President Roth’s SOTUS

Personal memo to each of you who voted in the 2008 US Presidential election: One at a time, you could have elected me. 😯

In an hour or so, President Obama gives his State of the Union Speech.

But what if it were President Roth (as in, I) giving the address, what could you expect?

  1. No advance copy to anyone (except my wife)
  2. No teleprompter(s)
  3. No Presidential special guests beyond former Presidents willing to attend
  4. No speech writers
  5. No partisanship
  6. No laundry list of my accomplishments or my goals
  7. “Ask what good you can do for you neighbor…then do it.”
  8. “I have asked what good I can do for you. I’ve come up with two things I can promise right now. First, I will veto any legislation that has any earmarks attached. Second, I will push hard for a reduction in income tax rates with matching reductions in federal spending.”
  9. “We have had a hard year. So did the Pilgrims. And they had a time of thanksgiving. For what are you thankful? Fellow Americans, answer the question in your own hearts. Then tell each other. Let’s cultivate a spirit of gratefulness.”
  10. “President Carter, please stand. Thank you, sir, for…” followed by three good things he did for the country.
  11. “President Bush 41, please stand. Thank you, sir, for…” followed by three good thing he did for the country.
  12. “President Clinton, please stand. Thank you, sir, for…” followed by three good things he did for the country.
  13. “President Bush 43, please stand. Thank you, sir, for…” followed by three good things he did for the country.
  14. “I reaffirm my appreciation for our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The Almighty has blessed us beyond measure through the principles and laws established by our founding documents.”
  15. “I am grateful to be an American. We live in an exceptional country. God Himself has bestowed on us freedoms and liberty few nations have enjoyed. We have carelessly surrendered too many of those. We have brazenly abused others of them. And many we have put to good use for ourselves, our families, our communities, our country, and even our world.”
  16. “I asked you about your own thankfulness. You aren’t here to express them in this forum. But your representatives are here. So we’ll have a fifteen minute open mike period in another five minutes or so. In that time slot, Senators and Representatives with a sincere personal expression of gratefulness may have a maximum of fifteen seconds to say one thing for which they are thankful. While you’re thinking, let me tell you some things for which I’m thankful…not as President, but as Mark Roth….”

See what you missed? πŸ™„

You may be thankful for that also. πŸ˜‰

Mark4Prez: My (Possibly) Last Word(s)

OK, so (as I’ve said in previous posts) I’m at the ripe old age to meet the Constitutional requirements to be President of the United States.

Amazing! πŸ˜€

Furthermore, I think I would make a reasonably good President.

(Frankly, I think I could be the President the country needs at this time.) 😯

In light of all of the above, I have generously offered my name as one to use for write-in votes.

But you should know this:

  1. If drafted, I will not run.
  2. If voted for, I will be grateful.
  3. If elected, I will resign.

So there you are.

Any questions?

Perhaps in a future post I can elaborate a little on why. For now, suffice it to say that my Christian convictions and heavenly citizenship/ambassadorship overrule the option of my serving the United States in the capacity of President.

Why You’d Like Me…

…for President of the United States of America.

Now that the main stream parties have settled on Obama and McCain, I should tell you a few more reasons why you should want me for President. πŸ˜€

I’m not a politician neither do I belong to any political party. I am a true independent who is not in anybody’s pocket. I have no “handlers” and will hire none nor will accept the services of any. I am not driven by polls or focus groups.

I believe leaders should lead by example and live by the law.

I believe leaders should be available to the people. To that end, I think a President should aim to…

  • Take time for the children, reading or telling a story to be Webcast on the White House web site once or twice a week.
  • Communicate weekly via radio, TV, chat, and/or blogs.
  • Do a live town hall meeting once a month, each time in a different state in Union.

I have no skeletons in my closet.

I don’t believe in trying to boost myself by trying to take someone else down.

I do my best to promote only that which is good.

I think a President should not tolerate anything less than a morally safe work environment in the White House.

I am unbendingly veto-disposed against earmarks, pork, and riders. If I were President, I would veto a bill before compromising my principles to sign it.

Known lobbyists have no business entering the White House unless they are clearly representing the people’s interests.

Individuals, organizations, and nations must live well within their means.

If the Constitution stipulates it, that’s it.

Oh, and I have no use for speech writers and teleprompters. I compose my own talks and speak from printed (and once in a while, hand-written) notes. And, yes, I think I have been gifted as a public speaker (I just need to work at developing better tonal quality).

So there you are. If you’re a Democrat who can’t vote for Obama or a Republican who can’t vote for McCain or an Independent who’s stuck up a tree without a paddle, you could opt to write in my name on your ballot. πŸ˜†

Another Reason for a Fence

As someone who grew up in Mexico (I lived there close to 22 years), I don’t understand the logic behind unmarked and/or unfenced boundaries.

Makes no good sense to me at all.

Border patrol agent held at gunpoint

A U.S. Border Patrol agent was held at gunpoint Sunday night by members of the Mexican military who had crossed the border into Arizona, but the soldiers returned to Mexico without incident when backup agents responded to assist.

Agents assigned to the Border Patrol station at Ajo, Ariz., said the Mexican soldiers crossed the international border in an isolated area about 100 miles southwest of Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who was not identified.

It was unclear what the soldiers were doing in the United States, but U.S. law enforcement authorities have long said that current and former Mexican military personnel have been hired to protect drug and migrant smugglers.

In a Roth Administration, both US borders would be well-fenced and well-monitored and well-enforced.

In the period up to the completion of a secure physical structure, two spy satellites would be “parked” over each border and fully-authorized-to-detain-or-repel agents would be exclusively assigned to the most troublesome areas. Wherever there is an incursion, drone aircraft would supplement satellite coverage.

It took me less than two minutes to figure that out. 😯

Maybe I have more common sense than’s required to be one of them there run-of-the-mill political types. πŸ™„ πŸ˜†

All that aside, how about some good news?

Good news keeps pouring out of the epicenter. Oil prices are falling (20% of record highs earlier this summer). Domestic gas prices are falling. Violence in Iraq continues dropping steadily. Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army, is telling his forces to lay down their arms. And the U.S. just convicted one of Osama bin Laden’s closest aides in the first military trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Are more tough times ahead? Undoubtedly. But let’s take a moment to say a prayer of thanksgiving.

US Politics: A Movement “Begins”

As some of you might imagine, this article title caught my eye. πŸ™„

A movement begins: Vote no on Election Day

"Voting for a bad candidate of either party is the surest way to waste your vote," Farah says. "If you want to promote real positive political change in America in 2008, the best way is to reject them both – choosing a third-party alternative or writing in another choice. Just imagine the message this will send the Republican and Democratic party establishments if millions of us do that."

I’ve been telling you, no?

If you must vote…and can’t vote for either major party candidate…or any other candidate…and aim to simply write in a name…you just as well write in mine. 😯

Don’t Do It!

Somebody needed to be there to say that to the woman who killed herself today. As I recall the radio news story, she committed suicide because her house was headed for foreclosure. Next time you think “ending it” is better than dealing with life, don’t do it. (Where were her family and friends in her anguish?!)

And somebody needed to be there to say it to the person who broke the guy’s ankles along the freeway. Turns out the victim was changing a flat tire when the other character came along and drove over the lower part of his legs. And kept on going. Next time you’re tempted to leave the scene of an accident or otherwise dodge personal responsibility, don’t do it.

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Wednesday said Cuba does not have to explain or “ask forgiveness” about a report out of Russia this week that Russia might use its Cold War ally Cuba as a refueling base for nuclear-capable bombers. My advice: Don’t do it.

If John McCain is considering removing the threat of my write-in candidacy for President of the United States by selecting me as his VP running mate, I say: Don’t do it.

Supremely Spoken

Read these excerpts and tell me who wins and who loses:

Supreme Court rules for Guantanamo prisoners

Guantanamo Bay prisoners can go before U.S. federal judges to challenge their years-long detention, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that delivered a stinging setback for President George W. Bush’s policies.


“Today’s decision forcefully repudiates the essential lawlessness of the Bush administration’s failed Guantanamo policy,” said Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union.


“The entire basis for the existence of Guantanamo Bay is gone,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, a military lawyer assigned to defend Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, in the Guantanamo tribunals.

“It’s a victory for all Americans because it reinforces the principle that no person or agency is above the law.”

So it’s a loss for President Bush and his administration.

And it’s a win for terrorists.

And the ACLU and Amnesty International.

Oh, and for all Americans.

On that last one, I have my doubts, but we’ll see.

I’m guessing it will end up being a loss for some terrorists and “enemy combatants” who presently are not in custody. I expect more will end up dead on the battlefield. Or wishing they were at Gitmo under yesterday’s circumstances than in the foreign prison system into which they have disappeared after being captured by Americans and being turned over to others.

Anyway, here’s another Supreme Court story from the other side of the planet (I suppose):

Top court rules against Americans held in Iraq

Federal judges cannot block U.S. military officials from turning over two Americans held in Iraq to local authorities who want to prosecute them for involvement in the insurgency or criminal activity, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The high court’s decision was a defeat for two Americans who say they are innocent and who are being held by U.S. soldiers at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport.


Their lawyers say the two men might be tortured or even killed if they are transferred to Iraqi custody and that they should have access to U.S. courts to challenge their detention and to stop their transfer to Iraqi authorities.


The Bush administration has argued that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the cases, partly because the two men are being held under the auspices of multinational forces in Iraq, of which the U.S. contingent is only a part.


The court rejected the administration’s arguments that the two men have no rights whatsoever to habeas corpus — the right to challenge their imprisonment.

Roberts said the right extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command. But he held that U.S. courts do not have the power to block their transfer to a foreign country for criminal prosecution.

Again, who wins and who loses?

And also, can that last sentence be used by the Administration to transfer all Gitmo prisoners to a foreign country so they don’t have to be admitted into the US court system?

All in all, it seems to me that these two cases are symptomatic of the degrading national sovereignty of the United States.

Disclaimer: I may not know what I’m talking about. πŸ™„

PS: If I were the next President, I would appoint guys to the US Supreme Court who wouldn’t put up with this kind of nonsense. You know, maybe like those two fellows Mr. Bush stuck on there. At least, I think I would. You could write my name on the ballot in November on the assumption that I would. πŸ˜€

Above all, love God!