The Other McCain at The American Spectator is worried about the future of the Republican Party. Why? Ron Paul.

There are many mysteries to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul. How is it, for example, that a 76-year-old with a reedy voice – his appearance and manner not remotely “presidential” by the usual standards of the TV age – is an idol to so many youth? Polls in Iowa showed that Paul got 48 percent among caucus voters under 30, which might suggest that his libertarian-tinged anti-war message represents the future of the Republican Party. But that youth vote was only good enough for 21.4 percent of the total, because fully 60 percent of Iowa GOP caucus-goers were 50 or older. So the oldest candidate in the race, dismissed as a crackpot by most mainstream Republicans, is almost uniquely capable of attracting young voters to a party dominated by the gray-hair-and-bifocals set. However one attempts to explain this situation, it does not bode well for the GOP. And perhaps it doesn’t bode well for America, either.

And then Stacy (The Other…) goes on to lay out the Paul foreign policy problem. Which I have blogged on at length. Suppose America no longer volunteers to man bases around the world? Because we can be asked to leave with one year notice. And we have. The Philippines and Saudi Arabia come to mind. OK. Who fills the power vacuum when America leaves? And if the vacuum fillers go to war to determine who takes over from America? Well that is the very thing those bases were designed to prevent. It has been American policy since George Keenan articulated it in 1948.

But that is not the question at hand. Why do the kids love Ron Paul? Let me start with a few words (revised some) I left at The Other McCain.

Why do the kids like Ron Paul? I see two reasons -

1. The War On Drugs is a war on youth. Why wouldn’t they rally behind a candidate who has been against it like forever?

2. The Debt – which they will be paying. Ron is the only candidate who is serious about that.

On the Drug War it is almost as if the Rs had a death wish – driving the youth towards the Democrats and libertarians.

And the same thing on Debt. The mainstream Rs will wreck the country with debt. Just slower than the Democrats. We hope.

The current likely Republican field is not a very good advertisement for either Economic or Social Liberty. Which is why the unlikely Paul is so popular among the youth who seem to value liberty above social conservatism (you know, the social conservatism which has the right attitude on abortion and drugs which then gives it/them a license to spend like drunken sailors). It is good to remember that social conservatives were a very important part of the Progressive Coalition until Johnson drove them to the anti-slavery party over desegregation. They are now an important block on the right but the tendency to like strong centralized government is still there. Or to put it another way. We have two Progressive Parties. One is socially liberal the other is socially conservative. Neither believes in liberty. Which is why we have the Ron Paul kids.

BTW I’m planning to vote for Ron in the Illinois primary in March. Just to tweak the establishment Rs. And besides – at my age it is very good to be a kid. Again. Or as the First Mate would say, “As usual.”

A lot of people were surprised by this NASA video.

More here, and here, and here.

I’m been saying keep an eye on Rossi for a while.  Skepticism still very warranted, but starting to look more and more like maybe there’s some there there.

(Just for fun, I also ordered a small home e-cat from Rossi, which entails no more than giving him your email address, but we should know long before the delivery date whether there’s something here.)

UPDATE:  Something else I’ve been saying for a while is that Rossi may have a working device without a true theoretical understanding of the principles involved, so it doesn’t surprise me that NASA seems to be leaning toward Widom-Larsen theory, which iirc Rossi has said is not the basis for his machines.

While it is not central to the point under discussion, I spotted an error in an article in the Daily Mail linked by Glenn Reynolds about an allegedly “racist” portrayal of Michelle Obama as Marie Antoinette. I find the argument that it is racist to PhotoShop the First Lady into a Marie Antoinette portrait ludicrous on its face, and I don’t think it’s worthy of serious discussion.

However, much as I hate to sound like an art snob, the article also discusses an earlier photoshop parody and shows this side by side comparison:

The caption underneath it reads as follows:

‘Profligate?’: The U.S. President has also been depicted as Louis XVI, husband of Marie Antoinette, with a caption ‘You should be thanking Me’

Wrong. And it isn’t just a case of some underpaid copy writer getting his Roman numerals mixed up, because the portrait into which Obama was PhotoShopped is that of Louis XIV.  That’s Louis the Fourteenth, who was most definitely NOT the husband of Marie Antoinette. And unlike that unfortunate woman and her husband (Louis the Sixteenth) Louis XIV did not lose his head at the guillotine.  He was the absolute monarch of all monarchs known as Sun King, and the famous portrait by Hyacinthe Rigaud used in the parody is right there at his Wiki page.

I realize this may seem like a petty detail, but you’d think the British press would be more knowledgeable about basic history (and basic art history).

The piece certainly had no problem going into petty detail about American bloggers, and they single out Glenn Reynolds as being culpable for the “Louis XVI” photoshop:

Blogger Jim Hoft placed the picture on Gateway Pundit along with a reference to Mrs Obama’s guest appearance on Nickelodeon sitcom iCarly.

On the show, she praises the cast for their support of military families and she is mistakenly referred to as ‘your excellency’, to which she jokingly replies: ‘I kinda like it.’

The image is believed to originate from another right-wing website, Instapundit, where it first appeared in 2010.

How easy it is to point the finger at that evil “right-wing website, Instapundit!” Sheesh, next thing you know, some leftard will “connect the dots” and say that because Louis XVI was guillotined, the parody is actually a coded message advocating similar treatment of Obama.

Except they have no such “dots” to connect, as they can’t blame Instapundit for their own historical error.

I checked Glenn’s original file, and the jpg is labeled “SunKingObama.” The Sun King was vain and extravagant, lived in the grandest style possible to a then ripe old age of nearly 77, and far from losing his head, was the “longest-reigning monarch in European history, reigning for seventy-two years and one hundred and ten days.“

Fortunately we live in a republic where such things aren’t possible.

(At least, I hope they’re not.)

Not only is there nothing new about that observation, it went to the heart of the last election. As most people know, the evil of capitalism resulted in the election of Barack Obama, despite McCain’s attempts at haranguing Wall Street tycoons and the usual Malefactors of Great Wealth.

As I keep saying, freedom includes the freedom to do unwise, unhealthy, and immoral things. Reckless sexual practices can kill people, and reckless financial practices can kill jobs, businesses, housing markets, and even economies.

Mitt Romney is facing criticism for claiming that he created 100,000 jobs, but being short on the proof, and claims are being made that he was actually one of those predatory capitalists who like to engulf and devour other companies simply because they are there for the taking. That Obama never created a job in his life (I mean a real job, not taxpayer-funded make-work) does not seem to matter. If this election pits Romney against Obama, the narrative will be along the lines of the goodly regulators versus the evil unregulated.

And I am squarely on the side of the evil unregulated, which does not matter, because I am not running for office. By saying that, I do not mean I am on the side of criminals.  Just as it is illegal to rape, it is also illegal to steal. But there is just as much right to run a company you created or acquired into the ground as there is to run your body into the ground. Neither squandering wealth nor squandering health is advisable, but both are better than the government getting into the harm prevention business, because it ends up creating worse harms than the harm it prevents.

But this observation is old. So old that I might as well repeat what I said shortly after the 2008 election:

…if there is one lesson I have learned from freedom, it’s that there are risks and downsides, and you have to take the good and the bad.

Economies do not always thrive. The American people are acting like a bunch of babies. (Or whiners as Phil Gramm said). Like gays clamoring to shut down the bathhouses once they got AIDS (which some did).

Hedonism, the irresponsible fast lane of freedom, is a high risk activity — whether economic, sexual, or chemical. You cannot have freedom without allowing it, and people are going to get hurt. Ditto, legal guns.

The problem is, no one wants to hear this.

Beyond that, the more the government intervenes (as they did in this economy), the greater the demand for more intervention when intervention fails, which it inevitably will.

True conservatism (at least, the old fashioned kind) involved allowing freedom and encouraging — not mandating — responsibility. It’s AYOR (at your own risk) stuff, and it’s not for children.

Failure in all these things has to be allowed, but the voters want safety nets and will not allow it.

There’s tragedy in this.

I’d hate to see the same tragedy repeat itself in this election, but that freedom thingie can be a hard sell, especially in hard times.

I see a special problem for Republicans who succumb to bashing “Wall Street” (which is of course a popular synonym for “capitalism”), and that is this:

The Democrats are much, much better at it.

Where it comes to all things regulation, and all things anti-capitalist, liberals have the moral authority. Republicans (and conservatives) do not, and never will. McCain looked like a pathetic old fool when he went after Wall Street in the last cycle, and it made me shudder when I saw it. (I knew he would lose.)

It does not matter what label you put on it. Many conservatives are legitimately concerned about morality, and favor harm prevention measures. But if preventing irresponsibility in the marketplace by government regulation is “conservative,” then the Democrats will by default be seen as more conservative. (Again, an old rant.)

The moralists should bear in mind that even if we accept that capitalism is immoral, history shows that Doing Something About It is more lethal.

This quote from Frank Luntz provided another reason for me not to want to be saddled with the conservative label:

Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. And there is a difference. The word capitalism was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit. We’ve always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom. Suddenly, they’re trying to defend something that has only 18 percent support. 

If being a conservative means having Frank Luntz tell me what I should not be defending, then I don’t want to be a conservative. He’s right about capitalism being an inaccurate term, but this sort of cave-in to the left strikes me as problematic:

Luntz told the group that the public thinks “capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

I’m glad I’m a libertarian. I don’t have to worry about what the damn public thinks based on the wording of some silly spur-of-the-moment poll. I am proud not to be part of the “we” that has Luntz all worried.

In that respect, I’m glad to see that Ron Paul defended Mitt Romney against the business bashing which might be expected from the left, but is shameful coming from “conservatives” like Gingrich and Perry.

I don’t trust conservatives who think capitalism is immoral. As in sex, a willing buyer and a willing seller ought to be allowed to consent to whatever transaction they like.

And I’ll go even further than that. If capitalism is immoral, then that makes socialism “moral.” In that case, I prefer capitalism to morality.

Which makes me proud to be immoral.

It is not as large as it once was. And we have Congress to blame.

When Congress passed the first copyright law in 1790, the copyright term lasted for 14 years, with the option to renew for another 14 years if the copyright holder was still living. Before 1978, the copyright term was still 28 years from the date of publication, renewable once for another 28 years — but 85% of copyrights were not renewed and went immediately into the public domain. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, which went into effect in 1978, the term became 50 years from the date of the author’s death (with no need to renew to have the full term). And in 1998, the copyright term was increased to 70 years after the death of the author, and to 95 years after publication for corporate “works-for-hire”, locking up an entire generation of works for an additional 20 years. With these and interim extensions, the copyright term has been extended eleven times in the past fifty years.

And here is the result:

The 1998 term extension — which increased the copyright term to life plus 70 years and 95 years for corporate authors — was not only granted to future works. It was retroactively applied to works that had already been created and enjoyed their full copyright term, and were set to enter the public domain. None of these works will enter the public domain until 2019. The already diminished public domain has been frozen in time.

H/T Diogenes at Talk Polywell where there is an intense discussion going on about what SOPA will do to our Free Speech Rights. Most there think it will do no good.

Commenter Frank gave me a heads up on this delightful piece.

You can listen to Sergi Rachmaninoff doing the piece at YouTube – Part 1.

Part 2.

Part 3.

If there’s one thing I hate, it’s when I agree with Pat Buchanan. And if there’s anything I hate more than that, it’s agreeing with Fidel Castro. Imagine my surprise when I discovered myself agreeing with both of them on the same day, and on the same general issue!

Pat Buchanan says that Republican infighting has gotten way too vicious, and that the “Republican candidates’ circular firing squad plays into Dems’ script.”

There still exists a possibility that, come Jan. 20, 2013, we could have a Republican Senate and House, and a Republican president.

But there is also a possibility that a Goldwater-Rockefeller-type family bloodletting could sunder the party and kick it all away.

I think he’s right. While partisan politics is expected to be brutal, this sort of nastiness is even worse:

In Iowa, Ron Paul’s ads charged Newt with “serial hypocrisy” for claiming to be a conservative but leaving Congress to make millions working the system. In New Hampshire, Paul escalated, calling Newt a “chicken hawk” who clamors for war on Iran but ducked service when he could have gone and fought during Vietnam.

Newt has said that, should Paul become the nominee, he, Newt, could neither endorse nor vote for him. Paul’s supporters would reciprocate, were Newt to become the nominee.

Paul’s ads also charge Rick Santorum with being a “corrupt” politician who exploited his 12 years of Senate service to make millions on K Street.

Santorum’s reply: “Ron Paul is disgusting.”

The Republican candidates have gone beyond challenging each other’s records and positions to impugning their character.

When I get into arguments with Democrats, I expect to be maligned and insulted, but the way things are going, I’d almost rather get into an argument with my Democrat friends than my Republican ones. Things are waaay tooo highly charged. People need to settle down and remember that the goal is beating Obama, not cannibalizing each other.

So, much as it always hurts for me to have to agree with Pat Buchanan, he is absolutely right in his central point.

Oh, I almost forgot Castro. It really is too much to have him say something that I agree (at least partially) with on the same day Buchanan did, but here:

Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro said Monday that a “robot” would be better in the White House than President Barack Obama…

Wow. Might that be a backhanded way of endorsing Romney? Sure, Fidel continues with his obligatory slamming of the Republicans, and sure, he is in his dotage, but I have to wonder about his subtext. I mean, a lot of people complain that Romney is stiff and robotic, and I have never particularly liked him, but maybe the country could use a robot right now.

No, this is not an endorsement! For starters, unlike the genuine humanoid robot we actually had in the White House, Romney is probably just a robotoid human.

But Castro got it right on the central point. A robot would be better than Obama. And if the Republicans don’t watch out, only a robot will be able to take the kind of abuse they’re dishing out.

No real human would.

“Conservative” = favors big government but is against abortion.
“Liberal” = favors big government but is for abortion.

“Libertarian” = common criminal (probably a communist and a homosexual too) who just wants government to leave him and everyone else alone

I ran across an interesting blog Katabasis while reading a Watts Up With That piece. It is a libertarian blog out of the UK.

In an effort to enlist the gun rights community in the anti-prohibition effort I have written a piece for Gun Values Board.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Ulsterman has a bit up from a Wall Street Insider on the G’s he knows. Not your ordinary street level Gs to be sure. Here is what the Insider had to say as part of one exchange:

WSI: (Smiles) I already told you in quite simple terms that I did not care if the Ron Paul campaign was being manipulated or not by some other person or entity. That possibility is not nearly so crucial as the underlining message that Mr. Paul is bringing to the national discourse – that of a Federal Reserve out of control and consolidating power not only within America, but around the globe. If you wish to see witness of the one-world globalization movement…irrefutable proof that such a thing does in fact exist – you look no further than the Federal Reserve. At this very moment, there are individuals working collectively toward the implementation of a world crisis scenario that will provide the platform for the unification of the Federal Reserve, the IMF, with a strong assist from other such entities as the UN…the climate change movement is involved…those are merely laundering organizations you know…window dressing. Deceptions…climate change, AIDS relief, world hunger relief, disaster relief…on and on and on. The Clintion Initiative…-name deleted- almost let that slip with you recently… each a small portion of the larger puzzle…all the pieces…I have watched over decades as these pieces have been moved into place. And before you wish to insult me – yes, I have put forth time and effort…often at great personal expense, to slow what appears to be an unstoppable force. This is the topic of which I have protected you from. This is the threat underway at this very moment. It has always been…and now it appears ready to reach its intended conclusion. Your Ron Paul – George Soros stories? Rubbish. All of it. Pure rubbish. And I will add this…Congressman Paul, for all of his many other political faults of which I am well aware…the naive – even dangerous, foreign relations views, his rather questionable outlook regarding Israel…all of that is secondary to me when compared against the truth he speaks regarding the Federal Reserve, the collapse of the dollar, and the absolute and horrific chaos that will be unleashed upon the country and the world if the United States does in fact fall into the abyss. It is that message that cannot be diminished! It is that message that MUST be an essential component to the 2012 campaign – whoever the Republican candidate is – they MUST challenge President Obama on that issue. Time and time again. That issue must be raised in this election, and if this country be so fortunate – the next election, and every election after until the doomsday scenario being played out by the likes of Ben Bernanke and others is resolved.

Here is another interesting interchange (explained more fully in the comments to the post):

WSI: Have you ever made the walk from 19th in D.C. to the White House?

UM: 19th? To the White House?

WSI: That’s right.

… It’s a remarkably short walk – even for someone of my age. Can I give you a bit of homework if you don’t mind?

UM: Homework?

WSI: Yes – homework. The look you gave when I was laying out the IMF…globalization…all of that which admittedly, to an outsider, certainly should sound like the rantings of a conspiracy fanatic. I get that. Believe me, I do. You say I could survive exposure far easier than yourself or -name deleated- . Not so. What I just discussed with you…people in my line of work…we don’t openly speak of such things. Ever. Those who do…there is very particular risk involved. Now if someone outside looking in wishes to make those kinds of connections – feel free. But if you are “in the club” shall we say…it would be viewed in very poor taste to do so.

You have the link. Read the whole thing.

Every Monday morning, I am reminded of how what we might call basic quality of life has declined. There is just something about going out the front door first thing in the morning and being glared at by an angry man who looks like a ex-convict from central casting who believes he is somehow entitled to what is not in my recycle bins and never was there, that just rankles me.

The problem is recycling. It has created an opportunity and an incentive for criminal scum to rifle through trash bins and recycling bins. What they are looking for are the valuable cans and bottles that are not supposed to be either in the trash or the recycle bin.  Michigan is one of the 11 states with container deposit laws. Unlike the other ten states (which require a five cent deposit to be paid along with the purchase of each beverage container — to be refunded if and when the can or bottle is brought “back” to the store), Michigan has a ten cent deposit. This is the highest in the country, the beverage industry hates it, and while it is intended to provide an incentive for the consumer to take the cans back, not all consumers are interested in their deposits. The “good” consumers return them, while the economically uninterested or lazy ones just throw them away. You might think that the better off citizens would be the ones who don’t bother with taking them back, but you’d be wrong. In the wealthier neighborhoods of Ann Arbor, the marginal people who comb through the bins would be wasting their time. Higher incomes seem to translate into a certain sense of — what’s the word? Responsibility? Environmental concern? Being a good citizen? Obeying the law? Doing what you are told?

I don’t mean to make these people sound like pliant citizens of the Reich or something, and if I sound judgmental, bear in mind that I include myself in the category of “the responsible.” I take every damned can or bottle back to the store for the deposit. The experienced bottom feeders in my neighborhood know that my bins are a waste of time, and I like that. (So maybe I am partially driven to do “the right thing” out of malice….) But the can and bottle rummaging has grown ever more competitive, and there are ever more new (perhaps newly released from prison) freelance “recyclers” who appear out of nowhere. Some of them are very, very angry people. People put their bins out on Sunday night, and I have repeatedly heard angry cursing and swearing by pickers who are disappointed or surprised at (possibly injured by) what they find.

The problem is that I live in a student neighborhood, and there is a lot of drinking going on, with zero concern for bottle and can deposits. This creates an opportunity for the riffraff, and an incentive to rifle through everything. They also have a keen eye for other things that might be there for the taking (another reason never to throw away personal information which could be used by identity thieves), and many of them use carts purloined from the local grocery store.

The local grocery store is of course compelled by law to refund the ten cents to anyone showing up with the cans or bottles, and they have a “recycling” area in the back of the store where you can feed them into giant machines which issue a ticket for the total redeemable for cash at the register. Unfortunately, this is located at the back of the store, which means the smelly derelicts are pushing their carts past the ranks of the cleaner people who are only there to buy groceries. It’s one of those “social problems” that no one wants to do anything about, least of all the store managers, who have to comply with the law but obviously don’t like it.

Another lovely feature is the way these intoxicated assholes unpack bins and make a mess of everything. It is bad enough to find my trash in my own yard, but a few weeks ago, I was infuriated to discover my “reject” bottles (which lack the magical Michigan label) thrown onto the lawn of the nearest lot where there is a street light! The picker obviously couldn’t read the label in front of my house as it was too dark, but once he saw that they weren’t redeemable, he just figured he’d throw them wherever he was. I hate having to pick up my bottles (trust me, I know they’re mine, as it’s a beer not sold in Michigan which I buy as a special treat) from a neighbor’s yard, and I hate whoever the hell did this. I would love to see whoever it is punished. But there never can or will be any sort of legal punishment, because derelicts who commit summary quality of life offenses are one of the classes exempt from the law. In order to be arrested for things like littering or taking a leak (or even a dump) in public, you have to be middle class and capable of showing up in court and paying the fine. Otherwise the cops won’t bother. And not only is there no incentive for them to bother with a filthy derelict, there are major disincentives. For starters, the guy will stink up the officer’s nice police car and maybe throw up in it, or give the officer bedbugs or lice. And if the officer were dumb enough to write a citation, the derelict will most likely never show up, never pay the fine, and the likely result would be that the officer would learn from his superiors (unofficially and off the record, of course) that if he wants to be promoted, he’d best not mess with “the homeless.” Or illegal aliens, and other exempt classes.

As to why law-abiding, middle-class, tax-paying citizens have to be the chumps in this equation, beats me. I lack a degree in social welfare, so I don’t have the right credentials for my opinion to to be worthy of consideration by the ruling class. Hell, I am not even considered a journalist by the courts!

Still, I have a First Amendment right to say that for me at least, recycling sucks, and there is no easy solution.

Earlier today I visited the McKinley presidential memorial and museum in Canton, Ohio.

Here’s a photo I took:

William McKinley is one of those under-appreciated presidents who does not fit the molds demanded by modern thinking. He believed in racial equality, strong defense, high tariff, and the gold standard. Shot in the gut by an anarchist, his wound — easily survivable today — was fatally compounded by medical ignorance.

A political realist, McKinley was beset by numerous personal tragedies. His wife Ida was plagued by seizures which began after a series of successive family deaths (her mother’s death was followed by the deaths of her two daughters) and her husband was her devoted caretaker until his pointless murder. After his assassination, he was placed in a receiving vault for six years while his memorial tomb was under construction.

Here’s how it looks today:

Loyal to the end, Ida the vault daily until (just six months before her husband’s memorial was completed) she too died. She was then placed in it along with him and placed in the memorial along with their dead daughters.

Here’s the plaque:

I’m no expert on McKinley, but I know tragedy when I see it.

On the bright side, the guy beat “godly hero“ (or fundamentalist bigot, depending on your POV) William Jennings Bryan. Twice.

Times change and parties flip-flop, but disagreements remain.

This is interesting:

Ron Paul’s Army Won’t Be Easily Broken

When Sarah Palin, during the post Iowa media spin feast, warned GOP leaders to not “marginalize” the Ron Paul supporters, she was looking ahead to the greatest challenge faced by whoever captures the nomination.

The Republican leaders in DC loathe Ron Paul, and they loathe the thousands of mostly young activists he is bringing into the GOP. Like similar waves of activists in the past the insiders’ goal is to see their tide of enthusiasm break and dissipate like foam on a beach.

I do believe that Palin was the last chance for the Republican Party to pull itself together. She was popular with Social Conservatives, the TEAs, and libertarians.

I’m hoping she will get back into politics if the opportunity presents itself. In the mean time there is Ron Paul.

Politics is like D&S. If you don’t hurt them (the politicians) they feel unloved and then begin disrespecting their Masters.

I was commenting on the sad state of the Republican Party and got this interesting comment from Bram.

Why do you think there is so much displeasure with the nominees? The party is convulsing right now.

When is the last time the Republicans actually delivered some economic freedom?

The Democratic Party is basically the opposite – social freedom / economic control – except that the never seem to deliver the social freedom.

Funny how Ron Paul puts them both on the defensive since neither can deliver on their core issues.

To which I replied (in part):

Bram has it down. Both parties have liberty slogans and totalitarian intentions. And Ron Paul is nailing it.

When the Illinois primary comes around I’m voting for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot. Despite the fact that he has no clue about foreign policy. Let those who think they are in charge take note.

Consent of the governed bitchez.

And I am going to be gone for the next couple of days, so I won’t be fully able to discuss it!

Oh darn.

Anyway, there is some discussion on the Internet (which initially struck me as typical leftist snark) over whether Rick Santorum is constitutionally eligible to be President. Reason? His father was born in Italy, and according to a certain fringe view of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” language, this disqualifies him from office.

Like I say, I thought this was sarcastic and even leftie snark, but not all people share the same taste in humor.  Some on the right are calling for investigations and taking this “issue” deadly seriously.

Similar concerns have been raised about U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, both of whom have been mentioned as potential future presidential or vice presidential candidates.

While their offices say they qualify as “natural born,” in both cases their parents were naturalized citizens after their sons were born.

In a video explanation of the term “natural born citizen,” Dr. Herbert W. Titus, of counsel to the law firm William J. Olson, explains it most likely means the offspring of two citizen parents born in the country.

Well, if that’s what it means, then Santorum is ineligible to be President. And we are all entitled to our own truths, aren’t we?

(In other deadly serious news, today would have been Charles Addams’ 100th birthday, so don’t tell me birtherism isn’t deadly serious…)

UPDATE: Romney’s father was born in Chihuahua. We have to be fair!

I like it when other people notice the things I notice and write about them. Take this bit from The Economist.

…the Republican Party has long been quite comfortable living with the hypocrisy of promoting individual freedom in the economic realm, while strictly limiting it elsewhere. This is exemplified by Republican support for instrusive anti-terrorism measures, harsh anti-drug laws, restrictions on flag burning, and opposition to things like gay rights, abortion and euthanasia. Ron Paul is a pariah in the Republican Party in part because he falls on the “wrong” side of most of these issues. His supporters are not typical of the voters who deliver Republicans to the White House. It is telling that some have claimed Mr Paul is not even a real Republican…

You know, it is quite possible that I’m not a real Republican either.