About Me

Name: Mike
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Both Wars Stink

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:59:45 AM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
While the MSM has predictably jumped on the Obama bandwagon in distinguishing between the Iraq war as a war of choice as opposed to the Afghanistan war of necessity, the fact remains that both wars together have taken a huge toll in terms of American lives, economic resources, and world recognition. The criticism leveled against Bush 43 for leading American forces into Iraq is not altogether justified. There had to be some strong military response after 9/11. To blame everything on Al Qaeda, and the Afghan Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, seems simplistic at best. Saddam's regime was far more brutal and dictatorial than that of the Taliban, and was responsible for some of the terrorist violence preceding 9/11.

Unfortunately, America's war crimes, particularly those directed against detainees many of whom were demonstrably innocent, more than offset any rational justification for war at this point. Capitalism breeds vindictiveness. The legitimate goal of interrogation gave way to the temptation to exact vengeance and to dehumanize and ridicule.

Obama's exit strategy is the beginning of our economic recovery. Iraq and Afghanistan will never become like us. The sooner we realize this, the better.

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

No Appeasement for Obama

Posted by Mike on Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:48:04 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
We have all heard the story about how the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938 paving the way for World War II and the holocaust. Today, the Left is appeasing Barack Hussein Obama.

Clearly, Obama is not fit to be our Commander in Chief. He is the illegitimate son of a Muslim foreigner. In this respect, he has the same status legally as would a child of the 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta, if Atta had fathered any children during his brief sojourn here in America on a student visa.

This man must be stopped. Currently, a federal action brought by enlisted soldiers and other concerned citizens, challenging Obama's authority to deploy troops to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, is scheduled for jury trial on January 26, 2010 in Santa Ana, California. I hope the court rules against Obama and the rest of those blockheads named as defendants in this lawsuit.

The sooner this case moves forward, the sooner will our fighting men and women get their day in court. This is an essential preliminary step toward the future Nuremberg style tribunals that will hold accountable the arrogant wrongdoers in our government, once the disaster facing America finally comes to an end.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What about Those Born on US Soil?

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:51:24 PM
Good question.
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Think about it a minute. Everyone knows that most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers were here in America legally. Let's just suppose hypothetically that one of these hijackers, say Mohammad Atta, was instrumental in conceiving a child later born in Florida. Would the mere fact that the child was born on US soil give that illegitimate child an entitlement of eligibility to one day occupy the highest office in the land, that of President of the United States? Same situation as Obama. Father being a Muslim foreigner, enters the US legally, gets his girlfriend pregnant. (Remember, Barry's father was still married to the woman in Kenya at the time).

The short answer is no. Merely being born on US soil does not confer an entitlement to someday being eligible to be President. That was the reason why the Framers put in the words "natural born" before "citizen" in reference to qualifications for the office of President, whereas they just specify that Senators and Congressional Representatives be ordinary citizens. Likewise, a mere congressional resolution that someone who was not born on US soil but whose parents are US citizens is henceforth a natural born citizen does not confer on that person any entitlement to eligibility to be President.

Confusion may arise because at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789, there was no Fourteenth Amendment, so all future citizens born after 1789 were either natural born citizens following the English common law criteria, or became citizens through the process of naturalization. The Fourteenth Amendment to protect the Negroid extended citizenship to all those born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, whether or not their parents were citizens. This leaves open the question of whether a child, one or both of whose parents are here illegally, who happens to be born in the United States, is or is not a citizen, which depends on whether the child falls within the jurisdiction of the United States or that of a foreign power. If we use the same criteria that all citizens are either those that are natural born citizens or those that are naturalized, we run into problems because the Framers clearly never intended that all persons born on American soil would be natural born citizens and so eligible to hold the office of President.

The court is asked to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment is an assertion that all those who are now citizens by virtue of being born on US soil, but who would not have been natural born citizens in 1789 by virtue of either one or both parents not being US citizens at the time of their birth, but rather subjects of a foreign power, automatically acquire eligibility to hold the office of President, which would not have been the case had they been born in 1789 as they would not have been natural born citizens at that time as required in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  This may be a case of first impression.

This case will probably reach the US Supreme Court. Obama is too arrogant to do the right thing and resign like Nixon did in 1974.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Price of Liberty

Posted by Mike on Sunday, February 08, 2009 4:02:26 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The most sensitive information on 9/11 will remain classified for several decades.  At that time we will get the full picture.  My expectation is that information regarding Flight 77 will prove that Barbara Olson's telephone conversation and that of the flight attendant onboard were both made between the time of the actual highjacking after liftoff and the time radar contact was lost after the plane changed course over West Virginia.  It was not picked up on radar after that because it had been shot down.  The DNA samples of the crew and passengers including the hijackers were obtained there on the ground, and not at the Pentagon which had been hit by a missile as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated.  Flight 93 was shot down over western Pennsylvania probably after an attempt was made by passengers to gain control of the aircraft as appears from audio voice recordings.

FBI agent John O'Neill, who died during the aftermath of the attacks, had said during an earlier interview with Barbara Newman that the biggest challenge was to balance the need for order with citizens' rights to liberty and freedom from government intrusion.  This is what brought about the wall of separation between the CIA and the FBI under the Clinton Administration as implemented by Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick (no relation to the saxophone player Kenny G).  This gave the terrorists Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman in 1993 and Usama bin Laden in 2001 pockets to operate below the intelligence radar.  The FBI had received directives not to share information at higher levels as was brought to light by agent Colleen Rowley in Minnesota.  This effectively prevented the apprehension of the terrorists before the airplanes were off the ground on 9/11, even though the hijacking plot was known at the top levels well in advance.  The CIA could not act within US borders, so the preparation for the attack was outsourced to Israeli agents who planted the explosives in the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTO used to blow up the structures after the terrorist attacks.  Refurbishing of the Pentagon was begun months before to reduce civilian and military casualties in case the terrorists got past airport security.  The contingency plan was to use the refurbished area of the Pentagon as a decoy target if US jets shot down any of the hijacked aircraft in midair, so that the terrorists could not use this as a propaganda weapon thereby gaining more support for their cause.   

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

Setting the Record Straight

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:48:00 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The World Trade Center was an architectural monstrosity obstructing the Manhattan skyline.  If anything good came out of 9/11 it was that the towers were knocked down rather than the Empire State Building which had been hit by an airplane before.

Now that there is a new administration in Washington, there are some lingering questions that still need to be answered.

1)  Did Larry Silverstein benefit financially from the destruction of the Twin Towers?

2)  What is his connection to the state of Israel?

3)  What information did FBI agent John O'Neill have about a possible terrorist attack prior to 9/11?

4)  Why was O'Neill discharged from the FBI?

5)  Were there Israelis present on the rooftop of a nearby building who were celebrating while the towers collapsed?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »