My 10 Questions on Benghazi

Here are my 10 questions on the Benghazi situation (scandal?):

1. Let' back up a bit. Did Libya attack the USA, and I missed it? (We were told that George Bush was wrong to take military action in Iraq – a country that had not attacked us. What justified Obama / Clinton taking military action to assist in the killing of a foreign leader in Libya? A potential massacre in Benghazi? Saddam Hussein routinely killed 100,000 of his own people every year through starvation and torture, but we were wrong to stop it there and required to stop it in Benghazi?

2. Did Libya attack NATO, and I missed it? (President Obama / Hillary Clinton / Susan Rice took military action in Libya at the behest of NATO and the Arab League, and without the consent of the US Congress – which they did not seek. Was the NATO treaty obligation triggered by an attack by Libya on a NATO signatory country and I missed it? We had no national interests in Libya. Why did we go there?)

3. Who were the “rebels” that Team Obama armed for their mission to kill Khadafi?  (President Obama signed an Executive Order authorizing the arming of “rebels” in Libya. Who were the rebels? What affiliations did they have with al-Qaida linked groups or other radical Islamist groups? What efforts were made to determine the affiliations or agendas of the “rebels”? )

4. Were any of the weapons provided by the US to the “rebels” then used in the deadly attack on our Consulate? Where did the mortars used to kill Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods originate?

5. What national interests justifies a US Consulate in Benghazi, one of the most dangerous parts of the world in the expansive and explosive “Arab Spring” movement, and were we conducting covert and nefarious business from that Consulate? ( Right before the organized terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, the US Ambassador to Libya had dinner with the Turkish ambassador. What was the purpose of that meeting? Is there fact to the rumor that we are currently running guns through Turkey to take down the next government leader – Assad of Syria?)

6. Who is responsible for the complete lack of security for a US Ambassador in a most dangerous part of the world. Embassy security is the responsibility of the Secretary of State – who signed ROE orders for that region limiting security, and who outsourced the security to a British firm who contracted Libyans who ran away? (unofficial WH advisor Valerie Jarrett had round the clock secret service protection on 9/11. Ambassador Stevens had nothing, and was savagely murdered by terrorists on Clinton’s watch.)

7. Why hasn’t Secretary Clinton, or anyone on her staff, been fired or resigned for the complete dereliction of duty that resulted in the death of a US Ambassador and 3 others and the black flag of al-Qaida raised over US embassies on an anniversary of 9/11? What does it take to get fired in this corrupt Chicago-machine style administration? What outrage is too much?

8. Why was there a separate CIA station operating one mile from the consulate? What nefarious business are they up to? Gun-running? Gun retrieving? Terrorist detention? What?

9. Why did President Obama send his UN Ambassador Susan Rice – a full Cabinet member on his staff – on five Sunday shows 5 days after a terrorist attack killed our US Ambassador to LIE to the American people and say that there was “no evidence” that this was a terrorist attack but it was instead a reaction to the YouTube video? (Clearly, evidence that al-Qaida affiliates were alive and well and capable of killing our Ambassador on an anniversary of 9/11 ran contrary to the Obama campaign narrative that al-Qaida had been decimated and had to be denied until “AE” – after the election. Team Obama clearly knew real-time that this was a terrorist attack. They had qualified eyes on the ground lasering mortar positions and drones watching the 7-hour attack at two locations.) This week President Obama was outraged in his press conference that Rice would be criticized, when she had "nothing to do with Benghazi". Then why send her on 5 Sunday shows to answer the media?

10. Was CIA chief Gen. David Patraeus blackmailed by the White House to lie to Congress during his original testimony to support the YouTube video story? Of course he was. He has now amended his testimony to say that he knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours. Conveniently, after the election but before he was to testify again to Congress Obama’s DOJ took Patraeus down with a sex scandal. Convenient.

Bonus question to my Democrat friends: why do you accept the administration's obvious and pervasive lies on Benghazi at face value?

The Benghazi story is not going to go away. I know some of you thought this was about the election. It was, but only on Team Obama's part. We're still asking the questions.

 

 

The

So Far Gone

Congressman (and erstwhile Presidential candidate) Ron Paul offered a stirring speech on the floor of the House on the event of his retirement after 12 terms this week. It said, in part:

"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things."

 

Indeed. We are far gone, from fiscal responsibility and from liberty in the era of ever-expanding government, and it was a problem for the GOP in this last election.

 

I have said this for a long time now, but:

 

- You can't be 39 years and 53 million abortions down the road from Roe v. Wade and expect to make an argument on the morality of abortion. There are too many people - patients and spouses/partners/families - invested in the decision to have an abortion. They do not want to be told it was unwise, immoral, or problematic legally.

 

- You can't be $16 Trillion in total debt and $1.5 Trillion in annual deficit - numbers so gigantic as to defy practical and tangible understanding or concern - and make a case for fiscal responsibility and austerity.

 

- You can't be 15 million illegal aliens into an invasion of your border - generationally so - and make a case for border security. People don't want to be told that they - or their constituency base - have acted illegally and are a burden on our country.

 

People want rights, not responsibilities. People want to do illegal things and not be called on it. People want stuff, debt be damned. And Americans want abortions. Lots and lots of abortions.

 

So, the GOP has a choice. Do we stand on fundamental conservative principles or do we cave in to electoral realities?

 

Why cave? We already have a party that panders on those essentials. Why do we need two parties to do so?

 

Run a real conservative next time. Make the case anyway. That's my take.

It is Going to Be a Long Four Years

I am still bummed out from Tuesday night's election results. So much so that my coworkers nicknamed me "suicide watch" on Wednesday at work. Ouch, what a beating. So, what happened to the election?

You can read a lot of election post-mortems on the web. Pick a version: conservative sour grapes or liberal gloating. I personally like Paul Kengor's take on the strategies and Nick Nolte's mea culpa on the polling data.

Please indulge me my simple musings on what happened on this quadrennial first Tuesday in November wrestling match.

First, about the results:

I was wrong, and my frient J. David Van Dyke was completely and utterly right. There, I said it. Dave and I have had a bet on this election for at least a year, with the payoff being admission of rightness of the other plus some version of humiliation at EbertFest 2013. I have paid off half, and hope to pay off the rest in April in Champaign-Urbana. Dave made the case daily that it was a simple case of "the math" of the electoral college votes (EV). He predicted the states that Obama would win, which add to more than 270 and a win, and that's that. The popular vote is interesting, but not determinative - which is of course right.

The kicker here is that "the math" is variable depending on the turnout model used. Democrats (and Dem/media polls) were all in that the turnout would mirror the 2008 election and be D +6 or better. Republicans (and conservative media) were all in that 2008 was a historic anomaly, and that turnout would revert to the 2004 model of D +3 or less, which would yield a Romney win. I believed the latter, and believed that Democrats would not turn out in the same numbers that they did in 2008 - which I think is right - because their Hope candidate now had a record to defend. I also believed that Republican intensity - our shared disgust for the President's agenda - would be high, higher than in 2008, and that the D +3 or less was right. This was wrong. The GOP intensity turnout did not materialize. The result was that the ratio stayed the same as the 2008 model and the D +6 model was right. Exactly as Team Obama and the Mainstream Media (MSM) polls called it. Not at all as Team Romney and the conservative media polls called it. Dang. Dave was completely right.

Note: Looking back, I had to disregard a lot of fundamentals to stick with my prediction. Fundamentals, like the history that says incumbents almost always win. (I was swayed by Michael Medved's case that it wasn't so this time.) Indicators, like the jarring fact that 5 out of 7 of my management-type coworkers were voting for Obama when I thought they would be natural GOP voters. ("Nothing will change, so why make a change?" Wow.) I noted those things, but stayed with my pick and my confidence that the polls were oversampling Dems. At the very end, Michael Barone's call kept me in my position. I was wrong. The polls that I thought were the worst (PPP) were in fact the best. The polls that I thought were the best (Rasmussen) were in fact the worst. Dang. Lesson learned.

As of today, with the votes not all completely counted, the popular vote came out around 50% to 48%, in Obama's favor. A 2% win, much lower than his percentage win over McCain in 2008. Isn't 2% within the margin of error for polling? And Democrats - before you gloat much - shouldn't an incumbent who you regard as the best president ever with a great record win by a bigger margin than 2%? Just asking.

But if you win by 2% or better in 8 out of 9 battleground states, as Team Obama did, you get the landslide 303 EV win that was Tuesday night's result. Decisive, and inarguable. A big win. Congratulations to my Democrat friends. You were right. (Have I said that enough yet? :) )

Second, on a Dozen Factors leading to the result, in my humble opinion, in no particular order:

1. The Gift from John Roberts: I thought back in June that the election was over when Chief Justice John Roberts changed his vote and upheld ObamaCare with his tortured logic that it was a tax, not a mandate. What? Backstabber. This went a long way to take away the GOP argument that it needed to be repealed.

2. GOTV: Team Obama was much more effective in spending their war chest to Get Out the Vote than was Team Romney. They delivered the 2008 model. Kudos to David Axelrod, the evil genius.

3. Culture Change: Andrew Breitbart was right - politics is downstream from culture. We (the right) have lost the culture, and the election as the natural consequence. We've had the culture war, and the 1960's won. Dennis Miller said it for me, resigned to the results on O'Reilly: "This is where America is at. It's not the America I grew up in from 12 to 58, nor will it ever be again." Culture was the number one word that I saw on conservative Twitter on Wednesday. I am now an anomaly in my own country. I accept that.

4. Demographics: In the end, it wasn't about Ohio as everyone said. It was about a demographic shift that was not just an anomaly in 2008. It's the future. Pat Buchanan has been warning about that for a long time, and one day the wolf comes. This election was about the Latino and Asian votes, both of which went 71% or so for Obama. Much will be said now about GOP outreach - or lack thereof - to those two influential voting blocs.

5. Low information voters: I know that the gloating meme is that conservatives are the low information voters trapped in the conservative media bubble. It's not true. I read both. Folks on the left never read Drudge, Breitbart, TownHall etc. I was frustrated daily by Obama voters who watched not one minute of either convention or one second of any debate yet were quite certain that they knew how they went - and that "binders full of women" must be something really awful - because Yahoo News told them so. One friend is "proudly uninformed" and told me "There are more of me than there are informed voters like you." Sadly, true.

6. A bruising primary: Romney raised and spent more money, but had to spend a lot of it in a bruising primary defeating one conservative challenger after another. Obama was able to spend his smaller warchest immediately on the general election. That matters.

7. What conservative?: GOP primaries predictably produce the wrong candidate through a process where the group of conservatives SPLIT THE VOTE! and the one liberal emerges as the nominee. McCain in 2008. Romney - a NorthEast liberal who did ObamaCare before Obama - in 2012. Don't blame me. I voted Santorum in the primary.

Ann Coulter used to say that if you offer a choice between a liberal-lite and a real liberal America will choose the real liberal every time. She was right then. But she went all in for Romney in the primaries this time. Go figure.

8. Media Partners: More so than any election that I've participated in since 1980, the MSM went over the line in activism this time. They didn't just call the race, they shaped the race. They did so by tanking stories unfavorable to Obama (ex: Benghazi) and by overplaying stories unfavorable to Romney (ex: dog on the car roof, statement 9/11). Blatant bias. Influential bias.

9. the Nice Guys: Team Romney made the same crucial mistake that McCain made - at the instruction of their "expert consultants". That would be a decision not to go after Obama personally. They foolishly believed that the bad economy was enough for voters to make a change. They played it safe. They sat on their lead from the first debate. They stuck to a civil / positive message of "Obama is a nice guy, but we're more competent". Maddeningly foolish.

Team Obama - staffed by long-term players in the corrupt hardball Chicago Machine - had no such compunctions about civility. They spent their $400M ad buy savaging Romney in a nasty divisive personal attacks. He's a liar. He's a tax cheat and a felon. He'll put you back in chains and take away your birth control. He killed a guy's wife with cancer. It's all crap, but all cumulatively devastating and effective.

10. Santa Claus: People do not want austerity and cuts. They want stuff from their government. Obama had the checkbook to give it to them. Obamaphones. Auto bailouts. Amnesty and work permits. On and on and on, debt be damned. Rush is right: you can't beat Santa Claus.

11. "Osama bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive." This was brilliant. The most memorable slogan from the campaign. It's true as far as it goes, but misleading. bin Laden is dead, but al-Qaida is alive and well and dangerous in the Arab Winter. Obama didn't save GM, he saved the UAW pension fund. GM will go bankrupt again at a huge taxpayer loss. But, man, that slogan is brilliant.

12. The Courageous choice of Paul Ryan as VP. Marco Rubio would have been the wise crassly-political choice to court the Florida vote and the Hispanic vote. That might have made the difference. Romney made a non-political grown-up choice instead, knowing that the economy was the crucial issue if he was to govern and that Ryan was the capable man on the economy. Rubio is not ready. He will be in 2016 though, so there's that.

Last, on the future of elections: I deserve no predictions on this. I was so wrong this time.

But, if I was to predict the future of elections I would say this: this loss was pivotal and total. The GOP is done. The Tea Party is done. We are now in the zone similar to my state of Illinois. Sure there are some GOP officeholders around. But, they are irrelevant. We are effectively a one-party Democrat state. (Related: the 2nd brokest state in the union.)

Why? Because of ObamaCare. It is the singular achievement - the fundamental transformation - that locks in a permanent Democrat majority going forward. It is now unstoppable - the law of the land. It will make government dependents of many more people, perhaps all of us, and the Party of Government will be the beneficiaries for the foreseeable future. Irreversibly. The American Experiment in liberty is over, and we are Europe. Chosen by the slimmest of majorities in a bitterly divided America, but chosen nonetheless and locked in. It's ever-expanding government from here until the collapse. Depressing, but cold hard reality.

That's my take, anyway. Leave a comment with yours.

What is the point?

So, a friend asked me this week in the comments on a political blog: What is the point of arguing?

By that he meant what is the point of arguing with me. That I'm obstinate and unpersuadable on the facts.

I was thinking the same thing.

What is the point of arguing politics online in this election season? There is no pont in doing it.

We are as polarized as it gets. We live in ever more segregated fact environments. You can live in your own news-gathering bubble that confirms your worldview and not need to be confronted with another worldview. Be irritated, in fact, by being confronted with a different worldview.

It's tiring. I'm tired of being told that:

- I'm a tool of the right-wing media

- I don't really believe what I'm saying but am just winding people up

- My team doesn't have critical thinking skills or,

- I don't know what terms like "socialist" means

- My team consists of bad / stupid / racist people

I'm done.

I have books to read. Unplugging from the argument...

Conflicted on Domestic Violence Intervention

You never know when you will have to face a life test. Whether you'll pass and do the "right thing". Whether it even is the right thing.

I had that situation this weekend. I'm conflicted about what happened. I'm going to work it out with myself by telling the story here.

So, I'm enjoying a memory-making moment with my sons at the library. Precious time together. I let them browse and use the computer search to find books of interest while I sit and read. Ironically, I chose to sit and skim a book that I had just bought for my Kindle - Glenn Beck's "Cowards", which is about people being too timid to speak up.

Over the top of my book, I see an argument blow up. A young woman is being loudly pursued by a young man. He's grabbing her arm aggressively and saying heatedly "you're going to listen to me". She's trying to put a newspaper away, and get away from him, and he keeps after her. Swearing at her, inappropriately. "You F*ing B*tch. You N-lover!" Based on that, the bald head, and the tats up his neck, I"m going to call him a skinhead.

I look at the two guys sitting around me. Do they see this? Yes, and they are turning away from the awkward situation.

She flees the library. He chases after her. Grabbing at her. Cussing at her. In the library.

I made a decision, put down my book, and went out of the library after them - leaving my sons in there.

I pass two ladies coming down the ramp into the library. They have screwed up faces, like "oh, that's unpleasant".

I go out into the parking lot and scan the area. There she is, running down the middle of the street frantically with him in pursuit. I lose them as they round a building.

I run too. Around the building. There they are, across the street from me - and across the street from our police station. Wrong place to pick a fight in public.

He has her by the arm, yanking her aggressively. "You're going to come with me, and listen to me!"

"Hey", I yell across the distance. "Take your hands off of her!"

Mad guy yells at me. He is way out of control. F-bombs are flying in my direction. "This is none of your business!"

The action moves around a parking lot. She gets up and flees. He catches her. I pursue. "Take your hands off of her". More F-bombs coming at me. I'm yelling back, but keep a distance.

A car sees what happens and pulls in paralleling me. Watching. Gauging the situation. Eventually, he gets out of his car and mad guy recognizes him. He's an off duty cop. Cop asks me to stand down but stay, and engages mad guy in a calm and professional manner. I stand down.

Two squad cars race up to a stop near us. Cops get out with pizza that they were taking to the police station, and intervene to back up the off duty guy. They separate mad guy and his "old lady". She starts going into "He didn't do anything" mode. I don't speak to her, but turn away from them and stay out of it. Uniformed cop comes and gets my story. They arrest mad guy. I go back to the library and get my sons to leave.

That's the story. Here's why I'm conflicted.

I didn't intend to get the guy arrested. I just wanted him to stop grabbing her. He made the poor decision to have a public fight in front of the police station, and ended up inside it.

Does the woman think that I did her a favor? I doubt it.

When I got my sons in the car to go home, I passed her again. She was walking down the street, away from the cop cars, looking lost and crying.

My heart went out to her again.

I know the pain of an arrest of a family member. It's not a momentary thing. It ripples through your life for months, years even. There are court costs and lawyer's fees to face. There is lost time in court appearances. There is stigma and turmoil. There is time served or probation. There is much family pain to come.

Again, does she think that I did here any favors? I sincerely doubt it.

I modelled for my sons that it's not alright to put your hands aggressively on a woman. Even "my old lady". Especially your wife. And that you can't look the other way. That is important to me. Yes.

I am conflicted tonight as I go to sleep. Did I do her any favor? I will never know.

Can we get this straight?

Can we get three obvious things straight right now?

1. Tim Tebow is on God's side, not the other way around. Stop badgering him with idiocy.

2. A corporation is not a person, the left keeps parroting in hyperventilating about the SCOTUS decision in Citizen's United. We get that. That's not the point. What is the point is this: if a corporation is taxed, like a person is taxed, they should have the right to affect the taxer, like a person has a right to affect the taxer. Taxation with representation is a basic American understanding. If you want to tax the instituition, you should understand that they want to contribute to the campaign of representatives, like people do.

3. Warren Buffett does not pay less taxes than his secretary.

President Obama is engaging in pure demagoguery with his Buffet Rule on tax reform. From the State of the Union address:

President Obama on the Buffett Rule: “Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

Really?

Common sense to most people says that Warren Buffett, one of the five richest men in America, does not pay less taxes than his admittedly well paid secretary. Buffett pays millions. Secretary pays thousands.

That's in straight dollars.

What Obama means, but doesn't say because he's trying to fool you, is the Buffett pays a lower tax RATE than his secretary. That's because his secretary pays at a rate for INCOME TAX of 25% or so, and Buffett pays at a rate for CAPITAL GAINS TAX of 15% or so because he does not draw a salary and his income is from interest income on his investments.

That's a distinction that many Americans do not make, and that Obama does not want you to make.

Is this because Warren Buffett is a bad man? No. Is this because Warren Buffett is rich and rich people are bad people? No.

Capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates because Congress set the rates this way.

Is this because Congress is corrupt and was bought off by rich people to get lower rates? I wouldn't discount that idea. But stop dragging Buffett's secretary into that argument.

The reason capital gains tax RATES are lower than income tax RATES is because we are trying to influence behavior with the tax codes. In this case, we are trying to encourage investment - which creates jobs. It goes with the saying that "what you subsidize, you get more of". In this case, we are subsidizing investments with a lower tax rate because investments are a good thing. Raise the rates to the same rates as income tax and you might disincentivize investment, and get less investment, and get less job opportunity. Is that what you want to accomplish with your class warfare demagoguery, Mr. President? Less investment and less job opportunity?

People, think through this nonsense. Don't reward the demogogues. Leave Tim Tebow alone. Quit hyperventilating about Citizens United. And stop falling for Obama's Buffett Rule nonsens. Wake up.

The GOP Cage Match Continues...

Call me crazy, but I like all 5 GOP presidential candidates still in the race - plus some that never got in.

And, I like the competitive primary that we have had so far. So many debates sharpen up the survivors and gets the eventual nominee ready to battle the incumbent.

There is no doubt who the nominee is. Mitt Romney is the next-guy-in-line, is the establishment candidate, and is the one who will benefit from splitting votes. All of the "non-Romneys" will split that vote 4-ways, and Mitt wins. If we could get down to one conservative alternative against Mitt, Mitt would be in trouble. That's not going to happen soon. Perry will peel off soon. But Newt, Ron Paul, and Santorum are not going to drop out to get down to one champion of the conservatives. Vote-splitting it is, and Romney wins.

It is noticeable that the Tea Party has been sidelined so far. How long will we stay on the sidelines? Not sure.

I'm guessing it will be mostly decided before it gets to me in Illinois in March. If it is, it is. As much as I want to see Newt debate Obama, it's not going to happen. Let's get on with the General Election and with the absolute imperative of defeating Barack Obama.

Debate Moderators as Extensions of the Obama Campaign

Did you watch the GOP debate on ABC last night? If you did, do you need a further example of liberal media bias?

Is the economy fixed? Is the availability of condoms the most pressing issue that the next president will face? Well, you would think so by the ridiculous amount of social issue questions asked by the debate moderators.

Where was a question about Obama's illegal nominations this week, and the constitutional crisis they represent? Where was a question on the validity of the Obama admin granting waivers to ObamaCare to their political donors. Where was a question on the DOJ providing assault weapons to the drug cartels through Operation Fast and Furious, and the deaths that have resulted? Where was a question on North Korea or China? Where was a question about the impending explosion of the Euro?

Why are they dwelling on questions about states banning contraceptives? Because they are party line liberals, with no clue about the pressing issues of the day. That's why.

Why does the GOP continue to que our candidates up for the biased moderation of Clinton-lackey George Stephanopoulus and faux-Republican Dianne Sawyer?

When will a candidate other than Newt rebel at the questions? When will one say "Are you kidding me? You're asking me another question about gay marriage when we are 15 trillion dollars in debt and have troops in harms way in Afghanistan? You sir, are a disgraceful hack and I reject your line of questioning. We are here to talk about preventing bankruptcy for our country, which is where President Obama is taking us." I'd vote for that candidate.

When will we see a GOP debate moderated by Sarah Palin? Then we could focus on crony capitalism and radical reform. Put Rush or Sean Hannity in the moderator chair and you would have a completely different debate.

But, the GOP as a party will never do that because the party is run by beltway hacks.

It's time for radical change in this primary system, which fails us every time.

2 70's Flashbacks and a 2012 Prediction

I was a teenager throughout the 70's. I remember that decade, and its events, quite well. I had two flashbacks to the 70's today through news stories, which lead me to a prediction.

Flashback #1: Barack Obama fell below Jimmy Carter's popularity numbers in Gallup polling today.

Yes, that Jimmy Carter. Worst President in my Lifetime Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy is one of the big-giant-brains that Democrats love who fail in the office of the presidency of the United States. Barack Obama is another one. Carter, a one-termer, is a predictor of Obama's future.

For what it is worth, I saw Jimmy Carter speak in person once. It was a day or so before the 1980 election vs. Ronald Reagan. The media was calling it as close and hard to predict. Carter flew in to St. Louis, believing the Illinois and Missouri were swing states that would make the difference if it was that close. I happened to be working for McDonnel Douglas at the time and living in an apartment down the street from the mall where Carter spoke. I was a college co-op student, meaning liberal, at the time and I was vehemently opposed to Reagan. Though I voted for 3rd party candidate John Anderson, I wanted Carter to beat Reagan. After Carter's speech I had this thought: "That's all you've got?" Awful. I knew it was not going to go well for Carter the next day, and it didn't as Reagan won in a landslide. It was my first real look at how biased the media was and how wrong their polling was as a result. An eye-opener.

Carter is defined by his failure in dealing with the Iran hostage crisis, which brings us to...

Flashback #2:  Hard line Iranian students assualt the British Embassy and demand it close


Wow. Takes me right back to 1979. I remember the students taking over the American embassy in Tehran, and the 444 day struggle to get our hostages back. I remember the special ABC program with Ted Koppel that sprang up - and that I watched each night - that became "Nightline".

We're right back there. Only more so. The MidEast is as destabilized right now as it has been in my lifetime. Egypt is going to the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya to al-Qaida. Kuwait has fallen. And Iran under Obama's watch is getting nuclear weapons. This is not going to end well.

Which brings me to my Prediction: Barack Obama is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party coming out of their convention. Mark it down.

Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. He's a failed president who will not be able to overcome 9% unemployment, or the international events that are spiraling out of his control. Obama has checked out of governing and is in the permanent campaign mode, but it will not help him. The more he is out on the stump the farther his poll numbers fall.

Newt Gingrich is the corresponding Ronald Reagan. He can paint the picture of Morning in America, and may well be the nominee.

The shocking difference in this Obama / Gingrich parallel to Carter / Reagan is this: Obama will not make it out of the convention as the nominee to battle Gingrich.

I know. I know. That seems ridiculous. He's the incumbent and the presumptive nominee.

There you go presuming. You're presuming that circumstances in November 2012 when the election comes around are going to be pretty much the same as the are in November of 2011. That things will be stable, and that stability will favor the incumbent.

Here's where you are making your mistake. The world is not stable right now. It is incredibly destablilized, and is destabilizing faster each day. The Arab Spring morphing into the Muslim Brotherhood Winter. The collapse of the Euro that's coming - will it even make it to January? The Occupy movement pushing on our already fragile economy. SCOTUS and ObamaCare. Iran's push toward regional hegemony. China's push toward militarization. Russia's re-emergence as a power hostile to the US. Pakistan's destabilization and anger toward the US. Danger of re-emerging civil war in Iraq as America pulls out.

September 2012, the date of the Democratic Party nominating convention, is a long way off. Events are overtaking our absentee president. Barack Obama will not be a viable choice by the time the convention takes place.

Mark it down. I said it here.

Revisiting the Birthers - and the subset of "Citizen"

So, a politically-polar-opposite EbertFest friend of mind Tweeted this week his disdain that a Birther challenge was back in the news.

Wait...what? Wasn't the Birther issue resolved months ago when Barack Obama finally publicized a long-form birth certificate?



Well, not entirely - as I read shortly after when my pre-bought copy of Dr. Jerome Corsi's book "Where's the Birth Certificate" arrived. Hey, I bought it already. Might as well read it.

When I did I realized that the first challenge that Corsi raised was not related to - and did not depend on - the birth certificate. Corsi was proclaiming Obama ineligible to be President based on a second reason, the citizenship of Obama's parents. A challenge never raised or settled.

Which is what has the Birther issue back in the news, this time with a challenge to potential Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican side, Marco Rubio - whose parents came to the US from Cuba before Rubio was born here.

You have to give this to the Birthers with the Rubio challenge: it is consistent and shows them motivated by constitutional issues and not partisan party issues. I, for example, dislike Obama's policies and probably like Rubio's policies (he's too new to know for sure). But, consistency says they must both be challenged.

Let's remember what is being challenged here. It's not whether someone is a good person or not. It's not whether they can be in the country or not. It's not whether they can hold almost all of the jobs in the US. What is being challenged is one thing: eligibility to hold on job in America, our leader, the President of the United States. A job which has a specific eligibility test right there in the Constitution.

You remember the Constitution, yes? It is our foundational document, our one touchstone. It was thrashed out by our Founders after they won the right to form a country through a bloody war where they pledged their blood, their treasure, their sacred honor. It was a document where the Founders had the audacity to believe that they could establish the rules for the country that they would leave us - something about "securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." - and for who the leader would be.

Remembering, of course, that they had just thrown out a government in England and were forming a new one they had an idea that the new leader should not have a dual allegiance. That the leader should be loyal to this new country, and this country alone. So while they grandfathered in everyone a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they set a rule for going forward - that the leader should be a "natural born Citizen".

Ah, those three contested words. What is a "natural born Citizen"? Some things to know about what the Founders thought that meant.

First, not all citizens are eligible. If they were then the modifier "natural born" - which modify the capitalized "Citizen" - would not be needed. Those eligible are a subset of citizens.

Second, as Corsi well describes in his book, the Founders drew from "natural law" for the meaning of "natural born". What did they mean, in natural law?

"The natives or natural born citizens are people born in the country of parents who are citizens."

So, "natural born" has two parts:

1) born here - Which is what the challenge to Barack Obama's birth certificate was all about. Note: naturalized does not count, as we all understand in the case of Arnold Schwarznegger.

2) of two parents who are citizens. Which has not yet been fully challenged. There are some indications that this meant primarily through the father. But the word is citizens plural.

Barack Obama did not meet the second clause, because his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a US citizen. Barack Jr. was a dual citizen at birth - US (assuming the first clause is true and he was born in Hawaii) and Kenyan/British through his father.

By this definition of "natural born Citizen", as the Founding Fathers understood it, Barack Obama was at birth not eligible to be President of the United States. That is not a racist argument, no matter how many times race-obsessed lazy liberals make that charge on the internet. It is a Founding Fathers / Constitutional loyalty argument.

And, it is the argument that Birthers will likely make against Marco Rubio if they are to be consistent and not partisan. Rubio, whose parents are from Cuba and were naturalized as US citizens four years after Marco was born, was also born not eligible to be President if this definition of "natural born Citizens" is correct. Citizen, yes. President, no. There's a distinction.

So, was this natural law definition of "natural born Citizen" altered by amendments or laws after the Constitution was adopted? Well, several folks have Tweeted me the 14th Amendment. But, as I read the clauses they are defining who is a "citizen", not it's modifier subset "natural born Citizen". Go read it. Without bias. It says citizen. So does title 8 and everything else you've Tweeted me.

In fact, an article link sent to me to prove Rubio qualifies had this sentence within it, but overlooked:

"Do you have to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to be such a citizen?  No, said the Founders.  The Heritage Foundation's Guide shows how the First Congress in 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born."

You saw it right? "the children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born".  So, the "children of citizens" was the compelling factor in 1790 for the Congress.

Is there established case law on this question? I don't think so. Corsi goes through all of the challenges to presidential candidates over the years, and there were more than I thought. None were challenged on the 2nd part - children of citizens. How many candidates have we had since the Revolution whose parents were born foreign citizens? It's just coming up now, with Obama and now Rubio. It's yet to be settled.

I don't 100% know the correct definition of "natural born citizen". These arguments are complex, and not easily argued in 140-character Twitterbates. Do the hard work. Read Corsi's book for yourself and don't let others tell you what it says.

And for God's sake, stop calling people racist over an argument that you don't fully understand. It's uncivil.

Should we care in this day and age and in this land of immigrants where a candidate's parents come from? Does dual citizenship at birth mean a dual allegiance that they Founders were keen on preventing?

Well, let's take the case of Barack Obama - indisputably a dual citizen at birth in the best case. US citizen. Kenyan/British citizen. Can you be sure that this "son of Africa" as they call him there, has as President only one loyalty? Can you say for sure as he's involved our country deeper and deeper on the African continent (spending to support adoption of the Kenyan Constitution, drones in Yemen, air power in Libya, now troops in Africa to hunt down the LRA - all without US national interests as verified by Sec. Gates) that it has nothing at all to do with having half of his family in Africa? Could you say that any policy of Rubio's regarding Cuba would be from an allegiance only to the US and not in any way to Cuba?

I can't for sure. You can't for sure. That's why it's important. One loyalty in our leader, and only one loyalty. The Founders wanted that, and so do I.