Rand Paul may be inelgible to be president

Rightardia recently discovered that Rand Paul is not fully human. He is part hobbit and part human, a rare hybrid that Hobbits call halflings.

Lat month Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) mocked members of the conservative grassroots movement as “Tea-Party hobbits.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) responded: 

I’d rather be a hobbit than a troll.

This exactly what a hobbit would say because hobbits and trolls are mortal enemies.

Rightardia used the Hobbit name generator to reveal Rand Paul's real name. It is

Marroc “Panky“ Sandydowns

Paul's hobbit friends referred to him as Panky because he was always involved on some sort of hanky panky in the Middle Earth.

In fact, one of his biggest pranks was his religious “Aqua Buddha“ movement. He even kidnapped a female hobbit and tried to convert her to Aqua Buddhism.

Can Rand Paul run for president since he was not even born in country like Kenya? Since he was born in the Middle Earth, legal scholars say he will not have “birthright citizenship” under the 14^th amendment and public law (8 U.S.C. § 1401). 

Rand Paul needs to produce his birth certificate before his candidacy goes any further.

Paul even got a Middle Earth endorsement form Smaug, Smaug is the evil dragon from The Hobbit. 

Smaug appeared on The Colbert Report, displaying a broad range of conservative views. The Dragon stated America should go back to the gold standard, a view he shares with Rand Paul.

Smaug also an advocate of Florida’s controversial stand-your-ground law, citing his experience with the thief, Bilbo Baggins.

How would you feel is someone wearing a hoodie broke into your cave?

The Dragon noted Rand Pails short stature (5'8“) is tall for a hobbit. But his pubescent face and pubic head of hair are classic hobbit good looks.

sources:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60151.html

http://www.chriswetherell.com/hobbit/index.php

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-hobbits-smaug-endorses-rand-paul-for-president/

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/benedict-cumberbatch-tells-stephen-colbert-his-hobbit-character-smaug-is-voting-for-rand-paul/

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA 

 

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Stephan Colbert: Anchor Babies are stealing our freedoms

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
On Topic: 14th Amendment - Equal Protection and Due Process
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Monday March 14, 2011

On Topic: 14th Amendment - Equal Protection and Due Process
Stephen asks an expert about getting rid of the 14th Amendment and suggests new ideas to keep anchor babies from stealing our freedoms. (03:03)

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA   Netcraft rank: 7029 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
 
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Republicans divided on changing the 14th amendment

The party of the strict constructionists wants to change the 14th amendment because  too many Latino people are coming form Mexico into the US and having anchor babies. I guess they forgot about the US being a melting pot.

Of course, they also know by 2016 the US wil no longer be a white Christian nation.

Praise the lord for that day!

Perhaps the GOP believes they can extend the anglo-dominance a few years by changing the law.

Where has Rightardia heard this?

Give us your tired your poor your hungry your huddled masses?


Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu 

Netcraft rank: 11952 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Why do strict Constructionist Republicans want to change the US constitution?

Last week the Tea Party wanted to abolish the 13th amendment on slavery. Now a leading Republican senator wants to abolish the 14th Amendment on US citizenship.

A couple of months ago, the GOP attacked the 17th Amendment that provides for the direct election of Senators. At one time in US history, the state legislatures appointed the two senators which smacked of cronyism and elitism. The GOP , of course, is made up of an elite of cronies.

Let's not forget the 16th Amendment that authorized federal income tax. The GOP has wanted to get rid of that one for years. Of course, the Armed Services would collapse if the 16th Amendment were ever rescinded. 

Face The Nation - CBS News
By Jimmy So

A federal judge struck down several of the essential elements of Arizona's new immigration law. Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Thomas Saenz head of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund discuss where the fight goes from here; Also, Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Richard Haass from the Council on Foreign Relations give their perspectives on the war in Afghanistan.

Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, spoke with Harry Smith on what he feels is the correct way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants entering the U.S.

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said today that Congress should hold hearings to look into denying citizenship to illegal aliens' children born in the United States, as the fight over immigration widens into the explosive "birthright" issue.

Kyl told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he supports a call by fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to introduce a new amendment to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Support is growing for this stunning reversal from Graham, who in 2007 drew the ire of Republicans when he lobbied for granting legal status to 12 million undocumented workers, and along with President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., led the failed immigration reform effort that would have given illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to ensure that states would not deny citizenship to former slaves. It reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Arizona's Republican State Sen. Russell Pearce - the architect of the controversial immigration law that was largely struck down by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton - also separately proposed the same measure.

"The 14th Amendment [has been] interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl said. "So the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"

Rightardia prediction: It is extremely difficult and takes years to make changes to the US Constitution. This GOP political stunt will be forgotten by next week.

source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/ftn/main6733905.shtml?tag=contentBody;featuredPost-PE

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 14896
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Politico: Gov. Tim Pawlenty joins the Confederacy

Rightardia comment: This is more GOP wing nut stuff.  The 10th Amendment states, "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 United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the 10th amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified." The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment according to Wikipedia. 

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. It states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 


The 14th Amendment also states, " "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Of interest the Constitution of the Confederate States of America also had a supremacy clause which was identical to the supremacy clause in the US Constitution. This fact contradicts the state rights revisionist argument of some Civil War historians.


The Civil War settled once and for all that the federal government provides the supreme laws of the land. The GOP needs to stop kidding itself about states' rights. The only time they talk about it is when they lose elections.

 

Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty urged fellow governors on Thursday to more frequently assert state sovereignty over the federal government and suggested that the country may increasingly see states suing the federal government.

Asked by a caller about the option of asserting the Tenth Amendment as a tactic to reject a successful health care overhaul by President Barack Obama during a tele-town hall organized by the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty said, “that’s a possibility.”

Speaking generally about the tenth amendment, Pawlenty said the country has not had “a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue in the 1980s.”

“You’re starting to see more governors, me and governor [Rick] Perry from Texas, speaking out on this and asserting our tenth amendment rights,” Pawlenty said on a call listened to by more than 12,000 people.

“Asserting the tenth amendment may be a viable option,” Pawlenty said, adding that there may be “more of those claims and maybe even lawsuits if need be.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27023.html#ixzz0Qnu2cBZP


Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 10118 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Subversive Chinese radio controlled (RC) aircraft

(Mumbai) The Customs has seized thousands of radio-controlled (RC) aircraft imported from China, Taiwan, and Korea, which they say pose a serious threat to the city.

These model planes, especially the ones imported from China, are violating regional wireless norms set by the ministry of communication and IT, thereby threatening to intercept and jam frequency bands used by Indian security agencies, said Custom officials.

The radio communication frequency used by the city's various security and intelligence agencies ranges from 400 to 500 Mhz.

After denying NoCs to several consignments at the Mumbai Port Trust — as many as three in last couple of months — the Customs have decided to destroy around 3,000 RC planes. "These aircraft may come in handy for subversive activities. We have issued orders to destroy them," said an official.

The government rules allow flying of RC models on an Amplitude Modulation (AM) radio band, which comprises of many kilohertz or thousands of cycles per second of electromagnetic energy.

But many aircraft, especially those imported from China and assembled here, not only violate the AM bandwidth, but are also being flown on frequency modulation (FM), which is in direct violation of the state's laws, said officials.

According to the national frequency allocation table , the frequency spots 27004 kilohertz (KHz), 27116KHz, 27148KHz, 27156KHz, 27228KHz, are earmarked for aeromodelling.

A recent test by wireless experts revealed most aircraft violated state-appointed frequencies. "The Chinese ones show a frequency bandwidth of 27000KHz, but are actually capable of not only violating Indian bandwidth, they can be flown on FM," said an expert from the regional wireless office.

To restrict the flight range, the battery strength of these planes is fixed at 5W.

Another reason for officials to get worried is the high range of RC helicopters and their ability to carry five to 10kg of load (11-22 lbs).

"We have received intelligence inputs that explosive-laden toy planes can be used for subversive activities, said Custom officials. The engines are powered either by a battery or fuel, and the aircraft need just a small runway to take off.

RC helicopters can take off from the palm of a hand. Parts of the planes — remote control, body and engine — are imported from different countries and can be assembled by experts in Mumbai. Cheaper, ready-to-fly Chinese versions are available for enthusiasts in the local market. "These are the ones we are most worried about as they don't follow any fixed frequency," said officials.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/3000-Chinese-radio-planes-to-be-destroyed/articleshow/4839884.cms

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Improve blog traffic with TrafficG http://trafficg.com/splash/splash01.php?uid=eelder1

Netcraft rank: 24118 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/stats/topsites?s=842818698226B7BA4A1D0E313F8F#24118

Steve Kangas FAQ on liberalism: The States' Rights Myth

Editor's Note: This is one of the Steve Kangas' weaker essays because it doesn't mention the the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution or the Civil War which really settled the limitations of states' rights. The Supremacy Clause states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy clause is also strikingly similar to the 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled

A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.

Myth: Current federal powers violate the 10th amendment.

Fact: The 10th amendment is a moot curiosity.



Summary

The 10th amendment says that the federal government may not assume powers not permitted to it by the Constitution. Conservatives argue that much of today's federal government exceeds its constitutional mandate, and is therefore unconstitutional. However, most expansions of federal government have been contested in the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. The court has overturned some of these expansions, and upheld others. Therefore, the state of today's federal government has passed constitutional muster.



Argument

The 10th amendment states:

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.

Conservatives view this amendment as a life-saver. It says that the federal government cannot assume any powers not specified by the Constitution. Expansions of federal power beyond the Constitution, then, are unconstitutional. Conservatives go on to argue that the massive expansion of the government that followed the New Deal in 1933 are a violation of the 10th amendment.

The problem with this argument is that it is trivially true, in the way that all things besides oranges are non-oranges. The constitution grants the federal government enormous powers, a fact which is not harmed by the observation that extra-constitutional powers are not constitutional. As the Supreme Court has ruled: ''The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." (1)

So the conservative appeal to the 10th amendment only begs the question: what powers does the Constitution grant the federal government?

The vast majority of expansions of federal government have been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supreme Court has struck down these expansions as unconstitutional; sometimes it has upheld them as constitutional. What we have today, then, is a federal government that has passed constitutional muster. Conservatives may disagree with the rulings, but then they must explain what kind of system they would like that would produce the kind of rulings they desire. A Congress that passes laws without that troublesome, irritating Supreme Court? A Supreme Court that seats only conservative judges? (Denying representation to half of America, of course...) Any changes would surely be disimprovements.

A look at the history of this amendment also reveals that the Founding Fathers did not intend it to be a severe brake on federal powers. This is proven by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated.'' (2) It turns out that the 10th amendment is a historical curiosity, stripped of its teeth by the politics of the time. When the anti-federalists proposed the amendment, they intended it to be a strong limitation to federal powers. But they failed; the federalists managed to pass a wording that left implied federal powers intact, as well as undefined powers "to the people." Most historians, constitutional scholars and Supreme Court rulings have regarded the 10th amendment as the unsuccessful attempt that it was.

A closer look at the history of the 10th amendment can be found at The Tenth Amendment: Reserved Powers and Scope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Contact Rightardia: eelder1@gmail.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/blogspot/Onjs