Given human nature, it’s not surprising the long knives have come out instantaneously after the failure of the McCain-Palin campaign. Never mind that it was not such a huge failure. When did a party in power get reelected during an imploding economy? But the race to blame seems especially repugnant this time. I’m ambivalent about Palin but I certainly think the Vice-Presidential candidate was being polite in calling her anonymous critics “cowardly.” A better word would be jerks.
Regarding McCain, his post-election behavior hasn’t been especially sophisticated either. I was always puzzled why he recoiled from discussing Reverend Wright. It was clearly an issue worth dealing with on an intelligent level. What does it say about a man that he could have remained in the church of such a person for twenty years? Surely something. (Even Jerry Nadler had his justication.) Whatever it is, it is more important than much of the blather that came out during the campaign from both sides. For all the time it went on, very few ideas were discussed in any depth at all. It was two years of intellectual bankruptcy… a kind of a disgrace to democracy.
UPDATE: Sorry to have to subject you to a day of horrendous typos. I posted this hastily on the Virgin America flight for LAX to JFK this morning before takeoff. Corrections have been made on the other end.
Roger,
It was two years of intellectual bankruptcy… a kind of a disgrace to democracy…
I couldn’t agree more.
Now that it’s over I find myself clinging to the slender reed of hope that Rahm Emanuel really is, as he was described in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, a pragmatist.
Jamie Irons
Holy cow Roger, you been into the sauce this morning? I’ve never seen so many typos in one of your posts. Either that, or you need some reading glasses!
McCain has further diminished his standing with conservatives to the point that I’d guess that if the Arizona Republican party has an up and comer who is strong on defense and the borders, they should have that person challenge McCain in the primaries. I’m betting that the newcomer would win, given McCain’s poor campaign and behavior since. I’m worried that he and Lindsey (I never met a Democrat I couldn’t agree with)Graham will give the Senate over to the dems without a filibuster proof majority.
Be reassured, Roger.
“I was always puzzled why he recoiled from discusssing Reverend Wright.”
There is little reason why you should be puzzled. A number of us explained it you months ago: John McCain is politically correct and becomes unglued whenever he has to criticize a man of color. It’s just that simple. This is also why McCain failed to address the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the first debate. Once again, he would have to deal with race. You cannot discuss this issue without talking about the Clinton administration literally forcing lending institutions to provide mortgages to minorities possessing poor credit histories.
Race guilt may be the greatest threat to Western Civilization. We may already be beyond saving. The Ku Klux Klan and other right-wing crazies will take full advantage of the situation.
Obama’s campaign was all about Race. Biden said it: Obama is the kind of “African American” who is clean and articulate. He is handsome, young, with a deep tan… unlike the Western African looks of Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell. So, it’s a twofer: have a “Black” president, overcome “racism” but… not really, eh?
American Race Guilt is at the heart of so much of America’s destructive programs: diversity (of skin colour alone); affirmative action (according to skin colour); self disgust of one’s history (Slavery!!! Lynching!!!).
No wonder it’s hard to have an intellectual discussion with Americans. “Race” squats in the centre like a very ugly toad.
I agree, the race thing is absolutely toxic in the body politic right now. Exactly what the left-wing wants, an issue guaranteed to tear America apart. They want Civil War 2.0 with millions of dead bodies. Their panties get all moist thinking about it.
itMc Cain campaign was not a good one by any standards.
It took them ages to realize that Obama’s tax refund to 95% of Americans was not a refund. Joe the Plumber opened their eyes regarding wealth spreading and to leave Wright out of the equation I feel it was not a good idea. It is inexplicable to me.
Mc Cain was ill prepared for the debates.
To put the ice on the cake if it is true that members of the campaign had the nerve to criticize Gov. Palin it is shameful and disgusting.
No one explained why Gov. Palin had to deliver her first successful speech with a TelePrompTer that was not working properly. This is inexcusable. That she perform so well is a feat in itself.
Then to come out now with some stupid remarks , if it they are true and if it is true that is someone from the MC Cain campaign , such us that she spent too much in dresses and coats or the towel thing or other silly remarks is beyond the pale.
The gaffes regarding Africa, and the North Atlantic Treaty , firstly we do know exactly what happened, instead we know for sure the gaffes of Biden regarding Roosevelt getting into TV in 1929, when everybody KNOWS there was no TV at the time , and everybody should also know FDR wasn’t elected until 1932; or his gaffe regarding the First
Article of the Constitution, or his inexact remarks regarding Lebanon
and Hezbollah, …how about Obama’s 57 States, … that is worst than Africa if it happened, and how about Iran a a tiny country, ,
….etc etc …the Mc Cain Campaign was not able to show Gov. Palin at her best, like regarding Energy, she did a speech but it was hardly discussed instead they allowed through leaks to show Palin vis a vis her shoes and dresses… People are human and can make gaffes we accept Obama ‘s and Biden ‘s and others , I mean the campaign accepted them but someone went after Palin for things that we do not know if they are true on one hand and others that are unimportant in my opinion like the towel thing.
I wish to believe that may be the whole leaking is a lie. That no one from the Mc Cain campaign was involved.
Her record should speak for her. Her record as a Governor and her 80% plus approval. The campaign did not showed her in the light of her accomplishes. They failed, in my opinion, miserably.
The Obama campaign was so much better, no leaks, and they stayed in course, when the gaffes come out they ignore them .
I take my hat to OBama when he said his family was out of the campaign but where was the Republican campaign when vicious attacks went out against Mrs. Palin’s children and family.?
Maybe it was Einstein who said “everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler.” I think McCain made too much use of keywords, platitudes, and assertions as opposed to developing persuasive lines of argument. See my post too much political dog language.
Little Johnny McCain was so proud of himself. He didn’t say one bad (true) thing about his racist marxist thug opponent the whole campaign long. You don’t criticize a black. It’s the law. But really, ya know, it was all for the best. What’s a little, or even a lot of white humiliation for the conceivable future compared to giving encouragement to those awful KKK right wing crazies. Nice people just don’t do that.
Sorry about typos. Post written at LAX on way to NY. Will fix when I reach hotel.
I have already heard from a lot of Obama supporters how nasty McCain was during the campaign and how he was playing the race card a lot. Although for a brief moment before the financial crisis, it looked like McCain had a chance, he was behind from the start with a huge deck stacked against him. In some ways it is a wonder Obama didn’t garner a landslide given the mood in the country. Given how the economic crisis came when it did (as the real October surprise), when I’m feeling paranoid, I start thinking that somehow George Soros manufactured it some way (wish that could be proven).
..two years of intellectual bankruptcy… a kind of a disgrace to democracy.
Wait till the end of the next two. We’ll be nostalgic for 2007.
Scott
Hell Barry, I’ve been thinking that instead of Soros maybe Schumer and Indy Bank memo. Hell, better yet, Soros, Schumer and Indy Bank Memo. A couple of real classy guys over a glass of wine.
As soon as McCain told everyone he was suspending his campaign which I believe was three days before the first debate, I knew it was all over.
But remember McCain should have won. After all he’s the one who reached across the aisle. I could vomit every time I hear that.
Promoguy
I’d agree with you except that I don’t think Chuckie is that smart. Rich, powerful, known only to people who pay attention, and sinister seems more fitting, that led me to Soros, especially since he likes to manipulate currency.
I guess you can’t fly direct to New York from Burbank…
I was hoping, but McCain’s behavior this election cycle could’ve been predicted from his behavior in 2000. They broke him in Hanoi and he’s been coasting on his reputation ever since.
He can be courageous, as long as he isn’t pressed. He can do the smart thing, as long as nobody tells him he can’t. He made the error of running a negative campaign when the opposition was playing to voter’s hopes.
He put his campaign in the hands of a hateful, despite filled man who would sooner slander a rival than praise a friend. John McCain did a damn good job of losing the election.
In 2008 Barack Obama’s team did a good job of running a positive campaign. In 2012 expect Sarah Palin’s team doing a good job of running a positive, disciplined campaign.
I think the years of “bad news” foisted on us by the Dems and the press over the last few years made negative attacks more dangerous against the campaign of “change.” It seems that people wanted relief from the bad news, and The One appeared likely to provide it. This was a victory of emotion – of escape from unpleasant realities and unrelenting, unrealistic hectoring by the media.
Intellectual bankruptcy, Roger…was preceded by the moral bankruptcy of the entrenched media and their automatic stay provision on Journalistic Ethics.
They spent two years essentially fluffing up the cushions and putting mints on the pillow of one candidate…while simultaneously engaging in a search and destroy mission against the opposition.
A basic question about the wisdom of capital gains taxation and a deep, close, personal connection to a person with vicious and rather insane worldviews…almost got two guys run off the reservation. In the PRIMARIES.
Senator McCain tried to slalom the landmines in the landscape, afraid to step on any. Hard to blame him, they were real. The post mortem suggesting that if he simply ran wildly into the field and kicked them…he would have won, is oversimplification and past posting a horse race. I have my doubts.
He would have been crucified. He simply did a poor job of connecting the dots. He didn’t need to FOCUS on Wright…but rather, made Wright a continuation of a theme. Instead, he avoided Wright entirely and said he didn’t care about some “washed up old terrorist” in speaking about Ayers. By doing so, he fed the notion that there was no “theme” to the associations throughout a lifetime. And not only did not connect the dots, he unplugged them. Dumb. The moral and ethical bankruptcy by the entrenched media, simply made this impossible to gain traction. It should have.
He also never connected the dots on the financial mess. He allowed the opposing campaign to frame the issues as “Bush policies” failing. What utter nonsense. Of course, the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the entrenched media, intentionally misled the public on every aspect of this issue.
Afghanistan and Iraq. We have had moral and ethical bankruptcy on this issue from its inception. The words of William Cohen and his five pound bag, Madelaine Albright, Sandy Berger, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have been hidden from view, buried and forgotten. So has the legislated regime change order. So has every success. While there could have been honest debate over the wisdom of preemption, the entrenched media coverage has been a treasonous disgrace. Senator McCain had a chance to connect these dots as well…and remained fixated on the surge.
Roger, when we put our integrity on EZ Credit, put our ethics on layaway, put our information stream on bill me later and put truth on “no verification required”…the intellectual, moral and ethical bankruptcies that follow were preordained.
Ricpic, you might not like John McCain, you might think he ran a poor campaign, but your snide name calling of someone who fought hard for our country, who remained for five years in a prison camp where he was tortured when he could have gotten an early release is every bit as jerkish and nasty as the behavior of the Palin smearers. It’s beneath you. It makes you sound like a snotty Kos commenter.
McCain’s disadvantage was humoring Obama’s non-confrontational nature. People are so sympathetic with this spirit of passive-aggressive opportunism that they’ve already re-elected Obama in their minds, (“It’s going to take more than four years.”)
“Disgrace to democracy” is an understatement, at best. I’ve been out here all week watching these prop 8 protesters, envisioning a similar nationwide scenario had Obama lost the election. Rather than rejecting the government, rejecting the will of the people. But then, those who prefer to say “America needs change” over something more reasonable like “Americans need TO change” tend to put themselves outside the realm of culpability, don’t they? The bloom is off the rose now; the damage is done. This is America the forsaken. Respect your new president, but don’t confuse respect with sympathy.
We were stationed at the Yuma Proving Ground military base, when the issue of Martin Luther King’s holiday came up. McCain opposed it, and was vilified, labeled a racist.
For some reason, I believe that McCain avoided all issues regarding Wright, Farrakhan etc., maybe feeling he had to redeem himself.
McCain labeled racist lingered for a long time, and although the black population was not high at that time in Arizona, he was able to be re-elected.
Since so many whites voted for Obama to feel vindicated not being racist, so also McCain brought on the loss of the republicans this year.
John McCain deserved to lose this election big.
He was a “conservative” who backed rapid legalization of million of illegal immigrants, wants responsible taxpayers to bail out hedge fund gamblers and those who lied about their income and assets to get 100% mortgages, sponsored the same campaign finance “reform” legislation that Obama cleverly evaded, and liked to boast of his ability to get along well with Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.
Someone please explain to me what’s “conservative” about any of the above.
And it should be clear by now that McCain’s judgment, and indeed his mental ability, is now highly suspect. His panic-laden attempt to suspend the campaign to deal with the financial crisis made him look more like Commander Queeg than General Patton, and his choice of Sarah Palin was inexplicable—-she was a promising AA player but obviously not ready for pitching in the big leagues.
The big lesson of this past election is that in a race between a RINO/DemocratLite and a real Democrat, people will choose the real Democrat—-at least the latter is honest enough to admit who he/she really is. Hopefully Republicans will be smart enough going forward to reject the big spending, big government Republicanism of the Bushes and rediscover the virtues of a Republicanism that emphasizes small government, low taxes, and individual liberties. They might start by reading “The Conscience of a Conservative” by Barry Goldwater.
By and large, Republicans come from practical educations like business. Few are comfortable, or even aware of Hyack, Burke, Locke, Marx.
So, in a phrase, they have no idea.
Oddly, Reagan was for a Republican, well educated in classical economics and conservative philosophy. Plus, with his Hollywood career, he was and more importantly knew the importance of communication in word and image.
As an example, Newt has the ideas, he just visually comes across poorly. Mitt looks great, but has only smooth platitudes and higher level of business practicality but very thin ideas of political philosophy. McCain was just a trainwreck all over.
Now, Obama, is all show, smoothness. I’d say, a touch above Bill Clinton. But with out the practical executive experience. None, zip, nada. Further, other than American Cheese quality Marxism, he isn’t well educated. So, basically we have a smooth, lawyerly mushhead that presents good and who is now the world’s most difficult executive office with no experience.
Can we all have a group hug now?
I agree with CFbleachers
As an aside, I once thought with the arrival of the Internet, the liberal bent of the MSM would be significantly diminished.
I was wrong; the NBC/PBS/NY Times liberalism and its ability to away public opinion is still with us and far too influential.
The Post admits to bias reporting (Ombudsman confession and hand slap) and there is a yawn except for the conservative blogs.
Maybe Fox reported it. But the issue of media bias will not be on Newshour which prides itself on its widespread coverage of all things. Garbage.
With Bret Hume retiring in January, the on screen gravitas/sense of Fox will be missing.
The Wall Street Journal this weekend has Ian McEwen (yes, the novelist. . . that McEwan !) extolling tough environmental global warming restrictions from the new administration.
And a liberal rant on the fall of intellectual conservatism and a pointed knock on Sarah.
Is this Rupert tacking into the winds of change?
“Further, other than American Cheese quality Marxism, he isn’t well educated.”
Barack Obama is indeed a poorly read man. Moreover, I suspect that he rejects conservative thinking without a hearing because on a gut level—the newly elected president considers it “too white.” Far too many people are overly impressed with Obama’s Harvard law degree. They don’t realize that it merely proves that he can pass a state bar exam. Obama is nothing more than another Chauncey Gardner.
“Further, other than American Cheese quality Marxism, he isn’t well educated.”
Exactly. But then, most politicians are not well educated in the same way that writers/intellectuals are. Politicians are basically extroverts who are not going to spend lots of hours in the isolation needed to – you know – read and learn. Reagan and Churchill were exceptions to that rule. JFK liked being around writers, probably because he knew that they were great propagandists for him; and he had the kind of mind that could remember good lines. But he wasn’t terribly learned or intellectual.
Couric asked Palin what she ‘reads.’ I would suspect that Palin doesn’t read very much of what Couric would recognize as ‘literature.’ Palin is the mother of 5 children; she is the governor of Alaska. And she keeps in good physical shape WITHOUT a fleet of servants. Palin SHOULD have buried Couric under a list of the paperwork involved in getting the gas pipeline going. But she didn’t.
The trouble with Obama is that he has surrounded himself with faux-intellectuals, equally uneducated, though with Ivy degrees. Along with their united experience in the sharp elbowed Chicago machine, this is not good for America’s future (nor the world’s).
The Republican wing has tended to be better grounded in the real world; but faced with Couric types, have instead become apologetic about their lack of urban style. McCain is a good example of this problem: he wants to be liked by Washington style-leaders.
As an addendum: the destructive leaks about Palin come from the McCain camp. I wonder how much of this derives from McCain’s personal jealousy of Palin’s instant popularity with the Republican base. Note that McCain did NOT do his part of bringing out the ‘moderate’ and ‘left’ wings of the Republicans.
“Politicians are basically extroverts who are not going to spend lots of hours in the isolation needed to – you know – read and learn.”
There is definitely one exception that should not be ignored: Ronald Reagan! This man was very well read and wrote countless pieces regarding economic matters and America’s struggle against Communism. I am unaware of any U.S. president in the last hundred years as well prepared as Reagan to handle the responsibilities of our highest elected office. He was far more than a “mere actor.” Woodrow Wilson possessed a doctorate degree behind his name—but he was not even close to being the intellectual equal to the man who graduated from the virtually unknown Eureka College.
If there wasn’t a Hindenburg-esque economy crash going on, there might have been more room for erudite discussions on the campaign trail. The Democrats only had to stand back and allow the news to unfold about Wall Street, and everyone was convinced that this election would be about the pragmatic, not the theoretical.
It’s a rare person who can translate theory to bread and butter; Reagan could do it; crowds felt Obama could do it, though I think he’s as much of an elitist as the rest of the liberal illuminati; it’s a rare quality both to understand concepts and to communicate them meaningfully.
With war fatigue, 401k accounts vanishing, and foreclosures looming, it would’ve been a steep bill to ask of anyone to hold their own in establishing intellectual dialogue in this campaign.
I have to take issue with the speculation that McCain was personally jealous of Palin’s instant popularity with the base and that this may be the cause of some of the leaks.
Honestly, besides being mean spirited, it’s foolish and overwrought. McCain took a big risk choosing Palin and going against the party establishment in no small part BECAUSE he thought she’d be popular with the base since he knew he wasn’t. And he was correct on both counts. The amount of hate that has been directed against Palin from inside the party machine(and not from McCain himself) is of such great magnitude that no one needs to wonder where leaks come from. McCain was the one who stood to profit from her popularity and he quite obviously got pleasure from the ire she drew from the party establishment. He enjoyed pissing them off at the very same time his pick pleased the people. Where the leaks come from couldn’t be more obvious.
Obama Cannot Be President
by Dr. Robert Coambs
Dr. Coambs studies human reasoning and logic.
Obama is Disqualified by the Known Unknowns
(1) At the time of the November 4 election, Obama’ eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate. That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).
Furthermore Obama’s eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it. When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence. Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.
(2) Among the US citizenry are the following:
The current POTUS
The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
The US Supreme Court
The US Congress
The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
The Members of the Electoral College
To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS. They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.
(3) The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day. However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).
(4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation. It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20). Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here. We begin with the major premise, which is from the US constitution, Article II, Section 1, 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.”
(5) From this we can construct the following syllogism:
Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise: Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.
(6) How Categorical Syllogisms work
When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this. It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
All humans are mortal.
Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
Socrates is human.
Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable. It is not subject to debate. These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe. At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.
Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe. If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true. If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true. If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct. If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4. The syllogism would also be true. These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.
The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy. There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true. The conclusion must be true.
The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.
As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS. Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama only the president-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward. As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true: Obama is not POTUS. At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.
Obama has ample time to act. If at any time Obama becomes publicly known to be eligible, then this syllogism would be invalid. That is, Obama might be POTUS, because he would be eligible. The conclusion of the syllogism would be invalid, because the minor premise would be invalid. The minor premise states “Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known”. If his eligibility becomes known, then the conclusion is invalid, and Obama might be eligible. But until his eligibility is publicly known, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20.
If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS. If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS. Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS.
The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time. So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it’s form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention.
If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS. If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS. For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS. No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS. It is not possible to change the past. Obama never was POTUS.
None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS. Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid. Nothing.
If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy. Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS. POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama. If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for war crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS. Because of the way military law works, there is no middle ground. The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.
There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism. They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and (b) It may be correct and patriotic to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama. This may apply to all American citizens.
If the US Constitution was changed before Jan 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change. Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid. Obama might be eligible to be POTUS. But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009. If an effort is made to change the Constitution after Januray 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS. Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the Constitutional change into law.
Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President. The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to. However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law. It would be up to his discretion. Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be empowered to re-assume the position of POTUS.
This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proven in any court. The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly . These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them. No human can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism. Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.
Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or any human authority. These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this. Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS. However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.
Therefore, So long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS. If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS. Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic. Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.
SUMMARY
Major Premise:
To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise:
Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.
Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.
___________________________________________
Note 1. The unknown status of Obama’s eligibility is typified in a current court case in New Jersey.
It is the case of lawyer Leo Donofrio versus New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. In it, Donofrio claims that it is the duty of Wells, as Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state.
Specifically, Donofrio notes in the brief accompanying the Application for Emergency Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Wells was required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to make a statement in which she certifies and signs off on the names of the candidates on the ballots. The statute, in relevant part with emphasis added:
“The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”
In other words, Leo Donofrio suggests that the New Jersey Secretary of State appeared unaware of the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS. If she was aware of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, she did not communicate this to the electorate.
____________________________________________________
To reply to Dr. Coambs, please leave a comment on the following thread:
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/11/sitrep-obama-citizenship-nov-11-08—-a-key-known-unknown-sinks-obama.html
Tom Clancy should write this one into a book. The world economy crashes. Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin all are fully invested in guess what…Oiiiil. It is basically theirs and the middle east’s only reliable source of cash. Unlike the USA, they have forgotten how to grow agricultural products. Oil buys their food to placate their masses. The scenario is unfolding…what a plan, because we are 80% of the worlds economy, we forced them into bankruptcy….again….Checkmate. Absolutely Brilliant. Thank You GWB, OB didn’t even have a clue,. Of course the MSM will give him the credit.