The Secret Republican Strategy for 2012?

Well, it was a secret until now.

Fact 1: Mike Huckabee, former Republican presidential candidate hosts his own TV show. He no longer is in a position to make political errors,make political  enemies, or develop political  obligations but he can expand his popularity with voters.

Fact 2: Tim Pawlenty, a probable Republican candidate announces that he will not seek another gubernatorial term in Minnesota and is unclear on his near term activities.

Fact 3: Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate  announces her resignation as Governor of Alaska and will cheerlead for other Republicans.

Fact 4: Chuck Hagel, former Senator and presidential hopeful for many of us, does not run for senatorial election in 2008 and instead takes a position with the Atlantic Council. In the words of Steve Clemons: “And depending on how things go these next couple of years, Hagel is in an ideal spot to bide his time and be actively engaged in the civil society side of policy debate.”

Fact 5: Weak and vulnerable Republican hopefuls are weeded out by scandal  four years in advance of 2012 elections  so  that there are no John Edwards exposés to distract the election process. 

With my wet finger in the wind, I predict that the next Republican presidential candidate will be someone not then currently serving  in a government position.   

The secret strategy of the Republican Party is to proffer experienced candidates with no recent political history to be used against them.  Hope and change will wear a new red suit in 2012.

Michele Bachmann Comic Book..yeah!

One of my favorite nut jobs is Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman from Minnesota. I have mentioned her several times before as you may recall. I think she is trying to be the Republican Party’s next candidate for President of the United States. She is working hard at becoming a household word.

Well, the very creative among humanity have decided to make a comic book based upon the things she has said.

Welcome to  Michele  Bachmann’s Comic Misadventure. 

It has everything: accusations against Obama, flying imams, conspiracies and a call to revolution.

Want to see more? Try The Michele Bachmann Story here. It is in printing now but available soon.

The RNC Eight

Before the Republican National Convention took place, eight people were rounded up for a conspiracy to riot…

The defendants are charged with felony counts of conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree in furtherance of terrorism. In addition, the RNC Eight are believed to be the first defendants to be charged under the Minnesota version of the federal Patriot Act, which was passed in 2002. Under the law, their sentences can be ratcheted up by 50 percent, meaning the defendants could face up to seven-and-a-half years in prison.

…”in furtherance of terrorism”…

This is where I become confused by what is a terrorist act and what is not. When the CIA supported Luis Posada Carriles and his terrorist bombings in Cuba there was no political convention. Clearly the bombings were intended to strike fear in the population. Later he blew up an airliner although I do not know why that would be a terrorist incident instead of the planned murder of several hundred people.

The RNC Eight were arrested and several items were seized:   ”smoke bombs, sling shots, bolt cutters, bottles of vinegar, buckets of nails, two-way radios and other items. “  Does that sound like a terrorist act in the making to you? Not to me.

Just because somebody gets scared or killed or both does not a terrorist incident make in my opinion. There must be no defined target except the innocent. There must at least be explosives or weapons plus the knowledge to use them violently, don’t you think?

 In the the RNC Eight prosecutions, as with all conspiracy cases, the defendants were arrested before they could commit the major elements of their alleged plan. “In a conspiracy, no one has to actually commit a crime,” says Peter Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. “The crime is the agreement itself.”

That all makes sense. Yet, how does one go about proving that all defendants agreed to the illegal acts?

I have a feeling that this group was attempting to score a few points for social justice against a bad administration but now finds themselves learning how justice is meted out in a Minneapolis courtroom.

The article is excellent. Give it a read. But know that it does not posit what evidence there may be of an intent to terrorize, an agreement amongst them to perform illegal acts, or what those illegal acts may have been.  ( Vinegar? Slingshots?) I will be interested to hear what the evidence is. (They look more like young adults who would attend the Republican Convention rather than terrorists. See the photo.)

The 2008 RNC final chapter

I went to Minneapolis during the RNC and wrote about it HERE. 

From the  Minnesota Independent:

Charges will not be filed against 323 people who were arrested on the Marion Street and Cedar Street bridges during the fourth day of the Republican National Convention, the St. Paul city attorney’s office announced today.

An additional 20 cases stemming from the mass arrest on the final day of the gathering are still being investigated.

“There was a lot of confusion for a lot of people that night,” said City Attorney John Choi in announcing the decision.

“Ultimately this decision reflects specifically our prosecution standard: Can we prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial? We’ve come to the conclusion that, for the cases involved the Marion Street bridge and the Cedar Street bridge, that would not be the case.”

While some may say that these  arrests were unnecessary, in my area I think the Minneapolis police  behaved responsibly. I was intimidated by the show of force but I saw no police actions that were irresponsible. and frankly was glad they were around when the red-and-black group came through. 

I am not clear why it takes 5 months to drop the charges though. Do you think the DA was waiting for Obama to become President? Do you think he was nudged after Obama was sworn in to let them go?

Getting ready for a new presidential election?

Ouch.

If you have not been aware of it, there have been a number of people that are challenging Barack Obama’s status to be President. I have thought that all of these were frivolous law suits being led by sour and sore losers, or by racists determined to keep Barack Obama from assuming office.  And I guess that could be the case. However, I have just read a compelling article on why the Supreme Court should decide if Barack Obama meets the requirements to become President of the United States. It may be unconstitutional for Obama to be President.

There is no question that Barack is a citizen of the United States, at least not by any rational thinking adult. He has the birth certificate, he has had two comprehensive FBI background checks, and he had an American mother. If you want to read a good post about why Barack is a citizen, then I suggest you read Ed Darell’s piece over at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

The question is: Does Barack Obama fulfill the constitutional requirements to be President?

Clause 5. 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.

Barack Obama may not meet the requirement of ‘natural born citizen’ according to this article by Judah Benjamin over at TD Blog

Mr. Benjamin describes what was meant by the term ’natural born’ at the time the Constitution was crafted. Among other things,  it was a question of divided loyalty between the allegiance resulting from a place where one was born (and perhaps raised) versus one’s biological parents and their citizenship and allegiance.  Barack Obama possessed dual citizenship: British and US.

“Natural-born citizen” is a Common Law concept of the type known as “a term of art”. There are innumerable references to it and to its older cognate “natural-born subject”. In essence, a natural-born citizen is an individual born with only one, single, undivided allegiance or loyalty and who is, and has always been, subject to only one legal jurisdiction. There is not, and has never been, any real doubt that this is true and correct. The term itself is not vague, it is in fact, provably, quite precise and anybody who attempts to deny that is fudging the issue because they have an agenda.

Anybody born in territory over which the United States claims legal jurisdiction, at the time of birth, and both of whose parents are United States Citizens is inter alia, and by definition, a natural-born citizen of the USA.

Anybody born abroad of two US Citizen patents is a natural-born citizen, if they are born in a country which does not use ius soli law on birthright, if they are the child of a diplomat, or if the country in which they are born does not for whatever reason assert jurisdiction over them. A secondary condition is that the individual must not have been expatriated by any legal process.

Which leads the author to eventually conclude:

 BHO II is a much more straightforward case. Let us assume for the purposes of this article that the information on the so called “COLB” is correct, truthfully we have no evidence that it is not, though equally we have no evidence that it is, and even under Hawaiian State Law such an abstract is regarded as insufficient to fully establish one’s status in law. BHO II’s own surrogates have freely admitted that he was born bipatride under the UK Nationality Act of 1948 and that in virtue of his father he was a United Kingdom and Colonies Citizen and a Subject of the British Crown at birth. That would have been true had he been born on the moon. Assuming that he was born in Hawaii, BHO II was born a US Citizen under ius soli also. No act of volition was required in either event. Thus he was first a Subject of the British Crown and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and second a citizen of the USA.

I am not convinced that there is a heirarchy and that a person with dual citizenship is first one thing and secondly another. I would have to know more before I could accept that fact.

Yet Barack Obama does not appear to meet the test of possessing a single and undivided allegiance to the United States as intended by the Constitution, if you believe the assertions in this article. The idea that Obama may be declared ineligible to assume the Presidency is startling.

As the article points out, Congress cannot pass legislation overruling the Constitution. This may become a Supreme Court case that involves determining what was meant by the term ‘natural born citizen’.

This is an interesting article to read in full. It concludes with a list of people who would have faced this same challenge of dual citizenship if they had been elected: John McCain and Bill Richardson.

It is quite possible the Supreme Court will decide not to hear this case at all in advance of Barack Obama becoming President. Because a risk exists to public order, they may choose to refuse the case until the lower courts have reviewed it. This may well delay this for years. To this point in time, all court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility have been dismissed for various reasons.  

It is all speculation as to whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear this case and it is speculation to consider how they would define ‘natural born’. However, this is the first that time that I have given a mote of credence to anyone’s claim that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President.

I would not like to choose between Obama and the Constitution. But if I did, the Constitution would win and I would be unhappy about that. It would lead to another federal election and Nancy Pelosi would become President of the United States until a new President is elected. You already know that I do not like the Speaker of the House. This result would be painful for everyone.

Defending Sarah Palin…and John McCain

I think it stinks that the right wing media is excoriating Sarah Palin and John McCain and the campaign.

I believe John McCain and Sarah Palin saved the Republican Party from a double digit defeat in the federal election and possibly saved the party itself. Here’s why:

Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s tag team effort in the spring kept all of America on the edge of its seat. They played against each other so well that John Mc Cain could not get any press coverage. We all were glued to every utterance and picture of the Obama-Clinton cage match.

John Mc Cain went to Iraq. Who knew? He then went to Afghanistan. When he stopped in Israel, we all yawned. Then he went to England and met with Gordon Brown and we all fell asleep. McCain thumped his hand and talked about being the National Security President while Obama and Clinton were whipping  each other.

Every conservative I know disliked John M. Every conservative I know talked about not voting this year.  John’s own mother said those conservatives are just going to have to hold their noses and vote for her son. His campaign lacked sizzle and all the big name conservatives were talking about creating a new party. Then all of a sudden *FLASH* Sarah Palin as VP rocked the Christian right. She had everything they wanted and the conservatives went nuts over her. (So did the Dems, they became obsessed.) Everything went Palin all across America. 

The right wing was energized and enthusiastic. All the BIG FAITH people rationalized their decisions to support John McCain. One went so far as to encourage his followers to vote for McCain although he personally could not support him. (whatever).

The polls started to narrow. Then the financial crisis hit. McCain began hammering away and found a different nail every day to pound: greed, economy, oversight, reform. Back to the Warrior President mode, he went.  Instead of a controlled and reasoned approached, we got hand pounding again. However, the Republican Party was so excited by Sarah Palin that this had little impact on the turnout for voting Republicans.

With over 80% of Americans believing that Republicans were leading the country the wrong way; with TRILLIONS of dollars of Republican rich people money disappearing in four weeks; with Republican investment houses receiving billions and billions of dollars from Uncle Sam and  even though every Republican wage earner’s nest egg vanished in a falling stock market, STILL, the God and guns Republicans turned out in droves on Nov 4th  to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.  And Barack Obama won by only 3% of the popular vote.  How can that be?

What’s the matter with Kansas? Sheesh. What is the matter with Republicans that they will vote Republican no matter what happens?

So forget all that nonsense about Sarah Palin’s naivete, her winking, and her clothing. John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin saved the Republican Party.

They lost, but they were not beaten.

Don’t Vote for Evil

About a year and a half ago there was a group of decent and honorable men/women who stepped forward for the opportunity to become President. Since that time the haters in America have told you who to hate and why, the fear mongers have told you who to fear and why, and the worshippers have told you who to worship and the reasons to worship their candidate.

Along the way, the support for each candidate coalesced and then fell away. In some cases, the candidate chose to exit the race for the “good of their party”. In other cases, the skeletons in their closets rattled so loudly that you could not hear the candidate speak. In some cases, candidates were abandoned by their own party in favor of another candidate. In the end there is but one candidate for every party. But there are now over 300 candidates running for President. Of those 300+ there must be at least one that you can honorably vote for in good conscience.

In every election across the country tomorrow, people will choose among four alternatives. People will either vote their political party ticket, or they will choose the best person for the job, or they will vote for the one issue that matters to them the most, or they will vote for the lesser of two evils.

Please don’t vote for evil. Ever. If you believe that voting for the mainstream candidates is choosing between the lesser of  two evils, then do not vote for either candidate. Vote for somebody else. Or don’t vote. 

I ask that on Tuesday you vote for what you believe is best for America. Vote for the candidate that you believe will guide America into a better tomorrow. If you still do not know who to vote for in the election of 2008 then go HERE and choose one. 

Don’t vote for evil, not even the lesser kind.

Vote responsibly and save America.

ReasonableCitizen

Three days before E-Day

With three days to go before the elections I just had to post one more time.

The Republican Party is doing everything it can to smear Barack Obama with feces and call him unclean.

The Democrat Party is withholding all character attacks on John McCain and talking about issues. Issues that the financial crisis and 11 Trillion dollars of debt cannot afford. 

If you are disgusted with the feces-throwing Republicans, let me know in the comments. 

If you think Obama should admit that the national treasury cannot afford the good his programs will produce, let me know that, too. 

My thanks to those who have told me they already voted independently. You are the wise ones.

RC

Cynthia McKinney gets her game on…

The Green Party presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, is relatively unknown by many of us. Our total exposure to Ms. McKinney is likely when she smacked a congressional guard who (allegedly) did not recognize her and she (allegedy) did not identify herself. (I think I have that straight)

Ms. McKinney has sent a letter to her supporters about the financial mess. Her letter makes three points that I also make:

1. There is no difference between the deeds of Republicans and Democrats

2. Nancy Pelosi is a terrible Speaker of the House

3. Election integrity is being challenged by electronic voting machines

Ms. McKinney’s letter also lays out her 14 point financial plan for restoration of America. I am not convinced that her 14 point plan has value when the need to prevent a credit-availability problem was so immediate. And I am not convinced that the federalization of everything is the answer either. But I give her a kudo for putting it on paper and taking a stand.

Here is what she said about Ms. Pelosi:

  In light of the tremendously important election this year, she could have insisted on enacting some measure of election integrity to prevent another election being held where the announced outcome is truly in doubt. But she did not.

She could have taken her seat at the table as the one player in the room with the winning hand, but she did not.

Instead, she assumed the position of the beautiful girl in the short skirt holding the platter of drinks, serving the men at the table. She could have been the leader and spokesperson for us all, but she is not.

I do not support Ms. McKinney’s positions on almost any issue, however, she has put herself out there for the people to judge her by her frank talk. She is the American citizen in action whether we agree with her or not.

Give her letter a read. She is a genuine article in American democracy.

Wisdom from a smarter man than I

The impotence of Congress traces to the Great Depression.  As Theodore Lowi in his classic book, The End of Liberalism, makes clear, the New Deal stripped Congress of its law-making power and gave it to the executive agencies.  Prior to the New Deal, Congress wrote the laws.  After the New Deal a bill is merely an authorization for executive agencies to create the law through regulations.  The Paulson bailout has further diminished the legislative branch’s power.  

Congress no longer has any power to stop the Executive Branch. Unwilling to fight the President and unable to stop him, Congress spends its time with insignificant and nonbinding resolutions instead of legislation to manage America.

Will the day come in America when people say “Why are we talking to the President when Congress is the authority?”

I don’t know.