Wednesday, July 04, 2012

The 4th and a worrisome Washington Times article

Wednesday, 4th of July!  Hope you had a good one.  I'm still stuffed.  On top of everything else, we had snow crab legs.  I love those.  I ate six clusters of just those.  (A cluster has four legs.)

little dicky loves bad boys

That's Isaiah's latest and it went up today at The Common Ills along with:

  • Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Little Dicky L...
  • Blood and money continue to pour in Iraq
  • Crackdown in Diyala and al-Jaafari tries comedy
  • Nearly 18,000 slots empty in veterans retraining p...
  • Jill Stein qualifies for matching funds
  • Happy 4th from the House Veterans Affairs Committe...
  • Kat's Korner: Demos, live and what the fans want

  • Because of yesterday's post, Danny Schechter ragging on Wayne Madison specifically, reader Jane e-mailed me this from the Washington Times.  Wayne Madison, like John Pilger among others, has noted Barack worked for a CIA-front company after he graduated college.  That's not new or novel.  That's public fact for those who aren't idiots.  (The New York Times exposed it as a CIA-front company many, many years ago.)
    In addition Wayne Madsen, according to Schechter, says Barack ties to Indonesia make him unable to be president.

    [Post corrected five minutes after posting.  I said Wayne Madison and it's Wayne Madsen.]

    . According to Schechter?  Schecter's become as bat s**t crazy as Greg Mitchell.

    In 2009, a group argued that Barack wasn't eligible to be president because he was also a citizen of Indonesia.  The claim rests on statements and other claims that boil down to he couldn't have attended the schools he did in Indonesia unless he had citizenship.  Greg Mitchell saw the ad and Greg insisted it said Barack was born in Kenya.  We covered this at Third in "Liar Supreme: Greg Mitchell" and you can see the ad there.  A week after we called out Greg, we had to revist the topic "Those Wacky Ethics of Greg Mitchell" because Greg scrapped his original post, rewrote it so he didn't look so stupid and didn't note that the post had been corrected -- which is dishonest.  I mention that because Danny Schechter may be distorting Wayne Madsen.  I don't read Madsen so I don't know.

    About the Washington Times article.  A judge in Florida has dismissed a challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot.  The lawsuit argued Barack Obama Sr. was a British citizen because Kenya was a British colony and they also apparently tried to argue Barack was born in Kenya.  The judge dismissed the suit.  And most will nod and say "Good" and Jane might join them if it weren't for this paragraph:

    President Obama’s legal team, led by Mark Herron, argued during a March 22, 2012 hearing before Judge Lewis that the lawsuit should be dismissed because President Obama has not yet been nominated as the official Democratic Party candidate for President.  “There has been no nomination to office, there has been no election to office,” Herron told Judge Lewis.


    Because I'm a lawyer, Jane asked me about this.  Is it normal?

    With the people I represent (I'm a public defender), I would've argued something like the above.  That's because my goal is to get people off. These are people who can't afford a lawyer and they can't afford to be behind bars.  So I will look for the weakest part of the case or a technicality or anything.

    But I'm a public defender.

    Barack's attorneys resorting to that?  Honestly, it doesn't build faith.  And I have no idea why they would argue that -- a technicality -- instead of make a strong push for the fact that Barack was born in the US.

    Maybe Wayne Madsen is correct and Barack's dual citizenship is being concealed -- a citizen of the US and Indonesia?  I have no idea.  But what the defense put forward is exactly the sort of reason that a number of people continue to believe Barack has something to hide.

    What his attorneys did is what I do if I've got a purse snatcher to defend.  I've got no way to really excuse away the crime which probably happened.  So I need to look for a technicality or something that might get the judge to show some mercy.  I do that when my client is or is assumed to be guilty as hell.

    Why did Barack's attorneys do it?  I have no idea.  But it doesn't instill confidence.

    Maybe the Washington Times didn't report it accurately?

    Could be.  I would actually hope that was the case.  Because I do not believe, as an attorney, that you make the case Barack's attorneys do unless you can't win on the facts of the case.

    Happy Fourth.