8 September A.D. 2014
This is the second one of these types of re-igniting the email circulation of this "birther" position information this author has received in about a week's time. It is this author's goal to cause the cessation of this "discussion" thread. The method of accomplishing that goal is competent, efficient, credible information and perspective. A word (or perhaps, one more word) to the wise should be sufficient. What comes into the Inbox, there's not much control over. What we recirculate, we have a lot more control over. (Where the email address book is hacked, then, there's not much control. Aside from that, it's a very conscious activity.)
The obama-nation's "investment" of right at a million dollars in legal fees to keep from public view certain allegedly "public" documents is good information to have if one intends to participate politically, e.g., by "voting." Thus, on the one hand, it should be obvious that there's at least political smoke there, if not a political fire, or why would that cover-up program exist? Everything was "transparent" in this one, huh?!
Of course, and on the other hand, there is no political solution, for there is no political problem. (There are a very limited number of exceptions, the existence of which solidly prove the general rule.) The problems are commercial; hence, so are the solutions. Thus, the mere perpetuation of this "eligibility" issue continues to promote the myth that the present "governmental" system, at the national level, was created by, and is, therefore, controlled by, the language and concepts popularly referred to as the "constitution." It should be more than obvious by this stage that the national system of "government" exits in spite of, and to spite, the language and concepts referred to as the "constitution." Aside from structural and procedural Due Process, there are precious few additional similarities. A "constitutional" system would be quite limited, starting with and including the authorized medium of exchange. This present "federal" system is haughtily braggadocios about its unlimited nature, especially regarding its authorized medium of exchange. Successful self-government can't happen where the people are not self-limited. Leadership is always a reflection, a clear identifier, of the community being led.
Key to this particular note is the perpetuation of this non-sense about Kagan, the Court, the obama-nation, and the "birther" cases. The "birther" cases are, of course, the ones in which the obama-nation's eligibility to hold the "office of president" in the "federal government" has been challenged on Art. II grounds. This author is not aware of even one legal challenge that has done anything except ruin the party (and counsel) advocating in-eligibility. There's a reason for that. Legally speaking, the location of the obama-nation's birth is 100% irrelevant.
Thus, while it's screamin' mimi obvious that there's a cover-up as to the reality that the obama-nation is a Kenyan (i.e., a Brit) (actually, it comes with credible support that Kenya was so named about two years after the obama-nation's stated date of birth), it's even more thunderously obvious that it just flat out makes not one stinkin' bit of difference WHERE he was born, given our present legal reality.
What tends always to happen with "patriot"-type thrusts with well-meaning but ill-based, ill-formed "constitution-based" legal positions (yes, this author contributed, once, to that problem; the learning from that once was sufficient; he didn't make a habit or practice of it), is that where the main objective is clobbered, the same ideas are applied in collateral areas and pressed through side, and even back, doors. The "birthers' " point, very, very sound factually, very sound factually, has been made for quite some time now, by all kinds of people (who should have known better), with no legal headway anywhere in sight. (As should speak for itself, if the applicable law were to find those ungainsayable facts relevant, the legal results would be quite different. But, if those facts were relevant in today's legal environment, then this author gives sufficient credit to the DNC's legal counsel to say that this issue would never have come up in the first place.) We'll see what develops from the angle that what was disclosed as a "birth certificate" was, in fact, a genuine document or something concocted with the intent of dispelling the matter. Solid positions exist that it was just another "photo-shopped" document, and, that door's being kicked wide open by the obama-nation and his staff assigned to "handling" that matter, it's very clear it did nothing but add fuel to that fire. So, that effort boomeranged, in at least both of those ways, and while this author expects nothing else to develop from that, it's the sort of "information" that is relevant to those still stuck in the myth of a "constitution" and in the dream world that a "vote" actually matters, these days. (The pre-programmed Diebold voting machines don't care what the individual participants in that exercise of futility think, say, or mark. What was all the dispute over the "hanging chad" designed to do? Justify the use of pre-programmed Diebold "voting" machines.)
What is obvious that still fails to prevail within the "community" that should have long since stopped circulating this outrageous "buying of the Court" perspective within the emotional (and mindless, legally speaking) "birther" position context is that the named Solicitor General, in this case Kagan, has his/her name on EVERY case before the Supreme Court in which USOA, or any of its officers, agents, agencies, or employees, is a party.
Let's see. Kagan had that office from 19 March 2009 to 17 May 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Solicitor_General>; <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan>. During that time, according to the very same Supreme Court Records relied upon in the note below, as well as additional credible sources, Kagan's name appears as the attorney in charge, i.e., the first named counsel of Record, some 5,000 times (5,033 by one rather detailed count).
So, whatever is or isn't talked about at snopes.com is hardly "the" source of information that matters for something like this. "The" starting place for a matter of this sort is with the job description of the Office of Solicitor General. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to voice in on the matter for the vast majority of people interested in this study to come to a reasonable conclusion and understanding that it's the JOB of the Solicitor General to represent USOA, and any and all of its officers, agents, agencies, employees, and all other people and entities acting in the name of USOA, in all litigation matters before the Supreme Court of the United States. It's just that much more of a no-brainer to find the Solicitor General's name on any and all papers filed in all such cases pending before the Supreme Court. It's her JOB to be the attorney in charge of all such litigation.
We don't have to like or approve or support the life-style she's been associated with. We don't have to like or approve or support her political views. We can take an hour and list all the things she thinks, says, does, and refrains from thinking, saying, and doing, and fully satisfy ourselves that we don't have to like, approve, or support any of it. Now, to focus on that which is directly relevant to this issue, it's OUTRAGEOUS to limit the scope of her JOB as Solicitor General to that extremely narrow part of it that involves "birther" cases that would never have existed in the first place but for a rash of well-meaning but unthought, flagrantly incorrect legal "analysis." This takes the lesson learned from story of the five blind men describing the elephant way over the top. Conclusions about the obama-nation, Kagan, the Court, and the applicable law, are based on massively un-thought review of what, 10 cases? And, the "birthers" think that such blatant self-indulgent myopia benefits their position and cause?
What we have, then, is this. That officer within USOA did her JOB, in cases where the petitioners were well-meaning, but legally, even facially, incompetent, and yet now there's some sort of alleged skulduggery in/with the Supreme Court because that's where we now find Kagan. Wow! It's super easy to argue to a conclusion that is first presumed true. The reality is that the Supreme Court were diplomatically handling all kinds of "stuff" regarding the "birther" cases long before Kagan showed up. The law hasn't changed from the time she assumed the JOB of Solicitor General to the time she accepted the JOB of Supreme Court Justice. The law in this area won't be any different between the time those cases first started showing up in Washington and the time Kagan may retire, or between now and the time God remanifests in His Resurrection Body, i.e., between now and Kingdom come.
Because the initial Art. II thrust was repelled, in the way that Superman repels BBs, that "effort" has now shifted over into collateral matters. At the base, the presumption is still wrong that there's relevance in the facts of the location of the obama-nation's birth. One more time. There's no question that the facts are true that the obama-nation was born in the place presently called Kenya. No question at all, whatsoever, about the validity of those true and correct facts. The problem is that they are irrelevant. What determines relevancy? The applicable law. Thus, despite the manifest irrelevancy, that position is now snowballing by collecting up in the "birther" concept all kinds of additional matters as it continues to move forward; well, move. It's hardly moving "forward." In this snowball analogy, this author has turned the hockey rink into a huge hot plate with the intent of melting that snowball.
We'll know when the reality has soaked in when this nonsense with snopes, the obama-nation, Kagan, and the Court has finally stopped circulating, at least among those interested in our present legal reality.
There are at least two ways to contribute to the advancement of our present legal reality. The P&L reports show positive inclinations by both of two means. Obviously, the P&L goes up when there are more profits. By analogy, one way to advance the understanding of our present legal reality is to do what this author does: state affirmatively the reality. Here, as is the case in many of his notes, the reality is that we do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional government." That's the approach likened to the increase in profits. Those not quite comfortable yet with applying the affirmative assertion approach have an alternative. The P&L also goes up when expenses are reduced. In this side of this analogy, then, it advances the legal reality simply to stop circulating the non-sense. One doesn't have to assert the affirmation position to make a very substantial contribution. One makes a huge contribution by just not recirculating non-sense. Where the non-sense is simply no longer advanced, over and over and over, then the non-sense takes a quiet exit out of stage left.
In other words, we're applying some basic free market economic principles to this "market" of information. What we're applying is the basic "supply and demand" concept. Where our collective demand for non-sense stops, then so will the supply. Where we keep "buying" the nonsense that others are "selling," then the supply will remain. Once we stop "buying" it, the supply will dwindle.
Economically, everything about the "birthers' " efforts has proved to be a 100% waste in time, "money," and energy. Everything about it has been flushed down the drain. IF there's a value that derives from this enormous investment, THEN let it be the comprehension of our present legal reality. If that learning takes place, then, while it's an extremely expensive lesson, at least it will be one learned. To learn it is then to be able to apply it, and time, "money," and energy may be more economically invested in future endeavors.
Speaking of economics and investing sound thinking and analysis to future endeavors, why is the obama-nation of focus, at all, anyway? Or Kagan? How many of these "birthers" have been compelled by the obama-nation into any of their existing "gotcha agreements," by which they agree, commercially, to be regulated by the "federal government?" Similarly, how many of these "birthers" have been compelled by Kagan into any of their existing "gotcha agreements?" It matters not who's in what office, because all that really matters is what we sign. To understand "federal" is to understand this reality. As was circulated what may be a few months ago, now, the idea expressed was that author's hope that this nation would be saved not "through" politics but "from" politics. Politics is merely the bread and circus distraction played out for the masses, and, given our present legal reality, in which the political voice of the people is almost never heard, for it's almost always irrelevant, those committed to political activities are truly wasting their very limited resources of time, "money," and energy. If there's a saving grace in all of that, it's the remote possibility that the active "party" participants recognize that such activities are 99% just that: parties, as in enjoyable social functions. Those who genuinely expect more than that are truly being played.
To those who have already stopped recirculating this "constitutional" "stuff," especially the original "birther" position and now also these collateral "birther" positions, Congratulations! And Thank You!
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org