The Natural Born Rock Bomber

Rock Bomber = The name my 3 year old young nephew used when identifying Barack Obama. I liked the ring it had to it, like a bad old AC/DC song, so I think I'll be calling him the Rock Bomber from now on.

Onto the topic. In the context of some comments on another blog I read, I asked this question about a particular potential scenario in this election.

* Obama gets elected.
* Some kind of incontrovertible evidence that he was born elsewhere - a country other than the U.S. - comes out.
* What happens now? Does he get removed? By who? Who replaces him? I assume there's not a re-vote is there?


I was directed by a commenter on the thread to an essay written by a Constitutional Attorney and professor who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School) , OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN. I highly recommend giving it a read. Here are some of the most interesting parts, taken from the list of consequences if this scenario actually occurred:

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even if something approaching civil war did not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

If nothing else I'd recommend reading the entire list of potential consequences, 1-8. Interesting stuff. That would be high comedy - albeit potentially disastrous - indeed.

The Illusion of Choice Plan

In light of the current presidential campaign and the outspoken desires of both candidates, I thought of a way to get both men running on the same page when it comes to healthcare. First, some context to build my Illusion of Choice Plan upon.

Obama:

"I think health care should be a right for every American."

McCain:

"As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."

So, here's the plan. Instead of being responsible and either securing health insurance or paying your medical bills, people should just take out mortgages and pay their medical bills with the mortgage money. Then, folks can just not pay their medical mortgage and the government can buy them up. All is well, everyone - both Obama and McCain - is happy. The government can rosily and magically pay off everyone's obligations. And by pay off, I of course mean take from someone and give to someone else, since the government is not a producer of anything and is impotent in and of itself when it comes to being able to forgive debt and/or pay off anything.


So, The Illusion of Choice Plan is an option, or you can do what's best for individuals and individual liberty - you know, that whole concept that made this country so unique and good in the first place - and vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Other acceptable votes would be for Alan Keyes of the Independent Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party or you could write in Ron Paul.

The bailout passed - and it sucks

This post isn't going to contain any particularly insightful information that you couldn't get somewhere else. I just wanted to be another voice out there on the internets expressing my frustration and dismay that this kind of crazy, criminal, evil theft is possible.

Here's the list of those who were explicitly acting in an wrong manner or were too cowardly to do the right thing. Those from both parties who did the right thing are also listed. Props to the folks from Kansas (my home state).

yea-or-nay

To Serve and Protect - and Protect

A two part post based on a few things of interest to me that I saw on the local news recently.

Part 1: To Serve and Protect

This story about the Denver cops completely losing control and beating the tar out of some guy in front of Coors Field on opening day was more than a bit bothersome, particularly because of their attitude and what they had to say when onlookers instinctively tried to come to the aid of the man getting beaten. I like to think I'm pretty even keel when it comes to my thoughts and views about policemen. I appreciate the difficulty of the work they are required to do and respect the ones who are good at it but crap like this is just appalling and unacceptable. Seriously, imagine what kind of time any normal civilian would be looking at if he assaulted someone like these cops did. I'm going to make an effort to follow this story a bit. I'll be very disgusted if some kind of serious penalty is not dealt out to the cops involved. Anyone have any thoughts about what a fair punishment is for the cops involved in this incident?


Part 2: and Protect

On the same newscast that the 'cops beating the hell out of a guy' story ran, they were talking about how the Secret Service will be posting snipers on multiple (unnamed) buildings downtown and around the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field as a measure in the effort to protect Obama when he's in Denver. I found a story in the Post about this where it says they requested an additional $9.5 million in order to cover unexpected costs of protecting both presidential candidates. My question here is, why does the Secret Service protect people who are are not yet presidents (or ex-presidents)? What I'm really getting at is, why are tax payers responsible for the protection of someone they have not elected (yet)? Is there some constitutional amendment or law or court ruling that exists that gives the powers that be some warrant for simply throwing money (to the tune of $9.5 million) at situations like this? Or are the people holding the purse strings just arbitrarily assuming the power and authority to spend money in this manner?

Go Ahead and Kill Him

"If you don't come with me, bad things are going to happen."

Bengtsson drove her in her mother's car to the motel, where he took her into a room, locked the door behind them and barricaded it with chairs, police said. Then he gave her two options: She could kill him or have sex with him, police said. She refused and he raped her, documents said.

So, obviously - the best option here is to teach your child that no matter what, she needs to NOT go with the dude and instead scream, alerting mom and dad so they can do their thing. It is not her fault if he hurts someone in the family because of what she did, nor is it her responsibility to protect everyone - it is her parents.

That being said, I'd like to be sure I instill the will and ability in my daughter to go ahead and kill the guy, guilt free, if he puts that offer on the table.

People are evil.

Reasonable Faith

I just finished reading the book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics written by William Lane Craig. It's not a particularly new work, the original copyright date was 1984 - it's been revised and updated a few times since then. Since my atheist friends put a few intellectual stones in my shoe regarding my faith some time ago, I've been navigating my way around the world of Christian Apologetics. I've read a good bit, and have a lot more reading to do. I stumbled upon Craig both by word of mouth from some other friends and had read about him and his organization (named Reasonable Faith as well) at numerous places online. The word is that this guy is supposed to be one of the heavy hitters in the world of Christian Apologetics and this book is his landmark work.

One thing I can say about him is that if you're the kind (like me) who can be a bit turned off by the 'pop debates' that have been out there between Christians and Atheists (I'm thinking in the vein of D'Souza vs. Hitchens here) and are looking for a bit more respectful interaction, deeper subject matter, and less mud slinging, I'd suggest reading or listening to debates Craig has had with numerous atheists. IMHO, he and his opponents are usually on a higher playing field the pop debaters I've seen. Unsurprisingly, this book was the same in this sense.

I've talked to people (both Christian and atheist) who are turned off by authors like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. I've read some stuff Strobel has written and haven't read anything by McDowell. I would guess that the people I've talked to are turned off by this type of author and style of writing because of its lowest common denominator approach. Put simply, books by these types of apologists are usually written for the layman. Because of this, many arguments being put forth are simply not as sophisticated as they are in other circles and shortcuts are often taken for the author to get where he's going. To be clear, I think these types of books and authors have their place and are not worthless. But, if you're craving is for something more in depth where arguments on both sides are developed more thoroughly and with more academic rigor, they are probably not for you.

So, Reasonable Faith... what kind of apologetic work is this? It's the other kind. The kind where the academic depth, rigor and thoroughness leads to the book not being the best kind for reading late at night when you're tired. This is usually when I read the most, late at night, after the kids are in bed, and because of the nature of this work, I found myself having to reread sections many times, just because the text requires such focus and attention.

The book was very good, although like I said it is the kind of thing that I wasn't able to just read casually right before bed when I was already very tired. After reading a book like this, I can honestly not understand the accusation I've heard leveled at Christians many a time that they are irrational for even thinking Christianity could possibly be true as if they have no good reason at all to think it was. It is fair to disagree with some of Craig's (and other Christian's) conclusions, but it is simply not fair to assert that Christians have no epistemic integrity at all when it comes to them thinking Christianity as true.

There were a few issues raised by skeptics on this blog (or in one case, on the blog of one of the commenters here) that are specifically addressed in Reasonable Faith. I'll list those that came to mind here.

-----

An assertion that an "infinite regression doesn't need an end" (or in other words, an actual infinity is possible).

You say god doesn't need a cause, well I reply infinite regression doesn't need an end(as in the universe was created by a big bang, and that was created by another big bang, etc-NO God neccesssary).

The impossibility of this assertion is demonstrated in Chapter 3: The Existence of God.

-----

A question regarding claims Jesus made about himself.

What if Jesus actually said I [like] ham [while sitting in] the Sun [and the eating] of cod and someone just accidentally thought He said, "I am the son of God."

Chapter 6 of this book, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, renders this view unreasonable. Chapter 7, The Self Understanding of Jesus provides more support to show that the view is incorrect.

-----

• A question from a friend's blog on The Popularity of Christianity. Why did it take off like it did?
  

This question is sufficiently addressed in the 8th chapter, The Resurrection of Jesus. I say 'sufficiently' because the specific question is not addressed. Specifically, the author argues for why to believe the resurrection of Christ actually occurred. This line of reasoning often finds itself engrossed the context of why Christ's contemporaries, the founders of the Christian Church believed it to be true. The short answer to the question is that Christ was resurrected from the dead. The chapter goes into the details of why we ought to think this actually happened.

-----

A chapter I personally found to be quite interesting was the 2nd chapter, The Absurdity of Life Without God. More than anything I would say I was drawn in by the title of it. I'd never considered the notion of applying the word 'absurd' as a description of life if God did not exist. This is available freely as a pdf here.

Christians playing chess

An atheist commenter on how the New Atheists are playing chess and Christians are playing checkers.

You see here's how it works. A Christian will say that they will debate the issue using nothing more than reason and logic. With lots of confidence they'll step into the circle.

There is a back and forth but eventually they end up retreating to the land of no logic where certain things don't need to be explained and gullibility is a virtue. Often times they don't get there until they embarrass themselves. The analogy "it's like playing chess with someone who thinks you're playing checkers is a good one."

It makes you wonder why they just don't stay in the land of faith and leave it at that.

I'm sure there are more than these out there, but here are a few resources from some Christians who seem to be quite comfortable and good at taking the likes of Dawkins in his own lofty 'chess playing' venue.

I've blogged on it before, but I'll mention it again. Vox Day, in his book The Irrational Atheist, handily squashes the central argument Dawkins makes in The God Delusion.

Greg Koukl, of the organization Stand to Reason, does a fine job in exploiting the impotence of Dawkins' argument as well.

From the article...

Even if we grant (4) [Dawkins' premise - "The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. The appearance of design is an illusion."] – a highly controversial point, given the amount of contrary evidence – Dawkins only succeeds in showing that the design argument fails. It’s entirely possible that other arguments succeed. Since there is nothing in Richard Dawkins’s line of reasoning that contributes to his conclusion, the central argument of his book is irrational.