If you knew nothing about Constitutional law and were watching last night’s Republican presidential “debate,” it would be perfectly reasonable to think Obama was pulling an FDR and running for a third term.

Of course, the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution limits a president from being elected more than twice. But you would never guess that from the many attacks leveled against the President by almost every Republican candidate on the “debate” stage.

Obama is weak on ISIS; Obama doesn’t know how to negotiate; Obama doesn’t understand foreign policy; Obama doesn’t want our country to succeed… blah, blah, blah.

Gov. “Bridgegate,” Chris Christie, launched the night’s best assault on non-candidate Obama. Speaking of our president, at the end of a long tirade, he said, “… and we are going to kick your rear-end out of office this fall.” Of course the conservative, Obama-hating South Carolinian crowd roared with approval at the ludicrous remark.

There were a few moments when Hillary Clinton’s name popped up, but mostly when it was connected to Obama.

For anyone who watched the entire two and one half Fox “debate,” like me, I can only describe it as the closest thing to “cruel and unusual” punishment outside a prison setting. But leave it to Fox to churn out as much ad revenue as possible from what has now become the best, most lucrative realty show on TV.

Many will talk about who won, who lost. It really doesn’t matter at this point. The first primary voting will take place in Iowa on February 1, and the voters will finally have their say; not the pollsters.

I don’t know if President Obama watched the “debate.” Hopefully he had better things to do with his time. But if he caught any of the shameful spectacle, he not doubt had a good laugh or two watching a group of dimwits, none of whom will ever see the inside of the White House, embarrass themselves.

For Republican kingmaker, Rupert Murdoch, he was laughing also… all the way to the bank.

Photo | jamaicatakeout.com

The sixth Republican debate and first presidential primary debate of 2016 is scheduled for this Thursday, Jan. 14 in South Carolina at the North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center. It couldn’t have come soon enough. The country is antsy to resume the good old-fashioned entertainment provided by the Republican lineup of candidates.

It is sad to learn that one of the regulars, Rand Paul, will not make it to the prime time stage, having been relegated to the kids’ table by Fox Business Network. But we did get some excitement from Dr. Paul when he threw a tantrum and announced he would rather skip the debate altogether than share the debate stage with also-rans Huckabee, Fiorina and Santorum. (Rand Paul To GOP … Take Your Kids’ Table And …”)

This is going to be fun! Look for some sparks to fly now that we are actually into the election year. The candidates will be jockeying for position with the first primary contest in Iowa only a few weeks away.

Will any candidate, or moderator for that matter, have the guts to bring up the “birther” issue concerning Cruz? Yes, Fox Business Network is hosting the debate and the questions will most likely revolve around economic, domestic and international policy issues… but what the heck! Why not put Senor Rafael Edward Cruz on the spot?

Once again, it will be a make or break moment for the establishment favorite, Jed Bush. Will he disappoint his donor class … again? You can pretty much bet on it. This year’s angry Republican base wants nothing to do with Bush or any candidate who reeks of experience or even shows a hint of moderation.

Can the insider, Marco Rubio, successfully paint himself as a Washington outsider? With as little time as he spends inside the Beltway, the answer could be “yes!”

Look for Chris Christie to remind us that he was a Federal prosecutor during 9-11 … for the umpteenth time. The fact that Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7, 2001, and he did not assume office until early 2002 be damned!

John Kasich will try to bring common sense to the debate stage, but will have little luck. He will, no doubt, get on the moderators for not giving him equal time.

We all hope the good Dr. Carson manages to stay awake for the entire debate. His campaign is sinking faster than the collective IQ of the Republican base.

Did I forget anyone? Oops, Trump and Cruz! Yes, they may go at it, but with the feigned earnestness that comes from their mutual admiration.

Enjoy the show … until the next installment of this long-running comedy series on January 28, in Iowa.

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr Creative Commons.

The next Republican presidential debate, hosted by Fox Business Network, will be held this Thursday in North Charleston, South Carolina. Fox has not yet announced it’s field of prime-time “debaters.” While the focus will be on economic, domestic and international policy issues, here are the questions I would ask the likely adult-table candidates:

Donald Trump – “Not much is known about your wife, Melania. How do you think your supporters, especially evangelicals, would react knowing that  if you were elected, she would be the first First Lady to have posed nude?”

Ted Cruz – “Why does everyone hate you? Even your old college roommate, Craig Mazin, said,“I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.”

Ben Carson – “You have said God directed you to run for office. How was this communicated to you; in a dream, phone call or email?

Jeb Bush – “Do you regret not having listened to the words of your mother when her advice to you about running for president was: don’t?”

Marco Rubio – “It has been reported that while in elementary school, you were such a fan of the Osmonds that you formed a tribute singing group with your sister and cousin to entertain relatives. True?”

Chris Christie – “ You have been quoted as saying ‘Yes, I’m a Catholic and I believe in the teachings of the Church, but I’ve used birth control, and not just the rhythm method.’ Have you and Mary Pat used other types of birth control?”

While articles on this site are often satirical, my proposed questions for each of the candidates are based on actual, verifiable facts.

Sometimes it’s just enough to let the facts speak for themselves!

Breaking News – Fox has just announced the lineup for the upcoming debate. John Kasich has made the cut. The full slate of “debaters” will be: Trump, Cruz, Carson Rubio, Christie and Kasich.

Here is my Kasich question:

Kasich – “You’ve often mentioned, in speeches and interviews,  you are a good friend of Bono. Would that be Sonny?”

This coming Thursday, January 14, the Fox Business Network will air the next Republican presidential debate, focusing on economic, domestic and international policy issues. I am holding out hope, however, that one of the moderators asks Donald Trump the following question:

“Mr. Trump, some people have raised the issue of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to seek the presidency, most recently Ann Coulter, a supporter of yours. Most legal scholars agree that Mr. Cruz would be eligible to run for president because his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth in Canada. Do you agree? And if yes, how is Mr. Cruz’s situation any different from that of President Obama whose mother was also an American citizen born in Kansas?”

Trump needs to be put on the spot. If he disagrees, then why hasn’t he, the “king of the birthers,” aggressively gone after Ted Cruz as he did with our President? If he agrees, then why did he push so hard for the President to produce his long form birth certificate? If a candidate’s birth place is not the deciding  factor, then President Obama was always eligible for the office … even if he had been born out of the country (which is clearly not the case), like Ted Cruz?

The constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate created by the Founding Fathers are concise but not very clear. Two provisions are obvious: The candidate must be 35 years of age and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The third qualification: He or she must be a “natural born citizen.”

But what does “natural born citizen” mean?

The Supreme Court — the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions — has never directly ruled on the citizenship provision for presidential office seekers. And that means a note of uncertainty exists. Legal experts agree that a child becomes a “natural born citizen” if either parent is an American citizen, regardless of where the birth takes place.

There have been a number of unsuccessful citizen lawsuits filed over the years on this issue but they have all been dismissed due to lack of standing. About the only way a court would get involved in this “constitutional ambiguity” is if a state, citing Cruz’s Canadian birthplace, tries to exclude him from the ballot, or another presidential candidate challenges Cruz’s eligibility.

Both highly unlikely!

Getting back to Trump, a question such as the one I propose would be very revealing. If he truly thinks Cruz’s Canadian birth disqualifies him from office, why has he not championed this issue as he did with Obama? If he agrees with the accepted legal understanding that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” because his mother was an American citizen, why did he fight so hard for Obama to prove he was born in the United States… if it doesn’t matter?

It is more than obvious to most people with at least half a brain that the whole “birther” movement was, and is, nothing but a racist reaction to Obama’s status as the first African American president of the United States.

Now if old Jeb wanted to do something useful, he as a plaintiff with standing, should ask a court to weigh in on this important issue, once and for all.

While they make up the bulk of his base, low-information-Fox-News-types are not the only Trump devotees.

Members of a secretive Hollywood group of right-wingers, Friends of Abe, are also admirers of “The Donald.” The group was formed in 2005 and has been described as a “stealth right-wing group,” “influential in conservative circles,” and “GOP support group.”

FOA keeps its list of members under lock-and-key (to avoid potential backlash in decidedly left-wing Tinseltown). But we do know that some of its founding and high profile “friends” include Gary Sinise, Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton, Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight and Oscar-nominated screenwriter Lionel Chetwynd.

“It’s a growing movement, and word is getting out that there’s many of us in this business,” singer Pat Boone, an FOA associate, told The Washington Times in 2008. “If certain studio execs—hirers and firers—learn that this is a movement and growing, and that some of these people that they hire are of this inclination, these people could be unemployed.”

The hundreds of conservative members are invited to attend strictly off-the-record functions where Hollywood celebrities get a chance to mingle with political big wigs. The group has hosted and toasted such conservative luminaries as John Boehner, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Past events have included a speech by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia.

This past July, FOA invited Donald Trump to address the group at a private dinner held at Los Angeles’ Luxe Sunset Boulevard Hotel.

Friends of Abe maintains they have zero interest in endorsing a candidate or commenting on a candidate’s controversial statements.

“We invited Mr. Trump for the same reason we invite all of our speakers: to give our members a chance to hear from movement conservatives without the filter of the media so they can reach their own conclusions,” the group told the Los Angeles ABC station.

At this point, I am sure you will never again think the same of some of the Hollywood celebrities that are members of this secretive right-wing group.

Gary, how could you do this to me?  I loved you in Forest Gump!”

Photo | telegraph.co.uk

Breaking News – More BS from Trump. Today, after this article was posted, the Washington Post reported Trump as saying Ted Cruz could run into trouble if he won the party’s nomination because he was born in Canada. This is only a few months after he said the opposite. Speaking of Cruz’s Canadian birth, Trump told ABC News in September, “I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape.” If Trump were truly concerned about Cruz’s eligibility to run for president, he would ask not about where Cruz was born (there is no doubt he was born in Canada), but to prove his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth. As reported in my article, I believe Trump knows full well that if a child is born of at least one American parent, he or she is considered a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for the presidency. The lawyers Trump referred to in September are right. If Cruz’s mother were an American citizen at the time of his birth, Cruz has no problem. The whole Obama “birtherism” stunt was a way to demean our first president of color. End of story.

Donald Trump “made his bones” during the last presidential election questioning Barack Obama’s birthplace. The line of attack was simple: if Obama was not born in the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen and, hence, ineligible to be president. Trump, who became known as ” king of the birthers” believed Obama was born in Kenya.

Trump demanded our president produce his “long form birth certificate” to prove he was born in Hawaii. Of course, such a document was produced but the birthers labeled it a fake.

So here we are in 2016 with Donald Trump as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination and not very much concern about the actual foreign birth of his closest Republican rival, Senor Rafael Edward Cruz. To many observers, it’s a puzzlement.

To me, this is no mystery at all.

The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president of the United States: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born citizen.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never ruled on what “natural born citizen” actually means. The accepted law is that if someone is born of at least one American parent, no matter where, that child satisfies the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution. Was there ever any question John McCain was eligible to run for president even though he was born in Panama?

I am guessing Donald Trump is smart enough to know Cruz’s mother is an American citizen born in Delaware. But wasn’t Obama’s mother also an American citizen born in Kansas? Of course! That is why the whole “birther” movement was, and is, nothing but a racist reaction to Obama’s status as the first African American president of the United States.

But since when have facts stopped Trump from smearing someone? After all, while the conventional understanding is that someone born of an American parent is deemed to be a “natural born citizen,” the Supreme Court has never weighed in on this topic. Fertile ground for a Trump attack, wouldn’t you think?

If Trump, or another of the other “birthers” wanted to create some havoc for Senor Cruz, they definitely could.

Cruz refuses to attack Donald Trump and visa versa. Why?

There is only one explanation for why Trump hasn’t aggressively gone there (besides our current understanding of the Constitutional requirements). Ted Cruz is part of Trump’s exit strategy. When Trump bows out of the race, and he will eventually, Cruz will be the heir to Trump’s fortune … his rabid base.

Photo | toprightnews.com

OK, 2015 is officially behind us and it’s only one month until the first presidential primary contest in Iowa: the caucuses. All the speculation, hype and polling will give way to actual voting.

But does the Iowa caucus really matter?

If recent history is any guide, the answer on the Republican side is “no.” Just look at the last two caucus winners: Mike Huckabee in 2008, Rick Santorum in 2012. Neither one could parlay their win into any kind of momentum. This is mostly due to the fact that evangelicals have an out-sized presence in Iowa; they made up 57 percent of Republican caucus attendees in 2012.

The Iowa caucus, however, has been a great predictor on the Democratic side. In 2000, it was Al Gore; in 2004, it was John Kerry; in 2008 it was Barack Obama (in 2012 President Obama ran unopposed.)

The latest Republican polling in Iowa has Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in a virtual tie. For the Democrats, various polls have Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders anywhere from 9 to 18 points. Sanders is doing much better in New Hampshire, the second state to hold a primary. In three out of four polls, Sanders is leading Clinton from 2 to 10 points. In one poll, Clinton is leading Sanders by 3 points.

In a sign that it ain’t what it used to be for Republicans, establishment favorite, Jeb Bush, recently cancelled over $1 million of reserved advertising time in Iowa. Of course that hasn’t stopped Jeb’s super PAC, Right to Rise USA, from committing to spend $3.6 million between now and caucus day.

While Iowa will continue to be the first presidential primary contest (it’s written into state law), it is losing its luster as the be-all and end-all of presidential politics. So if you’re Ted Cruz (or Trump for that matter) I wouldn’t gloat about such a win, from such an atypical state. Just ask Santorum or Huckabee.

Image courtesy of sdmania at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

It would be too easy cataloging all the lies that have come out of Donald Trump’s mouth since he entered the Republican presidential race. In fact, PolitiFact.com has awarded Trump’s statements “2015 Lie Of The Year.”

What’s harder to find are Trump statements that are actually true. Here is a list of my top five true Trump statements:

1. “Well, I would have never been in Iraq,” Trump said on Fox and Friends. “The Middle East has been totally decapitated. It’s a mess. The balance has been lost between Iraq and Iran.”
2. “We have spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, … if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems, our airports and all of the other problems we have, we would have been a lot better off — I can tell you that right now,” Trump said during one of the presidential debates.
3. “As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen,” Mr. Trump said at a CPAC conference.
4. “Some people have hopes of passing amendments, but it’s not going to happen. Congress can’t pass simple things, let alone that. So anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it,” Trump said of same sex marriage in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
5. “How can you say you were safe under his brother when we just had the worst attack in the history of our country?’ You can’t say we were safe,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day” in response to Jeb Bush’s assertion that his brother kept us safe.

Not everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is a lie or an embarrassment. Occasionally the truth slips out.

If only the media highlighted Trump’s “trutherism” once in a while!

To hear Donald Trump tell it, Hillary Clinton did not just lose the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama in 2008; she got “schlonged.”

To the uninitiated, “schlong” is a well-known Yiddish word for a man’s genitals.

“She was going to beat Obama,” Trump said of Clinton to a crowd in Grand Rapids, Michigan recently. “… She was going to beat – she was favored to win – and she got schlonged. She lost. She lost.”

The latest sexist insult is just par for the course for Trump. His supporters roared with approval upon hearing the disparaging comment, even though I doubt many knew the meaning of the word. It didn’t matter. It just sounded funny and it is so “New Yawk.”

It is well past the point where there is anything Trump can say to lose support among his adoring base. (For Trump Supporters, It’s Unconditional Love)

The question is, will history repeat itself? Could Hillary lose the nomination that seems so firmly within her grasp to Bernie Sanders? If you ask most diehard Progressives, the answer will be “yes.”

At this stage in the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary was clobbering Obama in the polls in about the same way as she is beating Sanders now. Perhaps that is why, even though a Hillary nomination seems well in the bag, the DNC and its chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz are doing all they can to help the frontrunner. (Debbie “Madusa” Wasserman Schultz May Have Done Bernie A Favor)

Of course, a politician such as Barack Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate and no one is confusing Bernie Sanders for Obama. And if the stereotype is to be believed, Bernie might not be as “well endowed” as Obama. But old Bernie might nevertheless still have it within him to crush Hillary’s dream once again and “schlong” her anyway.

Photo | people.com

It has been clear to anyone who has been paying attention, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), headed by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has been out to derail the Sanders’ campaign from day one. Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton’s campaign co-chair in 2008, is not about to have another insurgent candidate usurp the rightful prize that is Hillary’s: the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

First, it was the DNC limiting the number of sanctioned debates to six, as compared to the Republican National Committee’s 12. Then it was holding half of those debates on weekends, traditionally known for low TV ratings.

This Saturday night’s third debate coincided with a Saturday night NFL football game on CBS, and competed with the opening weekend for the highly anticipated Star Wars sequel. The debate, just six nights before Christmas, was held when many Americans were likely traveling, or simply out for the holidays. The next debate in January will also take place on a weekend, at the same time as an NFL playoff game. The next weekday debate isn’t until February, around the same time as the early primaries.

But Wasserman Schultz’ decision to prevent the Sanders’ campaign from accessing its own voter database maintained by the DNC, as punishment over a “cheating” scandal, has caused the most uproar among Democrats, especially Progressives. Of course, the DNC retracted the suspension, but only after the Sanders camp initiated a lawsuit against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC.

Bernie fans are not taking the DNC’s perceived Clinton bias lightly. Sanders’ supporters are pushing to remove Wasserman Schultz from her position, citing a conflict of interest with her past relationship with the Clinton campaign. A petition has been started which gathered nearly 40,00 signatures within less than 48 hours.

The Sanders’ campaign is taking full advantage of the mess created by Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It has reported raising an additional $1 million in just one day after it started maligning the Democratic National Committee as a saboteur working on behalf of Bernie’s rival.

Yes, the deck may be stacked against Bernie, but at this same time in the 2008 race, all the pundits were saying the same thing about the upstart Obama.

Photo| isthatbaloney.com