Category Archives: Uncategorized

Finally! A clarification of 'natural-born citizen'

Where were these fellows, say, in 2007, 2008 and for most of Barack Obama’s first term a president of the United States?

Two former solicitors general of the United States have settled — in my mind, at least — the issue that polluted the political atmosphere until the time Obama was re-elected in November 2012. They’ve defined the term “natural born citizen” as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, writing for the Harvard Law Review, say with virtually zero reservation that “natural  born citizen” applies to anyone who becomes an American immediately upon  birth, irrespective of where that birth occurred. At issue is whether that circumstances affects the qualifications of anyone seeking to run for president. Is that constitutionally qualified yes? Katyal and Clement say “yes.”

The issue has been discussed at times. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory. George Romney was born in Mexico. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Three of those men already have run for president; Cruz is expected to run for the 2016 Republican nomination.

All four men were U.S. citizens upon birth. Goldwater’s parents were citizens, as were McCain’s and Romney’s. Cruz’s mother is an American. Therefore, that qualifies them to hold the highest office in the land.

Oh, and what about Barack Obama?

Remember all that baloney about whether he was constitutionally qualified, that he was born in Kenya and that, according to the yahoos who sought to make a big deal out of his birthplace? Katyal and Clement say none of that mattered one little bit.

Obama’s mother was an American, which meant he was bestowed full U.S. citizenship the moment he was born to her and his Kenyan father — in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state to join the Union.

A cousin of mine sent me the attached link to let me know that Ted Cruz also is qualified to run for president. My cousin is likely to support Cruz’s president.

But in truth, I’ve long believed that Cruz was qualified under Article II of the Constitution to hold the office, just as I was certain that Goldwater, McCain Romney and Obama could serve in that office.

I just wish the Harvard Law Review article could have settled this issue long before now.

Better late than never, right?

Bush's name no longer golden in GOP

John Ellis Bush is finding that his family name is beginning to sound tired — even among Republicans.

Will that stop the man known as Jeb from running for president next year?

Hardly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/235638-walker-bush-is-like-other-failed-gop-candidates

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, another probable GOP candidate, said of Bush that his name is “of the past.” The party and the nation need new names, meaning new blood, to lead it.

Walker said he wouldn’t speak ill of Jeb Bush … but then he did. According to The Hill, Walker said: “You’re not going to hear me speak ill will of Jeb. He’s a friend of mine. He called me two days before (announcing) his PAC, I think highly of him. I just think voters are going to look at this and say, ‘If we’re running against Hillary Clinton, we’ll need a name from the future, not a name from the past, to win.’ ”

So, what I’m reading from that is Bush’s name will hurt him if he gets his party’s nomination.

I’ve long said you shouldn’t ever criticized anyone’s appearance or anyone’s name.

Walker has just gone mildly negative against the family name of Jeb Bush.

That is “speaking ill will” of someone.

 

Hoping this ocean existed … on Mars

Oh, how I want this report to be proven true.

NASA has reported finding compelling evidence that Mars once contained an ocean the size of the Atlantic Ocean, which makes it a body of water that covers more than half of the Martian surface.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/us/mars-ocean-water-study/index.html

The rover Curiosity has been boring into the Martian surface and has returned data to NASA that suggests the presence of water — lots of it — on the Red Planet.

Look, I grew up in a time when astronomers were taking picture of Mars from Earth showing those lines running across the planet’s surface. They called the “canals,” or some such thing that suggested that they were put there by Martian beings.

I’ve never really believed in the presence of life as understand the earthly term on Mars.

But the water finding, if its true, suggests something quite exciting about further exploration of Mars.

Here’s the deal, though: I haven’t a clue what that finding will produce.

That is why we need to send human beings to Mars. Let ’em take a look around.

 

Land line may go when retirement arrives

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts about impending retirement.

Having spewed already about the difficulty of cutting ourselves loose from our home telephone, some friends have reminded me of what I’ve noted already.

Retirement is going to bring a whole new lifestyle for my wife and me that more than likely will require us to cut the tie that binds us to our safety line.

Gosh. I didn’t even think of it.

Our retirement hopefully will feature travel. Lots of it, in fact. We’ll be on the road for extended periods of time in our fifth wheel. We intend to visit most of North America. We hope to take our fifth wheel to Mexico as well, but first things first: Our southerly neighbors will need to get control of the drug thugs who are running rampant, terrorizing tourists and other innocent victims.

But I digress.

The land line that has been such a staple in our lives isn’t going away any time soon, at least not immediately.

Eventually? Yes. That will be determined at a later date. For now, I’m having a lot of fun working my three part-time jobs. The RV awaits. When we climb aboard in our retirement years, I’m expecting to be fully mobile.

 

Tough to sever the land line

This conversation was overheard today at my part-time job.

Customer: Yes. I still have a home phone.

Cashier: Oh, really?

Customer: That’s right. My kids and grandkids don’t have a home phone, but I still have mine. I cannot get rid of it.

I related instantly with the lady and her seemingly mild embarrassment at “admitting” she actually still had a land line, a telephone that she plugged into the wall, a home telephone.

My wife and I have struggled for years with whether to cut our land line since cell phones became, well, such standard equipment for most folks.

We’ve decided to keep it.

Friends of mine have cut their land lines. Our sons operate exclusively with cell phones. They had no trouble cutting the line. They’re liberated 21st-century American males; one of them is married to an equally liberated modern female. Good for all of ’em.

For us, we’ll retain our land line for the foreseeable future.

Some of you might ask: Why?

The answer is complicated.

It’s kind of a life line of sorts. I keep hearing TV and radio commercials telling us cell phones make lousy communication devices for 9-1-1 emergency phone calls. Perhaps it’s because that message comes from a land line provider, yes? Still, I get the logic in persuading someone that a land line is a more efficient method of reporting a medical or law enforcement emergency.

Also, the land line and the phone book listing gives me a certain sense of belonging. That’s weird, I know. I am not entirely comfortable with people not knowing where to find us if they need to see us. I often hear friends say something like, “I’ve been thinking about you folks and wondering how you’re doing.” My answer? Well, we’re in the phone book; you still have a phone book, right? The older friends usually say “yes.” The younger ones? I know better than to ask, because I assume they don’t.

We don’t know when, or even if, we’ll surrender the land line.

The lady at work today spoke volumes to me — without ever knowing it — in that brief moment I eavesdropped on her conversation with the young cashier.

Yes, my wife and I do have cell phones. We use them regularly. I’m getting better — although not yet good — at using the various features on my hot-shot phone. Same with my wife.

But get rid of the land line? Not yet. Maybe not ever.

 

Proposed ammo ban draws fire

So, a proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to ban ammunition used in assault rifles has become a target by those who say hunters actually use these weapons to hunt wild game.

The weapon at issue is the AR-15, which is virtually identical to the M-16 rifle soldiers have been issued when they go to duty in combat zones.

The ammo in question is a .223-caliber bullet that is tipped with material designed to produce maximum penetration.

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/234643-gun-ammunition-ban-draws-ire-on-capitol-hill

ATF wants to ban the ammo. Gun-rights supporters contend it’s another step toward disarming law-abiding Americans. It isn’t. It’s designed to protect law enforcement officers who could be killed by those using these weapons in anger.

Still, some on the right have suggested that the ban would occur by presidential executive action. That’s not the case. This notion is coming from a law enforcement agency.

The Hill reports that lawmakers have asked ATF to pull back the proposal. According to The Hill: “Under no circumstances should ATF adopt a standard that will ban ammunition that is overwhelmingly used by law-abiding Americans for legitimate purposes,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to ATF Director B. Todd Jones.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment, of course, is the centerpiece of the opposition to the proposal. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the manufacture and distribution of weapons and ammunition that police deem to be dangerous beyond all reason.

There remain plenty of opportunities — even if the ATF ban goes into effect — for law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear arms.”

Doing public business in private? A serious no-no

The presumed frontrunner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination next year now finds herself having to answer a serious question about ethical conduct.

Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton break government rules when she used her private email account to conduct affairs of the state?

She’s not the first public official to do something such as this. But her exclusive use of her private email account makes this matter unusual and worth scrutiny.

As the New York Times has reported: “Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.”

Further, the Times reported: “‘It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,’ said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.”

I do not recall a “nuclear winter” occurring, which makes this situation quite disturbing.

How much information that should have been available for public inspection was kept in the dark?

Let’s hear it, Mme. Secretary.

 

O'Reilly sees the light on name-calling?

Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly had an eye-opening commentary Wednesday night in which he said Republicans should avoid name-calling and “smearing” of Democrats, namely President Obama and the woman who wants to succeed him, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bill-oreilly-obama-insults-2016-elections-115526.html?hp=l3_4

I don’t know what to make of this.

O’Reilly said this, according to Politico: “But any Republican candidate who says personal things about either the president or Mrs. Clinton will be making a tremendous mistake,” he added. Most Americans don’t like that line of attack, he said. “Once in a while, a takedown is necessary, but to make a living out of guttersniping” would be a “ticket to defeat,” he commented. “Smearing anyone should be unacceptable.”

So, let’s backtrack a few days. Mother Jones published a scathing report questioning O’Reilly’s coverage of the Falklands War in 1982. O’Reilly went immediately on the attack. What did he call David Corn, a co-writer of the lengthy essay? Why, an “irresponsible guttersnipe,” of course.

O’Reilly is correct to caution Republicans about the personal attacks. The Politico link attached to this post details some of the points he made on his “O’Reilly Factor” talk show.

However, whenever anyone gets under his skin and riles the fellow, O’Reilly is pretty quick to pull the hair-trigger on those who disagree with him.

Still, let’s hope he follows his own advice. Then again, his visible and vocal righteous anger is a big part of what draws his audience to his show.

Alzheimer's research needed a shout out, too

The Oscar ceremony/marathon produced its usual political fare from recipients Sunday night — with which I have no particular problem.

Patricia Arquette spoke out for wage equality for women; John Legend and Common offered a comment on the incarceration rate among African-Americans.

Julianne Moore had a chance to speak out for Alzheimer’s research as she accepted the Best Actress honor for her role in “Still Alice,” a film about a woman suffering from early onset of the disease that robs people of their cognitive skill; it is ultimately fatal, always.

The disease affects millions of Americans. It brings untold agony to patients’ families. I waited for Moore to offer a word about the crisis affecting so many families around the world.

It didn’t come. Too bad. She missed a great opportunity. But hey, that’s all right. Perhaps someone out there will remind her of how important this film role is to many of us who’ve experienced the heartache of Alzheimer’s disease.

I’ll be waiting to hear what she has to say in support of funding for Alzheimer’s research.

UT-Tribune poll reveals poor Perry showing

Two things jump out at me from some recent presidential polling in Texas.

One is as a political analyst notes, that Sen. Ted Cruz’s once-huge lead among Texas Republicans has vanished; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is breathing down the Cruz Missile’s neck.

The other one, though, perhaps is even more startling: Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — the TEA party darling and the all-time champeen among Texas Republican vote-getters — is trailing far behind the two frontrunners.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/23/uttt-poll-texas-walker-ties-cruz-clinton-soaring/

The University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll shows Perry with just 8 percent of the vote among Texas Republicans. He trails Cruz, Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (a former Texan, by the way), and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

“Scott Walker is clearly breathing some of the oxygen on the right. The big takeaway here is that Ted Cruz is still a giant among Texas Republicans — but he is not invulnerable,” said Jim Henson, co-director of the poll and head of the Texas Politics Project at UT-Austin. “Conservatives are willing to look at another candidate who fits that profile.”

I know. It’s still early. The GOP race isn’t yet formed fully. None of these “candidates” has actually announced formally a presidential candidacy. I’m hoping all of them jump in. I want a full-throated debate among Republicans, who’ve shown quite a talent in recent election cycles for carving each other into a zillion little pieces.

As for Perry, well, he’s got some work to do.

He left office in January, headed off to Iowa to take part in something called a Freedom Summit. He’s trying to dress up his image, make himself sound more presidential. But so far, the attention has been sucked away by Cruz and Walker.

Oh, and the Democrats? Hillary Clinton is favored among 62 percent of Texas Democrats. No story there. She won’t carry Texas in November 2016, no matter how strong she looks today — or on Election Day.

Gov. Perry, though, has to get busy.