July 20th, 2009

#1638: Is this a crack in the armor?

Vox Day discusses the curious case of Major Cook, the guy who refused deployment to Afghanistan based on Obama's refusal to prove his eligibility to be President.

This is the guy whose orders were rescinded--which seems fishy--and who was then fired from his civilian job at the behest of the federal government. (Which is fishy.)

Vox Day:
The Pentagon's decision to back down rather than risk exposing Obama's birth records to the public means that every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holds a "get out of war free" card. Not only every deployment order, but every order issued from an officer in the line of command can now be challenged in the knowledge that the top brass are afraid to respond for fear that their commander could be exposed for a fraud.


I have been trying to figure out what would happen if incontrovertible proof of Obama's ineligibility--if he is ineligible--were to come out. The riots--both by inner-city blacks and Democrats--would be bloody and long and involve a lot of fire; that's a given. But I'm talking about how the government would function, how the situation would be handled in D.C.

I'm pretty sure that it would mean McCain-Palin in the White House for the balance of this term. If Obama was ineligible to be President--when it has been proven that McCain is eligible--then the votes of the Obama electors would be thrown out making McCain the winner of the 2008 election.

I'm confident that Obama would refuse to leave the White House. "I won," he has said, and no one will lightly relinquish the reins of power once he has them. But one way or another he'd be out.

The bills he has signed into law would not be legal laws. A bill becomes law after the President signs it, or the Congress votes to override the veto with a 2/3 majority. Congress cannot skip a step and go right to override, either--the bill must be signed or vetoed by the President first, which means that McCain would have either to sign or to veto every single piece of legislation Obama dealt with. (One would hope mightily that McCain would follow the Republican positions, but I doubt it. He'd probably sign cap-and-tax and socialized medicine and "immigration reform".)

It means that Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court would be invalid. In fact, all his appointments would be invalid.

It gets even worse if--for whatever reason--McCain refuses to take the Presidency. I don't know why! Maybe some stupid "I don't want to win like this" nonsense? The hatred directed at whoever assumes the Presidency under these conditions would make Bush Derangement Syndrome look like a Gallic shrug. Would Sarah Palin take the office in that case? Or would the sitting Senate president (Harry Reid!) end up holding the Oval Office?

The instant the determination is made that Obama cannot be President, someone will have to declare martial law--someone other than Obama--to keep the peace. Obama won't even be a US Senator if he's not President--there are no takebacks--and he won't have any legitimate authority to do anything other than pack his bags and leave the White House; the military commander who obeys Obama's orders will be breaking the law.

And no, it can't be Biden. If Obama is ineligible to be President, you can't install his running mate because the VP is no more legally elected than the President is. The running mate is just "spare parts", someone who knows what the President knows and can take over immeidately should the President be killed or incapacitated. You don't vote for the vice-President; you vote for the President and you get his VP free of charge. So the military commander who obeys Biden's orders will be breaking the law.

It would be a mess.

* * *

So I guess today is the 40th anniversary of the first moonwalk.

Now all NASA can do is have guys go outside the space station. That's right; as the headline says, "Astronauts to Mark Apollo Moon Landing With Spacewalk".

Ooo. Ahh. Whee.

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put a man on the moon? "Why is it so hard to go back"?

I'll tell you why: because we replaced a capable, proven launch platform (Saturn V) with an overpriced, under-capable piece of junk (space shuttle). Because we hacked the space program into tiny bits in the early 1970s. Because--having done a great and noble thing for the sake of mere political prestige--the thing, having been done, was politically unnecessary to continue.

If NASA had not thrown away the Saturn V, but instead continued to improve its design, we would have a good, solid, dependable launcher which would be sufficient to get us anywhere in the solar system: you could launch chunks of a Mars mission into orbit with Saturn V first stages, then assemble them into the Mars ship. Saturn V was built to take us to the moon; we could have sent any number of missions there in the last 40 years.

We were sold the space shuttle based on performance promises which were never--which could never be--kept. "Retrieve satellites"? I think they did that a handful of times at most. "Repair satellites on-orbit"? Other than Hubble? Besides, that could have been done with a Saturn V, too. The shuttle was supposed to have extra-short turn-around times which never materialized, and it was supposed to make the cost-per-pound on-orbit drop to the floor, which never happened.

Why can't we go to the moon 40 years after we went to the moon? Because NASA is a government agency, and NASA's primary job is to employ government workers.

As for that spacewalk deal, that's like sailing a dinghy around the harbor to celebrate Colombus' arrival in the New World.

* * *

And whatever you do, if you care about space travel and your blood pressure, don't read those articles. Jesus.

* * *

So, that would-be dictator of Honduras that Obama supports? Turns out that he had already decided what the "official" results of the referendum would have been. Well, hell, if you're going to hold an illegal referendum to establish an illegal constitutional convention so that you might give your illegal retention of power a veneer of legality, you sure as hell are not actually going to leave it up to the people, are you? They might not vote the right way, and then what would you do?

There apparently has not been one single tiny shred of this news reported anywhere in the English-speaking world.

* * *

SAND IS DANGEROUS! AIGGH!!!

Oh my god SAND IS DIRTY FLEE IN TERROR

*sigh*

* * *

There are apparently three versions of what happened to that abducted soldier.

1) He left base with some Afghani workers
2) He was drunk and wandered off-base
3) He got seperated from his unit

1) was the first version reported. If this happened, he basically went AWOL, which--in a war zone--is desertion, which is serious heap bad juju.

2) was the version told to us by the terrorists who grabbed him. That would, as Michelle Malkin points out, explain why he had no body armor or weaponry on him. This falls under "dereliction of duty", which is also bad for the soldier in question.

3) is what we're now being told.

I have no opinion on which is true.

* * *

Feminists strike a blow against sexism! Are they challenging islamists to give women more freedom? Are they pushing back against the islamic practice of female circumcision? Are they telling the mullahs that raping a woman before executing her is wrong?

Hell no! They're striking against real sexism: signs that say "MEN WORKING" when women might be working there too!

"I know there are some anti-equality mongers who violently hiss that 'man' somewhere, somehow includes 'woman.'"

So apparently signs should say "MEN WORKING, AND MAYBE WOMEN TOO BECAUSE A WOMAN IS JUST AS GOOD AS A MAN YOU SEXIST PIG!"? Do I understand that?

I would "violently hiss" further on my own thoughts about this, but I've got better things to "violently hiss" about than the sexist whinings of some old bag.

* * *

Big surprise: Obama changes strategies to deal with changing conditions. They make it sound as if this is somehow revolutionary political thought: "He's actually doing something different!"

* * *

On my way home from work there is a guy selling a 1971-ish Mustang fastback. Asking price: $2,700.

I'm sure that--for $2,700--the car is in pretty ragged shape. I began to mull what it would cost to make a truly nice car out of it.

First, totally disassemble the car and have the body dipped or blasted. That would run $1,000 or so, plus trucking the thing to the blaster/dipper and back. (I prefer dipping, myself, but I'm told blasting gives a better result.)

Second, repair all the rust and have it dipped again, to electro-coat prime the body; this prevents further rust.

Third, paint. Doing this right means $3,000 or more.

Fourth, reassembly. There will be about half a billion parts that will need replacing or reconditioning. In all probability the nearly-forty-year-old wiring harness will want replacement. You can get an aftermarket wiring harness for just about any car (appropriately enough from a company called "Painless") but it's not going to be cheap. Figure $1,000 easy for a wiring harness. Then figure God-alone-knows how much for reconditioning or buying all those other parts that will need doing.

And you wouldn't be reinstalling the same engine and transmission as came with the car, not without first totally rebuilding them. A good rebuild will cost upwards of $1,000 for an engine even if you do everything but the machining yourself.

So, I figured, if I wanted to do anything with a car like that other than just drive it into the ground, it would end up costing upwards of $10,000.

No thanks.

#1639: Oh boy, this is it.

Limbaugh's talking about Obamacare.

Someone has read the bill and is discussing the features of the bill.

Remember what I said about the bill outlawing private health insurance? It turns out that even if I don't change my underwriter, any change to the policy whatsoever will nullify it, sending me straight to the socialized medical system.

83 million Americans will lose their private health insurance.

Understand what that means: it means 83 million people who have no other option but Obamacare.

Meanwhile, in order to stem the tide of lowering approval ratings, Obama has refused to release current economic statistics until after Congress goes into recess.

If we--the American public--have this information, we might decide that socializing medicine isn't a good idea. We might think that increasing taxes--for any reason--is a bad idea, and the Democrats simply cannot allow that.

Mr. Obama, you promised us "transparency". WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY, MR. OBAMA?

* * *

Interesting: Congress has reversed the closing of some 2,000 car dealerships (split among GM and Chrysler).

* * *

Obama's positions aren't that popular with most Americans.

He wants to tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend, and most people don't like taxes.

* * *

Limbaugh is now talking about Sarah Palin.

He points out that the mainstream media is telling us who our strongest candidate is. The liberals are attacking her because they know she's a formidable opponent.

I've said it a whole bunch of times: Sarah Palin scares liberals. She scares them because she's got it all going on, and they know it. She could be "Reagan 2.0" and that frightens them, so they do their best to minimize her, to demean her, to destroy her using whatever means possible.

Who can't handle strong women?