About Me

Name: Mike
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Government of the People

Posted by Mike on Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:47:30 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
It wasn't for nothing that the Founders included safeguards in our Constitution to keep those of questionable status from occupying the highest office in the land, that of President of the United States. Today, legal scholars can quibble all they want over whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment substantially changes the restrictions on eligibility of Article II, Section 1. However, in the person of Barack Hussein Obama, America is witnessing the very form of anarchy of which the Founding Fathers warned against.

Barack himself has made clear his antipathy to the Constitution as a document limiting the power of the federal government with negative provisions designed to keep the government in check. Barack the megalomaniac believes inside that the power of the federal government should be absolute. Barack and the other Washington liberals are really only interested in satisfying their own big egos. They want to impose a tyrannical dictatorship like that of ancient Egypt wherein Pharaoh has absolute power. This is really what the government economic bailouts and healthcare takeover are all about.

Americans must therefore change the course of government following the constitutional mandate protecting our individual rights and keeping big government permanently in check.

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

Palin/Beck America's Dream Team

Posted by Mike on Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:18:46 AM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Patriotic, loyal Americans can start today to implement a Ten Year Plan. The goal should be to elect pro-life and fiscally responsible Democrats, Republicans or those of other affiliation, both locally and nationally in 2010. This will follow on the heels of the kickoff victories earlier this year. We can then make sure that any health care bill will protect the lives of the unborn and will not be too costly.

Sarah Palin is the clear choice for the Republican Party nominee in 2012. She is a Washington outsider with a record of leadership in Alaska. She will bring diversity of gender to the White House. She is not beholden to special interests.

America is not essentially capitalist, but exceptionalist. The Alaska energy regulation provides for sharing of revenues with Alaska citizens. This is not anti-American but rather promotes the common good. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that wealthy capitalists should be given special privileges. Sarah Palin stands for American exceptionalism in the proud tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

Glenn Beck is media savvy. This will boost the ticket by compensating for Palin's weaknesses as exemplified by the Katie Couric interview last year.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Right to Health Care in Constitution?

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:36:10 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or to the people all rights not specifically enumerated. The Constitution gives Congress the express power of the purse. This means that only Congress has authority to decide how tax revenues are spent.

Whether or not required by the Tenth Amendment, prudence following the principle of subsidiarity would dictate that state and local governments should be in charge of health care. The primary responsibility rests with the individual and families. Government has an obligation to assist only where necessary.

Will liberals in Congress derail health care over abortion? Probably not. Sixty votes are only needed in the Senate to overcome a procedural obstacle, not to pass the legislation with or without inclusion of the Stupak amendment or similar pro-life language.

Will the Stupak amendment come back to haunt Senators and Representatives in the years ahead? We can expect a shift in the balance of power after 2010 and possibly a new administration in 2012. This is before health care reform gets off the ground. There is plenty of time to add explicit pro-life language at a later date. The Stupak amendment is at least a noble beginning.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Wisdom of Our Founding Fathers

Posted by Mike on Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:44:55 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The Constitution of the United States is a quintessentially practical document. The first thing that comes to mind in examining Article II, Section 1 are the words "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" in reference to eligibility for the office of President. Anyone who was already a citizen of one of the thirteen several states following the American Revolution and within the age limits could serve as President. As to these citizens, it did not matter whether they or their fathers were subject to a foreign power or not. As to those who were not citizens at the time of Adoption or ratification, only those who were "natural born" were eligible for the office of President, meaning that they must be born in one of the states which form the Union, and that each of their fathers must have been a citizen of one of these states at the time of their birth. This gives our government the power to discriminate against the foreign born and those whose fathers were subjects of a foreign power, with regard to qualifications for the offices of President and Vice-President as amended. Arguably, the "natural born" requirement should also pertain to what was meant at the time of Adoption.

The rationale for the rule is clearly to prohibit those who may have mixed loyalties from serving in the highest office in the land, as John Jay made clear to our first President George Washington. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment's inclusion of all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as citizens, does not change the limitations on qualifications for President or Vice-President, because the rationale behind the Fourteenth Amendment was not to change eligibility for higher office, but rather to confer citizenship on the newly emancipated freemen following the Civil War. Using the limited formula for qualification to be President or Vice-President, the first generation freemen would not have been eligible to hold these offices, but this is a moot point insofar as none of them ever became candidates.

In our history, Chester Arthur, whose father was Irish born and a subject of George IV at the time of Chester's birth, still got to be President because he succeeded President Garfield who died in office. The electorate rejected the candidacies of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and John McCain in 2008. Barry Obama is the stealth President. Could it be that Barry Obama was elected only because neither candidate was qualified to hold this office in 2008?

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

Will Rahm Be Next Unqualified Candidate?

Posted by Mike on Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:33:55 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The rise of neo-conservatism during the Bush administrations coupled with presidential aspirations of politicians with dual citizenship is clearly an attempt at an Israeli takeover of the United States from within.

Rahm Emanuel, who is believed by some to be an Israeli agent, is the likely next choice for a Democratic candidate after Obama leaves office. Although he was born in Chicago, both of Rahm's parents were from Israel. This gives Rahm an equal status with Barack Obama of being qualified or unqualified to serve as President of the United States. If the Supreme Court finds that Barack is unqualified, Rahm will be unable to seek higher office, his presidential aspirations will be frustrated, and America will not become surrogate to the state of Israel. Conversely, if the Supreme Court finds that Barack is qualified, this will give Rahm the green light to subordinate America's national interest to that of Israel. This is clearly what is at stake. Rahm himself has stated his opportunistic belief to not let a serious crisis go to waste.

It is therefore a critical time in history for Americans to do all that we can to expose the lies of Barack Obama and the Chicago Mafia. Americans must make sure that our Constitutional form of government is not subverted. We must keep all those disloyal Americans with adverse interests or divided loyalties out of our government as our Founding Fathers intended.
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

Obama's Birth a Red Herring

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:39:24 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The question of where Obama was born is a distraction to shift the focus away from the real reason why he is unqualified to serve as President of the United States. Kenyan officials and relatives of Obama have a vested interest in saying that he was born there to promote their own country. The real question is not one of birth, but of parentage.

Barry Obama's status follows that of his father. When born in Hawaii in 1961, Obama was a subject of the British Crown like his father. He only obtained US citizenship by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence he is not a natural born citizen.

The question is one of remedy. The federal court in exercising jurisdiction is called upon to decide whether Barack Obama can actually prove that he is qualified to be President. Citizens have a right to demand that our government leaders, and the Commander in Chief in particular, are qualified to hold public office. Because of the separation of powers, it is doubtful whether a federal magistrate can remove someone from the office of President. Congress alone has that power through impeachment proceedings. However, the Constitution only allows impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

It is worth noting again that Barack Obama took the presidential oath twice, because in the first ceremony there was a defect. This basis of impeachment will have to be fraud on the electorate, which will require proof of intent. This will be difficult to prove in Obama's case, mostly because of prior cases of unqualified candidates running for office.  The court could at some point, however, issue an order barring Obama from seeking reelection in 2012.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can the Illegitimate Son of an Alien Be President?

Posted by Mike on Monday, October 12, 2009 7:41:00 PM
The answer is no.
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
There were certain classes of people excluded by our Founding Fathers from being eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. The first excluded class is citizens of foreign countries or subjects of foreign powers. The second is people who were not US citizens by virtue of being too young or not having been emancipated. The third is people who lived within the states but were not citizens because they belonged to a Native tribe or nation. Barry Hussein Obama born in 1961 in Hawaii is a US citizen because the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to all persons born within the United States of America, and within the jurisdiction thereof. Barry Obama's father Barack Obama was a subject of the British Crown at the time of Barry's birth. He was a resident alien living in Hawaii on a student visa. Barack Obama purportedly married a US citizen in Hawaii. At the time he was married to a Kenyan woman and the Hawaiian marriage is therefore legally invalid. This means that Barry Hussein Obama was illegitimate, something we all knew anyway. This has no bearing on his qualifications to be President of the United States, or lack thereof. Would a child of an alien father here in America illegally, who happens to be born here, be eligible to hold the office of President someday? Most Americans would agree that such an offspring of an alien here illegally would lack the status to qualify for holding the highest office in the land. They would be right. Under our Constitution, such offspring would not be a natural born citizen.

 Does it in any way matter that Barry's father was here legally on a student visa?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Article II, Section 1 not Superceded by Fourteenth Amendment

Posted by Mike on Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:34:15 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
In the previous post, Barry Obama's fraud in running as a Democrat candidate for President was discussed. It might be added that there is evidence of Obama's foreign birth in Kenya introduced in the case of Barnett et al. vs. Obama. Depending on the outcome of this case, Obama may not only be ineligible to serve as President, but may be subject to deportation back to Kenya if it is found that he was actually born there. There is also some question as to whether Obama had prior knowledge of his foreign birth, if indeed that was the case, before running for President.

The Fourteenth Amendment's definition of U.S. citizenship to cover all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, cannot reasonably be construed to broaden the citizenship requirements for federal public office enunciated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Moreover, any subsequent Congressional statute can have no bearing on the classification as a "natural born citizen" of Article II, Section 1, insofar as the legislative branch has no authority pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to redefine this terminology or to expand the class of persons eligible to serve as President or Vice-President.

In American history, Chester Arthur was never qualified to serve as Vice-President under Garfield, nor as President after Garfield's death in 1881. Timely objections were raised based upon his father being born in Ireland and not having been naturalized at the time of Chester's birth in 1829.

Barry Goldwater was not eligible to serve as President when he ran in 1964, because at the time of his birth in 1909, the Arizona Territory was not a state within the Union.

John McCain was not eligible when he ran for President in 2008 because he is a Panamanian citizen born in Panama in 1936. Furthermore, he is not qualified to serve in the United States Senate.

None of this has anything to do with fairness. It is about limited, constitutional government. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he contends, this only makes him an ordinary citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. He is still ineligible to serve as President by virtue of his not being a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution at the time of its ratification in 1787.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barry's Last Stand

Posted by Mike on Saturday, October 10, 2009 4:54:49 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The usurper Barack Obama's time in office is running out.

The federal action Barnett et al. vs. Obama raises the key question of Obama's eligibility. Like it or not, in the final analysis, the question comes down to whether a person with the same parentage status would have had the necessary qualifications to run for federal public office at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1787. By redefining citizenship requirements, Congress cannot expand the qualifications to hold office as laid down in the Constitution.

In my judgment, the question of the question of the location of Barry Obama's place of birth is a red herring. This is the real reason why the Obama camp will not divulge the actual birth certificate. In leaving this question open, the focus is taken away from the real reason why Obama is not qualified.

If in 1787, a person's father was a foreign born subject of the British Crown, that person would not have been qualified as not being a natural born citizen. Barry's father had never renounced his allegiance to the British Crown based upon his citizenship in Kenya at the time of Barry's birth in 1961. Therefore, whether Barry was born in Kenya or Hawaii, his status is still that of one who is not a natural born citizen. He was never qualified to become President for this reason.

The 2008 presidential election was invalid. Obama and Biden will be removed from office once this becomes clear. All of Obama's appointments, including that of Justice Souter's replacement and the numerous czars, are likewise invalid. There will have to be a new election, and a new Supreme Court appointment once the new president is sworn into office. In the meantime, Nancy Pelosi will be the interim president as next in the line of succession.

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

Limited Government and the Principle of Subsidiarity

Posted by Mike on Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:57:43 AM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
After the Revolutionary War in 1776, there were in effect thirteen sovereign states in America. Adopting the Articles of Confederation just meant that these states were willing to band together for common purposes such as defense and trade. The Constitution enacted in 1787 was designed to uphold the sovereignty of the several states within one nation.

The principle of subsidiarity prohibits government at a higher level from doing things that can be done locally or at a lower level. This is essentially the basis for the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights which limits the scope of the federal government to having only those powers enumerated in the constitution.

With the outbreak of the Civil War, President Lincoln had to take emergency measures to keep the Union together. During this time, the war powers of the executive branch of government grew.

The Baucus Bill on health care is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity. The best health care will not be provided by the federal government. In order to preserve good government in America, Americans must band together to vote out of office the president, and all senators and congressional representatives who vote in favor of the transfer of power over medical insurance to the federal government, or who vote in favor of the nationalization of health insurance or the so-called public option.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prosecution of Crimes against Humanity

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:30:27 AM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
In the landmark legal decision in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, Chief Justice Marshall recognized the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution. The Court also exercised original jurisdiction to resolve the 2008 presidential election dispute.

The question now arises as to whether the Court has an affirmative duty to invoke original jurisdiction to bring to account government officials including lower court judges, and other U.S. citizens, for crimes against humanity under color of state and federal law.

Any society cannot long endure if it kills its own young. Regardless of the fact that certain states had legalized abortion, and the Court itself decided to strike down laws against abortion beginning in 1973, the power to protect life is inherent in any system of ordered liberty and government. Laws which go against protection of human life are invalid as contradicting core principles of justice, as was decided at Nuremberg in 1946.

Was Nuremberg extra-constitutional, or did the foundations of the American Republic presuppose the power of judges to rule on punishment for crimes against humanity even in the absence of specific US precedent? Obviously, the judiciary has by its very nature an inherent right and duty to punish anyone who acts contrary to human dignity by killing or torturing innocent human beings. If this is not what judges are supposed to do, by what right do they rule upon anything?

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Supreme Court of the United States appoint special prosecutors and issue subpoenas against those in our government, including legislators, department heads, and judges of inferior courts, pursuant to the Nuremberg decisions and consistent with the Court's authority vested through original jurisdiction, so that the wrongdoers in our government, hiding behind the mantle of choice, will be tried, convicted and punished for their crimes that have already been committed against the unborn in America.

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