Tag Archives: draft

Lawrence O'Donnell: What A Dirtbag

If you haven’t heard about the interview Herman Cain did with Lawrence O’Donnell on Thursday night by now, I’m sure you will pretty soon.  It was one of the worst things I’ve seen on cable news in recent memory.  It might even be the worst thing I’ve seen on cable news, period.  It’s hard to rank these things, but I’m pretty sure this is "top 10" material.

The interview, in question, was pretty lengthy, as MSNBC has it broken up into three parts.  You can see them here, here, and here.

Now, I know many of you don’t expect outstanding journalism from MSNBC, and for the most part, I don’t either, but… This was pretty bad.  In part one of the interview, Lawrence O’Donnell chastises Herman Cain for not being more involved with the Civil Rights movement.  He actually gives Cain a hard time, because Cain said he sat in the back of the bus, so he wouldn’t get in trouble.  Keep in mind that Herman Cain is a man who got his Masters Degree and has been very successful in many industries; Cain is not wired to be a "trouble maker".  That wasn’t good enough for O’Donnell.  The MSNBC anchor pushed him and implied that progress in the Civil Rights movement would have never been made, if all of the black people just sat in the back of the bus.  It was a very awkward and terrible segment.  It’s actually what I was going to write about at first…..  But then I saw part two of the interview, and what I saw upset me so much that I stopped watching and began writing the words you’re looking at right now.

The subject was Herman Cain’s service to this country during the Viet Nam War.  The short story is this:  Herman Cain went to college (got a masters degree, even) and worked for the Department of the Navy doing analysis that helped with ballistic weapons.  Lawrence O’Donnell then went on to accuse Herman Cain of being a draft dodger, because he didn’t VOLUNTEER to go.  (Cain was actually available for the draft, but his number was never called)  Here’s some of their conversation below:

Lawrence: Can you explain how you avoided military service during the Viet Nam War and during the draft and why you should be Commander in Chief if you did successfully avoid military service during the war that came during what would have been your war years?  After avoiding the Viet Nam war, why should you be Commander in Chief?

Cain:  Now, your choice of words… "How did I avoid the Viet Nam War?"  I wasn’t trying to avoid the Viet Nam War.  Here’s what happened, Lawrence…  I was working in a critical area called "exterior ballistics".  I worked on something called the "rocket assisted projectile" for the department of the Navy.

Cain then went on to say:

Cain:  …When they had the (draft) lottery, I made myself available.  The year that they had the lottery for the draft, they did not draft me, because they did not get to my number.  So I think that’s a poor choice of words on your part to say that "I avoided the Viet Nam War".

Lawrence:  I am offended on behalf of all of the veterans of the VIet Nam War who joined, Mr. Cain.  The veterans who did not wait to be drafted, like John Kerry, who joined.  They didn’t sit there and wait to find out what their draft board was gonna do.  They had the courage to join and to go and fight that war.  What prevented you from joining, and what gives you the feeling that after having made that choice, you should be the Commander in Chief?

Alright… Let me get my snarky thought out of the way first.  Mr. O’donnell, what made Barack Obama think he should be the Commander in Chief?  Was it all of the flyers he stapled to telephone poles on the south side of Chicago?  Was it his church that said we "deserved 9/11 to happen to us"?  Was it his wife who had never been proud of America?  What, Mr. O’Donnell, made our current president think he "should be Commander in Chief"?

Secondly, I rarely pull the military card, but I have served this nation honorably, and I can tell you things that might not be common knowledge.  Herman Cain might not have gone off to the Viet Nam War to go live what has been described by many to be hell, but he did do work that helped make life less of a hell for the service members who did go.  He stayed in the United States and helped the military develop artillery.  When I was in the service, I cannot tell you how thankful I was to civil servants and contractors who made our weapons for us. 

See, I don’t know if many people realize it or not, but our warriors don’t work in the factories that make the many weapon systems that we use, and they don’t design them either.  They may have input on what ends up being developed, but it is civilians who bust their humps here in the United States that actually provide us with the tools that we need.  Herman Cain was providing those tools.  It is asinine to say that Herman Cain did not serve during the Viet Nam War.  He was helping develop weapons systems while he was in the draft pool.  The man didn’t "dodge" anything, and he did more to serve this country than President Obama ever chose to do.

That segment of the interview was infuriating for me to watch.  It was honestly one of the most disrespectful and least truthful things I have seen a supposed journalist do.  Herman Cain helped work on the weapons that service members were using to fight the war.  You don’t have to stand on the front line to play a part in winning the war, and again, Cain has done more to serve this country than President Obama ever thought to do.  He’s created more jobs too, but that’s beside the point.

Before I go, I thought you might like to see an example of what "rocket assisted projectiles" does.  Maybe this will give you an idea of why I said service members would find what Cain did to be helpful.  Click here, and enjoy.

FEC Suspends Decision on Foreign-Born Presidential Candidate

Today, the Federal Election Commission took up the last remaining question that foreign-born Presidential hopeful Abdul Hassan asked them. Can he receive taxpayer money to run his presidential campaign?

Mr. Hassan is a Guatamala-born naturalized U.S. citizen. The Constitution says that only natural-born citizens (or those in the U.S. at the time of the signing of the Constitution) can be elected President.

The members of the committee remarked that the larger than normal number of comments seemed to have come from regular people – not the usual collection of lawyers. It would appear that Americans had a lot to say on the issue and the commission listened. One commissioner noted that the comments included the basic question, “Are you serious, can he really get taxpayer money to run for an office he can’t legally hold?”

Several other points were made during the session. First, if they let him collect matching funds, to run a campaign for an office he cannot hold, are they not aiding and abetting a fraudster? This test probably should have been applied to the other three questions that would allow Hassan to take money for his campaign from those who would be sucked into his fraudulent endeavor.

After about 30 minutes of discussion the panel decided to work on a new opinion, with changed language, but no clear direction. The panel will have to reconvene to decide this question.

 

FEC To Allow Foreign-Born Citizen to Run for President

The six commissioners of the Federal Election Commission are being tasked with a Constitutional question: Can a foreign-born citizen run for President of the United States?

The Constitution strictly forbids anyone but a “natural-born citizen” from becoming president, but it does not restrict candidacy. Now, the FEC won’t either.

Guyana-born New York attorney Abdul Hassan would like to file papers, take campaign contributions, and collect federal matching funds for his candidacy. Two draft advisory opinions from the FEC may let him do just that – even though he can never be sworn into that office.

Hassan had posed four questions to the commission.

1) As a naturalized American citizen, will Mr. Hassan be considered a “candidate ” or “person ” running for President under the Act?

2) As a naturalized American citizen, is Mr. Hassan eligible to receive presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act?

3) As a naturalized American citizen, will Mr. Hassan violate 2 U.S.C. 44Ih(b) if he solicits and receives contributions for his presidential campaign?

4) Is Mr. Hassan required to comply with the Act’s provisions regarding expenditures, contributions, record keeping, and reporting?

The opinions state that he can be a candidate, can collect campaign contributions and would be required to disclose his campaign finances to the commission. The difference between the two opinions is the question of whether or not he may receive federal matching funds for his campaign. Draft A forbids him from collecting the matching money and Draft B sidesteps the question as “hypothetical”.

Why Hassan is pressing this issue, with full knowledge that he will not win the election and even if he did, could not be president is not immediately clear. It could be the slippery-slope approach that liberals take when attempting to erode the power of the Constitution. Before long, the FEC may be questioning the definition of “natural-born” or “citizen”. It would only take a single challenge to his candidacy to open a legal case that would ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.

The Constitution does not define “natural-born citizen”. That term is defined in section 8 of the United States Code of  Laws. This challenge could open up the question of whether the U.S. code is an accurate or Constitutionally-acceptable definition. Semantics are the tool of the left and they may be at work to change the application of a fundamental clause in the U.S. Constitution.

This is not the first attempt to circumvent the natural-born citizen requirement to be president. More than 20 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed to change the requirement. Perhaps the most famous being one that was intended to allow Henry Kissinger to serve as President.

The FEC could vote on the opinions as early as Thursday and for either opinion to be accepted, four of the six commissioners must agree.

Public comments must be submitted by Noon on Wednesday August 31st, 2011. Those wishing to comment on the Draft A or Draft B of the Draft Advisory Opinion 2011-15 should follow these directions:

  1. Comments must be in writing, and they must be both legible and complete.
  2. Comments must be submitted to the Office of the Commission Secretary by hand delivery or fax (202) 208-3333, with a duplicate copy submitted to the Office of General Counsel by hand delivery or fax (202) 219-3923.
  3. Comments must be received by noon (Eastem Time) on August 31,2011.
  4. The Commission will generally not accept comments received after the deadline. Requests to extend the comment period are discouraged and unwelcome. An extension request will be considered only if received before the comment deadline and then only on a case-by-case basis in special circumstances.
  5. All timely received comments will be made available to the public at the Commission’s Public Records Office and will be posted on the Commission’s website at http://saos.mctusa.com/saos/searchao

If you would like to deliver your comments by hand, one copy each should be delivered to:
Office of the Commission Secretary
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463

-AND-

Office of General Counsel
ATTN: Rosemary C. Smith, Esq.
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463

Patriotism and The Draft

After viewing this video, sent to me by a good friend…

…I was reminded of the reality that now in America, the FEW are bearing the burden of responsibility of the MANY. Since principle bereft and weak-kneed politicians caved in and made the draft an obsolete thing of the past our National Guard and Reservists have been assuming the responsibility of the citizen soldier.(1) So now, especially since Viet Nam, we have a generation of young people for whom a sense of patriotism is alien. It is no coincidence the draft was abandoned in 1973 in large part due to protests and a general belief that the draft was unfair. It was a political backlash reaction to the end of the Vietnam War.

Ironically, the latest efforts to get a draft law passed originated with the sleazy Chales Rangel (D-NY), recently disgraced congressman. That was just last year and it had NO co-sponsors and died in committee. Before that he tried passing the same bill in 2007 and it went down to a resounding defeat in the House by a 402 to 2 vote.

I’ve posted my own plan in the past and have it saved. I’ll probably post it as a new topic for discussion soon. Not a draft as we knew in the past with too many loophole exceptions, but a plan titled Compulsory Military Service.

I always hearken back a few short years to that comment by the lead singer of the Texas-based Dixie Twits(Chicks) who wondered aloud overseas no less….”The entire country (US) may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but, as for loving the whole country … I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”(2)

For many older Americans she voiced then what we believed too many young people felt. An ignorance about what patriotism is all about. That in America one has an inherent civic obligation as We the People to take pride in what we have created, be ever vigilant to threats from without and within or risk loosing it all. Not unexpectedly to me, we now are approaching that crossroads marker for the survival of this representative democracy we call a constitutional republic dated Election Day 2012.

(1) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b237365.html

(2) http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/06/17/dixie_chick_questions_patriotism