Kerfuffles

President George W. Bush bids farewell to an ungrateful nation which responds: “Good Riddance!”

“Oh, and please DO let the door hit you in the fanny on your way out.” You, Mr. President, have kept our fannies safe from harm for the past seven years, and to show our ingratitude we are about to haul your fanny to the World Court and charge you and your administration with War Crimes. MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, and Olbermann’s lackey lawman, Jonathan Turley, have been gleefully describing their plans for vengeance against you, your Vice President and all those government functionaries working for you who have spent the past eight years following that most anachronistic of all “Documents of Freedom,” the United States Constitution.

“Barack Obama has said that it (water-boarding) is torture and torture is a war crime, then the President has committed a war crime, if he did order water-boarding.” ~Jonathan Turley on MSNBC Countdown Show, where he states that President Bush himself admitted that he ordered water-boarding.

As President Bush bids a fond farewell to his beloved nation, ungrateful Americans have him in the cross-hairs for prosecution as a War Criminal. Nothing could warm the cockles of some American hearts more than the sight of a Republican former President rotting in some hellhole of a prison, along with high ranking members of his military, and employees of both the Department of Defense and CIA.

“When we’re talking about talented people at the CIA, in this context, we’re talking about ‘talented torturers.’”~Jonathan Turley, on MSNBC Countdown.

That prosecution called for by MSNBC, Turley and Olbemann would be President Bush’s just rewards for doing his job to keep his nation safe from harm. This is the real war that Democrats and the mainstream media (such as the AP) have been wanting to fight; the war against George W. Bush. And they are calling upon President Barack Obama to do his duty and begin the War Crime Trials against his predecessor, whilst America’s media gush over the “smooth transition of power” that is American democracy.

The World Awaits the Coronation of the King who will bid “A Farewell to Arms Forevermore,” while plans are afoot to execute the former President for his armed agression and war crimes.

Discrimination Bordering Upon Bigotry! Only ‘natural born’ Citizens Need Apply!

It is right there in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Discrimination upon the basis of national origin, discrimination upon the basis of age, and discrimination upon the basis of residency status! How about that?

In this past presidential election we had two candidates running for the office described above who admittedly were born on foreign soil, one in Panama and one in Nicaragua. The candidate who won, Barack Obama, describes himself as born in the state of Hawaii, however he has released no proof of his birthplace other than a generated Certificate of Live Birth, and there are reports that his own family members, and Kenyan government officials are conflicted over where exactly he was born.

Some Constitutional scholars spout off the legal definition of “natural born citizen” is one who was born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. However, I found NO legal definition of “natural born citizen.” The phrase is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. In 1790, the Congress, attempted to make clarification with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that stated “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Seemingly this definition would have covered John McCain as a “natural born citizen,” except that in 1795, the Congress made another clarification, the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the words “natural born” and stated that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally considered “natural born citizens” of the U.S. This confusion over the meaning of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” is why the United States Congress passed a bill endowing Senator John McCain with “natural born citizen” status, so that, if elected President, he would be legal under the Constitution.

This murkiness over the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen” has caused considerable scenarios to be proffered as to why Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be President, even if born in Hawaii. Some of them have to do with the young age of his mother at his birth, who would not have had enough years of standing as a United States citizen to automatically confer American citizenship upon him, if he had been born in Kenya. It sounds far-fetched to you and me, but someone, somewhere has found some quirk in the law that seems to state that. (For other examples see sidrx at Pajamas Media.)

Other deniers claim that because Barack Obama was born a British citizen, as a son of a British father, regardless of where Obama himself was born, he cannot be considered a “natural born citizen.” That came as a shocker to me, as I had always considered myself a “natural born citizen,” even though I was born in Maryland of a British father. But, apparently, I am not only NOT a “natural born citizen,” according to some, I am not even a citizen of the USA, an interesting fact to discover at my age. At least I am in good company. It’s me, President-elect Barack Obama, and President Chester A. Arthur. It must be true as I read it at a BLOG.

If the Constitution were truly the Law of the Land, certainly a definition of “natural born citizen” would have been offered by the Supreme Court or the Congress by now. Or there would have been a law passed by the Congress that no candidates could run for president unless first vetted for eligibility according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Of course, any American with a brain knows that we no longer live under rule of the Constitution, hence all of this kerfuffle over where Barack Obama was “really” born matters not one wit. He will be inaugurated President of the United States and will remain so, regardless of where in the world he was born.

Here is a long, involved treatise written by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley to try and convince us that, oh yes, we are a nation of Constitutional laws, and as such it would have been “Unconstitutional” for John McCain to serve as United States President as he is NOT a “natural born citizen.” Turley describes how he and his cohorts, while wrapped in the mantle of the U.S. Constitution, were all ready and willing to go to court to stop McCain’s “Unconstitutional” inauguration. Of course, the election happened a bit differently, and Jonathan Turley’s erudite but laughable opinion on “natural born citizen” suddenly turns 180 degrees as applied to Turley’s favored candidate, Barack Obama.

If we were truly living under the Constitution, Hillary Clinton would be unqualified to be appointed from the United States Senate to Secretary of State. Yet, no one, not Barack Obama, nor the American media, is offering any explanation of how her appointment can be Constitutional. Other American Presidents who disregarded the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution were Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, who both got away with it, as will Barack Obama. President George W. Bush who wanted to nominate Senator Orin Hatch for the Supreme Court was told that would be Unconstitutional and he accepted that ruling and did not nominate Hatch. All of the above support my view that the United States Constitution is just a quaint and moldering document under glass at the National Archives, existing only to hammer heads, when needed, of those with unpopular ideas. It is now generally disregarded as little more than a venerated historic document.

According to what I have read of the birth certificate conspiracy, I believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. He probably believes as I believe about myself, that we are “natural born” citizens even though our fathers were British subjects when we were born. Deniers - think about this. Is it possible that Barack Obama, himself, created this smokescreen over his birthplace to drive you to distraction as a way to divert attention from the more serious and controversial plans he has for his new nation?

UPDATE: The Supremes Sock it to the Deniers, according to Michelle Malkin.

Obama’s Birth Rumors

The court’s favorable ruling in this case expands significantly the government’s “duty to assist” mentally ill veterans, such as Mr. Barrett.

I posted previously about the veterans’ case, “Disabled Veterans,” argued last spring by Mr. James R. Barney, of Finnegan Henderson, Washington DC, BARRETT v. DVA. According to Mr. Barney, as of 11 October 2006, the case has been decided and it is a very good result for the veteran. Perhaps it is not such a good result for the American taxpayers, and for that they can thank former President George H.W. Bush.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded the Veterans Court’s decision in Barrett v. DVA, which was handled pro bono by the Finnegan Henderson Law Firm at oral argument. This is an important veterans decision that significantly and positively affects the rights of veterans who are appealing adverse decisions from the Board of Veterans Appeals. In short, Mr. Barrett was seeking to establish equitable tolling based on mental incapacity in order to preserve his appeal, which had been dismissed for failure to timely file his NOA. He asked the Veterans Administration to provide a psychiatric examination to help him establish the strict criteria for proving equitable tolling. The VA refused to provide an examination, arguing that it had no duty to assist the veteran once his case was on appeal. The veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, authored by Judge MAYER, is quite broad and will likely have an immediate and beneficial impact on mentally ill veterans, of whom there are many, who find themselves caught between the non-adversarial and adversarial systems of the appeals process. The following quote sums up the ruling:

“Here Barrett specifically requested a medical examination by DVA doctors to clarify the nature of his mental incapacity during the appeals period. Because such an exam will plainly assist in clarifying his entitlement to equitable tolling, is consistent with the kinds of evidence uniquely within the knowledge and competence of the government . . ., and ensure the reality and appearance of systemic fairness, the Secretary shall provide Barrett with his requested medical examination, as well as any other assistance deemed reasonably necessary by the Veterans Court.”

That is a good result for veterans.

[UPDATE: The case cited below has been decided as of 11 October 2006: “Good News for Disabled Vets.”]

The Revolution Continues:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now posting digital recordings of oral arguments on the Court’s Internet site at www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oralarguments. The following is a link to the oral argument in the recent case entitled Barrett v. Principi, which was before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 11 July 2006. The oral argument can be heard from the Court’s website where it is posted: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/AudioFiles/05-7113.mp3

The issue in this case is whether the government had a duty to assist a mentally ill Vietnam veteran who failed to file a timely notice of appeal in order to keep his disability claim alive at the Veterans’ Court. The panel of three judges included Chief Judge Michel (the highest ranking judge on the Court), former Chief Judge Mayor (a West Point graduate) and Senior Judge Friedman, (possibly the longest sitting judge on the Court).

If the court rules in favor of Mr. Barrett, the government’s “duty to assist” mentally ill veterans, such as Mr. Barrett, would henceforth be significantly expanded.

The very competent and able attorney-litigator representing Vietnam veteran Barrett, is himself a veteran of the United States Navy, Mr. James R. Barney, of Finnegan Henderson, Washington DC.

President George Bush gives his State of the Union speech tonight, but it is the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito which will really make not only his day, but will make his legacy. Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts are the crowning glories of the presidency of George W. Bush. President Bush, if he were to do nothing more for the next three plus years, has extended his presidency’s influence far into the future of this nation with these two outstanding choices. Of Samuel Alito who was confirmed today, President George W. Bush said, “America is fortunate that this good and humble man is willing to serve.”

From Our Loving Friends - The Gay self-Haters.

According to James Joyner at “Outside the Beltway”, “Michael Rogers at BlogActive, which bills itself as ‘Real Truth, Direct Action, threatened last night to ‘out’ a married Republican Senator as homosexual if he voted to confirm Judge Alito.”

Joyner writes that the “BlogActive” site published this warning to the unnamed Senator: “Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. … Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.”

Therefore, expect today to hear the name of a married Republican Senator slandered as a “homosexual”. What if no Republican Senator is outed today? Was Michael Rogers’ threat naught but idle bombast, not worth the spittle required to utter it? Or was it because Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was the only Republican to vote No?

The real question is … who is truly more sick, demented and repugnant; a closeted homosexual, or a liberal Democrat self-hating gay? The legal question is … is blackmail of a United States Senator legal? If so, perhaps “BlogActive” will be getting a not so friendly visit from the FBI.

“And THAT is MY Opinion…” has the most descriptive blog posting of the Dems’ dilemma: It Must Really Suck To Be A Democrat. HA! There is a picture of this snickering dog, appropriately named, “Laughing at Lefties”, and the reasons for laughing are:

• Senate to Decide on Ending Alito Debate
• Efforts to Block Alito Vote Not Gaining Steam
• Republican-led Senate defeats bid to stop Alito
• Discussion at Democratic Underground -
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/

DU is on Def Con 5, they are imploding… They aren’t letting *lurkers* in to watch the slaughter, so much for Liberal *openness*…

No one has threatened suicide, yet, but many are threatening to leave the Dem party, register as Independents or, just not vote…

The following “great advice” is from Pat Cleary at Manufacturers’ Blog:

Senate Judiciary Committee To Vote on Alito Nomination

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the nomination of Judge Alito to the US Supreme Court. Here’s a link to the full Judiciary Committee. Please phone, fax, or e-mail them and urge them to support his nomination.

Beginning tomorrow, his nomination should go to the floor of the Senate and debate will begin. For most of the past hundred Justices or so, debate is brief and more of a pro-forma exercise. Please click here to urge your Senators to have a quick up-or-down vote on Judge Alito. Even if they don’t support him, they ought to vote their conscience and move on. Delay is a way to postpone the inevitable, and is unfair to Judge Alito and the Constitutional process (anybody remember the Constitution….?) In fact, the latest poll shows that support for Judge Alito actually increased after his hearings, and his supporters now outnumber is opponents by almost 2-to-1.

This is the home stretch. If you care about legal reform, it begins at the top.

Does he love Princeton or does he hate it, as he has said in the past? Well, he was wearing a Princeton baseball cap, whatever that meant. “Bitter, Bruised and Broken” is how Flora McDonald at “United Conservatives of Virginia” describes Delaware’s Senator Joseph Biden after the Senate’s Judiciary hearings for Judge Samuel Alito. There is even proof in this funny picture (Joe Biden Offering Free Brain Transplant), posted at “End Clintonism Now.”

Biden was funny - much too funny to ever become “Mr. President”, but Uncle Teddy was a mean ole grouch. “Stop this donkey-&-elephant show” writes Colin McNickle in today’s “PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW“:

(Senator Ted) Kennedy huffed and puffed and reduced himself to wheezing when he couldn’t blow Alito’s house down. So he grabbed some straws in the martini cloakroom and resorted to the worst kind of smear imaginable over Alito’s “troubling” affiliation with that horrid — HORRID! — Princeton alumni club. Mr. Kennedy brought Alito’s wife to tears. You’re a big man, Teddy, in more ways than one.

Don’t laugh as Diane Feinstein Grills Alito on Rulings in Key Environmental Cases. You would hide your face in shame too, if you were a Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, having failed in your party’s proclaimed mission to destroy Judge Samuel Alito.