RSS

Straw Men, Red Herrings, and Big Lies

28 Feb

San Diego — Several times I’ve used those terms in posts and finally someone emailed me and asked what I meant by them in a political sense.   In normal use, a straw man is an effigy designed to stand in for some other person or to mislead viewers into believing they are someone else.  The term is also used for a fake item planted to make people think it is real or something else.   A Red Herring is a rotting fish designed to be a distraction so it will draw attention away from some behavior or activity that is would be better if it were not noticed.  Both are tools of misdirection and used just as a stage magician uses the process, to get you to not notice how the trick is done or what is really happening.

Think Wizard of Oz here; the smoke and mirrors hiding the man behind the curtain.  And think Goebbels’s concept of the “big lie,” which is a lie so preposterous that the listener would not think you would ever try to fool them with that line so it must be true.

I believe the political elites in this country have turned the use of straw men, red herrings, and big lies, i.e. all tools of misdirection, into a fine art that is performed and executed so well that no one seems to be noticing. The more the big lie, straw man, or red herring has some personal meaning to the audience, the more likely it is to succeed in its mission and so they have presented theirs with deep personal and emotional connections.  Below are a few of the areas in which I think those terms can be applied.

Leadership.  Some argue Obama has shown no leadership over the areas of real importance to the country.  I would argue the opposite.   Instead, he has shown brilliant guidance in the causes of debauching the currency and creating debt crises as well calculated tactics to implement his strategic goal of transforming the country to become closer to the ideals of his Marxist father (which he wrote about in detail), his radical socialist friends like William Ayers, and the liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright, his Pastor of 20 years.

He has carefully placed unelected government officials like Tim Geithner, Valery Jarrett, Van Jones, etc. in powerfil positions where they can advance those agendas even when it requires an apparent loss of reason such as when Valerie recently said more unemployed people using unemployment insurance was good for the country and its economy.

That statement is only unreasonable if you want to try to protect the government laid out in our Constitution.  But it is quite reasonable if the goal is to tear down the existing model and replace it with a very different kind.  Why are we not willing to accept the obvious when his communication Director, Anita Dunne, said Mao, the butcher of 20 million innocent Chinese was a model political philosopher to her.

I think, in fact, that presenting to his opposition the appearance of failure of leadership is a straw man when in fact his leadership in advancing the cause he believes in has been masterfully executed.  My only problem is I think it is a cause that is disastrous for the country or at least the country I would like us to be.

Apologizing for America.   This is not about apologizing or trying to make amends for past infractions real or imagined, it is about seeing America as something flawed and needing to be changed.  But though the President has expressed several times his sympathy for that negative view of our country is that who and what we really are?

We have been the repeated rescuers of huge portions of the world from tyranny and oppression and have asked, in return, only for enough ground to bury our dead.  We have, in the past century, left a host of cemeteries of dead Americans who fell trying to free other countries all over the map.  But I ask you, in that same period, how many foreign cemeteries do we have here to honor the dead of foreign countries who fell in our defense?  We need apologize to no one.

We provide more money to such marginalized peoples as the Palestinians than anyone except the Saudis, our money feeds poor all over the planet limited only by the amount their own despots skim off the top.  We keep goverenments from Pakistan to Egypt to Saudi Arabia in business with our dollars so they can use their own dollars for personal stuff.  American organizations gather and spend billions and billions of dollars saving children and forests and water all over the planet.  We need apologize to no one.

On the other hand there exists in the world a force that believes it is mandated by its prophet to convert or kill all those who think differently and that if you convert from their beliefs to something else you are also subject to being executed.  Now we hear that a pastor who was NEVER muslim but whose parents were muslim is sentenced to be hanged for apostasy.  What great people and what a great culture they have…

These people will allow young girls to be burned alive in a fire because their face coverings were burned up and they would otherwise have to appear in public showing… their faces.

These people capture Americans and torture them, saw their heads off, burn them alive, hang their bodies from bridges or drag them through the streets.

These people will call for murdering people for cartoons they deem irreverent or whose writings call their actions into question.

These people create hypocritical governments where strict theological laws constrain the public but dictators and self-declared royalty live in corruption that would even offend a union leader and in debauchery that would make a Hollywood actor blush.  And I am supposed to be tolerant of that or understanding?  Not in this lifetime!

Perhaps their prohibition on eating pork is because they recognize it as cannibalistic.  And apologizing to these intellectual, spiritual, emotional savages is like apologizing to pigs.  To them it is simply a sign of weakness to be noted and exploited.

We do not EVER need to bow to them, or to apologize for accidentally burning a holy book — especially one that contains the instructions to kill us because we do not believe as they do.  If we sometimes step over our own lines, sometimes take actions that violate our own principles, all of which we have undeniably done, then we may well need to apologize to our own people for getting off track.  But we need never apologize to such savage slobs who want nothing more than for all of us to be dead and off the planet.

But that too, whether you think we owe others apologies or not, is all a red herring.

The reality behind bowing and apologizing is to promote a new view of the transforming America as no longer exceptional in any way, but just another of the mediocre collections of people around the globe.  It is the product of a world view so different from the historical and even normal current American view that there is little point of common reference.  And that worldview is indeed the real issue at stake.

But what is also at issue is the result of that world looking back and seeing us as weak.  Because they want to kill us and there is no “fall-back” position, the only thing holding them in check is our perceived strength.  That is the only thing they understand and respect.  When it is gone or diminished their willingness to engage in conflict increases.  And with that comes another strain on our attention and more importantly another drain on our economy, the primary tool of transformation.  And that, I believe, is no accident or simple mistake of a buffoon trying to play in the grown up’s world as it has been characterized.  I believe it too is another tactic perfectly serving the strategic goals of the anointed one.

Where Obama was born is irrelevant.  Obama and his disciples and heralds in the media have played this out brilliantly.  By first refusing to provide a birth certificate and then providing one so obviously and amateurishly flawed we have several ploys at play.  The first is a great execution of a big lie.  Think about it; how does one not tend to accept that surely the President of the United States would not proffer such weak and questionable evidence if it were not in fact true and accurate?

But actually it is simply a wonderful red herring.  Let’s accept for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the document presented as a “birth certificate”, even if fake itself actually tells the truth and Obama was in fact born in Hawaii and therefore a citizen anchor baby.  So what?  It is not the issue.  The issue is the constitution’s definitions of citizens in which it recognizes three levels, and the relevant rules governing elected officials.

“Naturalized” citizens are individuals who were citizens of a foreign state but who have gone through the naturalization process and become citizens of this country.

“Normal” or “Native” citizens are simply anyone who has been born here.  That was an important distinction when the constitution was written since the country was so young.

But there is another category; the “natural born” citizen.  And that distinction is indicated in the disparate requirements for holding federal office.  Senators and representatives could be normal citizens or even naturalized citizens, but the president must be a natural born citizen.  OK, but what does this mean and how do we know this is what is meant by the framers?  Two reasons.

The first is that the framers were openly consulting the 1797 book by philosopher of law Emmerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations.” We know that because they said so in several letters and essays.  In that book he defines “Natural Born Citizens” as “…those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”  The second way we know is that the Supreme Court has ruled in at least four instances — in 1814, (where the Vattel book is cited in the decision), 1830, 1875, and in 1898 where Natural Born Citizens were distinguished from “Native Citizens” who were individuals who were born in the US but of any parents.

The supreme court has specifically ruled several times that a natural born citizen is an individual who is born to parents, BOTH OF WHOM are citizens at the time of the birth.  The PLACE of birth is irrelevant and this category covers individuals who are born to U.S. citizens while traveling in another country.

But by getting us to focus on whether or not Obama himself was born in this country we totally avoid any scrutiny over whether or not his father, a Kenyan, was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.  Because if he was not, where Obama himself was born doesn’t matter, he could have been born on the capital steps but he would still not be a “Natural Born Citizen” as required.   And the problem there is that his father’s status is much easier to determine… unless we are distracted from looking.

The mainstream media pretends that normal native citizens, as defined above, are also natural born citizens but the supreme court has expressly ruled otherwise and the President Chester Arthur was so sure it was the correct interpretation that he lied about and destroyed records that would show he was a citizen but not a natural born citizen and should not have been eligible to be President.

What do I care?  I don’t on a personal level; I think a person should be qualified if the people as a whole decide that is who they want as leader.  But I also think that any leader who pretends to be the overseer of the country, the executive officer to decide what becomes national law, must first and foremost be required to OBEY the prime law of the land, the meta-law of our nation, the constitution.  Because if they can ignore that as they wish then all bets are off.

(And by the way, lest you think this is a partisan shot by me, it is clear that Republican potential Marco Rubio is in exactly the same boat and should not be eligible to be president.)

In the end even the answer to this if true is irrelevant because the odds of the media or the congress acting on it are essentially zero.  So why are so many people exercised over it?  Simple: to get their minds off of real issues where there might actually BE some impact.

Fairness.  When Obama pushes for taxes that every historical example has demonstrated will result in less income for the US Treasury people scratch their heads and ask why he seems incapable of “getting it?”

But I think he DOES “get it.”  One of the initial heads of his economic team, an economist from Berkley, even wrote a widely accepted paper demonstrating how over the years there is a 3:1 inverse relationship between taxes and revenue, i.e. every dollar taxes are increased results in 3 fewer dollars of revenue and vice versa.  Obama himself even told us in an interview where that very issue was raised that he understands the negative revenue consequences but he is about “fairness.”   But when you see this country as flawed at its core and needing to be transformed into your own Marxist inspired version of “fairness” (or as Marx put it, “…from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”) and know from your college mentors following Cloward and Plivens and Keynes that the way to bring down a country is economically via class warfare, then it all makes perfect sense and is brilliantly executing a well planned strategy.

This is not about fairness, it is about tearing down one model of government and replacing it with one you prefer.  “Fairness” is the positive buzz word that you can count on the disciples will latch on to and to misdirect attention but it is not really the issue because it is, at its core, undefinable.  But under the guise of “fairness” what we really get is something else, and that is…

Creating Dependencies.  Obama and his liberal/progressive philosophies are steeped in the strategic admonitions of Machiavelli and know what it takes to gain and maintain power.

“Thus a wise prince will think of ways to keep his citizens of every sort and under every circumstance dependent on the state and on him; and then they will always be trustworthy.” -Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469 – 1527

 This creation of dependencies is, in my opinion, pure political evil made all the more evil because it is done by fostering the idea that we can forget those God-given unalienable rights mentioned in the founding documents.  Those have the nasty requirements of using them to become self sufficient and self motivated and actually work to earn what one derives from the exercise of those freedoms.  Liberal philosophy, by contrast, teaches that we ought to understand that we somehow have an absolute RIGHT to whatever it is we desire.  When we don’t get it we are victims and only the state can step in and put down those bad guys who actually earn the stuff but want to keep it, and steal the fruits of their labor to give to those other folks who have a right to it notwithstanding that they did nothing to earn it.

“Catholics Want Contraception” and other health care issues.  Of course there are Catholics who use and want birth control.  Of course women’s health is important.  Of course there was unfairness (there is that convenient buzz word again) over pre-existing health conditions (I’ve run into it myself in the past).  Of course there are social benefits to having more people on health insurance.  So who would not want to see a good solution to those situations?

But none of those are the real issues.  The real issues are wrapped up in a single question: who has the authority to mandate those actions?  The federal constitution is clear on the subject: at the moment that authority does not come from either the legislative or executive branches of the federal government, but there is nothing to prohibit state governments from addressing it if their own state constitutions do not prohibit it.  Massachusetts had a perfect right to institute mandatory health insurance but the Federal government does not.  Let me repeat, the issue is not whether a law is a good idea or not, the issue is do those specifically involved lawmakers have the authority, under their own charters, to impose it?

In this case I believe the federal constitution does not allow it.  But Obama does not care about the constitution; in fact he has on a number of occasions referred to it as flawed along with the country and culture flowing from it.  These issues are at their heart, a means of changing the source of authority and power in the country from the legislative branch and the constitution to the Executive branch and his own ideals as espoused by sources other than those whose writings led to the constitution of the United States.

And if, in fact, the president can tell and enforce how Catholics interpret their sacred texts and practice their religion even if that is different than the Catholic Hierarchy teaches, who is next whose practices run afoul of official state policies?  So much for another clause in the Constitution.  One more nail in the coffin of a government of, by, and for the people and one more step toward a people that are of, by, and for the government.

Going Green.  Who could possibly not be for developing alternative and less polluting sources of energy?  No one.  Forget for a moment any issues about global warming, even if that is entirely a money generating hoax, the fact remains that we should be stewards of our one earth and using renewable energy sources would be good for us and good for the planet.  So who could possibly oppose that?  And that is why it is such a wonderful Straw Man tactic of misdirection.

The reality is that workable technology for all alternative energy except nuclear, vis-à-vis making it reasonably affordable, is years off.  At its cheapest it is 3 to 10 times more expensive per unit of energy than energy derived from fossil fuels.  And when people are in deep trouble economically that is a major problem.

The problem is compounded by the understanding that this country has HUGE reserves of energy resources that are estimated to match or exceed those of the Saudis.  And we have an energy rich neighbor to the north anxious to sell to us but needing to sell to SOMEONE even if that sale is not in our best interests.

Obama claims that oil production is up and it is his doing but leaves out that it is only up on private wells and is virtually shut down on federal wells over which he has control.  He said in a speech in Florida he has no idea what to do about the fact that we are producing enough oil here but prices are still rising.

Nonsense.  If that is true he is incompetent to be President.  But he does know what to do; it is just that his ideology prevents him from doing it.  The price of oil effects everything: not just gas at the pump but anything that relies on transportation (food, goods of all kinds) and anything made from oil by-products such as anything made from plastics.  No other single commodity has such a huge impact on our overall economy than oil: we are an oil-based society and in that we are the same as most of the rest of the world.  And until technology (which I think should be encouraged and supported) solves the disparity in costs, which it will some day, then as a country we need to get a grip on our own oil and oil costs.  That is within the prevue of the federal government.  So why not do it?

Because to NOT do it, to divert our attention onto that “green” ideal, we further weaken the economy and make it more vulnerable to the transformation that will come from the crisis that ensues when the economy fails.  And if we can lose a few Billion dollars down the drain of failed and failing companies while we are at it to speed up the gutting of the economy, so much the better because we can say, “We tried.”  Right.

Cuts in Spending.  Let’s handle this one quickly.  We all know that spending has to be cut.  But what has to be cut is the baseline.  Reducing the amount of additional spending desired is not a budget cut.  It is a straw man misdirection.

SOLUTIONS and REAL ISSUES

So then if these issues and others are not really relevant issues as they are presented by the media and the questioners at the debates, what IS or should be relevant?  In my opinion, to get this country back on track we need to accomplish several things in the next 7-10 years and in a particular priority.

FIRST PRIORITY.  The absolute first priority is to cement once and for all what are the powers of the federal government allowable under the constitution as it is now written so we never allow politicians of any stripe to bring us to this point again.   The proper behavior of a citizen is first to obey the laws as existing but work to change them if there is a real problem.   So if there is some national interest in amending some of the powers and rights set forth in that document, then lets start the amendment process and get it done.  In 1865 the amendment ending slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime was proposed and passed by the nation in a year.  In 1865!

Perhaps indeed our world has so evolved that it forces upon us as a nation-state a revisiting of some of our paradigms about how the world operates and how we can best work within that new, or newly perceived reality.  But that does not mean that our vision for our country has changed; it does not mean that our values as a society have changed; it does not mean that we can simply float willy nilly on a nebulous charter that is so flexible that it, de facto, has no meaning or directions for us at all.

It means, at most, that it is time for another Constitutional Convention to revisit the issues and see what changes, if any, would be potentially appropriate for us as we wade off into our future in this new world.  When the nation as a whole thinks it is time for a change it can accomplish it in reasonable time frames.  But the proper approach is not to usurp the document that set in motion what became, when we actually followed it, the greatest nation on earth and certainly not to give the executive officer of the country monarchical or dictatorial power or to allow unelected appointees and their fiefdoms to promulgate laws and regulations having serious impacts on the country usurping the jobs and responsibilities of the representatives we elect to do just that.

I would propose Constitutional amendments to the effect that cabinet positions be defined and limited.  That no law can be passed that does not apply equally to the lawmakers.  And that no rider can be attached to any bill that does not specifically speak to the main topic or subject of that bill so things can not be sneaked through riding on the backs of other important issues and requiring that each issue be addressed on its own merits.

This action has top priority because without it anything else done, no matter how much it is needed, will simply be a stop gap to buy time until the tide turns again and we return to this same path we are on now.

SECOND PRIORITY is the national debt crisis and overall economic condition.  Nothing else will so impact the “general welfare” noted in the Constitution’s preamble as our economic security and stability.  Who of us that has EVER tried to handle a personal or business budget truly believes you can solve a debt crisis by taking on more debt?  Crises of debt always, on any level, require incredibly painful and sometimes ugly efforts to bring expenditures and revenues into synch.

Obama has already admitted his tax policies will likely result in lowered revenue (as it has in other places they were tried such as Maryland and California) but that his dedication to “fairness” overrides that.  Meaning his ideology overrides helping to solve our biggest problem meaning this problem is actually working FOR him in some way.  If the so-called 1% paid 100 percent of their personal incomes as taxes it would not put much of a dent in the debt.  So let’s get real here.  The problem is mostly one of spending money we are not offsetting with revenue.  And we have gotten so far out of whack we now are faced with ugly, painful, hurtful choices but if we fail to take them then we are on the way to becoming Greece with riots in the streets.

We can no longer treat anything as sacred except the survival and stability of the country as a whole and we all must sacrifice.  But those sacrifices need to be defined and they all need to have built in, irrevocable sunset clauses so that when the country is again stable they revert to proper levels.  And laws need to be passed to prohibit the government from ever again allowing things to get so out of control.

But none of our normal “fixes” that were dictated during a world of sovereign, independent, self-sufficient nation states, will work in this now global economy.  We can argue whether we should have allowed it or bought into it but that discussion is pointless… we are in it up to our ears.  And it is our role in this global market that will determine our future success or failure as a country.

THIRD PRIORITY is the national defense and international policy.  And here again I’m not sure that many of the paradigms of the past from a day of sovereign self sufficiency and easy isolationist days that guide either party are still workable.  On some fronts I would love to return to those isolationist days of “live and let live” but it is simply not possible in a day and age of inter-continental ballistic missles and nuclear weapons and global markets.  We are part of this world whether we want to be or not. We are no longer self sufficient not the least of which is because the policies of the party in the White House has made it so.  And the ancillary problem is that in addition to now needing foreign goods,  there are other parts of the world that wish us harm.

Based on our OWN core values, we should define friend and non-friend; support the friends and leave non-friends to their own devices until they threaten global stability by threatening us or a friendly state.  And our military might and geopolitical will needs to be such that no one, no country who wants to survive into the future will ever risk a fight with us.

AND THEN… Overlapping and having an impact on both the 2nd and 3rd priorities above is the ongoing issue of energy.  Acquiring it presents national defense issues and paying for it presents economic issues.  We need to convene a convention of energy-related scientists of all types and energy consumers of all types with a basic charge and timeline; a 20 year plan as important as the goal of Kennedy’s of reaching the moon.

The objectives are first to make us completely energy self sufficient in 10 years at which point we need not buy a drop of oil from any foreign state.  If we used all of the reserves we own as a country that would give us an estimated 50-100 years based on our maximum consumption.  So objective two is that within 20 years we will have developed the technology to start replacing fossil fuels with other renewable sources leaving the remaining reserves of oil for those few areas where there may not be a replacement such as in manufacturing.

But that begs a more current question in which straw men and red herrings are also in play.  We get most of the oil we import from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.  Only about 10% comes from the middle east.  Nevertheless, we now have enough excess supply, government restraints notwithstanding, that we export oil.  A recent interview with an oil exec claimed the reason gas was so expensive was the world price of oil.  Now I see two glaring issues buried in that.

First, if we are exporting oil, why are we buying a quart of it from Hugo Chavez, the favorite dictator of Sean Penn, if we actually make enough and are exporting it?  The only possible answer is to prop up his regime, which in turn props up Cuba, both of which are closer ideologically to our leadership’s political roots than to the roots of the country as a whole.

And the second question is what does what we charge others have to do with what we charge ourselves?  The only answer is that it props up oil company profits which are already through the roof.  And that is unlikely to change since the right wants to prop them up and the left wants us to run gas so high consumers will switch to alternatives.  Is that arbitrary abuse of federal power, in either direction, OK with you?  It is not with me.  We are blaming OPEC when we ought to be looking closer to home and starting in Washington and then Wall Street.

If we could have a successful “Manhattan” project and then a successful space project, we certainly have the brain power and infra-structure to do this if we had a true leader with a vision for it.  And rather than spending huge sums of money to prop up dictators that hate us or to allow non-productive people to live off of productive ones, this would be money that would truly help the country.

Now in my opinion, THOSE are some issues to focus on.  But I don’t see anyone out there doing it.

Advertisements
 
13 Comments

Posted by on February 28, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

13 responses to “Straw Men, Red Herrings, and Big Lies

  1. Robert M. Bennett

    February 28, 2012 at 8:46 am

    David, your blog makes sense to me.

    The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence starts with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, ..” I find the truths in your blog to be self evident and I have to ask myself why we are in the minority. How can the majority continue to support Obama in the face of his admissions and actions?

    The answer is not that complex. Despite the fact that we are inundated with more data than ever before, we are more isolated and alienated from others than ever before. I believe this has resulted in the average person ignoring the conflicting data and asking “What is good for ME?”

    JFK said “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Unless the majority of the people can put their county first, we have little hope of achieving greatness for our country in the future.

    As I’ve said before in response to your “call to arm”, I’m with you and I feel somewhat alone.

     
  2. ndking

    February 28, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Let’s hope not. if this can seem obvious to a poor old simple country boy photographer, surely other smarter people have figured it out as well… surely…

    if not i fear we are truly in for a trainwreck.

     
  3. ellen

    February 28, 2012 at 11:07 am

    ALL native born US citizens are Natural Born US Citizens. The only kind if a US citizen who is not a Natural Born US Citizen is a naturalized US Citizen.

    “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” Jill A. Pryor. The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty – Yale Law Journal 1988

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

     
  4. ndking

    February 28, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Did you look up the other supreme court cases i mentioned? I believe you will find this is not so clear cut. The truth is, as i said in the post, I don’t care what the final determination is because i think we have a right to vote for whomever we wish to lead us. But the results you allude to render senseless the use of specific language in the Constitution, a document in which they went to extraordinary means to be very precise based on the understanding of terms in that day.

    if we wish it to be otherwise that same document lays out the procedures for amending it, procedures that do NOT include simply redefining terms to suit one’s wishes by us or even the courts. So I would take issue with your first sentence and declaration and offer as supporting documentation the words of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison that they took the meaning of their words directly from Vattel.

    Let me be clear, I do not give a hoot about Obama specifically in this regard; if the people want him and his policies then so be it. What I care about is a run on the Constitution that has been happening for a long time with subtle and not so subtle laws and court rulings that have pretended/assumed that it was OK to redefine terms to suit the desires of the day. It has happened at the behest of partisans from all sides so this is not an R vs. D issue with me. If that assumption if easy re-interpretation du jour is true, however, then the Constitution is meaningless on its face since it means whatever we want it to mean.

    I believe this is such an instance. An inconvenient semantics issue that suits both sides depending on their “guy” at the time. Hatch was trying to forestall any question about McCain being born in Panama, an unnecessary declaration in his case. Three clear supreme court rulings in the early and mid 1800s held exactly as i suggested and they were closer to the founding sentiments than we are.

    But my firm belief is that whatever one believes the constitution ought to say in this regard, the results of either conclusion are small potatoes compared to real issues of the day that we should be discussing seriously. I think this issue is kept alive as a means to keep us occupied in minutia while the real action is being played out unnoticed.

     
  5. ndking

    February 28, 2012 at 11:57 am

    By the way, Erin, thank you for the comment. I think that engaging in serious respectful discussions from opposing points of view is an activity critical to arriving at the truth. My goal in some of these posts is to kick start the thinking process of readers, not necessarily to persuade them to my own beliefs. But rarely does anyone think deeply enough to respond via a comment here or email to me directly. I appreciate your doing it and hope the exchange can make other people start to examine the situation and begin to separate wheat from chaff as regarding topics that are being passed around as serious issues…

    Both sides agree this is a critical election but both sides seem dedicated to getting the discussion onto nearly irrelevant talking points and off of topics that go to the heart of what this country was meant to be, what it has become, and where it is going. i would hope that voices on all sides would quit that and engage in analyses and debate over the real questions facing us. Those are not about condoms or birth certificates or solar panels. They are about divergent policies that aim at the very heart of the country and its future and the role of the government in that future.

     
  6. ellen

    February 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Re: “Did you look up the other supreme court cases i mentioned? I believe you will find this is not so clear cut…”

    There is NO US Supreme Court case that has ruled that two citizen parents are required. Not even Minor vs Happersett. Yes, there are some birther lawyers who claim that Minor vs Happersett did rule that, but they are deliberately misleading their readers.

    There are three reasons why Minor vs Happerset is not a ruling.

    Here is what it said:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens…”

    Now read the quotation closely. Does it really say that both birth in the country and two citizen parents are required? Does it?

    No it doesn’t. It said that it was never doubted that if both than you were a Natural Born Citizen. But that does not say that you have to have both. It is simply saying that IF you have both of the two things that are possibly necessary, then of course you have everything needed. But is that merely sufficient, or is it more than enough?

    Consider this analogy:

    Does the statement “it was never doubted that those with X and Y could be members of the club” actually mean that you have to have both X and Y to be members of the club?

    NO it doesn’t, of course.

    The ruling does not actually say, “You have to have both X and Y.” It only said that for sure if you had both X and Y, both birth in the country and two citizen parents, then you were for sure a Natural Born Citizen.

    But you can also say: “It was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up.” Sure, logically if you need to be absolutely certain that the pats will stay up, you can wear both. But both are not required.

    The next point is that the quotation leaves out the sentence in the ruling that says that the court DOES NOT DECIDE. IT SAYS:

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. ”

    That means that it does not have to make a decision, and therefore, it did not make a decision. No one believes that Minor vs Happersett is a decision on Natural Born Citizen status.

    The third reason is that it is a ruling on VOTING RIGHTS. That means that any decision related to citizenship is considered DICTA. Since this is not a ruling on a citizenship matter, this is not a ruling on citizenship or Natural Born status. It is only a ruling on voting rights, and in that it was a precedent but only until we passed the 19th Amendment.

    These are reasons why skilled lawyers like Ronald Reagan’s attorney general do not believe that the Minor vs Happersett was a ruling for two citizen parents. Nor do they believe that any other case was a ruling that two citizen parents are required.

    BUT ALL Constitutional scholars hold that the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which followed Minor vs Happersett and would have overturned it (if Minor vs Happersett was a ruling, which it wasn’t) ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born. And they hold that the meaning of a Natural Born Citizen is simply a US citizen who was natural born, meaning one who was not naturalized.

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Re: “ubtle laws and court rulings that have pretended/assumed that it was OK to redefine terms to suit the desires of the day. ”

    Answer. I am stating, as did Edwin Meese, that it was the ORIGINAL MEANING of Natural Born, the one that was common when the US Constitution was written, that referred to Natural Born as relating to the place of birth and not to the parents.

    Here is an actual example of how the term was USED in the United States (not Switzerland) in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers ONLY to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.”

    And here is how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    And here is what Meese wrote a few years ago:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    As you can see, there has been NO change.

     
  7. ndking

    February 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Erin, you do not know me or my background. If you did, you would know that if I had not just read the decisions that supported my claims before i wrote the post I would never have made them. Now, due to my schedule i am not going to be able to find the time to re-Shepherdize them and re-research the writings of the founders to provide citations and quotes to support my contention until this weekend.

    But what would be the point? You would then argue that my quoted decisions were simply wrong (legally) based on your quoted decisions that I think are just wrong (legally) and all we have done in the fray is play into the hands of those on both sides who use this whole topic to keep us focussed on irrelevancies vis-a-vis the upcoming election.

    I see no gain in my spending those hours which would then just end up with you spending more time to find supporting docs and in the meantime, real, cultural and country-threatening issues remain in play. I think it terrific that you leapt in when you read something with which you disagreed; i wish more people would do that. But this is a dead-end topic. No matter who is right no one is going to press the case beyond the one now playing out somewhere in the south east and no one would have, i hope, the stomach to start to remove someone from office over this fluff stuff. It will be endlessly debated and after the serious work is done i might find it fun to re-engage. But i find the inanity of trying to spend your way out of an impending fiscal bankruptcy, borrow one’s way out of a debt crisis, debauch the currency against even the thinking of one’s own economic guru, and turning a blind eye to solutions not in keeping with ideology to be much more cause for concern than this topic. THe future of our country will not turn on which of us is right in this topic, but it will, I think, turn on the resolution of other important issues.

    So if we are to engage in a meaningful debate let’s do it over meaningful issues such as the economy, energy, national defense, etc. so the other readers can see both sides spelled out with respect and perhaps wonder why their elected officials cannot come to such a civil point.

     
  8. ellen

    February 28, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    I am not a specialist on the economy (who is?) or national defense (who is?). The “Drill Baby Drill” slogan is a lousy way to run an economy or a nation. It seems to me that STRICT regulation of Wall Street is a way to avoid more Enrons and more Lehman Brothers.

    You are simply wrong on the Natural Born Citizen issue. Moreover, you believe your fantasy despite all the experts believing just the reverse. Not one of the Republican presidential candidates or the former Republican presidential candidates believes either that Obama was born outside of the USA or that two US citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen. Nor does Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck. Birthers and two-fers tried to convince the members of the Electoral College of the two-parent theory, and not one elector changed his or her vote. Birthers and two-fers tried to convince the members of the US Congress of the two-parent theory, and not one member of the US Congress voted against Obama’s confirmation. The Chief Justice of the USA (who would have known if there were four, or even one Supreme Court case saying “two citizen parents”) swore in Obama, twice.

    Here is what the US Supreme Court said in the Wong Kim Ark case:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    Notice how similar that is to what Rawle said in 1829:

    “”Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)”

    Notice how similar it is to what Meese said a few years ago:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

     
  9. ellen

    February 28, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Re Quotations.

    If you do do the research, please don’t quote the chestnut by Bingham, the so called “author of the 14th Amendment” (He was only the author of the Equal Protection part of the 14th, not the citizenship part).

    It seems Bingham changed his mind on the subject.

    Here is what he ALSO said:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

     
  10. ndking

    February 29, 2012 at 7:55 am

    It would have been nice to let this go and let stand only the general point that the real answer is, and always has been, unsettled both in public opinion and in the courts. But it is important that readers understand that when I make an assertion it is because I have done the research that led me to it and did not simply pull it out of the air. So now i feel compelled to spend the time this weekend over a matter of inconcsequence to issues of national importance and important to me only to help maintain credibility.

    What I expect to re-find (since i have looked over it before) is that there is in fact no monolithic view of it as you suggest, and instead their are “true believers” on both sides, each with arguments they deem dispositive and final, each in complete opposition to the other, and each smugly insistent that the other side is stupid and just wrong.

    Law suits happen over disagreements of facts and law so it will be natural to find multiple views. Dissenting opinions are notorious for becoming the basis for later decisions and so the general “rule of law” is a tortuous line to try to pin down, especially over a 200+ years evolution. You quote for me a person who you say is a bad example because of him changing his mind and assert I should not use him as support but then support your side with one of his swinging comments when it suits your point. That approach and his stance at any given moment are not all that persuasive for a final view.

    Nevertheless what I said before about time still is the case, I will not be able to devote proper time to this until the weekend. What I hope to let you see is that this is not, as many hope, a settled argument; neither side has put down all challenges and neither side is without vulnerabilities. But that takes me back to an initial point: it is a red herring to keep us occupied and our minds off of critical issues.

    And unfortunately, in this case at least, it worked like a charm. Too bad. Depending on how much i will want to synthesize data I’ll either just list citations as a comment or expand them into a normal post. Stand by…

     
  11. ellen

    February 29, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Re: “It would have been nice to let this go and let stand only the general point that the real answer is, and always has been, unsettled both in public opinion and in the courts.”

    Answer that is certainly untrue. It is untrue because in public opinion the issue of Obama’s eligibility did not affect the election–the majority voted for him. Nor did it affect the vote in the electoral college (not one single member changed her or his vote). Nor did it affect the confirmation vote in the US Congress, in which Obama’s election was confirmed unanimously. And such conservative opinion leaders as Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, all the Republican candidates for president, and the Wall Street Journal all do not believe the two-fer myth.

    So it is settled in public opinion.

    And it is settled in the courts.

    TWO State Courts (Indiana and Georgia) have specifically ruled that Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen. One Federal Court has done so too (http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346). One state court stated in a ruling in 1844 that every child born in the USA is Natural Born, and that the US born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born US Citizens and eligible to run for president. Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).(http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-)updated.html#NBC_PS1B_Lynch

    (That turns out to be what Rawle Wrote in 1829)

    About a handful or more federal and state cases have described the US-born children of foreigners as Natural Born Citizens. Including:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    The legal authorities are overwhelmingly in favor of the definition of Natural Born coming from the common law and referring to the PLACE of birth, not the parents.

    To help you in your research, here are some sites:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346

     
  12. ndking

    March 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    OK, response posted in a series. The question is which is right? (a) the position that the issue was settled long ago and is no longer even in question (Ellen’s) or (b) the position that it is NOT settled and still a subject for debate (mine).

    To ALL readers of this that actually give a darn about this utterly irrelevant topic: please carefully read Ellen’s comments here. THey are thorough and well sequenced. She certainly has proved that there is support for her side. I simply argue there is another and equally legitimate side to this so read the series “Citizenship Debate” and see if, when you wade through it all you concur with Ellen that it was completely settled years ago or with me that the jury is still out.

    But to reach a fair and objective decision you do need to read both and read them carefully.

     
  13. ellen

    March 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    If someone were to show that the way that the Americans at the time of the writing of the US Constitution used the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth, and only to the place of birth, and that person were to comment (and no one has shown differently) that no American leader at the time of the writing of the US Constitution used the term Natural Born to refer to parents–would you, dear reader, believe that the writers of the US Constitution were using the term to refer to parents?

    IF, you thought that they were referring to parents, you would ask for evidence of if, wouldn’t you? And yet there are NO writings by the founders or framers or any American leader at the time that says that “Natural Born” refers to parents or that it refers to the theory of Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.

    And now, dear reader, have you yourself or do you known anyone who has had foreign born parents? Do you think that that person is less loyal to the USA than someone who did not have foreign born parents? IF you do not think that, then why would you think that the writers of the US Constitution would have thought it. Sure, if the writers had thought it, that would be a different thing. But there is no evidence that they did, since none of them wrote any such thing. So to think that they believed that the US-born children of foreigners would tend to be less loyal than the US born children of US citizens is making a radical assumption. One that is not backed up by any evidence at all.

    And, if you believe it, you are making a radical assumption in the face of the evidence at about the time of the writing of the Constitution, which held that:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    At this point, you may hear the allegation that there are four or so Supreme Court cases that ruled that Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. In fact, there are NO such cases, and the Wong Kim Ark ruling stated clearly that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. But, more importantly, why should you believe the people who claim that there were four such cases, when these people leave out parts of the ruling, deliberately truncating the quotations to eliminate such things as the court saying that it was not making a ruling on this matter–and thus claiming that the court made a ruling when it didn’t.

    Is it settled? Answer: So many lawyers and constitutional scholars and court rulings have stated that every child born in the USA (except the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen that not one member of the Electoral College changed her or his vote to vote against Obama, and not one member of congress voted against his confirmation. There is a chance, but a very very small chance, that a court would rule the other way. Why? Because the judges are lawyers and constitutional scholars too, and they share the overwhelming view.

    But the bottom line is whether the Supreme Court would reverse Wong Kim Ark and rule that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. You are welcome to dream that they would. But, somehow I doubt that justices with the names Alito and Scalia, and a chief justice whose mother’s maiden name was Podrasky, would do such a thing.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: