Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« From The Department of "As If" | Main | Obama, The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers »

November 11, 2008

Comments

Pofarmer

I'm kinda wishing I could get off this ride.

PeterUK

"Obama will refocus our resources on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and finish the fight with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11."

Wonderful picture of thousands of bearers hiking a carrier battle group over the Hindu Khush.

Now that the pillock has told them of his intentions AQ will relocate.

MayBee

undoing all of the tax changes Bush signed into law

Hmmm. As far as I know, we have never gotten an answer from Obama about whether he will let "the Bush tax cuts" expire.
This seems to say he would, which means raising taxes on just about everybody.

I really don't want to see an unprecedented investment in young children's education. I do not think it is in this nation's best interest to continue to make it easier for parents to not have responsibility toward their own children.

bgates

Wonderful picture of thousands of bearers hiking a carrier battle group over the Hindu Khush.
Something very Major Motion Picture about that image. We'll call it "The Man Who Would Be Chairman of the Central Executive Committee".

PeterUK

bgates,
Yes with Will Smith as Obama,the carrier battle group will,of course,play itself."Gaffe" Biden in a cameo role as the head.

rizables

Thomas Sowell voted McCain because he preferred disaster to catastrophe.

Cohn begins to catalog the catastrophe.

Captain Hate

Re-organizing the country’s economy and infrastructure to fight climate change

Biden makes a good Sancho Panza, no?

PeterUK

Following The Emperor Obama's announcement,Afghanistan will be Satellite Phone World,every wandering goatherd will be issued with a phone and unlimited phone time.The will all be called Obama,sorry Osama.

PeterUK

"Biden makes a good Sancho Panza, no?"

No,the donkey Hotey.

bad

Peter, it isn't nice to abuse animals.

MikeS

When the financial crisis erupted, I was gratified to learn that Obama can do more than one thing at a time. I am very anxious to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice, so it is good to know I won't have to wait for the new President to restore the economy and stop the seas from rising before he puts and end to bin Laden.

PaulL

The quickest way to end any war is to surrender.

PeterUK

Obama looks to Iran to bring peace in Afghanistan. I thought he said he wasn't a Muslim?

TCO

Well, I hope you communist moron RINO Bush-dick-suckers are happy. You've killed any core Republican Reagan-Buckley-Goldwater theme in conservative, free-market ideals with your bailouts. Have fun bailing out Paulson's buddies (who by the way are incredibley wealthy AND vote Democratic AND sheild their wealth AND don't serve in the military). You and McCain got Obama elected by carrying water for the Democrats and Bush and Paulson. Now, you can ENJOY Obama doling out the bailout money. And bailing out newspapers and automakers. And you won't even be able to debate it. Since you've already sacrificed principles AND shown that you are morons at economics. Have fun with the nationalized nanny state. BOHICA, you mother-fuckers.

clarice

PUK and begates you will be the reason I am committed one day. Anyone walking into my office and seeing me laughing myself silly in front of the screen will certainly question my sanity.

Can I play the innocent goat girl who's really a princess running away from the groom her father has picked for her?

kim

Oh, TCO, go explain yourself to lucia. She's called you to the BlackBoard to perform.
=============================

Ranger

undoing all of the tax changes Bush signed into law

Hmmm... didn't Bush cut the lowest rate from 15% to 10%?

And Obama is saying now that he will undo that change as well?

TCO

Kim: Is she really asking for more of me?

kim

That's funny, TCO. How d'ya like them GISStemps?
==============================

kim

And Santer's Tantrums? And Willis's Willies? And Tamino's Spencer's?
=======================================

Jim Miller

Ranger - Yep, and Bush did some other things that took low income folks off the income tax rolls. But you just know that Obama's people think they can spend that money better than the dummies who are getting some tax relief now.

To be fair, I think Obama did usually say that he wanted the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire.

(Incidentally, one of the features of Bush's proposal to reform social security was, in effect, another tax cut for low income people. As I recall, Bush wanted them to be able to put away some money in a private account from their social security contribution -- without losing any benefits>)

Barry Dauphin

I guess Obama's plan will be easy to predict: do everything the opposite of Bush and that will make things better.

Angie Smith

Let's hope Obama can accomplish all the programs he wants to implement, i.e. the economy, the health care system and energy independence. I don't see how he can do this without resorting to taxes for almost everyone. Between him and his liberal, left-wing illuminati tax-and-spenders, where does he think this money is coming from? Bush may have spent large sums, but he also had 9/11 and two wars to contend with! Obama has no excuse--spend anyway even though you don't have it!

MikeS

TCO,
You cuss like a sissy!

kim

Angie, you're just as sensible as Mary Rose, from whom we don't hear enough lately.
===================================

clarice

AP says 72% of Americans think O is going to fix the economy. Depends on the meaning of the word "fix", I guess.

DrJ

Depends on the meaning of the word "fix", I guess.

I suppose it is similar to the manner in which people "fix" their pets. I always preferred "neuter," personally. I think the same is true for the economy.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Bush Tax Cuts and the Middle Class (chart)

kim

We're the dog jumpin' up and down in the back of the pick-up pulling out the drive barking to the rest of the pack "Master's takin' me into town to get tutored".
=============================

Ranger

Via Hot Air, this http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNCFKvAMUQ6w&refer>Bloomburg commentary has some interesting observations on Barry's economic team. Some choice bits:

Take a good look at some of the 17 people our nation's president-elect chose last week for his Transition Economic Advisory Board. And then try saying with a straight face that these are the leaders who should be advising him on how to navigate through the worst financial crisis in modern history.

...

So, by my tally, almost half the people on Obama's economic advisory board have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both. Do you think any of that came up in the vetting?

...

The president-elect needs some new advisers -- fast. We are in a crisis of confidence in American capitalism. These aren't the right people to re-instill its sense of honor.

Many of them should be getting subpoenas as material witnesses right about now, not places in Obama's inner circle. Did Obama learn nothing from the ill-fated choice of James Johnson, the former Fannie Mae boss, to lead his vice- presidential search committee?

DrJ

Kim,

Too true, I'm afraid.

TCO

Here you go RINOs. Suck the socialism.

http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/11/our-3-trillion-bailout

TCO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_mortgages

There's some more for you. Fucking communists. Hope you don't rent...or have a paid off house...or are making your payments. You deserved to lose to Obama. You're the fucking same as him. You just put a little button next to the R, but you don't know shit about conservative values. I hope Palin guts you like steers.

troll squad

I just love when the KOS kiddies come around, slinging their vulgarities instead of their cojones - which are shriveled up like prunes and can't really be slung anywhere.

kim

Missives from the frozen frontiers of idealism, crudely encrystallated. Talk to me about climate; about that I'm interested in your opinion.
========================================

kim

I mean you, Talking Climate Opinion.
=======================

Captain Hate

I hope when I use profanity in comments, I do it with better impact than TCO who sounds like a grade-school kid who just learned some "naughty" words and is using them strictly to offend the adults. It's too bad because unlike Jork and Semanticleo's many incarnations, he seems to have some degree of cognitive ability that needs to be employed more effectively.

kim

Just pretend he's the Tourette's Guy.
=======================

kim

And Leo can think, and spawn teufelshunde.
============================

TCO

kim: Go to Climate Audit and start at the very beginning (2005 or whatever) and read each post and the replies. I have comments in most of them. It will at a minimum, show how to consider things critically.

TCO

I told you...peeeple...what would happen when McCain went pro-bailout. He was 4 points ahead before...and he ended up losing by 6 points. 10 point swing. He killed himself. Guy is born to be a legislator, born to be a good loser. Born to be a RINO.

I'm just glad that the majority of Republicans still voted against the bailout. But...you people...you are RINOs. I hope African hunters kill you and cut your tusks off and your whole species dies out.

PD

I guess Obama's plan will be easy to predict: do everything the opposite of Bush and that will make things better.

Standard Dem procedure. Pre-ISG, Pelosi criticized Bush for not sending enough troops into Iraq to "get the job done" (so that we could get the heck out, I guess). When the ISG recommended sending more troops and Bush agreed, Pelosi criticized him for sending more troops into harm's way.

kim

No doubt we each have a thing or two to teach each other about critical reading and thinking. I've been reading at Climate Audit since around the time Steve was getting ready for his Congressional Testimony, which you'd know if you'd been reading comments, and I saw plenty of your substance and style, before you were finally banned. That's why I have the respect I do for your opinion about climate. It is your extreme and intemperate opinions about other matters which neither I, nor few others, trust. So please, get up in front of the class and tell me what you think about Santer, and Spencer, and Willis, and the recent news about them. Do you need more prompting? Must I be more specific? Please. Speak with authority for a change.
================================

kim

By the way, TCO, that bit about sawing the tusks off, that's not sissy cussing, that's rococo cussing. See, folks, I told you TCO has something to add.
====================================

kim

About the bailout. The arsonists(Democrats) light the conflagration, fan the flames, shoot at the fireman when they arrive on the scene, and you want to blame the heroes for walking into an inferno? Get real, kiddo.
===================================

TCO

Kim:

The vast majority of the "fire" was speculation by private entities (even including Fannie and Freddie, but certainly home owners, Goldman Sachs, etc.) They should have been allowed to take their loss. The "rescue" is doing more damage and transferring more wealth, than just letting people who made bet bets take a loss. Only if you are some sort of Keynsian, some sort of managed economy type, do you think that we need to "save Goldman Sachs". The world can do just fine without it. Better in fact. Saving it rewards bad behavior and incentivizes more. But money is EASILY moved from lenders to borrowers despite the CDL losses of hedge funds.

Kim: If you have a specific climate question, pose it. If you want a generality, my advice is to read back over the history of CA...not just when you joined.

TCO

Would Milton Freidman have been in favor of the bailout?

TCO

The Us underwent a huge loss of paper wealth with the dotcom bust. The housing and financial instrument bubble is similar. Let people take their losses. Don't bail them out. Look at AIG. Let it collapse (the loss is at the corporate level, the actual insurance companies are sound and separate). That thing is being kept propped up, not for insurance owners, but for counterparties (especially Goldman) to CDLs.

kim

No, you miss the point, had they all been allowed to 'take their loss' the credit crunch would've paralyzed the economy, as it is there is some paresis. Milton Friedman didn't have to act with dispatch.

I've got the generalities about climate. What do think of Santer not divulging his work for ease of reproducibility, of Spencer challenging the water vapor feedback of the models, and Josh Willis finagling the ocean temperature data? Also, what about Jason and sea level data?
========================================

TCO

I got the "point". I don't agree with the reasoning. There were some very good articles on how local banks were doing fine, were getting lots of lending done. THere is a dangerous disservice being done mizing the term bank with institutions like Goldman Sachs that just made big bets. If they lose, fine. Let them go under. They are glorified hedge funds.

Santer: I think he should share results, even intermediate ones, if convenient. I am sympathetic to Santer's point of view wrt Steve, who publishes in process analysis with titles like "stupid pet tricks". In particular, were I Santer, I would be less likely to stir myself much given that Steve does not finish his analyses to final publications (I'd rather share information with someone...even someone who rips me apart...when that person finishes the job...and if it's not published...it's just internet crap...like Chefen's analyses which have now disappeared into the ether.) Am also sympathetic to his view that Steve should have audited Douglass, rather than the sort of bizarre, not taking a stance, non-defense, non-commenting, that Steve did. THat said, if it is simple, would share it. Despite thinking Steve is a worm ethically and pompous and probably a penny stock manipulator.

Spencer: Have not read much.

Jason: Have never heard of.

TCO

The free enterprise system is perfectly capable of functioning with people taking losses. Actually it functions better that way. Allowing people NOT to take haircuts is what is dangerous.

kim

How would it not be convenient to share the work? Presumably he had 16 collaborators. Did they not share data? As some one as pointed out over there at CA the FoIA request will be more of a hassle than just sharing his data upfront. I think he's angry and hiding because Steve has already found a big flaw in his work.

I suspect, given the echo-chambered peer review in the field he is auditing, that Steve's method of running his work on an open blog is actually more effective than the traditional journal article route. I agree, had he not faced such absurd resistance, the traditional way may have been better. Your insinuations about his character say more about you than about he.

Spencer is demonstrating that the assumptions about water vapor feedback in the models are wrong. C'mon, this is hot stuff.

Josh Willis, after claiming for years that the Argos buoys show slight ocean cooling for those last few years, is now waffling by adjusting the data. Haven't we seen this movie before?

Jason is the satellite measuring sea level. After it started showing the rise in sea level stopping, and perhaps a little dropping, data publication from it has been suspended, for unexplained technical reasons.

You don't seem to be as aware of the scene as you used to be. Watts Up With That?
====================================

TCO

Kim:

It is possible that it may be inconvenient to share information requested. It may not be easy at hand in the format that Steve asked for. For instance, Steve McI took several months to share with me a few lines of code, once, on something he had published (and I had to agitate for it). I would also be careful with throwing the term "data" around. I think McI is really looking more for an algorithm or an intermedieate result. Not "data".

No comment needed on the rest.

Soylent Red

TCO voted for Obama.

So he could keep the party reaaaaaal.

kim

Steve is trying to audit Santer's work. If he needs the intermediate results, let him have it. Santer doesn't have a good reason to withhold it, and should give it under the law and as the right thing to do scientifically.

Your no comment is eloquent. Thanks for the civility. You're so much more persuasive when you keep a civil tongue in your head.
====================================

TCO

kim: You said you were intereted in my views. I supplied them. Don't jump to a conclusion that I'm interested in yours.

PeterUK

"I told you...peeeple...what would happen when McCain went pro-bailout. He was 4 points ahead before...and he ended up losing by 6 points. 10 point swing."

Which is simply bollocks.The Tacoma tap dancing over the bailout bill in Congress gave the MSM enough time to splash the collapse nation wide,time for collateral damage to occur.Remember the lie that it was the Republicans who blocked the first vote ?
By and large,the vote was against the Republicans because the debacle hit on their watch.The Democrats dragged their feet for political purposes.

TCO

Ant-bailout Republicans did well in Congressional races. The entire accomadationalists strucka damaging blow to REpublicanism by clouding the issue of what we stand for and by giving cover to a Bush-Paulson-Democrat government recue. It's similar to Bush ! on the no new taxes. No longer can we say ":read my lips, no new taxes". He shot us in the foot by losing a cutting wedge issue. THe pro bailout people did the same.

TCO

I told you waht would happen and it did.

"Mavericl" should have been a real maverick and run against the Bush bailout. You can tell Palin wanted to, but was constrained by McCain policy. And McCain at heart is a centrist and a Washington problem solver. So he was all over trying to have a government solution instea of letting the free market function.

This not only cause the loss of that leelction. It is also going to make it lots easier for more sociualism to be dirven down our throuats in the next year or two as Pelosi and Obama "save" the economy. We won't even be able to argue against it, because you RIONS, you econ morons have conceded the feild of defending gthe free market.

And the free market functions. It functions great. The same people who aregu for government control (Paiulson, Benranke) did not have the forsight to predict what happened. You should not, then take their word for it when the predict consequences of allowing bankruptricies.

The best thing this country could have is some more bankruptcies like Kehman. Instead we have got too addicted from several years (going back to the dotcoms) of people making money by incredible wealth transfers, with little real value creation for the overall economy)., We need to let PAulsons buddies TAKE THEIR LOSSES.

kim

Yeah, I know, Peter. He's convinced himself that McCain failed by losing the market purists; the horde who believe as he does. What a dreamer.

TCO, you've disappointed. You're defending opacity in science in a field with critically important policy decisions, and it smells a lot like you've let a personal grudge against Steve color your opinion. Plus, you seem to have lost interest in the great climate debate. Whatsamatta, no one listening to you anymore?
======================================

PeterUK

"I told you waht would happen and it did."

Not for the reasons you gave.If you had been right Ron Paul would have thrived.Political parties who have an economic collapse on their hands get punished at the polls.

PeterUK

Kim,
Amazing how thin on the ground free market purists are.
I wonder who TCO voted for,the protectionist Obama?

Pofarmer

AP says 72% of Americans think O is going to fix the economy. Depends on the meaning of the word "fix", I guess.

It's a wonder Bush's approval ratings are as high as they are then. We are populated by morons, apparently.

Pofarmer

The question in my mind, I suppose, is how much can we keep throwing into bailouts before we wreck the dollar, cause massive inflation, or both. Between servicing the debt, and social programs, there isn't going to be any money left to do what the govt is actually chartered to do.

kim

Money pales in the face of change no one hoped for. Money may be the least of Obama's problems.
==========================

Pofarmer

Christian science Monitor on Derivatives.

The numbers are just huge, hadn't seen all of them in one place. LUN

Pofarmer

Susan Estrich on Palin

LUN.

Pofarmer

Oh, yeah, Estrich says that Palin contributed to Palin's defeat, rather than helped him. I suppose she was a Liebermann fan?

bio mom

People can really be delusional. A good friend who owns a small restaurant actually said, about the financil crisis, that maybe things will be better once there is a new president. This was before the election. I was flabbergasted at such a naive statement from a man who should know better.

Pofarmer

Well, Estrich's argument seems to be that the McCain adds supposedly smearing Palin is proof that she was inept, rather than the other way around. Too many folks too close to the fire, I think.

Captain Hate

The wisdom of Susan Estrogen: "For years I've been dining out on the story of the 1988 vice presidential debate, where Lloyd Bentsen literally cleaned Dan Quayle's clock".

Is that so? He went into Quayle's house, grabbed some Windex and a rag and cleaned off a clock? Another witless harpy with nothing intelligent to say. Fortunately it wasn't a vid clip so I didn't have to listen to her grating obnoxious voice which makes me figuratively nauseous.

bad

Po, remind me of Estrich's winning campaign.

Captain Hate

AP says 72% of Americans think O is going to fix the economy. Depends on the meaning of the word "fix", I guess.

If they mean it like "fix" a male dog, count me in with the 72%.

Captain Hate

Argh, didn't see that DrJ had already made the same point.

Porchlight

Another witless harpy with nothing intelligent to say.

Captain Hate, didn't you know that Susan Estrich was the first female president of the Harvard Law Review? Don't you understand that, as is obviously true of our Dear Leader Barack, that having been president of the HLR automatically means that she is supremely intelligent and that she never, ever says anything stupid?

Captain Hate

Porch, I assume that Susan Esbitch has a paper trail of articles published in the HLR that would explain her attaining that lofty position, unlike a certain biracial politician that is reported to be brilliant. Imagine, she might even have a real COLB, undergrad transcript and people that remember knowing her from wherever the hell that was; with that obnoxious voice, who could forget? She still doesn't know the definition of the word "literally", like many purported "intellectuals".

bad

Captain, you literally made me laugh. Again

Porchlight

Me, too, bad. Especially the part about the voice.

Dr. Robert Coambs

Obama Cannot Be President
by Dr. Robert Coambs

Dr. Coambs studies human reasoning and logic.

Obama is Disqualified by the Known Unknowns

(1) At the time of the November 4 election, Obama' eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate. That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).

Furthermore Obama's eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it. When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence. Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.

(2) Among the US citizenry are the following:
The current POTUS
The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
The US Supreme Court
The US Congress
The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
The Members of the Electoral College

To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS. They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.

(3) The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day. However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).

(4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation. It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20). Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here. We begin with the major premise, which is from the US constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

(5) From this we can construct the following syllogism:

Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise: Obama's eligibility is not publicly known.
Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.

(6) How Categorical Syllogisms work

When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this. It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
All humans are mortal.
Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
Socrates is human.
Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable. It is not subject to debate. These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe. At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.

Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe. If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true. If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true. If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct. If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4. The syllogism would also be true. These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.

The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy. There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true. The conclusion must be true.

The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.

As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS. Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama only the president-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward. As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true: Obama is not POTUS. At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.

Obama has ample time to act. If at any time Obama becomes publicly known to be eligible, then this syllogism would be invalid. That is, Obama might be POTUS, because he would be eligible. The conclusion of the syllogism would be invalid, because the minor premise would be invalid. The minor premise states "Obama's eligibility is not publicly known". If his eligibility becomes known, then the conclusion is invalid, and Obama might be eligible. But until his eligibility is publicly known, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20.

If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS. If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS. Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS.

The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time. So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it's form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention.

If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS. If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS. For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS. No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS. It is not possible to change the past. Obama never was POTUS.

None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS. Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid. Nothing.

If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy. Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS. POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama. If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for war crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS. Because of the way military law works, there is no middle ground. The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.

There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism. They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and (b) It may be correct and patriotic to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama. This may apply to all American citizens.

If the US Constitution was changed before Jan 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change. Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid. Obama might be eligible to be POTUS. But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009. If an effort is made to change the Constitution after Januray 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS. Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the Constitutional change into law.

Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President. The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to. However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law. It would be up to his discretion. Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be empowered to re-assume the position of POTUS.

This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proven in any court. The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly . These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them. No human can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism. Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.

Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or any human authority. These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this. Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS. However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.

Therefore, So long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS. If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS. Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic. Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.

SUMMARY

Major Premise:

To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be publicly known.

Minor Premise:

Obama's eligibility is not publicly known.

This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.

Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.

___________________________________________


Note 1. The unknown status of Obama's eligibility is typified in a current court case in New Jersey.

It is the case of lawyer Leo Donofrio versus New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. In it, Donofrio claims that it is the duty of Wells, as Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state.

Specifically, Donofrio notes in the brief accompanying the Application for Emergency Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Wells was required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to make a statement in which she certifies and signs off on the names of the candidates on the ballots. The statute, in relevant part with emphasis added:

"The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election."

In other words, Leo Donofrio suggests that the New Jersey Secretary of State appeared unaware of the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS. If she was aware of Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, she did not communicate this to the electorate.
____________________________________________________

To reply to Dr. Coambs, please leave a comment on the following thread:
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/11/sitrep-obama-citizenship-nov-11-08----a-key-known-unknown-sinks-obama.html

kim

'publicly known' is not Constitutional language. It is implied, but is that strong enough to form your major premise?
==================================

TCO

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

Here you go, bailout supporters. I'm still amazed that you think I'm a purist for not supporting stuff like this.

Have fun eating crap.

kim

Strawman. I call you a purist for supporting the idea of letting a credit crunch destroy the economy in support of your free market ideals.
================================

truthynesslover

Ken Silverstein interviews David Hendrickson, author of "blogbook" Cause for Depression: A pictorial guide to the financial crisis and a professor at Colorado College. Hendrickson's response to a question about how the financial crisis will affect Obama's administration:

There will be decisive constraints. They will be able to undertake new initiatives, but only ones directed towards savings and cutting programs to make them more cost-effective. Obama’s capacity to undertake major initiatives in programs like health care will be extremely limited. The economic crisis Obama is inheriting is like the first President Bush’s gift of Somalia to the Clinton administration. After the 1992 election, President Bush sent substantial forces to Somalia, which became an enormous headache for Clinton. It was a parting gift. Now multiply the headache by 100 times. It’s not an entirely apt analogy, but the Bush Administration’s response to the financial crisis is a huge albatross for Obama.

Country first.

kim

You forget, truthy, Democrats caused it. Bush has kept it from being worse. Well, until O'Shit got elected and confidence went to Hell.
=============================

TCO

We have had recessions before. Paulson and Bush have been insane with their actions during the bailout. Let's see...we have a bunch of large financial institutions which made husge risky leveraged bets, that are going tits up. So let's give them more money. From the taxpayers.

kim

The fire is still raging, and you still want to snipe at the firefighters. Go defend Santer, ya' putz.
=========================

kim

Special for you: www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

H/t Michael Sirks
===========================

TCO

More than half of Republican congressman voted against the bailout. Stop it with the bailout/rescue justification. It is an argument for government activism. THe market can handle Goldman Sachs going bankrupt. The deserve to. We have now poured 150 million into AIG. This is insane.

sophy

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Hellgate London gold .

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame