re: "The "Natural Born Citizen" Issue Rides Again: Revisiting Wong Kim Ark"

Kepha at Uncle Cephas (" A blog devoted to an American's ramblings on religion, culture, and politics. ") revisited the "birther" issue, but with some legal inaccuracies.

Money quote(s):

"Once again, in questions posed to candidate Rick Perry, the issue of whether or not President Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen" has surfaced. It strikes me that the birther movement, our conservative answer to the truthers, has gone out of control and has derailed many.

I have said before that to prove that President Obama is not a "natural-born citizen" would require proof that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not a US citizen with eligibility to transmit citizenship, even if, by some hook or crook, it could be proven, as Obama's grandmother claimed,that Barack Obama, Jr. was indeed born in Mombassa, Kenya. Never, to my knowledge, has the birther movement offered statutory or case law proof that "natural-born" means anything other than being born a US citizen by either jus soli or jus sanguinis." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Mrs. Barack H. Obama, Sr. (née Dunham) was a U.S. citizen, which no one (to my necessarily incomplete knowledge) disputes.

However, Uncle Cephas' knowledge of current U.S. nationality law does not take into account what the requirements necessary to transmit U.S. citizenship as the law existed prior to amendment in 1986.

And since Pres. Obama was born some decades prior to 1986, this puts the hypothetical question into a different perspective.

"Wong Kim Ark (the Hoisan Yue pronunciation of Huang Jinde) was born in San Francisco, Chalifornia, to Chinese parents who were not naturalized as US citizens. His return to the US after a youthful visit to China was not questioned, even after passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, due to his birth in the USA. However, in 1895, after returning from another trip to China, he was detained at San Francisco due to the fact that his parents remained subject to the Emperor of China, and were not citizens at the time of Wong's birth in the 1870's. Wong therefore sued for habeas corpus.

His case ultimately reached the US Supreme Court, which, in 1898, ruled in a 6-2 decision that Wong was indeed a US citizen. It was observed that his parents had been involved in commerce rather than official business on behalf of the emperor of China; that they were legally in the USA during the 1870's; they were subject to the jurisdiction of US law (the language of the 14th Amendment); they clearly were not connected to a hostile occupying power in wartime; and that they were clearly not of a recognized Indian tribe (then theoretically their own jurisdictions and separate "nations" rather than officially part of the USA). Wong's citizenship later became the basis for allowing three of his own sons born in China whose relationships could not be questioned to enter the US during the period of Chinese Exclusion (in those days, many Overseas Chinese maintained wives in their ancestral places in China, and only occasionally visited)." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This was a very nice two-paragraph summary of the Ark case, which had an extremely determinative impact on the subsequent interpretation and implementation of U.S. nationality law.

"(T)he USA, as an independent power, had the right to establish its own rules for citizenship."

Yer darn tootin'!

This is something I've had to explain more than once, usually in conversation with those who think that the actions of Pres. Obama's Indonesian step-father, Mr. Soetoro, somehow tainted or obviated the president's standing as a U.S. citizen.

Repeat after me:

Other countries don't get to tell us who our citizens are.

Obama's step-father, no matter what his actions, had no legal right under U.S. law to do anything which would have altered the citizenship status of his American citizen minor child step-son in the slightest sense.

"The Wong case has long been understood to ensure the jus soli citizenship of children of legal immigrants or other foreign parents not in diplomatic or visiting head of state status (the children of foreign students, for example). Indeed, in view of the language of the 14th Amendment, which defines those born in the USA and under the jurisdiction thereof, it is very hard to justify the denial of citizenship to such persons.

The issue of whether the Wong decision allows the US-born children of those illegally in the USA to be counted as citizens has been disputed in legal journals. However, until now, it does not seem that the citizenship of US-born children of illegal immigrants has been challenged either by statute or case law." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

There's a case, at least politically if not judicially, to made that illegal aliens, as unlawful invaders intent on evading U.S. law in most respects (except where it is to their benefit), aren't really under U.S. jurisdiction in a way meaningful enough that their U.S.-born children deserve American citizenship.

(It might fly, or it might not.)

"As for our president, it seems that as the US-born child of a US citizen parent (Stanley Ann Dunham), Barack Obama's citizenship cannot be questioned; and it is unlikely that anyone would be ready to deny citizenship to countless out-of-wedlock children sired by visiting foreigners (tourists, students, etc.) and born to US citizen mothers. Further, given that the requirements for jus sanguinis citizenship to children born abroad to US citizen parents (the citizen parent needs to have been resident in the USA for five years, two of which have to have been over the age of fourteen years) would have guaranteed Obama citizenship even if Stanley Ann Dunham had given birth to him on a trip to Kenya." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

See above.

Under INA Title III "Nationality and Naturalization," Sec. 301g (8 U.S.C. 1401), which applies to persons "born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States" the U.S. parent had to have completed a "required period of United States residence" of ten years, at least five of "which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

The problem with the Dunham/Obama hypothetical is that the former-Miss Dunham was not yet nineteen years old when Pres. Obama was born, so that it's mathematically impossible for her to have resided anywhere for five years after her fourteenth birthday.

10/28

re: "On Being a Good American"

Daniel Foster at The Corner ("The one and only.") considered the significance of U.S. citizenship.

Money quote(s):

"Charlie has an article on the homepage today defending John Sununu, in the abstract at least, on the idea that there is such a thing as being a (good) American, and that this is something one can learn. (Remember, Sununu’s walked-back line was about how he wished President Obama would “learn” how to be an American). Charlie’s point — far more controversial than it ought to be — is that being an American in good standing has to do with more than the conditions of one’s birth or the disposition of one’s naturalization paperwork. There is no Belgian Idea, or Belgian Dream, Charlie writes, but there are American ones, and understanding and internalizing them is constitutive of American-ness." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"(T)he existence and character of the civics test prospective citizens must take proves that being an American has real, normative content. For instance, one of the regular questions on the test asks which economic system the United States enjoys, and the correct answer is “capitalism.” Charlie argues that, surely, this at least strongly implies that capitalism — or at least the principles of limited government that make capitalism the only compatible economic system — is a fundamental part of the American Idea, and that embracing capitalism is thus a fundamental part of being a Good American."

True enough, except that this is one of those "yes, but" instances where the "correct" answer isn't actually as clear-cut and black-and-white as simply answering "capitalism."

Is our economic system based upon capitalism? Yes, but..... we have a mixed economy, and have had since the New Deal (if not before).

"(N)ot only does our oath of citizenship call on us to support the Constitution, it calls on us to defend it. Not only defend it, but defend it with arms. Not only to defend it with arms, but to take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That gives a pretty strong indication that being a Good American requires embracing our founding document — and all the follows from it." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

7/31

re: "Obama Wants Double-Digit Cuts to Intel Budget: No Way, Says House Intel Chairman"

PETER SCHWEIZER at Big Peace highlighted the importance of our intelligence budgets.

Money quote(s):

"James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, reported earlier this month that the Obama deficit-reduction plan "calls for cuts in the double-digit range--with a B--over 10 years." Congressman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, responded today during the 11th Annual C4ISR Journal Conference outside Washington. While arguing that congress must find efficiencies that will cut costs, "I will not allow a cut in mission capability," he told the audience. "We have to save money. We have to get efficient. But I'm not going to nick the bone." He went on: "I am not saying do more with less. I'm saying we...need to do business differently to remain competitive.""

You don't do more with less, you accomplish less with less. Working "smarter" can tighten things up at the margins, but it's not a cure-all.

10/27

re: "Caption Contest!"

The Phibian at Cdr Salamander (" PROACTIVELY “FROM THE SEA”; LEVERAGING THE LITTORAL BEST PRACTICES FOR A PARADIGM BREAKING SIX-SIGMA BEST BUSINESS CASE TO SYNERGIZE A CONSISTENT DESIGN IN THE GLOBAL COMMONS, RIGHTSIZING THE CORE VALUES SUPPORTING OUR MISSION STATEMENT VIA THE 5-VECTOR MODEL THROUGH CULTURAL DIVERSITY.") was not inclined to unnecessary panic.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he politicians have structured the budget such that the area easiest to cut to any degree is DoD. They are cutting DoD because it is easy and they can say they are doing something. They are not serious about debt reduction though – if they were you would see cuts everywhere; and you won’t. Additionally, no one is going to surround a Congressman’s car and pound on his hood, or march on Washington (pun intended) because the budget for the military is being cut."

&

"This is political in two ways; it feeds the blood-lust of the President’s supporters on the Left to punish the military by taking away money (though there is blowback already for not being enough), and it gives him talking points to the right about being concerned about the budget. There is no downside here for the President – especially as if you read the document there is a lot there that is good. Just watch the money." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"The Commander in Chief comes from the far-Left of the Democrat Party. If you need more help understanding what he is doing at Defense, review “Scorpion and Frog.” He has a long and clear record of opposing both the conduct and the ability of the USA to conduct extended ground combat overseas. He has a long record of wanting a much smaller military, he is just being consistent; elections have consequences. I do not subscribe to the line of thought that this is done with malice. The President just sees things differently than some when it comes to the place of the military in the American project. It is not an unusual perspective, it has a lineage that goes back to the founding of this nation."

&

"We have left the field in IRQ and soon will in AFG. A draw-down of land forces, like we saw a build-up when combat expanded, is natural.

What about his strategy? Well, you can read it here.

The actual bucket-o-money that goes to DoD will be determined by Congress, so we will just have to watch things as they develop. What is important is the Direction & Guidance that comes from the Commander in Chief. From that you will see planning revised and priorities set, as it should be."

&

"WWII and the Cold War are both over. Keep a few Combined training and logistics bases with our NATO allies and come home; lock, stock, and barrel."

What he said.

1/7

re: "State Spreads Obama Book Plague Worldwide"

Jack Cashill at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") noted a State Department procurement.

Money quote(s):

"(W)e learn that out State Department will be spending $70,000 we don't have to stock "key libraries" around the world with copies of Barack Obama's books, most notably his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.

There are problems with this scenario beyond the fact that we will have to borrow the money from the People's Republic to pay for them. For one, Obama gets a cut out of that action. This has to violate some law, if not lots of them."

Not being an attorney, CAA can't comment on the legality of the thing.

CAA would note having seen, as the Washington Times article described, copies of one or another of the president's books being given as gratuities (i.e., gifts).

That sort of thing makes me cringe at least as much as hearing otherwise sober and thoughtful diplomats blather on about global warming, &tc.

10/26

re: "Shadow of the Past"

Richard Fernandez (the blogger-formerly-known-as-Wretchard) at Belmont Club connected Andrew Breitbart's last video with a narrative undercurrent.

Money quote(s):

"The period concerned is not just Barack Obama’s college days, but more generically what happened after 1968. That’s what Breitbart really seems to want to talk about, what he means when talks about “vetting”.

In that period, if we’re to believe people like David Horowitz, a prominent radical from the New Left, what called itself the Peace Movement was actually a totalitarian conspiracy with possible links to foreign intelligence agencies, which eventually set out to control the Democratic Party, if it has not already."

Silly conspiracy theory, right?

("The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.")

"(I)t’s the stuff of conspiracy theories all right, equal in scope if not greater than those of the Kennedy assassination, which argue that to truly understand things one has to go back to 1968 and what followed. Because that’s when it all began.

What began, you might ask? Well it. And the indication of its subterranean existence is the narrative. One measure of how famous narrative has become, even when it does not supposedly exist is when it becomes a staple of detective fiction."

Wretchard proceeded to reference Stephen Hunter's latest Bobby Lee Swagger novel, I, Sniper, with some juicy popular culture.

His conclusion included the following:

"The narrative is all powerful. And to understand where the narrative comes from, Hunter argued one needed to go back to 1968 and follow the links to that era, the Silver Pony Tails and their Soviet contacts. In some sense, Breitbart was claiming in his last video that here was a rock that was at least worth looking under."

3/3

re: "Obama's Misplaced Mideast Optimism"

Daniel Pipes at danielpipes.org (" Opine briefly on diverse topics ") provided some thinkery on likely fallout from the Arab Spring.

10/25

re: "The Rebirth of Birthers?"

William Sullivan at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") considered this news from Arizona.

Money quote(s):

"Two years, three months, and seven days after his inauguration, Barack Obama finally offered evidence to prove his eligibility for the presidency. On the White House website, officials posted an electronic document purported to be a scan of Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. It was a grand "I told you so" moment for the media and the left, which had worked feverishly to marginalize "birthers" as the radical counterpart of the zany "truther."

Of course, there was never really any parity. Truthers constructed silly conspiracy theories about George W. Bush being an international super-criminal that orchestrated impossibly complex measures to frame al-Qaeda on 9/11. Birthers, on the other hand, merely demanded that the president, who is required by the Constitution to be a natural born American citizen, show proof of his eligibility. And in reality, that is an entirely reasonable expectation, albeit unprecedented." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, at the behest of a petition presented by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party organization, organized a "cold case posse" and completed a six-month examination of the released birth certificate in order to determine its authenticity. The results are in, Joe says, and they point to the document being a fake."

&

"Lord Christopher Monckton, who has experience investigating high-level fraud as a policy adviser under Margaret Thatcher, has given the claim added veracity.

According to World Net Daily, Monckton said that "it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar's stamp were superimposed on it from another document." If there were a single, original document to verify the president's Hawaiian birth, why "go to all that trouble, he reasoned."

Monckton's conclusion? "My assessment is that they are right to be worried... That document is not genuine." "

CAA's expertise, however limited, in estimating the genuine-ness of vital documents such as birth certificates and travel documents (i.e., passports and visas) does not extend to digital photographs of said documents.

"Anyone calling Obama's birth certificate into question will have to entertain the notion that perhaps the forgery was made because the president does not have legal proof of his American birth. And anyone carrying that message will have the stink of "right-wing birther" on him, and he will be swiftly devoured by the attack dogs in the media and marginalized. So in a way, I don't blame conservative lawmakers and pundits for treading lightly around the issue."

&

"Reasonably, it should never have been incumbent upon Americans to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but rather it should have always been incumbent upon Obama to prove to the American people, verifiably and indisputably, that he was born in the United States."

Anyone with actual proof of someone having committed passport or citizenship fraud should get in touch with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Criminal Investigative Division.

4/6

re: "The Radical President's Radical Plans for the Pentagon"

Hugh Hewitt at Hewitt Blog ("Join the Hughniverse") blasted backdoor plans to hollow-out the military and navy.

Money quote(s):

"President Obama's plan to slash the size of the American military by at least 10% is dangerous and covered in a deceitful "strategic reassessment," which is a crude attempt to deflect attention from the bottom line of a much shrunken American military.

There is a fiscal crisis, but it isn't because of defense spending but because of entitlements which the president will not discuss in detail much less reform. Dramatic cuts in the number of soldiers, sailors and Marines are a substitute for the hard work of shrinking the payout state and cutting off the president's favored constituents. "

&

"The failure of the Supercommittee and the train wreck of the debt ceiling showdown this past summer has left the House GOP divided and its freshman caucus demoralized and apparently defeated. But the House GOP simply has to rally to save the Pentagon from the president's wildly irresponsible plans."

&

"A Harry Reid-led Senate so dysfunctional that cannot even pass a budget in three years ought not to be in charge of the nation's defenses and ought not to be allowed to cooperate in the gutting of the American military.

"Fund the Marine Corps not NPR" should be the theme of a growing pro-defense movement. The Ron Paul-led isolationist slice of the country has seen it voice amplified by the GOP debates, but the Iowa caucus showed again that it is a tiny, tiny part of the GOP and should be pushed aside by the traditional demand of Republicans for a strong and vibrant military defined by a 300 plus-ship Navy and the modern era doctrine of the ability to successfully fight two wars at the same time."

Fast forward to today, with just a few months before sequestration will take effect. All of which was completely predictable back when this can was kicked down the road to today.

"The reporters at the Pentagon didn't even go out and ask what it would mean to, say, the Marines to lose 10 to 15% of their troops, taking the Army from 570,000 to 520,000 and possibly as low as 490,000 and the Marines from 200,000 to at or below 180,000. To say, as the Washington Post did, that "new military strategy, contained in an eight-page document, will guide wrenching decisions on defense cutbacks," isn't reporting."

Well, they're journalists now, not reporters.

(Do try and keep up.)

1/6

re: "Shadow of the Past"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club reminded us where the "Democratic" left actually came from.

Money quote(s):

"Breitbart’s video, recorded shortly before his death, is literally a voice from the beyond the grave about the past. The period concerned is not just Barack Obama’s college days, but more generically what happened after 1968. That’s what Breitbart really seems to want to talk about, what he means when talks about “vetting”.

In that period, if we’re to believe people like David Horowitz, a prominent radical from the New Left, what called itself the Peace Movement was actually a totalitarian conspiracy with possible links to foreign intelligence agencies, which eventually set out to control the Democratic Party, if it has not already."

Pres. Obama was in barely in elementary school in 1968; whether that was in Hawaii or Indonesia or on Triton (Neptune's seventh, and largest, moon) is irrelevent to this discussion.

"Well we all ‘know’, or so we read, that David Horowitz is just a looney old renegade who’s got an axe to grind against his old pals. None of that directly argues what he’s saying isn’t true."

Given the historical truths about things like McCarthyism (he was right), Alger Hiss (guilty), the Rosenbergs (guilty), &tc., allegations about HOIS sponsorship in the "Peace Movement" aren't exactly made of moonbeams and spidersilk.

"(I)t’s the stuff of conspiracy theories all right, equal in scope if not greater than those of the Kennedy assassination, which argue that to truly understand things one has to go back to 1968 and what followed. Because that’s when it all began."

3/3

re: "Losing a war and a peace"

UNCLE JIMBO at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") explained some quite simple concepts.

Money quote(s):

"We are making a deal with the Taliban, a losing one. Our Commander in Chief fundamentally misunderstands the way wars must be fought, and I am not talking about strategy or tactics. I am talking about winning or losing."

There is, for those who haven't been following along at home, quite a difference between the two, and the consequences will echo into eternity.

He goes on to admonish the president:

"You can't end wars Mr. President; They are won or lost. Afghanistan has been lost."

In all fairness, he also notes:

"I am not certain at all that the war in Afghanistan could have been won."

Not as it's been fought; it seems reasonable to question whether the proper action in Afghanistan should have been simply a punitive expedition to schwack a sufficient number of alligators, rather than attempting to drain, and subsequently gentrify, the swamp.

"We will now cede the field of battle, where so much US blood has been shed, to the enemy. And we will sue for something less than peace from the very people who hosted the planning and execution of 9/11."

I suppose the inevitable question, should this proceed as it appears envisioned, is how long before Taliban-sponsored and sheltered embark on their offensive against the U.S.

That and how much money we will pay in tribute, er, development assistance during the interim.

"It has been a long decade of war and we are all tired, none more so than the troops who have marched to the sound of gunfire over and over again. They, with the steadfast support of a real Commander in Chief George W. Bush, won the war in Iraq."

1/5

re: "Obama's Gift To Cameron: Wood Burning Grill"

DMartyr at The Jawa Report ("Sand people: Get it?") noted another deliverable from somebody's protocol shop.

Money quote(s):

"Its actually a pretty nice gift, if you ask me. It's American made, grilling is an American past time, and it commemorates a service for our Troops. I'm actually impressed with the thought that went into the gift."

Concur. Much improved over previous efforts.


3/14

re: "The United States should breathe new life into the Atlantic community"

Joerg Wolf at the Atlantic Review ("A Press Digest for Transatlantic Affairs") commented on an essay by Prof. Charles Kupchan of Georgetown U.


Money quote(s):


"Europe welcomed the election of President Obama. America is much more popular than before, but European policies have not changed that much. The US is not getting that much more support from Europe. When Obama surged in Afghanistan for instance, Europe has also increased troops, but not at a level to justify the term "surge". I think Democrats had illusions regarding support from Europe before Obama's election, but now they don't have them anymore."


Nothing to add to that.


"I thought the term "progressives" referred to only the very left wing of the Democrats, but this seems to have changed as Kupchan seems to adress the party mainstream."


I laugh every time I read that sentence. The former parts of the Democratic Party which are not "progressives" (i.e., what used to be "the very left wing") are primarily two: the so-called "Reagan Democrats," many of whom are still members of the party, but not comprising many of its party or elected officialdom; and those known as neo-conservatives. That is, once the party moved too far left, they found themselves to be conservatives-by-default.


The "progressives" are like Europe's 68-ers, except that since the Soviet Union was safely and so far away they never had to grow up.


"(I)t seems to me that Kupchan is trying to convince the Democrats that Europe and NATO are important, while acknowledging that conservatives already recognize this."


Just so.



1/2

re: "Total BS: "These young people should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes." "

Fred Fry at Fred Fry International ("Citizen Journalist and Observer of Human Nature") had all kinds of criticism for amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"This week we had President Obama act to give illegal aliens amnesty and work permits. Their excuse is that they want to concentrate on deporting violent criminals. My first problem is that The Government is not following through in it's obligation to enforce the law. My second problem with this is that they even intend to permit criminals to stay, as long as they are not 'violent'. And given the way that these people lie, I am afraid to find out what their definition of 'violent' is. We already know that they like keeping illegal aliens who drive drunk around, at least until they kill someone. And where do they think these violent criminals come from? They are criminals first, and before they were criminals, they were merely an illegal alien." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

In consular work, we implement the law as it's written, not the way we'd necessarily have written it ourselves. That is to say, we've sworn an oath of office and carry it out to the best of our abilities.

"(A) more accurate statement would be that 'these young people should not be punished for their parents’ crimes.' Their intention is to simply reward all of them, even the criminals, other than a couple token violent criminals which they will use as evidence of being tough on crime. That too is a joke, as we should be putting them in jail, instead of sending them back home to cause havoc there."

There are numerous opportunities for waivers that are already built into our immigration law. Congress wrote them. Various presidents signed them into law. If we need more, then amend the law. That's how America rolls.

CAA is not unsympathetic to people who want a better life by coming to America. But we have our own laws on the subject, just as the countries our immigrants want to leave have their own laws.

"It is reported that not only will many illegal aliens be permitted to stay, but they will also be given work permits to compete for jobs against millions of Americans already out of work. The NY times story mentions that there are about 300,000 currently facing deportation proceedings that will be effected, but I suspect that that list will grow once illegal aliens figure out the best way to get in line to see a judge, to be excused from deportation and handed a work permit for a gift. After all, when you reward something, you get more of it."

8/20

re: "Bayes and Nice People"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club ("My main interests are in software, history and information.") remarked on some intellectuals recanting their views.

Money quote(s):

"Peretz, Brooks, and Noonan are intelligent, well-educated people. Nobody has seriously suggested they are either perverse or evil. Now they see the truth. But once upon a time they didn’t have a clue. So the disturbing question is: how did they get it wrong? Setting aside for a moment the fact that someone slipped past, the most pressing problem is to determine why the system failed."

At least two of the three are, nominally, considered conservative. Noonan's really the only one of the three I'm fairly certain about.

"(G)iven his near absolute lack of a substantial track record, it was natural for Peretz, Brooks, and Noonan to be taken for a ride. Not because they were dumb, but because they were “quality” people.

Now the quality people can see certain kinds of truth, because they are familiar with the sort of data that now alarms them. Now that they can observe the betrayal of Israel, the lunacy of Obamanomics, and the erratic management, the full magnitude of their error becomes apparent. But they didn’t see it at the outset; lurking on the edge of his expression as he campaigned, nor in the little niggling inconsistencies the media was determined to ignore. Now the problems are as big as life: upheaval in the Middle East, the bankruptcy of the country, the scandals of the administration."

&

"But there’s one last thing that nice people don’t know. It is that hucksters aren’t confined by the same boundaries they assume everyone else is contained by. They are capable not only of sucker-punching you, but of exceeding limits you never thought could be transgressed. Grifters are in some sense not part of the same civilization that Peretz, Brooks, and Noonan inhabit."

That's the scary part.

9/20

re: "Obama and Foreign Policy: Just Kidding"

Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret examined the foreign affairs portfolio as the final year of presidential campaigning begins.

Money quote(s):

"The hard-left are unhappy because Obama has failed to close Gitmo, has not withdrawn fully from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has expanded George Bush’s excellent policy of assassinating jihadists by drone. The left, in a hissy fit, might stay home in November."

Fortunately (from their perspective), there are plenty of hot-button Leftist red-herrings, er, domestic issues that can be interjected into the campaign in an effort to a.) energize the Democratic base; and b.) attempt to split the Republican's various constituencies.

"Europe, a collection of welfare states, is melting; the Arab Spring is an Arab Winter; and China is building a such a formidable military machine that our Joint Chiefs are waking up in a cold sweat at four in the morning.

And of course Israel is being squeezed by the genocidal yearning Persians, the genocidal yearning Palestinians, and the Turks who have lots of experience with genocide having murdered 1 million Armenians in 1915.

(The Armenians are still waiting for the Turks to admit their guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. Good luck with that.)

American power and influence in the Middle East is negligible. Witness the Palestinian’s defiance of US policy in favor of the UN’s poisonous embrace." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

None of these items has improved particularly since being written.

9/20

re: "Who's Afraid of Cain?"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") made some predictions and observations that have stood the test of a few months time.

Money quote(s):

"The reason for the increasing shrillness of the attacks is desperation: the liberal establishment has concluded that Obama is vulnerable, possibly even doomed, and of the Republican candidates only Romney appears to be someone they can work with, someone who can grow in office, who will reach across the aisle to continue liberal programs.

Note that Romney has nothing to do with the attacks on Cain. He’s just the guy the media consider to be the lesser of a number of evils. They can work with him."

Dr. Pournelle follows this observation with a reasonable man's analysis of the "charges" then being leveled against then-candidate Cain.

"Newt will be next. Then anyone else who isn’t Romney. The attack machine will be silent on Romney until he is the nominee. Then it will begin again, but it will be a different attack."

11/9

re: "Threatening Military Pay Emboldens Adversaries and Destroys Morale…Way to Go, Obama!"

Michael Angley at Big Peace had strong things to say about leadership in high places.

Money quote(s):

"(P)ronouncements (or lack of reassurances) not only demonstrate cowardice and an absence of leadership, they may suggest to a potential enemy that we are not going to fund a strong military, a situation fraught with dangerous potential. The mere fact that Obama failed to assure the military that it would get paid is a despicable action by a Commander-in-Chief, one that has already fostered low morale among the troops. This damage cannot be undone, and no matter what happens with paychecks, the fact that Obama did not prioritize troop pay will not be forgotten."

Never let a crisis go to waste; never let an opportunity to let something turn into a crisis slip by unexploited.

"Real leaders rise above petty party politics and reassure the American people that their lives will not be disrupted as the machine of government grinds its gears and debates heavy issues like the debt ceiling. Real leaders take care of seniors, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and veterans. Real leaders signal to our adversaries that no matter what political issues simmer on the domestic front, that we are a United States of America and we will always have a military force with high morale and esprit de corps ready and capable of destroying any threat we face." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

7/19

re: "The mysterious source: who’s most afraid of Cain?"

Neo-neocon ("slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon") speculated on the man (or woman) behind the curtain.

Money quote(s):

"Most of the speculation on the sources’ identities has so far centered on Cain’s Republican opponents. That makes a great deal of sense because they’re the ones who are seemingly most threatened by Cain. Cain himself appears to think one of them bears the blame; he’s been shooting from the hip and accusing Perry consultant Kurt Anderson of being the culprit, although he’s walked back a bit from that charge in recent days.

Or Cain may have other antagonists, perhaps even personal rather than political ones, who possessed the lawsuit information and would like to see him brought him down. As in a detective novel, there’s probably a plethora of possibilities there; a powerful and successful man is likely to make quite a few enemies."

This is likely something that won't be known with any certainty for years, if ever. Still, the Chicago-centric nature of some of the accusers and accusations suggests.....

"One possible source that’s hardly been pointed to is Obama or someone in his camp. But why would Obama bother at this point? In fact, Cain might be a weaker opponent than some of the others, and Obama might even welcome a Cain candidacy.

Then again, perhaps Obama fears it for special reasons of his own. If so, it could be the result of what I’d call the Bobby Rush phenomenon. You may recall that Rush was Obama’s opponent in the 2000 Democratic Congressional primary, and the only person in political life who has (so far) ever gotten the better of Obama.

Rush is a black man of roughly the same age as Cain, although the former is an extreme liberal and the latter a conservative."

Who benefits?

Newt Gingrich benefited most immediately, surging to viability from far back in the Republican pack, but that surge is already tapering off and candidates Romney, Perry, and even Ron Paul are looking viable just before the Iowa presidential caucus. Longer term, obviously the incumbent stands to benefit. Read the whole post.

11/5

re: "Proscriptions"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("This is my personal journal and day book. Subjects include civilization and technology, strategy, climate, energy policy, space access, and other issues that interest me.") exhibits one of the qualities of good citizens; asking good and just questions about what our government does in their name.

Money quote(s):

"the justification for the missile attacks on two American citizens in Yemen is that this was an act of war against those who have publicly declared themselves to be enemies of the United States. They considered themselves at war with us, and we with them. This is war.

We can accept this, but questions remain.

First, this wasn’t an act of war against someone engaged in actions against the United States. At the time they were travelling from one town to another, and whether they were armed or not is not relevant. It was a missile strike without warning on specific and named individuals, and one presumes there is a list of others who merit the same deadly attention, all of them persons who are at war with the United States. Let us assume all those persons on that list deserve to be there; that they have in fact engaged in war against the United States, and hitting them with missiles, or a sniper’s bullet, is no more than they deserve.

Questions still remain.

The first question is, how do you get on that list? It surely isn’t automatic. Just because the press reports that you have publicly declared yourself an enemy of the United States doesn’t necessarily make it true. Newspapers have been known to get such things wrong. But assuming that we have good intelligence reports, how do you get on the list? Is this a power that lies with the President alone, or must he have the acquiescence of someone else? Who? We are well beyond the law or the constitution here. We have to presume that this is a war power and resides in the President and that he can delegate that power.

To whom is he responsible, and how must he convey this command?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Good questions, all of them.

The U.S. is, at long last, at least somewhat at war with those who've been waging war with us for decades. That war is not, as sometimes happens, limited to distinct and discrete geographical theaters of war or campaigns or areas of operations but is, instead, waged globally and multi-dimensionally.

Still, for all that, to deliberately select and eliminate, whether by drone-launched missile or poison blow-dart, a particular person (regardless of their citizenship or nationality) begs the question of targeteering.

"Another question: if either of these American citizens had returned to the United States and come to Kennedy International where they presented their US passports at the entry booth, could they have been arrested? On what charge? Were there outstanding warrants? In the case of Samir Khan it is not clear what he could be charged with. He ran a blog, an Internet magazine – I do not know of any other involvement other than that he associated with Al Awaki who associated on line with Major Hassan. Perhaps either or both could be charged with conspiracy and with levying war against the US, but I don’t think that has been done. So: we establish that they could be killed out of hand while travelling from one place to another, neither carrying arms or engaged in any act of war, while in a foreign country: but could they have been shot down by a US Marshall while still in the part of the airport that is not yet in the United States? On international territory? Or after they stepped into the United States?

They can be killed but not arrested: it would take convening a grand jury or a warrant from a magistrate before they could be arrested at Kennedy?

I do not here seek to make life difficult for our military; but I do seek to ask questions. If American citizens can be put on a proscription list and those on that list can be killed on sight by launching high explosives as them, is it proper to ask the procedures required to get on that list?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

We do not, at present (nor since 1865 or thereabouts) routinely have U.S. military or law enforcement personnel execute "shoot on sight" orders against American citizens within our own borders.

(Historians of the Indian Wars may care to dispute the definitions implicit in that statement.)

So the idea that had either Triple-A or Mr. Khan appeared at an international air terminal (or other port of entry) they would be engaged with lethal force strikes us (and should) as quite alien. But as it is necessary to consider the eventual consequences of what Dr. Pournelle terms (with historical accuracy) as a "proscription list." It is further necessary to understand how such a thing functions.

"Perhaps the questions are frivolous? Perhaps as one reader says “It’s war and all’s fair in love and war.” Of course that statement is not true. And I do not seek to condemn Mr. Obama for ordering the strike. I do question whether we have sufficiently thought this through. Surely before American citizens can be put on a proscription list there must be some conditions: an act of war, a determination by the President, and surely there needs to be a declaration of war. We assume that the War on Terror establishes a state of war (although I believe Mr. Obama rejected that during the campaign; perhaps he has changed his mind, as he has changed his mind regarding Guantanamo, and trials of the inmates of Guantanamo by military tribunals (note that here there is to be a trial: the President does not seem to assert the right simply to order the execution of those held in Guantanamo without those military tribunals). Would it be good to write down the procedures for establishing the proscription list?

Well, enough. Had Mr. Clinton acted positively when Delta had Bin Laden in their sights, it might be that 911 would not have happened. Mr. Obama did not shirk the responsibility. We give him credit for that. But I do think it is worth discussing how we regularize the procedure for getting on the proscription list, and specify how one might appeal to get off it – perhaps by coming home to the United States and engaging a lawyer?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

10/3