Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 773)

Nixon with Lipstick

2 Comments

enlarge What’s the difference between Richard Nixon and Sarah Palin? Lipstick . (Well, that and military service, graduate education, a keen intellect, years of national political experience and a proven grasp of policy foreign and domestic.) But as a fellow ” serial collector of resentments “, the half-term Alaska governor is Nixon’s heir. When it comes to the paranoid style, the politics of payback, the perpetual war on the press and the championing of “real Americans” versus supposed elites, the Mama Grizzly is the second coming of Tricky Dick. On Thanksgiving of all days , Sarah Palin was her Nixon best in attacking the president and the press. Furious about the understandable media reaction to her gaffe about ” our North Korean allies ,” the pitbull in lipstick took to Facebook to again complain that the media did not show “some consistency on this issue” and “completely makes things up without doing even rudimentary fact-checking.” That online outburst followed her declaration on Fox News earlier in the week that: “I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree. I studied journalism, who, what, where, when, and why of reporting. I will speak to reporters who still understand that cornerstone of our democracy, that expectation that the public has for truth to be reported. And then we get to decide our own opinion based on the facts reported to us.” As it turns out, Sarah Palin is just reading from the Richard Nixon playbook . In 1972, just one month after defeating George McGovern in an epic landslide, Nixon summed up his press bashing Henry Kissinger. As CBS recounted: “Never forget. The press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy.” Almost shouting he repeated, “professors are the enemy!” He told former Harvard professor Kissinger, “Write that on a blackboard 100 times and never forget it.” And to be sure, those professors are just part of the “elite” supposedly out to get Nixon and Palin alike. Just days after her nomination by John McCain, Palin set the tone by protesting, “I’ve learned quickly these past few days that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.” Launching her Going Rogue book tour last year Palin told Rush Limbaugh, “I’m not trying to reach the liberal elites in this country, and it’s a good thing I’m not trying to, ’cause I’m not succeeding there.” And after Barbara Bush said of Palin, “I think she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there,” the average hockey mom punched back: “I don’t want to sort of concede that we have to get used to this kind of thing because I think the majority of Americans don’t want to put up with the blue bloods — and I say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes — but the blue bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners.” (Ironically, Nixon himself said of Barbara Bush , “she knows how to hate.”) Of course, from the beginning those same blue bloods were the bane of Richard Nixon’s existence. As Aaron Astor explained last year in his review of Rick Perlstein’s excellent Nixonland : At Whittier College, Nixon’s alma mater, there was the social “in” crowd that formed an elite social club called the Franklins. Only the wealthiest students could deign to join the Franklins. Young Nixon, ever the outcast in this circle joined with his fellow shunned lumpenproletariat and formed a rival group called the Orthogonians. The word implied that the group rejected the elitist assumptions of the Franklins and refused to cede social authority to the well-to-do. That proud chip on the shoulder, on display at Whittier and later at Duke law school, would be a hallmark of Nixon’s politics. But if “Richard Nixon mastered the art of self-pity and resentment,” after her journey through five colleges Sarah Palin mastered it as well. As Picasso famously said, “Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.” And to be sure, the Orthogonian Palin stole Nixon’s applause line about ” egghead ” Adlai Stevenson and redeployed it against “community organizer” Barack Obama. As she sneered earlier this year : “In these volatile times when we are a nation at war, now more than ever is when we need a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor lecturing us from a lectern.” Implicit in her criticism of Professor Obama is an accusation of weakness. With her now trademark ” man up ” sound bite directed at both GOP leaders and an “impotent” and “limp” press , Palin routinely calls her enemies’ manhood into question. And that includes the President. When it comes to illegal immigration , Palin declared: “Jan Brewer has the cojones that our President does not have. If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer.” It’s not hard to imagine Palin simply substituting Obama for Stevenson and terrorists or illegal immigrants for communists in Nixon’s infamous smear : “Adlai the Appeaser…got a Ph.D. from Dean Acheson’s College of Cowardly Communist Containment.” Importantly for Nixon and Palin alike, the professors and students, the intellectuals, activists and their ilk are not real Americans . From the 2008 campaign on, Palin updated and repackaged Nixon’s famous ” silent majority .” As she put it during an October 2008 rally in North Carolina, rural Republicans are the real Americans : “We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe” — here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers — “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.” Like Nixon and other Republicans, Palin proclaimed the superiority of Heartland values to be self-evident. As she put it two years ago, “I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington.” To be sure, part of what Sarah Palin wants to bring to Washington from Wasilla is her politics of payback . As Troopergate among other episodes show, Sarah Palin like Richard Nixon was quick to deploy the resources of government against her political opponents and personal enemies. As for her back taxes, RNC haul, ethics violations, travel per diems and the like , it’s not hard to imagine Palin with her own Plumbers and Enemies List in the Oval Office insisting , “When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” As for his political opponents, President Nixon on his last day in office made clear it was all about the hate : “Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.” And so it was this weekend, the former Alaska Governor turned Fox News regular channeled Tricky Dick in defending her teenage daughter’s use of an anti-gay slur: “People probably think that my greatest frustration is the lies that are told in the tabloids and on hateful blogs full of anonymous sources about my family … and there are constant everyday lies that we have to read that are out there in the public. But my family and I…thick skin…we can take it, you know…we can take what the haters say despite the fact that there’s injustice in the situation. “I mean, look at the other day. Willow, finally, my 16 year old, she had had it up to here with somebody saying very, very hateful things about the family and saying mean things about her little brother Trig, and Willow finally responded and she used a bad word when she responded in defense of her family. And her response became national news, even hard news copy it turned into, so that’s ridiculous and I had to explain to her, ‘Willow, there is no justice here but you have to just zip your lip and let’s move forward.’” (If this sideshow provoked that kind of wrath, one can only imagine Sarah’s fury when former GOP Congressman and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough urged Republican leaders to “man up” and “take on Palin.”) As he left under the cloud of Watergate in August 1974 , President Nixon told the American people: “I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is opposed to every instinct in my body. But as president I must put the interests of America first Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” Thirty-five years later, Governor Sarah Palin experienced no such qualms as she left office. Her resignation was not the driven by the lure of millions of dollars, she claimed. Instead, she insisted, ” It’s all for Alaska ” and offered her now classic inversion of reality : “It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out.” So much for Tricky Dick’s admonition that “A man is not finished when he is defeated; he is finished when he quits.” Then again, Richard Nixon never met a Mama Grizzly. Not long before his assassination in 1968, Robert F. Kennedy said of the man who would soon be in the White House, “Richard Nixon represents the dark side of the American spirit.” RFK never met Sarah Palin. (An earlier version of this piece appeared at Perrspectives .)

Continue reading …
AirSync for doubleTwist brings wireless syncing to Android phones

Been looking for the perfect thing to boast to your iPhone-owning friends about? Well brace yourself, because doubleTwist has just gone wireless with its latest update, introducing a feature called AirSync which allows Android users to keep their media collection sympatico sans cabling. The new app for PC and Mac boxes couples with its Android counterpart (along with a new AirSync component) and lets you do most of your management without needing a wire between your phone and computer. The desktop application and DoubleTwist player for phones won’t cost you a thing, though AirSync itself is $0.99 on the phone for the first 10,000 buyers, and then jumps to $4.99 a shot. Setup is relatively painless, requiring just a passcode from your phone which is input on the PC side. From then on, whenever you’ve got the app open and your device in range, the content stored on the phone will appear in your DoubleTwist list just as if you’d plugged the phone in (similar to the Windows Phone 7 / Zune wireless sync). We took AirSync for a ride with our Mac and Droid Incredible, and everything seemed to work fine, though we did notice a few bugs (one that was pretty major) that need worked out. Firstly, you’ll probably want to just start fresh with syncing your collection — we made the mistake of trying to pick up where we’d left off and accidentally wiped the content stored on the phone. We also noticed issues with the application trying to sync or update your database while listening to music; more than once our playback abruptly stopped when the app was attempting to talk to the phone. Syncing can also be pretty slow depending on your connection — really slow if you’ve got a big collection. Despite those complaints, AirSync (and both the doubleTwist Android app and desktop client) are incredibly slick solutions to a problem plaguing lots of smartphone users. The company obviously has just begun its work with the app — and it’s clear that there are kinks to work out — but the dream of a wireless future for Android users just got a lot closer to reality. AirSync for doubleTwist brings wireless syncing to Android phones originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:15:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …
Net Neutrality fight comes to Netflix

enlarge Credit: planetgreen.discovery.com Net Neutrality Rules! But for how long? Media Decoder: Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage. Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.” The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission. “With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday. Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner… read on This is a preview of what’s in store for America if Big Business has its way with the Internet. Netflix is hugely successful and popular; heck, I’m a big fan of Insta-watch myself. Does anybody really believe the free market Gods of Capitalism will suddenly not worry about the Almighty bottom line when they get the chance to make more profits? Netflix is becoming a direct competitor with Comcast and other content providers and it’s only a matter of time before companies begin to make it harder for them to do business if they feel it will take cash out of their pockets. UPDATE: The fight is gearing up on the mobile web side too : AT&T Gains FCC’s Ear as Regulators Near Decision on Net Neutrality Rules AT&T Inc. has spoken more frequently than any other company with U.S. officials as they near a decision on rules that may restrict how carriers offer mobile Internet service, according to regulatory filings. Jim Cicconi , a Republican who is AT&T’s top Washington executive, talked at least six times about the net-neutrality rules from Nov. 4 to Nov. 26 with Edward Lazarus , chief of staff at the Democrat-led Federal Communications Commission, according to disclosure filings with the agency… read on

Continue reading …
Fox News Special ‘The Right, All Along’ Shows Us That All That’s Old is New Again

Click here to view this media I’m sure most people who read this blog have missed this, but Fox News’ Brit Hume has been doing a six-part series “documenting” the history of the conservative movement in America. The segments featured here include the tale of the first Laffer Curve being drawn on an expensive dinner napkin, Phyllis Schlafly’s effort to help conservatives get elected by taking woman’s movement backwards and how Ronnie Ray-gun inspired Rush Limbaugh as one of our first right-wing hate talkers. The segments featured here are from Part 3, but if you’re a real glutton for punishment you can go watch the rest on Fox’s web site . The series illustrates one thing pretty clearly and that is there isn’t an ounce of difference between the conservatives featured in their “documentary” and these supposed “Tea Partiers” of today. They’re all just the far right wing of the Republican Party. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …
Pentagon Report: 70% of Troops support repeal of DADT. Gates and Mullen push for legislation

Click here to view this media [H/t David] The Pentagon just released its report on its misbegotten “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and both Defense Secretary Bob Gates and the Joint Chiefs’ Admiral Mullen believe it’s time that Congress send the legislation through repealing it: The study found that 70 percent of troops surveyed believed that repealing the law would have mixed, positive or no effect, while 30 percent predicted negative consequences. Opposition was strongest among combat troops, with at least 40 percent saying it was a bad idea. That number climbs to 58 percent among Marines serving in combat roles. The study also draws a strong correlation between troops who have worked with a gay service member and those who support repeal. According to the assessment, 92 percent of troops who have served with someone they believed to be gay thought that their unit’s ability to work together was either very good, good, or neither good nor poor. One person familiar with the report said it will show that military commanders believe gay and lesbian troops have a strong desire to fit in and feel accepted by their units. The report will also show that gay service members currently serving in the military have expressed a patriotic desire to serve, and want to be subject to the same rules as other service members. The survey is based on responses by some 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses to more than a half million questionnaires distributed last summer by an independent polling firm. Greg Sargent has more: Okay, I’ve got some more detail for you on the findings in that forthcoming Pentagon report on the impact repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t tell will have on the military. The upshot: It will leave GOP moderates with no reasons left to oppose repeal. One of the key findings in the report is that a whopping 74 percent of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve. This number comes by way of a Congressional staffer who attended a private briefing that the report’s authors, Defense Department officials Jeh Johnson and Carter Ham, gave to Senate Armed Services Committee staffers this morning. This finding is important, because it undercuts a key argument made by repeal opponents: That having service-members mingle with gay colleagues could worry their families. Also: The report will also undercut another key argument being made by repeal opponents: That opposition remains strong in the Marines. According to the source, while the report does find that concern runs high among Marines, it also finds that 84 percent of Marine combat corps combat arms units who said they thought they’d worked with homosexual service-members in the past found the experience either very good, good, or neutral. Ed O’Keefe writes: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates , who requested the report, echoed their sentiments: “This can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness.” “Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year,” Gates said. “I believe this is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen this past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue.” The right will dig up any little tidbit they can to try and undermine the repeal of DADT so I always felt that this report was a delaying tactic to undermine its chances. Steve Benen thinks that Republicans have lost the information battle, but to these Republicans, truth and facts do not matter. As for the larger legislative context, remember, Senate Republicans recently refused to even allow a debate on funding U.S. troops because they wanted to wait for this report. They took a gamble, of sorts — maybe the survey results would show servicemen and women agreeing with the GOP’s anti-gay animus, thus giving the party a boost fighting pro-repeal Democrats. The gamble failed. We now know a majority of U.S. troops, a majority of U.S. civilians, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs are all ready to see DADT repeal move forward. If John McCain and other anti-gay senators hoped to gain some leverage, those hopes were in vain. They’ve run out of excuses. It’s time for the Senate to do the right and decent thing. Remember, Democrats only need two Republicans — literally, just two — to break ranks. These GOP senators, if they exist, don’t even have to vote for the spending bill that includes the DADT provision; they just need to let the Senate vote up or own. If this report doesn’t lead two Republicans to drop the nonsense, nothing will. Barbara Morrill writes: McCain, who has apparently decided to make his lasting legacy be that of the last man standing against the civil rights issue of the twenty-first century, will presumably continue to argue that violating Americans’ 14th Amendment rights isn’t a problem. But the bottom line here is, the findings in this report removes any excuse for opposing the repeal by moderate Republican Senators who have said their vote on the issue would be based on its findings. But bear in mind that this is just a recommendation on gradually implementing the repeal. It’s a victory, but the war isn’t won. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has promised a vote on the repeal before the end of the year.

Continue reading …
Food Banks ‘Bracing’ Themselves For Onslaught If Unemployment Benefits Lapse

enlarge ‘Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?’ Here’s what I suggest for anyone who’s losing their unemployment payments this week: Grab a blanket and a pillow, and head on over to your local congressperson’s office — or, if you live in a big city, go to your senator’s office. Tell them you can’t afford to turn on the heat, and you’re going to camp out in their waiting room until the congressman or senator has time to talk to you. And since you don’t have money for food, either, I suggest you loudly solicit the staff and incoming visitors for cash. Because I am so goddamned sick of these bastards and the protected little bubbles in which they live. It’s time we did what we could to remind them of the consequences of everything they’ve done — or failed to do : WASHINGTON — Food banks across the country are watching for the end of federally-funded extended unemployment insurance. “We are bracing for it,” said Vicki Escarra, CEO of Feeding America, the nation’s largest domestic hunger-relief charity, in an interview with HuffPost. Escarra said that Feeding America’s 200 member food banks across the country feed nearly six million people every week. “I can assure you, if these unemployment insurance benefits are not reinstated we’ll see these numbers go way up,” Escarra said. Two federal programs — Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits, which together provide up to 73 weeks of jobless aid on top of 26 weeks of state aid — are set to begin to expire this week because Congress has not reauthorized them. According to the Labor Department, two million long-term unemployed will be dropped from the programs by the end of December if Congress does not act. Congress allowed benefits to lapse twice for a brief time earlier this year, and once for a long time, when 2.5 million had their benefits interrupted for nearly two months over the summer. The path forward for reauthorizing the benefits is unclear, but Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Sunday that he wants the benefits preserved as part of a deal to reauthorize the also-expiring Bush-era tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that extended unemployment benefits prevented record poverty in 2009 and were used mostly by middle-class Americans. Households with total income more than twice the poverty threshold received 70 percent of the $120 billion the federal government spent on unemployment benefits last year. Part of the reason is that the benefits themselves push families into higher-income groups. A study released by Feeding America this year found that of the 37 million people served by its member food banks, 70 percent came from households with incomes below the poverty line. The study found that 5.7 million people received emergency food assistance in 2009, a 27 percent increase from 2006.

Continue reading …
Family Research Council Labeled as ‘Hate Group’ By SPLC for Anti-Gay Rhetoric

Click here to view this media Chris Matthews talked to the SPLC’s Mark Potok and The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins about the recent designation of Perkin’s FRC as a hate group for their anti-gay rhetoric. From the SPLC’s web site — Active U.S. Hate Groups : The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2009 are included. All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity. Here’s more from TPM — Family Research Council Labeled ‘Hate Group’ By SPLC Over Anti-Gay Rhetoric : The Family Research Council is perhaps the most prominent voice in conservative social politics and the hosts of an annual rite of passage for many Republicans who hope to run for president. And now, FRC is on the same Southern Poverty Law Center list of hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC gave the Family Research Council the designation due to anti-gay speech from its leaders, which the SPLC says includes calls for gay men and lesbians to be imprisoned. Read on… Perkins needless to say isn’t happy about it. I say good for Mark Potok and the SPLC for putting these hate mongers in the type of company where they belong.

Continue reading …
Fox News ‘is my favorite,’ Lieberman declares

Click here to view this media Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman isn’t hiding his love for Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. In a Monday interview on Fox Business Network’s Imus in the Morning , the senator from Connecticut declared that the Fox Business Network, Fox News and anything Murdoch owned were his “favorite.” Host Don Imus asked Lieberman if thought The New York Times should be prosecuted for reporting on secret State Department cables released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. “I don’t know if you can prosecute The Times under existing Supreme Court decisions,” Lieberman said. “But I’ll tell you this, I wish The Times , just as an act of citizenship had said, ‘No, we’re not going to publish this stuff because it’s going to do the country damage.’” “I know they will probably will say once it goes up on the WikiLeaks website in the world you can’t control it and they redacted, they blocked out some of the stuff in these cables,” he continued. “But, you know, The New York Times , afterall, is The New York Times with all its stature and I wish this stuff had appeared somewhere else. I wouldn’t be for prosecuting The Times , but I would say I wish they had shown better citizenship.” Lieberman then commended CNN for turning down the WikiLeaks documents because they were asked to sign a pledge of anonymity. “Incidentally, I heard last night, I was watching CNN and Joe [Johns] was on and he was doing the 10 o’clock news show and he said that CNN had been offered these documents by Wikileaks or a third party, but had turned it down because they refused to sign a pledge granting the source anonymity, which The Times did. And I give CNN and whoever else turned it down credit for doing that. The New York Times ‘ hands are dirty in this and they should have said ‘no,’” Lieberman said. “I hate CNN,” Imus replied. “I wish you hadn’t brought that up.” “I’m sorry about that! It just happened. But of course, really, Fox Business is my favorite and Fox generally, anything Rupert Murdoch owns,” Lieberman confessed. The liberal blog Think Progress first noticed Lieberman’s comments to Imus. The Connecticut senator may have good reason to love Fox News. During a tight 2006 Senate race, a volunteer for Ted Lamont accused the news channel of placing campaign signs for Lieberman in advance of an interview. “All of a sudden, two or three out-of-state vans (accompanied by a Fox News crew) pull up and unload a bunch of Lieberman lawn signs, placed right in front of the Lamont signs that had already been planted,” the volunteer said. “And, what do you know, after a few more minutes, who shows up but Joe himself, ready for the cameras.”

Continue reading …
Birthers’ newest claim: Obama not a ‘natural born citizen’ because father was Kenyan

Click here to view this media We’ve always said that wingnuts never, ever give up. And that would be especially true of the wingnuttiest of the current crop, the Birthers — because their theory has been so manifestly disproven so many times that you’d think they might have a clue by now. But no. Now they’re expanding their theory. They’re arguing that Obama, per the constitutional requirement that he be a “natural born citizen”, is disqualified from such status because his father was a British subject of Kenyan birth. What’s really funny about this theory is that these fetishists of all things from the Founding Fathers would thus have disqualified one of the leading founders, Thomas Jefferson, from the presidency. What’s perhaps not so funny about it is that the Supreme Court has this case on its docket. Unsurprisingly, the wingnuts at WorldNetDaily are all over the story: The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens. “This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.” There really shouldn’t be much to worry about here, truthfully: the lower courts have all tossed out this suit, and indeed the Third Circuit Appeals court ordered Apuzzo to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit (an order that was later vacated. On the other hand, considering that these appeals were tossed not on the merits of the case but on the lack of standing that Charles Kerchner actually had in filing the suit, and the fact that the Roberts Court has shown a disturbing tendency to liberalize standing when it suits the conservative wing, maybe we shouldn’t be so blithe. And what’s the basis of their theory? Back to WND: Apuzzo is arguing the “Vattel theory,” which asserts that the term “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, “The Law of Nations,” was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens. According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term “natural-born citizen” has never been altered. “The courts and Congress have never changed the definition,” said Apuzzo. “The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.” Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel’s definition of “natural-born citizen” in “dicta,” or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1814 “Venus” case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel’s definition. This is pretty odd reasoning. Especially when you consider that the same standard would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson — whose mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, was born in London, England: According to the Jefferson family bible, she was born 9 February 1721 (o.s.) in Shadwell parish, Tower Hamlets, London. The parish register of St. Paul’s, Upper Shadwell, notes her baptism on 25 February 1721 as the daughter of Isham Randolph (1687-1742), “mariner” of Shakespeare’s Walk (literally around the corner from the church), and Jane Rogers (1698-1760). None of this has slowed Kerchner — a retired Naval Reserve commander who lives in Pennsylvania — and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, whose blog is something of an Information Central for the case. Here, for instance, are the questions Apuzzo is arguing before the court: QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: PETITION 10-446 1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them. 2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen. 3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” 4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama. As Eric Zorn observes, these folks seem to think the Supreme Court is going to validate their effort to have a sitting president declared ineligible. Lotsa luck with that. But then, these are people with a real Magical Thinking problem.

Continue reading …
McCain Defends Palin: Ronald Reagan Used to be Viewed as Divisive Too

Click here to view this media John McCain is never going to admit it was a mistake or apologize for unleashing Sarah Palin on the rest of us. He continued to defend her on this Sunday’s State of the Union program on CNN. Someone needs to tell Candy Crowley that he’s never going to read her book either. CROWLEY: I have less than 30 seconds here. But I have to ask you about Sarah Palin. New book out that you’re going to read sooner or later. She’s going to Iowa, she’s going to South Carolina. The big game is, is she going to run for president, isn’t she going to run for president. You know her probably better than any politician who does. How do you read what’s going on? MCCAIN: I read I think she’s keeping her options open, and I think she should. I think she is an incredible force in the American political arena. CROWLEY: And a divisive force, would you agree? MCCAIN: I think that anybody who has the visibility that Sarah has is obviously going to have some divisiveness. I remember that a guy named Ronald Reagan used to be viewed by some as divisive. CROWLEY: So you sort of — do you see her as a parallel? MCCAIN: No, I think she’s doing a great job. I think she’s doing a great job. I think she has motivated our base. I think she had a positive impact on the last election, and I’m proud of her. CROWLEY: Senator John McCain, there is never enough time. Thank you so much. MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on. CROWLEY: I appreciate it. Looks like they’re never going to stop with the revisionist history on Ronnie Ray-gun either. I hate to break it to you, Johnny, but he’s still viewed as divisive by many of us as well.

Continue reading …