Replies

Kerchner has named Cheney and Pelosi among defendants in his lawsuit. Currently, no one has produced evidence that Bush imposed the reign of silence on conservative media. Could Clinton have been similarly muzzled - a promise of race riots?

Dear Spaulding,

Let me begin by saying that I enjoy reading your posts and the knowledge you bring to these discussions.

What you have said here is troubling. It would indicate that we are no longer a free country.

Thanks Thecodont. There is no proof of what Cmdr. Kerchner suspected, and it is irrelevant to the case. But the preparation preceding the Obama run was obviously world class. Those executing the plan knew what we didn't, that provisions of The Constitution without the mechanisms to force a reinterpretation of the meaning, blocked by “standing” which is controlled by politically appointed judges, can be circumvented.

By now there is bipartisan consensus that Marxism/Socialism is not consistent with freedom and the economic viability of our nation, and consensus, with their secret legislative sessions, that the left doesn't care. If the judiciary had honored its oath to support and defend The Constitution, we wouldn't be here because I'd be surprised if any federal attorney or legislator hadn't at least read Senate Res. 511, where the issue of two citizen parents is the heart of McCain's claim (though McCain never claimed to be a natural born citizen; he let others opine that even if he wasn't he should be, and no one disagreed).

If Kerchner’s conjecture is correct, Bush may have faced the bifurcation: race-war now, or let the economy and the nation reject Obama politically later. I would rather enforce the Constitution, but I understand how such a decision could be made. The economy was in peril. They may have felt that to not quench a potential race war, one which James Carville had all but promised, at this time of financial collapse was to abrogate their responsibility to protect the nation.The cost for their having chosen this path, if they did, is that the judicial branch must be understood as political rather than as impartial interpreters of the law.

The eligibility cover-up is not unlike the decision made by the Clinton administration to deploy the FBI, CIA, and press to cover up the missile attack on flight 800 in 1995. The Clinton team knew they would be perceived as weak on terror, and the airline industry would take a major hit if they didn't cover it up. They knew they couldn't resolve the problem, even if they knew who did it, in time to save his presidency. So they blamed exploding fuel tanks, fuel tanks which had never exploded before or since, and didn't even require that Boeing modify the planes flying with the identical tanks. While I don't agree with their choice, I understand why they did it.

I wonder if a the remedy might be to elect judges, as is done in some states? Or to require that judges be appointed alternately, one from each party, recognizing that they are beholden politically? In California we have turned out a number of supreme court justices. Perhaps judges should all need periodic confirmation - every four years?