About Me

Name: Orville
Biography
Loading...

It's Only Natural

Posted by Orville on Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:17:07 PM
It seems that The New York Times is questioning whether John McCain is qualified to be President due to the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Let's put this notion to bed quickly and for good.
 
Article II of the Constitution, which covers the Executive branch, spells out the qualifications for President. Section 1 states, in part, "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..."
 
Now, John McCain may be old, but he's not that old. The relevant phrase is "natural born citizen". Note that the Constitution does not require someone who wants to be President to have been born in the United States. But does he meet the standard for a natural born citizen? This is defined by law. Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401, defines who is a citizen of the United States at birth. The third item in that list confers citizenship on "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person". Captain McCain's parents meet the stated requirements. Therefore, he is a natural born citizen and is eligible for the office of President.
 
For those who still doubt that McCain is natural born (typically that would mean liberals, for whom facts mean nothing), I would ask, do you at least concede that he is a citizen today? He probably would not have endured five and a half years as a POW were he not a citizen. So if he is a citizen today, but not natural born, when was he naturalized?
 
This is just one in a long line of poor, if not idiotic, pieces of journalism by the Gray Lady. No wonder circulation is down.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guide for Moderates Redux

Posted by Orville on Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:01:01 PM
Since it's been a ridiculously long time since I last posted, I re-read my previous efforts from late 2006. It occurs to me that the Guide For Moderates is timely, even today. Specifically, it provides a lens through which to view the McCain phenomenon. He is often cast as a moderate, even though he receives relatively high marks from the American Conservative Union. With a lifetime rating of 82.3, he's not perfect, but then he's no Ted Kennedy (2.5).
 
I will admit, I have had reservations about the man, despite sharing an alma mater with him. I'm unable to forgive him for McCain-Feingold, and the Gang of 14 escapade is difficult to justify. Another previous blog of mine blasted McCain for his positions on the treatment of detainees, but I suppose he's so biased on that point due to the horrible treatment he received that you almost have to discount that issue regardless of which stance he happened to take. It also bothers me that he admits he does not know much about economics. But on the truly big issues for conservatives, he's on the money. He's clearly the top candidate in either party on national security. Does anyone doubt that John McCain would respond strongly to threats against the U.S. as commander-in-chief? He's a strong supporter of the right to life and he's been great on earmarks and on taxes, despite all of the noise surrounding his protest vote against the 2001 Bush tax cut. By the way, there's a great piece by Kevin Stach in today's Wall Street Journal that explains that particular decision.
 
Maybe he gets the moderate tag because he tends to vote his conscience and doesn't toe the Republican Party line. He's certainly earned his reputation as a maverick, but that doesn't necessarily put him on the centerline of the runway. I actually like the fact that he has a set of guiding principles that informs his votes. One of the things I detested most about Bill Clinton was the way he stuck his finger in the wind to decide what to do. You would not get that from a McCain administration.
 
I'm starting to warm up to Captain McCain. While I think at times he's a little too chummy with Democrats, he's certainly preferable to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. At this point, he's probably going to get my primary vote, by default. But he would certainly get my vote in November, barring some serious third party candidate entering the race between now and then. Ann Coulter is taking her crusade a little too far. John McCain may not be Ronald Reagan, but neither is he a moderate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Back On the Flight Schedule

Posted by Orville on Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:19:34 PM
After an extremely LONG hiatus, Orville is back on the flight schedule. For those of you tantalized by my previous posts, I apologize for making you wait so long to receive further enlightenment. I'd like to blame the Missus somehow, but that just wouldn't seem right on Valentine's Day. Besides, she had nothing to do with it. It's good to be back with you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guide For Moderates

Posted by Orville on Monday, October 16, 2006 11:47:52 PM
With election day just three weeks away, I thought it might be helpful to provide moderates with a guide to help them make their decision when they enter the voting booth. Okay, so they're not really booths any more, but you get the picture.

Moderates hold a special place in the U.S. electorate. Since it's assumed that liberals will vote Democrat and conservatives will vote Republican, moderates are the swing voters that both sides court. I've often wondered why it is that moderates can't make up their mind which side they are on. I suspect in some cases, they just like the attention. Others probably just don't want to offend either side, so they play Switzerland and remain neutral. For those moderates who genuinely want to choose, but don't feel like they have a clear-cut choice, I offer some clarity.

There's a tendency to judge a particular candidate by individual issues. The problem with that is, many politicians will sell out to a special interest on an issue if they believe it gets them votes. That's why we call them politicians instead of statesmen. Behind the issues is the notion of a worldview, or what the Germans call Weltanschauung. (NOTE: The Missus is a naturalized German, so you'll have to ask her how to pronounce it correctly.) The worldview is simply the perspective from which you see the world. In the aggregate, you'll vote Democrat if you have a liberal worldview and Republican if you have a conservative worldview. Occasionally there's an independent candidate that will go one way or the other, but there's no Moderate party to speak of, so here's how you can decide:

Liberals believe that people are basically good and can therefore adapt their standards to conform to whatever they would like them to be.
Conservatives believe man is fallen and must look to a higher power for an absolute standard that doesn't change.

Liberals believe organized religion is a corrupting influence that deserves no place in the public sphere.
Conservatives believe religion provides a framework for civilized society and is, sadly, missing from the public sphere. 

Liberals make decisions based on how it makes them feel.
Conservatives make decisions based on data like documented history, statistical analysis and hard science.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes.
Conservatives believe in equal opportunity.

Liberals believe that if you are successful, you must have taken advantage of someone else to get there, therefore you must forfeit your gain. See the previous point.
Conservatives believe that if you are successful, you probably worked hard to get there and are therefore an example for others to follow.

Liberals would rather give a man a fish.
Conservatives would rather teach a man to fish.

Liberals believe government is the solution.
Conservatives believe government is the problem. See Ronald Reagan.

Liberals believe fetuses should die, but convicted murderers who had bad childhoods should live.
Conservatives believe unborn children should live, but convicted murderers who are responsible for their actions should die.

Liberals believe that the family structure is irrelevant and all children need is someone to love them.
Conservatives believe that the best situation for every child is to have a mother and a father that are married and living together.

Liberals believe that America is a scourge on the world and that we are responsibile for all the evils that plague the earth today.
Conservatives believe that America is the greatest country that has ever existed and that we should continue to lead by defending the weak and oppressed and encouraging democratic forms of government, despite what other countries think.

While this list is by no means comprehensive, it will point the way on most important issues. And don't be fooled by people on either side that don't hold true to form on one or two issues. Look below the surface and the worldview will emerge. Then you'll know.

Moderates, take a stand!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Captivating

Posted by Orville on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:31:33 PM
As a daily reader of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I regularly find myself saying "that guy's gonna get flamed" in response to some ridiculous comment in a letter or column. Typically, two or three days later, my predictions come true. Since the Missus is usually the only one who hears my prognostications, I don't really get any credit for making them. Come to think of it, I have to work really hard to get any credit from her on most things, but such is my cross to bear. She's still the love of my life.

One such example is the response in today's Journal to the column by Sens. Warner, McCain and Graham regarding their work on the Military Commissions Act of 2006. William D. Allen gets the inaugural Flamethrower Award for calling them on their statement that, "These challenges are in excess of what our soldiers would be afforded as prisoners of war." Why on earth they believe that it's good, or even just, that some al Qaeda terrorist is afforded more protections than a Marine who's conducting himself within the established laws of war is beyond me. I suppose in some twisted world, one might argue they deserve the same treatment, but to elevate the one who purposely targets civilians over the grunt who fights with honor is downright disturbing, especially for U.S. senators who have all served in uniform.

Warner and Graham are both lawyers, so their refusal to come down squarely on the side of the good guys is understandable, if still inexcusable (apologies to Hugh Hewitt). The real disappointment to me is McCain. As a fellow Annapolis grad, I feel betrayed by the senior senator from Arizona that he equates my classmates that are still serving with the scum that behead innocent noncombatants. The real kicker is the fact the he's been on the receiving end of true torture himself, yet refuses to acknowledge that U.S. forces are never going to be treated humanely by this particular breed of enemy. This argument that we have to bend over backwards today in order to avoid putting our military in more danger in some future conflict just doesn't hold water. Any country that lives up to its obligations under the Geneva Conventions will understand that members of al Qaeda don't qualify for those protections. Any country that doesn't abide by Geneva won't care that we coddled terrorists in the past.

John McCain will always have my respect for his service in uniform. It's too bad he sullies that high regard by maintaining untenable positions like this one.

NOTE: The blogger served on active duty for ten years in the U.S. Navy as a helicopter pilot in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Opening Day

Posted by Orville on Monday, October 09, 2006 11:30:53 PM
Just getting the blog up and running today. It appears the North Koreans are stirring the pot on the same day that a South Korean is nominated to be U.N. Secretary-General. Should be interesting to see how that plays out.

You can expect us to cover a host of topics going forward, generally from a conservative, Midwest viewpoint. Occasionally, the libertarian peeks out as well. Hopefully, you'll find it interesting. Be back soon.

Ciao
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »