America needs time to get fiscally strong again and it's not gonna happen without Ron Paul.

Quoting from the article....

PAUL: "I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early '60s, before we had any government (health care). It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and it just expanded."

Paul advocates a return to an era when doctors would treat the needy for free. But even in the old days, charity came with a cost. Research from the pre-Medicare era shows that the cost of free care was transferred to paying customers and the insurance industry.

Judging by the number of pro-Medicare signs at those Teabag rallies, it sure looks like Paul's views on that subject are distinctly in the minority.

I think when he talks about an era when doctors would treat the needy for free it was in the days of the one room school houses, and a doctor could spend 12 hours in a home visit and get paid a chicken. There is no doubt the overhead in the medical system and office policy both restricts and protects doctors from charity work. The medical system is Big Business. However back then, Big Pharma hadn't developed into needing a self perpetuating and captive market either.

During the 60s the proportion of the elderly to the rest of the population was a lot tinier percentage than now, and aging and death were more accepted. For most going to the doctor was a rare event. Government mandatory vaccines could be counted on one hand. It was a totally different reality, although I am amazed as usual that Paul can be so reductionist about it. The elderly just died or were cared for in their children's homes as they were bedridden. But beyond the human cost back then is the reality that insurance and medicare even were primarily designed to promote and support medical big business, and protect doctor's ability to be wealthy. The medical lobbies have always been huge in this country. Good for Paul that as I understand he followed his principles in not accepting medicare in his practice but he seems oblivious to the realities of an aging and exploding population, let alone have a realistic idea of the human cost of eliminating medicare.

While it is true that in the 60s and 70s there was also a huge public health system that provided some free health care to women and children, and public hospitals that were mandated to provide free care these were funded by the government. So it seems ironic that he would harken back to the days of LBJ, and the drive of Democrats to provide free health care. Most employers took for granted that they provided insurance benefits and health insurance for a family of four didn't bust the budget and an office visit could cost $10. In addition, my whole working life I have been paying for medicare premiums, at this point the amount withheld equals the amount I pay for federal taxes at least. So have those people who demonstrated with pro-Medicare signs, just like social security, if our money paid in hadn't gone into the general fund all these years there would be no problem with it being solvent.

It was during Reagan's leadership that medical insurance companies became deregulated and allowed to be for profit and both premiums became more and more unaffordable since, as did employers withdrawing more and more from feeling they could cover it.

Paul is a racist who in 12 terms in congress has NO RECORD of legislative leadership or accomplishment to show for his "efforts" Americans will again en masse wisely say "NO THANKS"! to his candidacy.

On health-care, I believe Ron Paul would, rightfully so, have all these candidates re-read the doctor's Hippocratic Oath. Seems like there's no enforcement of it by the AMA at a time we most need its principles followed.

Yes! Are so many people really so engrossed in the "us/them" charade, on either side, that they can't see these candidates are too much the same? It's like the power of religion, creating a "devil" on the other side to get people to huddle together. Ditch the party filter and focus on the issues. Think for yourselves!

My doctors entire medical group has sent all there patients letters stating that he will not be taking Insurance of any type as of the 1st of this year. His lawyers have told him its going to cost him massive amounts of money to adhere to the upcoming legislation, so its cash or find another doctor after 17 years with this one. 60 doctors all on cash basis, My wife went in on Wed for a regular visit (shes handicapped) he told her that they were getting less than $40 from insurance so he will charge $40 per visit cash on the way out. He was recently at a convention and said to my wife that the major topic in discussion groups was about this single subject. I wish I could cut and paste the letters to show the people who wont believe this, but there is to much personal info .

Doctors who only take cash will be out of business very soon.

No country that is fortunate enough to have a modern i.e. government controlled medical coverage for all of it's citizens has ever returned to a private insured system. One government ,at that time under conservative control attempted to,but was voted out on this issue alone.All of those countries thhat were preparing to vote on this issue were subjected to intense propergander by the medical profession, but were wise enough to decide that this was merely greed from them.

On health-care, I believe Ron Paul would, rightfully so, have all these candidates re-read the doctor's Hippocratic Oath. Seems like there's no enforcement of it by the AMA at a time we most need its principles followed.

Expecting someone to provide a service for free sounds very communistic/socialistic (add your favorite "istic" here). Does Ron Paul expect landlords to provide a portion of their housing for free? Grocery stores to give away food for free? Why should doctors be expected to provide their services for free?

Before Obamacare our healthcare system was ranked 36th, behind Cuba. Where would the republicans like us to be? 40th? 60? Market failure will always exist in the health care industry. It is an industry that will always put up road blocks to keep people from making claims because it is profitable to do so. It is an industry that has historically denied legitimate claims because it believed it could get away with it, and was able to get away with it.

Indy man says,

"Paul is a racist"

So where is any proof that Mr Paul is a racist.I think of all the claims I've heard against him,that's the first one saying he's a racist.So which race is he a racist against.And what is supposed to make him a racist.Unless there is evidence,I have to figure its misinformation by his political enemies.

There was a doctor in my state, who announced he would only treat Republicans. Anyone who voted for Obama was told to get another doctor. So much for the oath.

But, once done, wouldn't a person who happened to be a Republican worry about the mentality of the person treating them? So if he didn't like your politics your toast. What if he just doesn't like you, your dress, attitude, etc.

So Jollyoldsoul1: while looking for a new doctor is a hardship. You may actually get a more dedicated one by changing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZWj3WRx14

Here is your Ron Paul Proof for racism. You guys really have to take a look at whats been found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZWj3WRxI4

Posted link again correctly. Here is the Ron Paul proof for racism.

There was a time when doctors practiced medicine because it was what they wanted to do. Now they practice medicine because of the money. You go to the doctor and all they do is order blood test and don't have time to really examine you. A $125 charge for a ten minute visit and he's out of the room since they expect the blood test to tell all.

Yes, the all want blood testing done. There is a reason for that, too many lawsuits over nothing. I don't blame the Dr's for protecting themselves. I have never had a Dr only spend 10 minutes with, it's always been more time. But then again, if I have any questions about something, I make a list of questions to ask the Dr.

Like the Boy Scouts motto, "Be prepared." Ask you Dr questions, just don't sit there like a bump on a log.

First things first. Health care needs to be non-profit. That alone would solve some issues. Second, why not examine the top 5 country's health care plans and copy what works? Quit reinventing the wheel.

Everyone should be able to get quality medical care. Going to the emergency room because they are required to treat you doesn't qualify as "quality" health care.

Gingrich was house leader when Clinton was president and the house did force Clinton to cut wasteful spending and leave a surplus.Which the Democrats tout today.

Are you kidding me?!?! Where do you get this stuff? The only reason BOTH SIDES couldn't spend like drunken you know what's is because there was actual BALANCE in our government, meaning we didn't have an oligarchy like under Bush II who pushed and rushed his unconstitutional political agenda down the throats of the citizens that has cost us over 6 TRILLION and still GROWING when you add in all the interest it took to BORROW IT! This is when the Armed Forces should have been defending the US Constitution, not oil wells in Iraq!

William

Isn't it funny (ironic, not knee slapping) that Gingrich's 'core' competency is supposed to be that he is a History major?

He always fails to mention the Revisionist in front of that,...LOL

I hope he wins! I do, I really do!

Gingrich was house leader when Clinton was president and the house did force Clinton to cut wasteful spending and leave a surplus.Which the Democrats tout today.

You don't think that the substantial tax increase the Clinton got passed his first year perhaps had something to do with obtaining a surplus? I was surprised that Gingrich took credit for that surplus when I'm sure that he voted against the president's tax increases.

If you want to be honest, the tax increases under Clinton likely caused the recession that Bush was saddled with. Revisionist history goes both ways.

As for Bush and $6t and counting, nice try. The Democrats had 4 years beginning in 2007 to stop anything "Bush" might have done, and they simply spent like a billionaires wife.

Living in today-world, under the Obama's "leadership", our debt has grown by nearly $4 trillion and will be nearly $6 trillion higher than when he took office, our federal government will have spent more than $13 trillion, and we currently have more citizens and non-citizens on welfare, foodstamps, unemployment than at any time in our history. So the 3 year report is that Obama had no idea what he was doing, and has failed miserably.

The only gains we will see in the economy will come from the private side figuring out how to work around this obstructionist administration and the MASSIVE debt burden it has placed all of us under.

Should Obama have taken drastic measures on day 1, we would be well on our way to a strong recovery. Instead, we are well on our way to bigger, dumber, more expensive and more worthless federal government than ever.

I'm guessing a big part is the price of oil,I bought it at 90-98cents a gallon when Bush came in,now 3.50-4.50 is the norm,that hurt all parts of the economy,from a citizen driving to work,to everything you use being delivered by truck,or made with petroleum products.Coupled with untold millions or billions, in war money spend,and in many cases wasted.In 2004 the Bush administration,ordered an audit to find 2 trillion in missing military expense money,alone.Never have heard if they found it,but doubtful.Then the housing,bank,Wall street crash,and other bailouts.They came during the Bush years,and were laid at Obama's feet like a Christmas present.Right from the start he had to take the Bush bailout plan,or start all over again and see the economy sink more as time went by.The government spent under Bush, like the old saying "a drunken sailor".Those years Bush never saw an oil man he didn't like,or saw a military weapons program he didn't approve of.You are right though,the democrats aren't blameless in this mess,if they had stood up to him and just said no,we would be better off.But as politics is conducted here,Bush's people would have spun it that they were weak on defense,letting the troops down,and they would have,too.Everybody knows they would have.That is a kiss of death for any politician. With the economy in such bad shape ,Obama has had to pile on the debts to keep the government commitments being funded.To keep our citizens from suffering more as best he could.A lot of people lost money in the Bank,Wall Street collapse,but it was different from losing your savings,to losing your total income and having to go on welfare to keep your family fed.To top it off,while trying to get out of our mess in the Middle East,he has had to deal with the effects of now.not just an American recession,but what could be a world wide recession,and what it will bring to us.All the while having to stave off attacks from his political enemies ,that want nothing better than to cripple him,no matter how our country suffers while they play those games.The root causes of our problems come from years of spending (by both parties),overreaching policies in the world,and a meltdown of our,and the global economies.Can Obama improve things,no one knows.But of the Republicans running,only one of them is anything but the tired old past,that got us where we are today.And that one,Ron Paul,probably hasn't got a chance of winning.It seems his wanting to cut all foreign giveaways,and not get involved overseas unless it is in our interest,has caused an alarm in our foreign lobby groups, and they are after his blood.So,what does the future hold,no one knows.But whatever happens, it is vastly unfair to blame the current President for the mistakes of the pass.

First of all, presidents don't create jobs, but their policies can have some impact on job creation. But, not nearly as much as interest rates, inflation, business cycle, etc. unless the policies are radical.

But here's the kicker:

Even with high interest rates (via the Fed) there were 10 million new jobs created in Carter's 4 years, twice the number of jobs created in Reagan's 1st term, nearly equal to the jobs created in Reagan's second term and 10 TIMES the number of jobs created during GWBush's whole eight years. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Mr Amazing

by that logic, we can't blame Obama until 2020 or after,...LOL thanks I needed that laugh, been a long week.

Anyone who expected an economic recovery in 3 years is woefully short on reality. The situation inherited by Obama was a darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't choice. It wouldn't matter if McCain had won, the situation, and choices, would have been the same.

Economic stimulus (spending and debt) or economic collapse. Neither was a good choice, and each has its consequences. Has Obama been perfect? No. Has he done the best job possible under the circumstances? Not really. Has Obama been a failure? Definitely not.

Changes do need to be made, but not necessarily the ones most people think. No matter what it will take many years to fix the mess we're in. Expecting a short term solution and changing what you're doing when you don't get it is only going to make matters worse. Either party will need at least a decade to get the job done.

I would submit,that the whole reason that conservatism,and the Republican party are better for America.Is the simple fact that you do fact check them,unlike others we could mention.I would submit also that when a political party ,such as the demacrats,are given a daily pass by the same medias.It is an absolute invitation to corruption.

Mare P

The cost of treating the uninsured is still being pushed on the insured. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves

Please enlighten us as to where the funding comes from when an un-insured person goes to a trauma center and gets $10,000 of emergency care he/she can't pay for???

One way or another it comes out of the money pot.

William, so where does the "money pot" come from? The hospital has to come up with revenue from somewhere to make up for those that cannot pay. That comes from higher charges to insurance and Medicare. So, just as Mare said, when an uninsured person receives care and cannot pay, that expense is passed on to insurance companies and Medicare, and ends up being passed on to the insured through higher premiums. Just for a minute, one short minute, try to clear your head. Use some logic. Think. Then you might understand some of the problems we face, and how to solve them and who (as in politician) can try to solve them for us.

We have just shifted the bill from the insured to the Tax Payer,which will put us deeper in national debt,and cause the wait lines to be longer as fewer doctors accept the low pay for their services.

William "Rocky Mountain Service Bureau" is where my bills always went, but not because I didnt have insurance. I ate out one evening in 2005 and by friday that week I was nearly dead, Ecoli, My wife called the insurance and told her she was rushing me to the hospital, they said "You are covered for what ever happens." A week later when the small local hospital seemed to be losing the battle with the virus my wife had me moved to LDS hospital in Salt Lake. About 5 days into my stay the Insurance called and said they had determined that I ecoli was now a pre-existing condition and they were refusing to pay. Even with every doctor I saw writting a letter to the insurance company telling them I could not have had ecoli onbe single day longer than I claimed or I would be dead, the insurance company still stuck me with over $50,000 worth of bills. So to the collection agency they go!!

A year later when I had a physical exam they insurance company sent me a form letter saying that my "physical exam" was a pre-existing condition!!!!

But anyway, no one ever has to pay those bills other than myself, the collection agency never attempts to collect the money from the real criminals, or the federal government, every month I get the bill, not the insurance whose resposiblity it was to pay the bill, the the government, not YOU, I AM THE ONE WHO HAS TO PAY FOR THE INSURANCE COMPNAIES CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR!!

Apparently your hypothetical question and answer satisfy you but it may leave some of the rest of us puzzled.

What, for instance, is "the money pot"?

I assume you know that when a deadbeat sloughs off the bill for $10K, it gets shifted over to insurance companies and paying customers. Or do you think docs and other staff member are going to allow themselves to be less rich?

Thank you J100 for pointing out that William like so many others in this country think that money to treat uninsured patients who must be treated by law in emergency rooms comes from the "tooth fairy" or at least some mythical nice person up there in the wherever this money comes from................but it couldn't possibly be related to our taxes could it? (sarcasm here btw)

So, just as Mare said, when an uninsured person receives care and cannot pay, that expense is passed on to insurance companies and Medicare,

My wife works for Mass General and I can tell you unequivocally the costs of un-insured are not passed on to the insurance companies.

My point was and is that the money will come from somewhere and I would rather a system in place for dealing with it consistently rather than billing cities and counties and states and the feds some arbitrary number.

The money pot comes from the working class pocket from higher rates, bigger deductibles and higher premiums. These effect both the conventionally insured and the self-pay client. To be able to get public moneys including medicare contracts most large hospitals have to have a no turn away policies for an inability to pay. The hospital and providers respond with higher "normal" charges to keep their profitabilty.

Medicare has negotiated rates that they pay providers that are usually under half and sometimes lower than a quarter of what the hospital would charge to an uninsured or so-called self-pay client. Usually insurance companies have negotiated rates with hospitals and providers although these are usually much higher reimbursement than medicare.

Hospitals cannot go after the uncovered amount for medicare clients, while they can with conventionally insured clients. As conventional insurance covers less and less, or has bigger co-pays, this goes out of the working class pocket. Where it gets passed on is higher premiums for conventional insurance, less coverage so the working class is generally liable for the difference, at least eventually. Less and less "free" or charity care is allowed in this picture, so Paul's reality is undoable, because nothing is ever really "free". Hospitals are not equipped to step into the gap if medicare is eliminated, they are already swamped with the pressure of the public funding requiring they not turn away poverty clients and the shortage of doctors and nurses.

There's a tremendous difference between auto and health insurance. Just one example, auto insurance not only protects me, it protects other drivers, too. If I crash into you while driving my car, you file a claim under my insurance policy, and my insurance rates go up. My health insurance policy doesn't cover you if I punch you in the face and break your nose (which I would never do, by the way). If auto insurance is to be the same as health insurance, then your health insurance premiums should go up if you file more claims, just like your auto ins.

kg14051

They do, just see how fast your premium goes up if you get cancer.

For those of you who are on Medicare, read the following. It's short, but important and you probably haven't heard about it in the Mainstream News:

"The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present Monthly Fee of

$96.40, rising to:

$104.20 in 2012

$120.20 in 2013

And $247.00 in 2014."

How about all of the unhealthy Americans who are complaining about health care, take a break from your Mcdonalds lunch and dinner and actually cooka healthy meal for your family. After that take a walk or a bike ride. Health care would not be big business if people were actually taking care of themselves.

Jolly - isn't 2014 when the Healthcare bill is supposed to kick in?

robiscoole,

Actually, you're kidding yourself if you honestly believe that you will not have health issues if you do all those things. Don't get me wrong - I agree that it is a good idea to do so, but, no matter what you do, you WILL have health issues at some point. Aging is not something that can somehow be avoided.

Healthcare will always be big business (just like funeral parlors) because people will always be sick and injured (and will eventually die). Staying healthy as long as possible only delays when your care starts and obviously doesn't take into account any accidents that may occur from trying to stay healthy (i.e., pulled muscles, broken bones, etc.).

In fact, I would be curious to know if any studies have been done regarding end-of-life care as it relates to how people took care of themselves prior to sickness. Since they would be stronger to begin with, does this mean that they would "hang on" longer and actually increase the cost of care? Or, is it a non-factor?

@ jollyoldsoul....that is just not true. Go to factcheck.org...

"Question: Will the new health care law raise Medicare’s basic monthly premium to $247 in 2014, as a viral message claims?

A: No, Medicare officials project the basic premium will be less than half that. But the law will eventually cause 14 percent of seniors with incomes over $85,000 a year ($170,000 for couples) to pay higher "income-related" premiums, up from 5 percent currently.

Robiscoole - You mean healthy food like salad, spinich, papaya? Healthy foods that have been recalled due to salmonella or E Coli? Try not to buy into the phallacy that a good diet and excercise can avoid medical care...hopefully you're a little smarter than that.

Anyone with any medical knowledge knows that healthy living is correlated with good health. Or a person could listen to someone with so little knowledge of anatomy that they think a "phallacy" is a mistaken idea.

Healthy living produces a decent quality of life. However, there are plenty of healthy people who drop dead far too young, and develop any manner of disease completely out of their control, starting with all kinds of cancer. Let's not go overboard with the "eat your vegetables and everything will be fine".

Certainly we need to help people to understand where type 2 diabetes and other behavior related illness can be avoided. But the fact is most of our healthcare dollars are spent on end-of-life care, in the last 3 months of life. And I would just bet that many people would opt out of the insanity if given the option. Honest discussion is very difficult on this topic, but I for one do not want my spouse or children saddled with debt trying to save my nearly dead carcass when the time comes.

genetics is almost as responsible for health as any other factor. My marathon running cousin died of a heart attack at age 37,...he was in the driveway talking to my uncle. No stresser, no warning, no history of problems. Didn't smoke, drink or do drugs. My uncle will be 80 in April.

Once again,...the DNA club determines your wealth and your health,...as often as not,...

"The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present Monthly Fee of

$96.40, rising to: $104.20 in 2012 $120.20 in 2013 And $247.00 in 2014."

Except that is false, Jolly, and from some viral chain email. See here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/premium-nonsense-on-medicare/

That is why I used he word correlated, it is not the same as caused. Playing in the road is correlated with getting hit by a car, but does not necessarily always cause it. Every decent parent does not let their children play in the road.

That is because there was no retirement/pension funds raided.In a hostile takeover you pretty much can do almost anything with the company or employees,only it is better to save the company and reduce the operation so it continues to make money,pay bills,and employee people,other wise it would lose you money and no business can stay in business losing money.

Unfortunately this is probably very legal.....................and a good scam if you can get your foot in the door................having a millionaire father probably helps so it's out faults we didn't choose our parents well!

not that the democrats have ever done somthing so underhanded, the democrats are as pure as the whitest snow.

well, the yellowist anyway..

Chubby,

First, so that make it ok to you then because democrats do it?

Second, list the obvious lies that democrats have repeated until they are believed to be true. For example the republicans think gays destroy marriage but never mention the 50% divorce rate of straights, or that tax cuts create jobs even though we are currently historic LOW tax rates and still no jobs. So go ahead actually support your statement.

Evil,

hahaha psmnbc abc cbs cnn are nothing but left wing lying fantasy story networks!

Keep telling yourself that so that your views of the world don't actually have to be grounded in reality. I understand, its hard to actually think for yourself, I am sure someone will tell you your opinion soon just hang in there.

@we-

manmade global warming, Bush stole the election, Republicans want to push grandma off a cliff, Republican tax cuts only help the rich, Bush lied about WMD, Bush made it a bad economy.

All lies, all spin by dishonest, and unpatriotic crooked Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who is the most outrageous liar who has ever held office. (well there was Greyson, but he's gone).



Chumbkt,

You forgot "the Republicans health plan is - let them die". One of the truly outrageous Democrat lies of all time. And, let's not forget the all time, say-it-enough-times leader - "it's because he's black", even though it is obvious that people are against his policies and lack of experience.

Chumbt, The democrats didn't need to lie about any of those you stated because they actually happend! There were NO WMD's as reported by Hans Blix a month before Bush invaded. Joe Wilson told Bush and Cheney they're yellow cake story was false, yet they kept using it. The Downing Street Memo also exposed a lot of these lies, and even Colin Powell was angry when he found them to be ALL LIES after he presented them to the public!

Your idolism of politicians is down-right creepy and the perfect subject of Goebell's sucessful propaganda experiment.

FYI, a Democrat can lie just as easily as Repbulican. A black person can lie just as easily as a white, tan, yellow or green person. A christian can lie just as easily as a buddist, jew, or pastatorian. A child can lie just as easily as an adult or senior citizen. Every human being has the capacity to lie, even you!

As a US citizen it's your civic duty and obligation to make sure ALL REPRESENTATIVES are being honest, truthful and forthright when it comes to operating within the Constitution and engaging in their legally authorized official duties, for them to EARN the Public's trust. If they're found to be untruthful prior to taking office, then how on earth do you expect them to be truthful afterwards regardless of what ideology, belief, color or age they are?

LOL - We the Corporations - why even bother correcting Good vs. Evil. He is the typical right wing "ditto-head" that perpetuates the complete and utter ignorance of the republican party.

hahaha psmnbc abc cbs cnn are nothing but left wing lying fantasy story networks!

they aren't even news anymore! and that left wing anti-american bunch on msnbc!

give me a break! nobody but left wing brainswashed lesbians gays and racist watch them!

ROFLMAO at Good v. Evil - so we should watch FoxNews and get the real news? I'd rather shove bamboo under my fingernails.

Dexter-Morgan, "The FoxNoise-GOP-teabag strategy of reality: keep repeating the lie until enough people believe it t be the truth..and then it is true"

That is not the problem, the problem is that most people believe that those who are our representatives in our government can do whatever they want as if they were dictators. That is NOT so. Read and learn, I know it is long, but it is VERY important to know.

The Constitutional framers believed that our Rights are our natural Rights. Our Constitution was created to define the way our government will operate, and to protect OUR natural Rights from those who serve in our government who would take them away. The Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on Rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury.

The Constitution grants the federal government certain, specified powers, and NO others. The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges the federal government may not in any way abridge. The Constitution does not create rights for the states or the people. It serves as a grant of power to, and a blueprint for, the structure of our federal government.

The 9th Amendment clarifies the limiting nature of the Constitution on our federal government. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers.

Who possesses all other powers? The states and the people. 10th Amendment, "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".

Now that clarifies things, this is also VERY important to understand. The Constitution was formed, among other purposes, to make the People's liberties secure - secure not only against foreign attack but from oppression by the American People’s own government.

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was already established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all other Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. They CANNOT legally break the Oath they took (POTUS - "... preserve, protect, and defend", everyone else - "... support and defend the US Constitution") or they are no longer meeting the requirements of the office or position, are impeachable, are prosecutable.

This: "Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights", means those who are currently occupying positions within this administration are also prosecutable as Domestic enemies of the USA.

Any amendment/bill/law they create that weakens or goes against the US Constitution is illegal and void.

TSA's actions are illegal and void (plus for those of you who think they do at airports: the Constitution and US statute do guarantee unencumbered access to fast transportation. Here is the law: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2). Neither the government or private company can lawfully require you to submit to an illegal act, such as being groped, as a condition to a lawful contract. They do it anyway, which is a violation of constitutional rights.)

NDAA is not legal, it is void. Patriot Act is not legal, it is void. Federal Reserve is not legal, it is void (for you that do not know: Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank). Searches without warrants is not legal, they are void. ETC

The only way any of this stuff plus a lot more is legal is if we are no longer under the US Constitution, and we are still the United States of America, under the US Constitution at this time. Basically Obama and the executive branch, the legislative branch, and definitely the judicial branch that actually takes two Oaths are Oath breakers - Not one of them defended and supported the US Constitution in all of their actions as our representatives in OUR government. Obama did NOT preserve, protect, or defend the US Constitution, matter of fact he went against it in his first month in office, which made him no longer meeting the requirements to be in the office of the POTUS and NO ONE had him removed from office.

Want to know why our country is in such bad times? When you fully understand that 545 people exercise the complete power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists today is what they want to exist, caused to exist.

dancebisqit - I would definitely suggest Bloomberg News as a much better alternative than bamboo under the fingernails.........

So, GoodvsEvil...what you're saying is that everyone except the organization you get your information from lies because the organization that you get your information from told you that everyone but them lies when they have everything to gain from your believing that unless you get your information from them it is a lie. This is the organization that benefits from your believing what they are telling you.

If ten people told you that one person was lying but that person told you the ten other people are lying are you going to believe the one person or the other ten? Don't bother answering, you already have, and I can tell all I need to know about you from the logic you've already displayed.

Also, you do know that Fox News won a court case by testifying, in court, that their channel is not news but entertainment. This is how they get away with lying to you. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way to defend that too. People like you can't admit that they're wrong no matter how stupid it makes you look. And believe me...right now...you're looking pretty stupid.

RMJ, don't confuse him with logic.

Kline,

What law school did you go to. You don't know squat about the 9th or the 10th Amendment or how the Constitution has been interpreted over time by the United States Supreme Court. You espouse a type of philosophy called "federalism," just like your hero, Paul, who believes the federal government should disappear in favor of state sovereignty over most matters except war or interstate commerce.

It's a point of view, Kline, not commanded by the Constitution itself. And, your opinions as to whether executive officers have breached their constitutional duties is just your opinions. You're entitled to your opinions, like anyone else, but don't try to suggest that your opinions are what the Constitution commands. They aren't.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

Mike,

Great! I finally found the right guy to ask. Where in the oath of office does it say the President can pick and choose which laws to enforce? I fail to find the 'preserve, protect, and defend the laws I like' part.

Thanks.

"The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution. An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803.

5,000 is a long way from Romney's claim of 100,000 jobs created. Idiot.

That's just one company, fact Bain had a 3 to 1 turn around rate. The KC steel mill they bought and invested in for 7 years before filing Bankruptcy. 7 years is hardly buying a company to part it out for profit. Steel dynamics went from a 100 or so jobs to 6000. It's not that hard. You see Romney knows what it's like in the real world Obama knows what it's like in school, hence his track record for appointing academia to every admin position that come along. some where you need people who have work for a living not taught theory.

Wayno, can you provide references for your claims about Bain and Sealy? I'm trying to find that information, but can't find anything that shows that severe of a downturn in Sealy's business except during the Depression.

Thanks for your help.

Wayne-
Yes, because the country did so well with out very first Business Major president, Bush. Give me a scholar over a business man ANY day of the week. They know more than how to add-subtract and then tell me what's left over.

Wayne at #8.1: Concerning Sealy - In 1995, direct export business began to South Korea. In 1996, Sealy began manufacturing and selling in Mexico. Bain Capital and a team of Sealy's senior executives acquired the company in 1997.

So you claim they had only 25 employees in 1997? Please explain how they did all that export business. Or maybe you think it was all sub-contractors without any actual employees?

Ohmy good Have you ever interviewed people who think they are smarter than anyone else. I do a few times a week, I have developed a working strategy, I ask them where do you see your self in 2 years, 3 years or 5 years. If in the first 3 sentences they tell me the name of their university or their GPA, they get no 2nd interview. I have all that info on their resume, I need to be assured they can work as a team member egos dont work well at the team level.

Jolly - obviously the way to make your job easier would be to interview people that haven't gone to college. I have found that the vast majority of them have been duped into believing that they received an eduction anyhow. I rarely get to the interview stage with most of them because they cannot even manage to submit a resume without spelling, grammar or formatting errors. My first rule of thumb is that if you cannot even get your resume right, what possible chance do you have to correctly do the work I need done.

So if I need a physician, I should look for one without a college education? Or lawyer? Or engineer? You get my idea. There's good and bad in all walks of life. I don't think you want to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. One good thing about a college education is that it often exposes you to many ways of thinking, and kind of opens different perspectives. Kind of opposite of stating that all folks with a college education really aren't so smart.

J100 - I actually do agree with you, overall. But, it is also important to realize that just attending a college does not make someone smart or even educated. Too many people squander their opportunity and then wonder why they have difficulty getting a job. Sorry. Graduating 275th in your class of 280 with a C- does not give you much of an advantage in the job market - especially if you have not learned the basic skills required to create a suitable resume. So, to answer your question, no - you should not look for a doctor without a college education. However, the person that can pull off impersonating a physician without actually having a degree may turn out, in the end, to be more capable than our doctor who graduated 275th in his class. People who fail to take advantage of (i.e., fail to study, spend time partying, etc.) their opportunity to receive a college education strike me as perhaps the most stupid people in this world.

Liberals wouldn't know a fact if it was staring the in the face.

Wayne,

Liberals wouldn't know a fact if it was staring the in the face.

FACT: Obama has presided over 24 straight months of private sector job growth

FACT: Obam has righted the job los ship and made a turn around of 1,000,000 jobs a MONTH in three years (from Bush losing 750,000 to Obama creating 250,000)

FACT: Taxes for working Americans are LOWER now than 4 years ago

FACT: Willard Romney gutted liquid assets at a company and raided pensions before driving them into bankruptcy and the American taxpayer had to cover the pension while Willard made MILLIONS $

FACT: Newt left 1 wife with cancer, he then left another wife with MS.

No I like facts just fine...

we the corp. A million jobs a month for three years? That would be 36 million jobs buster, where are they? your math needs to be seriously monitored. 24 months of job growth. you must be refering to all the pot you have been growing and smoking for the last two years. you like facts, try getting the correct before you post.

I was just doing the math my self....... he sure does like himself some facts.

That's some more of that fuzzy "saved jobs" math.......

he unemployment rate was 7.8% on the report but real unemployment was closer to 10%

So then what was "real" unemployment 2 years into Reagan's admin...15%

You understand that Reagan was a bigger liberal and way more socialist that Obama right?

Amnesty, tax increases, deficit spending to create jobs....all Reagan

The unemployment number includes anyone who is looking for work whether they are receiving unemployment benefits or not.

BTW no they don't once your not drawing unemployment compensation your not counted. If your not getting $ They don't count you.

That people not receiving benefits are not counted is one of the most common myths perpetuated on the internet. Unemployment claim numbers are not used to measure total unemployment. If they only counted those receiving benefits the unemployment number would be around 5% not 8.5% .

Wayno---1982 ,Reagan administration--unemployment 10.8 %------FACT

Wayno. Prove Romney was PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for creating all these jobs! It royally ticks me off when someone takes the credit for the work of others, and profits highly from it to boot!

So if I invest in J&J, does that mean I'm responsible for creating all the roducts its makes? No...it means I provided some of the funding that allowed the actual scientists, manufactorers, marketers and stores to deliver them to the consumers for purchase, whereas I may or may not receive a dividend from my financial contribution.

Really people, has all common sense left the country?!?!

SpryLynnx,

When Romney actively invests money into a company to make it grow, it certainly has more to do with creating jobs than some politician sitting in Washington. And, the whole point is that he understands what the scientists, manufacturers, marketers and stores need in order to make it possible for them to do what they need to do to be successful and create jobs. Washington politicians, on the other hand, simply sit in their granite halls and pontificate about how knowledgeable they are on the subject.

JC, that's a load of bunk! Typical group think mentality that's causing far too many problems in this country.

Romney was not PERSONALLY responsible for creating those jobs, which is what "he is claiming". Without all the other investors, managers and workers, he would have been personnaly responsible for sinking money into an empty building!

Case in point -- one of our project managers, through his work product and ethic with a customer was able to score us work. In your eyes our CEO (and Romney) who had nothing to do with any of the communiciations, discussions or results of this work, would receive all the credit for it.

You're wrong about the government. There are direct benefits to the jobs produced by government, as their labor is the direct result of securing our borders (should do a better job), educating your children, being able to drive your car over a body of water and through several states, protection of your home in the event of a fire or burglary, and locking up member's of society who do not conform to our laws.

Both parties have such EXTREME views as to how they perceive America should operate while completely forgetting our greatness was not achieved through governments OR corporations, but by PEOPLE (abolotionists, suffragists, unions, civil rights) who fought and/or died to break the chains that bounded them to the very slavery and inservitude of both! Geesh.

So tell me Spry..... how many of those jobs would have existed if Romney had not invested the capital?

How many jobs would there be at the company my wife and I own, if we did not risk our capital?

I fail to understand what you hope to gain by ignoring the obvious. There's no doubt that people make many contributions to make an enterprise successful. But, to simply ignore the fact that NOTHING will happen if people do not make investments is very hard to understand.

No one knows that, not even Romney as he appears to be "cherry picking" without providing any proof or solid evidence to back up his claim. Some were already employed in these companies so they weren't created, whereas a change in management or improved products & services is what created the additional jobs to meet their demand. How much did he personally invest? How much did the other's invest? Who was managing these companies? What were all the factors attributing to each companies success or failure? These are the details the public should have been provided in order to ensure he's being forthcoming and truthful. Those who make a claim have the burden to prove it.

I am not saying that an investment does not create jobs, as this is usually the case with a start-up company. However, if the management is poor and/or employees do not provide a quality product or service that produces profits from the original investment, then another job cannot be created. Investors like Romney have nothing to do with the operations of a company , wheras its success is fully dependent on the management, employees and especially the consumers. Bottom line, If the public doesn't consume it, an investment won't save it.

One thing that I don't think you are taking into account is that the Bain Capital investment model (which has been copied by many other investment companies because of it's success) includes providing consulting expertise to the companies it invests in. The combination of capital and business knowledge is what made it possible for companies to grow, though it was obviously not successful in every instance. And, in the case of Romney specifically, he spent over 10 years on the Board of Directors for Staples, so he had a direct hand in helping them to achieve the success they did.

Those who make a claim have the burden to prove it.

I think the fact that Bain Capital has been remarkably successful, as have many of the companies that they invested in, is proof in itself. One can easily tell that he knows what he is doing. And, his success with the Olympics backs up his credentials with further proof.

I lived and worked during the President Carter's administration, unemployment was lower then with Reagan, He did mot get reelected because of the Iran Hostage situation because people were starting to develop the "Cowboy" attitude.

Hey moron Santoum is not old enough to have been eligible for the draft.

He was old enough to have volunteered. (The coward.)

I suppose enlisting and SERVING HIS COUNTRY was out of the question for him too. Santorum (unless this guy you mention, Santoum, is someone else), who couldn't stomach the race and dropped out; I'm baffled as to why you're defending him.

Steve,

So anyone that doesn't enlist is a coward? I'm pretty liberal but that was pretty dumb.

JTM you know that only poor people are required to go into the service. If they took the same tact as your rich Republican candidates took, the Government would have no choice but to reinstate the draft, because nobody would go to active duty, just like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton. Rick Santorum. Mitt Romney, his five boys, Newt Gingrich. All of them have absolutely no problem sending someone elses sons and daughters off to fight their wars.

Or to pay for them, Chuck...let's not forget they don't want to pay for them either, regardless that it made many of them a ton of money.

Didn't cause it just prolonging it.

boohoohoo! mean capitalist who creates jobs without costing the taxpayer a cent!

unlike the left wing socialist stimulus fake green jobs and big union cost Thermen!

Just like Bill and Hillary in the Cayman's.

What jobs?

You right wingers are such suckers. You'll take it. And then say you liked it.

Nearly 11% unemployment under Pops. And he ended up raising taxes too. (How quickly they forget.)

He raised taxes at the behest of the Democrats. If you know history you would know that he was stupid in trusting the Democrat controlled Congress when the told him they would not raise taxes then they did.

It's a story about the Republican candidates. Why would they talk aout Obama?

Side question: Why do posters from both sides keep changing the spelling of names (ie Obombo, Boner, etc)? Don't they know it makes them look like 5th graders?

JTM at #16.3 - - A lot of the posters probably only have a 5th grade level of education. They have trouble staying on topic because they probably don't understand the article to begin with, but they still have to clog up the comment pages anyway by repeating the same things again and again. I doubt if many of them have ever voted before.

pog8,

Based on my observations I don't think it is because they don't understand the article, it seems to me that they simply read the headline, skip over the article and then start commenting.

JTM,

I think that many of them see this as an opportunity to make some sort of statement. But, since they don't really have anything useful to say, they just end up throwing childish insults around and try to "fit in".

Now that's funny1

The Repukelicans love to brag about their JOBS BILLS. What they don't brag about is ALL THE JOB LOSSES that would result. They do say they want to FREEZE Government hiring and pay raises for three years. They do want to CUT UNEMPLOYMENT benefits. BUT, you don't see them wanting to CUT THEIR GOLD PLATED pay rate or benefits.

Seems to me that unemployment was stuck above 9% prior to the GOP winning the House. Since they took office though it has started going down. Apparently stopping President Obama from continuing on the course he was taking has been effective - just as they predicted.

Since the Tea Party has a primary goal of getting spending under control in Washington, I cannot imagine why Romney would have any difficulty working with them. As both Governor and CEO he managed to create balanced budgets and effectively run the organization. Your premise is flawed.

As CEO of Bain Capital, winning the White House would be like buying out a company. Then Bain would borrow money, charge outlandish management fees, sell off the company assests, and move on. The company folded under the debt left to them.

So what part of the assests of the govt would Mitt sell off, we know the middle income, what's left of them, would be stuck with the fees, and then he would be voted out and be moving on. Where will he borrow the money from. And what happens afterwards? Your guess is same as mine.

Steven B That is like me wishing that Faux News had done the same investigation on George W. Bush. That would have been really fair and balanced.

Fox News didn't have to do any research on Bush. PMSNBC and all the DNC run media like it flipped every rock trying to dig up dirt on Bush, just like they do every Republican.

The FACT is that no media outlet other than Fox posted stories about Hussein and his ties to admitted terrorist like Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright who supported the idea that 9/11 was Americas "Chickens coming home to roost".

"The FACT is that no media outlet other than Fox posted stories about Hussein and his ties to admitted terrorist like Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright who supported the idea that 9/11 was Americas "Chickens coming home to roost"."

The FACT is that you're a gaseous half-wit who has no idea what he's babbling about. I've never once watched Faux News yet I heard literally dozens of stories about it.

In fact, half-wit, all you have to do is a google search to verify it. Google Obama Ayers and just on the first three pages of results are articles from 2008 from the Washington Post, cnn,com, politico.com, nytimes,com and the Huffington Post.

I bashed Obama in my previous post, but make no mistake - Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are just as pitiful.

Ron Paul 2012!

And you think Newt, Romney, or Santorum are going to be better? Give me a break. A flaming hypocrite, a big business patsy, and a homophobic crackpot.

Don't get mad at the messenger.

I am voting for the only one who care enough to restore our freedoms and liberties, so that we will still have a free voice to work on the other issues, together and as Americans.

Oh wow, imagine that!!! A rightie who refuses to believe the facts when they're right in their faces...Shocking!!!

BTW: Anyone who votes for Ron Paul is as dellusional as he is.

He has 2 good points to talk about (actually 1, and another thats totally ludacris but based on something inteligent) and everything else is just dementia.

Proud American,

You wrote, "Obama extended Bush's anti-constitutional Patriot Act. Obama extended Bush's anti-constitutional TSA. Obama signed into law a re-written and anti-constitutional NDAA which denies Americans due process." How would you know what is unconstitutional? What provisions of the Constitution are being violated? You mention the NDAA violates due process of law. Presumably, that means you are talking about NDAA's support for indefinite detention without judicial review. You do know that courts have rejected that argument, don't you? So, who are you to suggest otherwise?

And as to your worship of Ron Paul, at the very least, he allowed his name to be used to publish racist rants like "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul has no problem banning abortions, which was outlawed by Rowe v. Wade, but just thinks it's a state's job to do so because of his warped view of the 10th Amendment. Paul has stated that because he delivered 4000 babies, he knows that life begins at conception (this is as stupid a statement as he's ever uttered--when life begins has been, is, and will always be a question for philosophers or politicians, and certainly not some quirky physician who delivered babies). Ron Paul is a also global warming flip-flopper and now a global warming denier.

In 2008, Ron Paul had this to say about global warming: "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations. By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: “The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” Even if Ron isn't being paid off by Big Oil, he's still doing their bidding. The concept that humans cause global warming is shared by the vast majority of legitimate climatologists in the world; only scientists hired by Big Oil promulgate the myth that global warming is a hoax or is not caused by human activities. Moreover, his claim that global warming has been a hoax for hundreds of years is so obviously wrong: concerns about global warming have not existed for “hundreds of years.” I was around (as were you) for the first “Earth Day” in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn’t an issue then. I’d say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul’s statement about there being a global warming hoax for hundreds of years is patently ridiculous.

[1] Concerns about global warming have not existed for “hundreds of years.” I was around (as were you) for the first “Earth Day” in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn’t an issue then. I’d say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul’s statement is simply ridiculous.

However, the most frightening thing about this dogmatic old fart is his belief that we are a Christian nation. According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, as stated by Thomas Jefferson:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: ‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’" Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, citing Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).¹ Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.² “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ ”Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). The dissenters agreed: “The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.” 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S.Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992). So what does Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who is not educated in law, purports to be a higher authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final judicial authority, has consistently ruled since 1878.

Just because he wants to dismantle the federal government, as you want, and will allow you to smoke pot (unless the states continue to outlaw it) doesn't make him a fit candidate for President of the United States. His brand of government may have worked in the 19th Century, but certainly not in the 21st. He keeps being rejected by the electorate because too many of his ideas are just plain kooky.

But fear not, Proud American; if he survives the next four years, he'll only be 80 years old, and will be able to trot out his ego once again to be rejected for a fourth time by America.