Mitt Romney rightly jumped on Husseins . . . bumps in the road. . .: Calling out a chump over a bump is okay as far as it goes because Romney still has time to go after Husseins most revealing weakness: The biggest bump of all is America supporting violent revolution in the name of democracy instead of identifying and supporting those people who are willing to fight for limited government. The Arab Spring was democracy-building and look where that is going. Bottom line: If the biggest chump insists on engaging in nation-building at least do it for the right reason. Hussein dared not say aligning this country with universal rights is doublespeak for funding the UNs Universal Declaration of Human Rights in plain English entitlements misnamed Rights. If you doubt his meaning look back to then-Senator Obamas Global Poverty Act (S 2433). That bill died in the Senate, but since when has rejection ever stopped a dirty little moralist from saving the world with everybody elses money. Hussein could not get S 2433 through the Senate. Give him a second term and he will implement it with an executive order if he cannot find another way. Presidential debate Mitt Romney appears to oppose our domestic welfare state. Question: Does he have a clear enough understanding of the issue to challenge Husseins undeniable commitment to a global welfare state funded by taxes? In fact, does Romney disagree with Hussein on that most important foreign policy position? I do not know the answers, nor have I heard a professional pundit touch it. Presidential debates might shed some light on where the debaters stand, but I would not count on it. No moderator will ask a question that might open the door to embarrassing the UN or a candidate. Nevertheless, Romney should prepare himself if he does oppose a global welfare state. Hussein will come in with the usual touchy-feely advantage. He only has to say it without giving details, as he did with Steve Kroft, and he looks more caring, more compassionate, more humane than every decent man who ever lived. Playing the caring/compassionate card has been Husseins stock and trade from the beginning. Romney better know how to handle it because Hussein sure as hell intends to play the card in all three debates. He has nothing else. Finally, the first lady pumps up Hussein with the same feel-good rhetoric without substance and nobody challenges her. The media certainly never questions any of the touchy-feely welfare state garbage she spouts. She only has to say it and everybody fawns all over her. Never mind who will pay for her parasite compassion just say it and taxes will cover it. Worse still, MO will never agree to a debate. As far as Im concerned if shes going to take advantage of the first ladys bully pulpit to sell her husbands garbage its about time she debated Ann Romney. Parenthetically, there is a good chance then-First Lady Hillary Clintons career would have ended then and there had she debated her opposite.