Beyond Pathetic

The "One News Now" group is usually pretty pathetic, bu this time they may have hit the bottom of the barrel.

Obama's Nobel Prize - is it unconstitutional?
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/14/2009 7:35:00 AM


Seriously? That's what you got? Have you given up on the whole born-in-Kenya, commie-Hitler thing?

A constitutional scholar says President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution because he received the award without the consent of Congress.

And just who is this "Constitutional scholar"?

Matthew Spalding with The Heritage Foundation is concerned about the constitutionality of Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Prize.

Oh, the Heritage Foundation! What, you couldn't get someone from the John Birch Society? The LaRouchies not returning your calls?

(from Heritage website)
Before joining Heritage in 1994, Spalding was a senior policy analyst at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy

So he's been collecting wingnut welfare his entire adult life?

Spalding is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College. He earned a doctorate in government from Claremont Graduate School, concentrating his studies on political philosophy and early American political thought.

Philosophy and political thought. Not Constitutional law? Oh, sure studying political philosophy, that's the same thing as being a Constitutional Scholar. My major was American History, so I'm going to say I'm an expert in English Literature. Same difference.

Spalding's work on The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which brought together the contributions of 109 legal authorities, earned him Heritage's prestigious W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo Campbell Award in 2006. The award is given to the Heritage employee who makes "an outstanding contribution to the analysis and promotion of a free society."

Wow! He won an award given out by the organization that includes himself! And he won this award for being one of 109 crackpots to contribute to some book that no one will ever read? How prestigious!

So on what basis does this great legal mind object to Barack Obama's Nobel Prize?

A clause in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state."
That raises a question: Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument"?

Well, here's the short answer: No.

Here's a longer answer: No it is not. And what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, do you not have access to a dictionary?

Main Entry: emol·u·ment

Pronunciation: \i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt\

Function: noun
1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation
(Merriam-Webster)

e⋅mol⋅u⋅ment

–noun profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services
(Dictionary.com)

emolument

noun

/ɪˈmɒl.jʊ.mənt//-ˈmɑːl-/ n [C] UK formal

a payment in money or some other form that is made for work that has been done

(Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)


See, if you'd taken a couple of minutes to look the word up, you'd see that an emolument is something which is earned as compensation for service. And since, as it has been pointed out numerous times, President Obama has basically done fucking nothing to have earned the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no way even a brilliant scholar such as yourself can twist the prize into an "emolument."



Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument" -- a gift arising from one's office which includes some sort of monetary award with it?

No. An emolument is not a gift. It is earned. And even you should know that.

Spalding, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, says since the award is technically the property of the United States, Obama has under 60 days to turn the award over to the appropriate authorities for proper disposal.

Do you have any legal argument for the award being the property of the United States and not the property of the person to whom it was given? No? Anything? You just gonna toss that out there as if it were established fact?

"The Commission, the group that gives out the Nobel Prize, is actually appointed by the Parliament of Norway, which is [to] say that it's connected with a foreign state. This makes it very interesting," the Heritage scholar notes.

No. No it doesn't. Not interesting at all.

"In 1993, President Clinton's own Office of Legal Counsel said that it didn't have to be a foreign state acting in a formal way, but could be, rather, indirect.

Of course, they also told him that a blowjob was not an impeachable offense, so. . .

[This] seems to be a perfect example of what the Nobel Prize is -- and the Founders put this clause in the Constitution precisely to make sure that foreign states didn't unwarrantedly influence American domestic politics."

Now he's in the pocket of the Norwegians? Won't that interfere with his loyalty to Allah?
Those damn Norskies have been trying to influence our government for years, and they finally found a way! Look for the Treasury Department to switch our currency from the Dollar to the Herring any day now! Government offices will close for Thor Heyerdahl Day, and Bjork will write our new national anthem!
(I know, she's Icelandic, I don't know any Norwegian musicians)

Spalding believes the Nobel Prize Commission intended to give the award to a president who had not yet accomplished anything, in hopes of encouraging him to do certain things in the future. Interestingly Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland has defended the choice of Obama, saying the prize should be an "instrument for peace rather than [a] stamp of approval."

While tenting his fingers like Mr. Burns and laughing like Vincent Price, no doubt!

One News Now, you've outdone yourself this time! This is beyond pathetic!

One News Now

Why, oh why do I keep opening the e-mails that these people keep sending me? Am I just a masochist, or do I need material for this blog that badly?

The latest dispatch from Insanistan opens with this headline:

Napolitano should go, say lawmakers

Then the first sentence in the article reveals that it is just one lawmaker:

A Texas congressman is calling on President Obama to fire Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

John Carter, R-TX

And why would this guy want Ms Napolitano fired?

for defending the now infamous DHS report on "right-wing extremists."

Ah, of course!

Of course, only in Wingnuttia is this report considered "infamous" or in need of defending.

Here's a handy time-saver. How about, if you're a Congressman from Texas, we just go ahead and assume that you are baboon-ass crazy, and we'll all just ignore you? How would that be? Because, seriously, you have no fuckin' idea what you're talking about.



Then, there's this:

Right of conscience at issue in Iowa

which talks about the "Alliance Defense Fund," a group which is encouraging public officials in Iowa to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on the long-standing legal principle that you don't have to follow the law if you really don't want to.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is moving to protect the freedom-of-conscience rights of county officials in Iowa.

By court edict, homosexual "marriage" has been legalized in The Hawkeye State. Attorney Douglas Napier of ADF has helped develop a policy to protect county employees who will not provide marriage licenses on the basis of conscience.

"The Iowa attorney general [Tom Miller] has issued a misleading statement to county recorders around the state, putting a heavy-handed threat against them [and] saying if they don't issue same-sex marriage licenses, he may bring legal action against them," Napier explains. "Mr. Miller conveniently omitted any discussion of their rights of conscience or the recorders' duty to protect the rights of their employees."

Yes, Mr. Miller conveniently omitted any discussion of imaginary rights, like my right to disregard the posted speed limit because driving 55 sucks, or my right to punch Douglas Napier in the nose because, you know, c'mon! The guy's a douche!

They then go on to this :

Obama Middle East policy shows change in values

Okay, so this seems reasonable. An analysis of the differences between Bush's cowboy foreign policy and Obama's sanity. Go on. . . .

Barack Obama's obvious comfort level with leaders of un-free countries shouldn't surprise anyone. He is not only our first black president. He is also our first president who doesn't like the free country he was elected to lead and feels his job is to change it.

Ohhhh, how did i not see this coming? This is going to be about Chavez, isn't it?

Obama's cordial encounter with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, his bow of deference in London to the Saudi Arabian king, are extensions of behavior we have always seen on the black left. Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasser Arafat.

Okay, first of all, Venezuela is not an "un-free country." (un-free? really? Jeez, don't you own a thesaurus?) Venezuela is what you call a Democracy. The voters of Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez. You don't have to like him, but no matter how much you un-like him, that won't make him any less legitimate.

Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasser Arafat.

This should be kept in mind as our president now makes his own effort to bring peace to the Middle East.

Riiiiiight, we should definitely keep in mind what Jesse Jackson may have done, since that would, of course, be a predictor of what Obama might do? or something? I guess? Um, I gotta tellyou, correspondent Star Parker, you're sounding just a teensy bit racist here.

Really? Wow!





Ok, never mind about the whole racist thing, heheheh!

It should be clear to anyone conscious and watching that central to Obama's Middle East strategy is to disabuse the long-held notion that there exists a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel.

The Arab world has always resented the U.S.-Israel connection and has felt that because of this, Americans would never be an honest broker in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Gee, where would they get that idea?

Obama is out to change this. His first hundred days, from his very first television interview -- given to an Arab television network -- have focused on warming up our relations with Islamic nations and cooling down our Israeli ones.

Ooohhh, sure would hate to have warm relations with Islamic nations. It's so much more fun to be in constant conflict!

The great American writer Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in 1867 before Jews made their miraculous return to their ancient homeland. He reported that there was nothing there. "Palestine is desolate and unlovely."

And as everyone knows, if a land is "unlovely," it's free for the taking! Help yourself to Oklahoma!

There's more, but I just don't have the strength.

One News Now

Some weirdo organization named "One News Now" has been flooding my in-box with rather bizarre emails. Here is a selection from their latest report from Bizzaro-World:

U.S. security report a 'political hack job'

A conservative Christian leader says a new Department of Homeland Security report warning of a potential rise in "right-wing extremism" is nothing but a "political hack job" by the Obama administration to silence its conservative critics.

What do you wanna bet the "conservative Christian Leader" is notorious nut-job Rev. Donald Wildmon?

Dr. Don Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association, says he is ashamed the U.S. government would issue such a report.

Pay up, Suckers!

"This is nothing in the world but using tax dollars to belittle anyone who disagrees with the current administration's social policies," he exclaims.

Um, wild-man? Would it make any difference if the report you're all in a tizzy about was commissioned by the Bush administration? Cuz it was. Really. Check CNN.com If you don't believe me. Scroll down to the last sentence: "Both reports were initiated during the administration of former President George W. Bush."

Not that facts really matter much in Bizzaro-World!