistakenly sent to a Republican staffer." Read the e-mail here. They seem like good guys!); American Shareholders Association (These guys issued a report entitled Kerry's 19-Year Record on Investor Issues. Gotta love someone who does their homework!) Business and Consumers: National Retail Federation; Associated Builders & Contractors; Business-Industry Political Action Committee; National Federation of Independent Business. Conservative: Christian Coalition (But, but ... aren't these the good guys? You have to be pretty bad to earn a zero from the good guys.); Eagle Forum. Family and Children Issues: Family Research Counci ("Defending family, faith, and freedom." How come the liberals never talk about God?). Gender Issues: Concerned Women for America. Housing and Property Issues: League of Private Property Voters.

They try not to be so opinionated …

The National Journal issues six rankings. It is a pay site, unfortunately, but some info can be gleaned from the titles below:

0% Conservative on Economic Policy
0% Conservative on Social Policy
6% Composite Conservative Score

85% Liberal on Social Policy
93% Liberal on Economic Policy (Tied for #1 in both chambers with Sens. Kerry, Durkin, Sarbanes, Edwards, & Reed)
95% Composite Liberal Score (This is the infamous ranking of which Kerry got all the press for being the most liberal senator with a score of 97%. In fact, Kerry is the most liberal legislator (even though he's never legislated a single bill) – no one in the House reaches his height. Edwards Senate ranking? #2 (tied with Reed (D-RI) and Sarbanes (D-MD)).

By the friends he keeps, Edwards is a liberal’s liberal - just like Kerry. Please pick him, Bullwinkle. It’s a discussion that needs to happen.

Same-Sex Marriage is Ours to Decide

It doesn't matter where you stand personally on same-sex marriage. The opportunity is coming to have the matter decided by the American people through their state legislatures. If missed, the issue will be decided by four justices in Massachusetts. An open and honest debate is necessary - not judicial activism. We need to compel this issue into our hands to decide. The only manner in which to do that is a proposed federal constitution amendment.

The most common argument that the defenders of same-sex unions offer is not one that supports homosexuality. No matter how politically correct it is for Ed to scream his love and devotion to Richard from the rooftops, it is still not accepted by the majority of Americans. So rather than address the issue directly, the argument devolves to claiming that the matter "should be left to the States to decide."

This is an argument preying upon the assumed unfamiliarity of the electorate with the US Constitution. That's a kind way of saying they hope we're stupid or they presume they are smarter than us. Both formulations make the hairs on the nape of my neck stand.

The framers wanted a centralized federal government that had limited powers. So the Constitution established the form of the government, and gave it powers to resolve disputes among the States and to manage the issues of interstate commerce and defense. To keep a lid on an aggressive federal government, the 10th Amendment is quite clear – "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In effect, the federal government has no power to legislate or otherwise control any issue not given to it by the federal constitution.

The word "marriage" does not appear in the federal constitution, so the federal government therefore has no jurisdiction to legislate anything vis-à-vis marriage - gay or otherwise. That power is strictly left to the States. (btw - this explains the lack of an uproar when President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The activists and Clinton knew that the Act would fall upon the very first challenge, which has not occurred yet.)

Since the issue is left to the States, the question becomes whether one State can act in a manner inconsistent with other States. The answer is "yes," but only within their borders. For example, Pennsylvania can have a drinking age of 21 while another state can have one of 19. No one under 21, regardless of their home state, can drink in Pennsylvania. However, a Pennsylvania resident, aged 19, can go to the other State and drink legally.

However, the issue of conflicting State-to-State laws fundamentally changes when it comes to legal status. Presume for a moment that Pennsylvania increases the age to drive to 18 and that New York maintains an age to drive of 16. If a NYS resident obtains legally a driver’s license at age 16, he or she holds the status of a legal driver and can drive in Pennsylvania even though they are under 18. This is because of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution - "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State ..." A law authorizing a driving age of 16 is a "public Act."

By the same logic, many people avoid the waiting periods required for divorces in their home state by traveling to Nevada and getting one at the drive-thru window at McDonalds. They are achieving the status of being divorced via another State's laws.

When it comes to achieving the status of being marriage, the same powers apply. People routinely get married in exotic places out of their home state by traveling to Hawaii, for example.

Additionally, some marriages come with private contracts - prenups, marriage settlement agreements, custody agreements. These must likewise be honored State to State (Article I, Section 10 - "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

So, if one State passes a law authorizes same-sex marriage (as Massachusetts did), every other State must honor that marriage. If a "couple" seeks to enforce a contract entered into pursuant to a marriage - a prenup, for example - the Contracts Clause will compel a State to do so, even though that State rejects the underlying marriage.

The Massachusetts Legislature tried to limit the reach of its law. They said, in effect, that only Massachusetts citizens could get married pursuant to it. This may violate the Equal Protection and Due Process (substantive) clauses because as applied it affects only same-sex marriages and not traditional marriages. This portion of the legislation will probably fall at the first challenge.

The next step is for a "couple" that got married in Massachusetts to file for divorce in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or any of the other 38 states that have a prohibition against same-sex marriage. Their petition for divorce will not be heard because Ohio, for example, will claim that they do not recognize the marriage. The denial will be appealed and overturned based upon the Full Faith & Credit and Contracts clauses above. Since the appeal will be grounded in rights found in the federal constitution, the ruling will apply to every State. Thereafter, every State will be compelled to honor same-sex marriages.

Leaving the matter "to the States," then, means that every State must honor the legislative act of Massachusetts that was compelled upon them by four jurists.

There is only one way to handle this issue on a nationwide basis. The question of whether the federal government should to be given limited jurisdiction over marriage should be discussed and decided nationwide. The only manner in which to do that is a proposed federal constitution amendment.

In order to amend the Constitution, the first step is to have 2/3's of the Senate and then 2/3's of the House approve the amendment. It then goes to the States, where 38 State legislatures need to approve it. Since 38 States already have passed a similar measure (amazing coincidence), the activists know that the battle is in the Senate and the House.

I suggest that passage by the Senate and House has nothing to do with an individual member's or constituent's position on the ultimate issue. I have my personal feelings, but (graciously) do not care if you support or oppose same-sex marriage. I think the matter should be decided by the people. We should tell our federal legislators to vote for passage so that the people can decide what to do - all 300 million of us, not four justices in Boston or 177 legislators (34 Senators and 143 Reps - the amount needed to defeat the matter in each chamber) in Washington.

The vote is set for July 12, 2004, in the US Senate. Consider writing your Senator to compel presenting this issue to us to decide.

Bubba's Missing Pages - Executing the Insane

President Clinton forgot to discuss at least one interesting story in his tome, "My Life." It involves the issue of capital punishment and the legally insane.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, March 24th, 1981, nine-year veteran Conway (AR) police officer Robert Wesley "Bob" Martin was called to the home of Clyde Lee Rector at 1313 Harkrider Street (now Sutton Street). This was also the home of Ricky Ray Rector, age 28. Ricky was Clyde's son.

Ricky was a suspect in a triple shooting early the previous Sunday morning (March 22nd) at Tommy's Old Fashioned Restaurant, at the intersection of US Highways 64 and 65 in the north of town. The triple shooting left Arthur Criswell, aged 33, dead.

Patrolman Martin had been called to the residence by Mrs. Rector, who told him that she wanted to talk him. It was presumed that Martin anticipated that Ricky would give himself up at that time. Martin enjoyed a long-established, much cultivated relationship with the African-American community and saw himself as someone Ricky would trust.

After Martin's arrival at the home, he sat next to Mrs. Rector in the living room. One of Ricky's cousins was also present. Ricky walked into the room. After exchanging hellos with Patrolman Martin, Ricky pulled out a 38-caliber Taurus revolver from his back waistband and shot Martin twice, at a short distance - once in the jaw and once in the neck. Ricky immediately left the home.

While still in the yard, Ricky suffered a gunshot wound to the forehead from his own gun. It was never determined if the wound was inflicted by intention or accident.

Patrolman Bob Martin died a short time after being transported to the Conway Memorial Hospital. He left behind a wife and three young children.

Before the shooting, it was known that Ricky had profound mental challenges. The accidental or intentional shooting of Ricky resulted in a single bullet traveling through his frontal lobe, desensitizing him from normal life even more than his underlying mental difficulties already had. He was then, from a clinical sense, profoundly retarded.

Regardless of his inability to assist in his defense, Ricky was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death.

As the execution date came closer, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was running for president. All requests to his office for clemency in any measure for Ricky were denied. On January 23, 1992, Clinton left the campaign trail in New Hampshire and traveled to Arkansas to be present in the state for the execution.

Late in the evening on January 23, Ricky was given his last meal. He knew he had an important appointment soon - his "execution." He finished eating his meal, but saved his dessert (a slice of pecan pie) for a midnight snack after his "execution."

Just after midnight, on January 24, 1992, Ricky Ray Rector died from lethal injection.

Bill Clinton flew back to New Hampshire later in the morning, resuming his campaign with less than 24 hours lost.

The Associated Press commented on the sojourn: "The execution could help Democratic presidential candidate Clinton distance himself from his party's soft-on-crime liberal image, said some political observers in New Hampshire . . . ."

Minimum Wage; Staying Ahead of Inflation or Becoming Unemployed?

Kerry wants to increase the federal minimum hourly wage from its present $5.15 to $7.00 by 2007. Being a liberal issue, the NYTs reports in glowing terms.

First, does Kerry have to pay Teddy some sort of copyright fee for floating this proposal? Seems Teddy has proposed this exact same increase over the exact same time frame in Senate (108th) Bill 2370. It was placed on the legislative calendar in May of this year. But don't take the Senate's word on it, go to the DNC's West Coast affiliate, the Seattle PI. The article helpfully points out that Kennedy does this minimum-wage two-step every year.

Not to be outdone by congressional records or liberal media reports, the Kerry campaign enjoys the novelty of the number they "picked." Back to the NYT article, "Campaign aides said they picked $7, a 35 percent increase phased in at about 12 percent a year, because it would bring a family of four with one minimum-wage earner above the poverty line with food stamps and other assistance." (Boy, if I could "pick" things and claim credit months after the fact, I could afford an editor to clean up my typos!)

Back to the NYT. "Both the experts and Mr. Kerry pointed out that the minimum wage has been flat since 1996, the second-longest stretch since it was established in 1938, and that its inflation-adjusted value is now $4.18, below the $4.25 rate that prevailed in the early 1990's." They gave us history, something my children could look up. So I asked them to. I knew that "$4.18" seemed conveniently under $4.25. Infoplease.com, an on-line encyclopedia, thinks the inflation-adjusted hourly wage is $4.40; humorously, the AFL-CIO thinks it is $4.75. Both are current calculations.

So what is it, factually? Since inflation is a known number, it seems all we need to do is find a non-political calculator. Politics, of course, bring calculations like Kerry's Misery Index, that dropped out of sight like a stone in a pond. I found such a calculator at NASA. I input today's minimum wage of "5.15" in the "Cost" field, and selected "2003" in the from field. I then chose "2002," then "2001" and so on in the "To" field - until I reached a result that was equal to "4.18." That occurs somewhere between 1994 and 1995. So using constant 1994/95 dollars, today's minimum wage is equal to approximately $4.18. Useless. No one recognizes 1994 or 1995 as a base year. The $4.40 by Infoplease checks with the recognized base year of 1996.

Let's not quibble over purchasing power. How many people earn the minimum wage? (A useful summary of to whom the law applies is found here.)

Our Bureau of Labor Statistics provides easily digested data.

Some comparisons:

Le Papier Rapport writes "His aides circulated a report by nine labor economists showing that the raise would affect 7.4 million minimum-wage workers ..."

BLS, Table 1, 2003 data, total people earning minimum wage or below: 2,100,000. Where are the other 5.3 million people?

Le Papier Rapport writes "[t]he wage study circulated by the campaign showed that 1.8 million of the nation's minimum-wage workers have children ..."

As stated above, BLS reports that 2.1 million people earned minimum wage in 2003. Of this total, 0.534 million are age 19 or younger (Table 1). This means that not only does every minimum wage earner age 20 and older have children (1.566 million), but so do half of the younger ones. That's amazingly prolific. Could Kerry's number include that nice man behind the McDonald's counter or just likes to get out for several hours a week and when asked if he has kids, says, "Yes"?

Next, Kerry and the Nine Experts offer that an increase will result in a "... $3,800 windfall over a year [that] would pay for 10 months of groceries, eight months of rent, or a year's tuition at community college." Sounds great, but what if you lose your job as a result of the increase in minimum wage?

Linda Gormam writes, "[a]ccording to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, the American Economic Association's main journal, fully 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. It also reduces the on-the-job training offered by employers and shrinks the number of positions offering fringe benefits. To those who lose their jobs, their training opportunities, or their fringe benefits as a result of the minimum wage, the law is simply one more example of good intentions producing hellish results." We're talking about macro-economics, so 1978 opinions haven't changed that much.

So, Kerry will increase an understated purchasing buyer, and then instantly remove 5.3 million people from the minimum wage roles through "data correction" and perhaps many more by shifting them from the workplace cafeteria line to the unemployment line. The latter will remove the inconvenience of having to buy groceries, pay rent, or attend a community college.

I think he may have something here.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?

It's Bubba's turn to throw the ashtray, to stamp his feet. Two of his gods have forsaken him. Let's recount how, then look into why.

First, le papier de rapport reviews his book. Oh my. "[S]loppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull ... it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited."

But the best part, so direct for the NYT, is the compound issues presented here: "Part of the problem, of course, is that Mr. Clinton is concerned, here, with cementing - or establishing - his legacy, while at the same time boosting (or at least not undermining) the political career of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton." So nuanced. You'd swear Kerry wrote it.

The second god to take Bubba down a notch is none less than the BBC. It seems like he was being baited on the topic of Monica in an interview. The BBC reporter was, um, relentless (feels odd to use those words in one sentence). Bubba got testy - "He is visibly angry with Dimbleby's line of questioning and some of that anger gets directed at Dimbleby himself. As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained."

But, again, there's a better part: "It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President's character. It will leave them wondering whether he is as contrite as he says he is about past events. Dimbleby manages to remain calm and order is eventually restored." They're gonna broadcast it!!! They are questioning Bubba's sincerity.

OK. Whew. The NYT and BBC take their shots at deflating Bubba. Such odd timing. With the Reagan funeral bringing back memories of glorious conservative moments, it seemed perfect for Bubba to follow so quickly and suck all the oxygen out of the room that Bullwinkle J. Kerry seems so incapable of doing himself. 60 Minutes does its piece; CBS mandates broadcast; Dan Rather gets punked out and is lovin' it!! All of the planets were lining up. It seemed like a NASA countdown leading to Bubba telling Kerry, "Watch me this summer, son. Let me show you how it is down. Grab a hold of my coattail." Then Bubba would fly off like Peter Pan, returning to human status after the DNC convention or Labor Day. In his wake would be Bullwinkle, buoyed in the polls, and W licking newly inflicted wounds; and in front of him a roadmap to lead Bullwinkle to the White House.

But the liberal media seems to have other plans; they do not want all-Clinton-all-the-time. Is this a newfound sense of distaste for the man who would have sex with young women the age of his daughter? For a man that parses words down to the shortest verb? Who looked like a deer in the headlights when asked about a cigar? I doubt it. That is all well-worn territory. Is it something new - a cold, hard realization that that dog just don't hunt no more? Can't be. Viability and decorum have never hesitated either media outlet from throwing something, anything into President Bush's path. There must be something else.

They have made Clinton seem ill-prepared and angry. Could it be that they seek to thereby establish Bullwinkle as deeply prepared and calm? An intelligence like Bubba's but without the erratic chart? A thoughtful man, one who seeks the nuance out of the seemingly trivial, one who perceives the depth of still waters, one who calmly stretches out his hand to WW2 allies and rivals alike and embraces their socialism ... all without wanting or expecting sex in return?

Naw. C'mon. We're talking Kerry here. Are the NYT and BBC really that stupid, and more so, think that we are that stupid? On second thought, maybe there's a point buried in there.

(btw ... Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? - Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34)

2004 Popular Vote

Deborah Orin has an interesting article on new data issued by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Election Poll. Seems the AEP "won't release the actual horse-race numbers," so we need to dig a little deeper. In fact, no mention of this poll is made on the AEP web site.

The raw data of Kerry versus W - "Kerry would get 78 percent of Democrats and about half of independents ... [and] would get 8 percent of Republicans." The poll was adding information about how Puffy would do and comparing her performance to Kerry's. But the words "performance" and "Hillary" that close together is too much on an empty stomach, so we'll focus on Bullwinkle.

If the raw data holds, what would be the outcome of the popular vote?

I am amazed that the number of registered voters by party affiliation does not seem to be readily available on the net. So I needed a fill in ... an approximate distribution is available here: Democrats - 37%; Republicans - 26%; Independents/Other - 36%. Since this is 1998 data and it only adds up to 99%, I am adding the missing one point to the pubs - seems reasonable in light of the totality of the election results since then. So, D37, R27, I36.

The number of registered voters and those actually voting is substantially easier to locate. The US Census Bureau helpfully tells us that as of early 2002, there were 129.5MM registered voters, 110.8MM voted.

Slide rule, please ...

Suggested popular vote for Bullwinkle: (110.8*0.37*0.78)+(110.8*0.27*0.08)+(110.8*0.36*0.50)

Suggested popular vote for W: 110.8 minus what the other guy got.

Outcome: 56,485,840 W v. 54,314,160 Kerry. (Yeah, Nader is just not worth counting.)

But, oh, wait a minute!! Al's right, we don't elect by popular vote. But surely an aggregate of popular vote can give some indication of electoral outcome.

The historical data on presidential elections shows tighter margins in Carter over Ford, and Kennedy over Nixon (I've ignored elections with major third party guys - Perot, Anderson, Wallace). I don't mean to ignore the classic McKinley over Bryan bouts of 1896 and 1900.

Does this mean a nail-biter is in the offing? I doubt it. Review the obvious: W has taken a pounding over the polling period and Kerry is not filling the vacuum; we are at war and want continuity (even Puffy is speaking of not being deterred from our task in Iraq because of executions); the economy is not just stable but growing; dems will get discouraged and vote in lesser numbers, or cast for Nader.

The present 51/49 split will spread farther. Look for a repeat of 1872 Grant over Greeley - except we don't want Kerry to die a few weeks after the election as Greeley did, just to go back to France.

I feel so pretty!!!

One of my favorite e-mails of the day is the Best of the Web from James Taranto at the OpinionJournal.com. Yesterday's was particularly fun to read.

There I am reading for info and amusement, when a title comes up -
Kerry's Fuzzy Math. I read with interest, recognizing that I was glad someone called Bullwinkle out for this sad assertion of his. Then I found out it was ME!!!

I occasionally send these posts to Rush and Sean (never a peep from either of them - but try, try, try). I think I sent the Opinion Journal one quite a while ago (not sure on that). Well, the Kerry assertion was so bad, and it fell right into my wheelhouse like a hanging curve - I teach this stuff. So I wrote about it quickly, shipped it off to Rush and Taranto ... and the rest is my thirty seconds of fame.

I feel like Steve Martin in "The Jerk" when the new phone book came out with him listed in the white pages ... dancing around screaming, "this is the type of instant advertising I need!" And I thought I was just another girl on the runway ... OK, I'm over myself now.

Bubba: Get over yourself

I was done posting for today, then I found this quote on lucianne.com: "When the Berlin Wall fell, the perpetual right in America, which always needs an enemy, didn't have an enemy anymore, so I had to serve as the next best thing." -Bill Clinton

Wow. I am practically speechless at the chutzpah inherent in such a statement. The American people needed an enemy so we chose him? Does he think us that base a body that we cannot be happy unless we have an enemy? Does he think himself so large that he could fill the role?

Boy, back to the days of being talked to (or at) as if we are stupid. That is the change for which I am most singularly grateful. Not having to listen to Hillary talk to us like we are all in kindergarten, not having Bubba slime his way through another day with a poll in one hand and an intern in the other.

Bring him out, liberal media. Relish in it. Glory in it. Make him front page day after day. Demand a postage stamp whilst he still breathes. The self-aggrandizing words of Clinton, given historical depth as Gore misses taking his meds and speaks publicly again, will bring back in full flavor the years now gone. Then as W talks of God and war and real economic growth, it shall be plain for all to see that the adults are now running the show. And as Kerry speaks perilously close of socialized medicine, as he tries to attach himself to the Clinton whirlwind like a polyp to a colon it shall be even more obvious that the days of yesteryear were not ones of societal growth, but ones of survival.

Nice to have you back, Bubba. Grab an ice pack on your way out the door, will you? My lip kinda hurts and may swell a bit.

Kerry & Blacks: Educated or Incarcerated?

In Ohio, Kerry spouts his version of facts in a pandering way:

"Talking about education yesterday, Mr. Kerry also told the largely black crowd at the day care center that there are more blacks in prison than in college. 'That's unacceptable,' he said. 'But it's not their fault.' Rather than the inmates, the former Boston prosecutor blamed poverty, poor schools, a dearth of after-school programs and 'all of us as adults not doing what we need to do.'"

What is you initial intellectual reaction (I suspect your initial physical reaction involved a gag reflex)? Perhaps to agree that generational poverty changes the risk calculus for black youth and thereby encourages a criminal lifestyle? That the broken system of public education clearly shoulders some blame, being one that allows marginal students to stay on the margin and thereby the fringes of society? That some form of continued supervision after school until a parent can be present may be beneficial, particularly if that additional time is needed to secure and hold employment? Perhaps that we "adults" simply need to be doing more in our children's lives?

Each of these initial reactions takes the bait that Kerry is dangling. But let's first visit the predicate - "there are more blacks in prison than in college."

The US DOJ tells us the number of blacks incarcerated at mid-year 2002 (page 11, Table 13): 818,900 black men; 65,600 black women; total 884,500 blacks.

The US Census Bureau tells us the number of blacks in college during 2002: 802,000 black men; 1,476,000 black women; total 2,278,000 blacks.

Hmmm ... think, think, think. Did he mean black men? But then how do we at once chastise ourselves for the slightly more black men incarcerated versus in college, yet not be somehow rewarded for the overwhelmingly positive disparity in black women?

In fact, the US DOJ link informs of that they were fewer people of all races and genders incarcerated throughout the United States - every person in every jail, prison, and penitentiary - a total of 2,019,234, than there are blacks in college (2,278,000).

Who does this clown's research?

American Jews & Republicans

It has always amazed me that American Jews vote for dems. I couldn't then (as many as 25 years ago) and can't now justify their consistent voting patterns. I think that my inability to understand lies in differences among humans - some of us act in the short term with an eye always on the long term; others care not for tomorrow. I certainly act for my own short-term gratification more often than I care to admit, but regardless, the broad stroke of my actions - and always my political actions - are for the long-term advancement of my interests.

I have little hesitation in assigning pubs to the "long-term" column and dems to the "short-term" column. Just look at the supporters of dems - labor unions who would just as soon drive a company out of business than accept a higher co-pay on dental work; environmental groups that would rather allow brush to accumulate on the forest floor in the name of "preserving nature" today in spite of creating tomorrow's uncontrolled fire hazard; and supporters of a "women's choice" to kill a perfectly healthy and blameless fetus, which supporters will also march against capital punishment for mass murders (I guess there is some consistency there - a person has the right to murder with some measure of impunity; amazing, never thought of it that way before).

So do Jewish people, like some single-celled organism, look only to the short term? Ben Shapiro certainly thinks so and dates it to FDR. But his more interesting point is the Jewish people's antagonism with Christianity. They feel, Shapiro contends, that Christians believe that Jews are going to Hell for their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. Shapiro goes on to cite the many reasons why Christians are the Jewish people's best ally in this world. I agree. I am a Christian. I have no conditions upon my support of Israel. They could nuke France and I would presume they had a good reason. OK, bad example. You get my point.

Need more proof of who supports Israel and who does not? Let's play Jeopardy. Answer: United Nations; Question: What is the body most liked by the dems and most disliked by the pubs? So in that vein, consider the implications of the UN telling Caterpillar where to get off. Seems that the UN thinks the Israeli's use of Caterpillar bulldozers to mow down orchards somehow implicates Caterpillar. Does this implicate the concrete manufacturer in the security wall? The cotton producer that provides raw materials for the clothing of soldiers? The UN for overseeing an oil-for-food program that diverted monies to buy weapons? No wait, bad example.

Point is this - today's Republican Party will support Israel and American Jewry without condition; the Democrat Party is purely quid pro quo. Think about it when you vote.

Kerry on Reagan

Lest we forget ... below is quoted form today's Best of the Web (OpinionJournal):

This is from a July 21, 1988, report in the Boston Globe on the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta:

Earlier last night, Sen. John F. Kerry took to the convention hall podium, telling the delegates that the "moral darkness" of President Reagan's presidency will soon end.

"A Republican president once reminded us, 'There is absolutely nothing to be said for a government of powerful men with the ideals of pawnbrokers,' " Kerry said.

"That president's name was Theodore Roosevelt. And today Theodore Roosevelt would be ashamed to be a Republican."

To think Kerry a two-faced swine is to demean facially challenged pigs, indeed to demean the facially challenged of all species.

President Reagan.

President Reagan defined my life in many ways. It is actually quite incredible as I contemplate it. His first election was my first opportunity to vote in a presidential election. I was a republican before him (but because my father was); I was a conservative because of him.

During my undergraduate studies, I recall the liberal minds around me. A student and teacher discussed how "our generation" would be the first to have to accept that they would have less than the generation before them. I responded by doing a paper and presentation on supply-side economics and how it would move the economy to new heights. The teacher told me I did a good job, but was misinformed and wrong.

I remember walking through the nearly empty student lounge when the television broke to a special report and told us that Reagan had been shot. I sat down and can't recall much of anything else. It was devastating to me then, and still provokes a feeling of dis-ease today.

I was an Economics/Finance major and didn't care what field or industry I went into. I wound up getting a job in the defense industry - because Reagan was rebuilding it and jobs were aplenty. That was 1981. More promise of rebuilding than actually doing so. But two years later, instead of being awarded one helicopter contract, we got four. My company had so much work they moved me from New York to California to help with the growth.

If not for that move, I would not have held the jobs I held, would not have gone to law school and subsequently practiced, would not be teaching it now. I would not have met the people that make up my life as it is now.

I was at Yankee Stadium yesterday. I knew Reagan had taken a turn for the worse earlier in the day. At the 7th inning stretch, they announced his passing, then played Kate Smith's version of "God Bless America." I was numb. It is still bringing tears.

The decade of my 20s defined me. In my 30s and 40s, I have be refining who I am - but not re-defining. President Reagan's impact on my life just can't be overstated. My dad died two years ago; I miss him. I'll miss President Reagan acutely two years from now.

Little Brains

My wife and I have a rather indelicate and un-Christian moniker to apply to liberals, fascists, communists (forgive the redundancy), mean people, people with loud mouths but few facts - little brains.

I haven't been writing lately because I got overwhelmed by the continued, abject stupidity of the little brains. Michael Moore screaming that Disney cold-cocked him on distribution, only to admit a few days later that he knew about the move a year ago - he just wanted some instant publicity. And he got it. Listening to the dems scream about the "jobless recovery" - then watching them switch gears when 950,000 jobs were created in the last three months. Listening to Al Gore become completely unhinged ... my word, that guy needs medication. He's gonna blow a gasket. Change the soundtrack to a 1939 rally, digitize a one inch by two inch moustache just under his nose ... Adolph, how we have missed you, mein fuehrer.

Back to little brains. They have sapped my available energy. Every time I have hoped to write, there came another one. Yesterday was a perfect example.

CNN lists the possible vice presidential candidates. Under "Bill Clinton," it reads, "While federal law prohibits a person from seeking a third presidential term, the Constitution does not specify whether or not a former commander in chief can become vice president."

Very clear. Not open to interpretation. But, alas, completely wrong.

First, "federal law" and the "Constitution" are two different things. CNN seems to get this. That's a good thing. Unfortunately for CNN, it is the Constitution that prohibits a POTUS for serving a third term. And that is not even an accurate statement. If the first term was not elected (like Gerald Ford) and less than two years (unlike Gerald Ford), then the sitting POTUS could serve two additional complete terms.

The 22d Amendment to the Constitution is very clear: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Any questions so far, Little Brained CNN? Let's move to the second issue ("the Constitution does not specify whether or not a former commander in chief can become vice president"). Oh, this is so painful.

The 12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

How incredibly stupid can CNN be? No. Wrong question. They surely must know this. The point is that they believe we do not know it. What to generate excitement over Bullwinkle J. Moose running for POTUS? Bring back Bubba!! YEAH!! There's no law or nothing that says he can't be veep!!!

Wow. Just shut up CNN.