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

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

Obama's Olympic Trip Shows America's Loss of Clout

Posted by Mike on Friday, October 02, 2009 2:20:09 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
"Something is rotten in Denmark, and Hamlet is taking out the trash."
No other head of state went to Copenhagen to lobby for the 2016 Olympics. Of course the Olympic Committee would appoint another candidate, Rio de Janeiro. Who would want to be bullied by an upstart? And why, to begin with, was the President of the United States following the dictates of the Chicago Mayor?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Holding the Judiciary Accountable

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:20:39 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Since the infamous Supreme Court decisions of 1973, the major focus of pro-life activity has been to seek the overthrow of these decisions in the courts. Of far more importance, in my estimation, is seeking redress for the killings that have already taken place.

The American people should start by bringing to justice the Florida judge who sentenced Terri Schiavo to death. This would send a clear message that America will no longer tolerate politicians or government officials involved in the killing of innocent persons.

This will require that Americans band together to clear the deck of all corrupt judges at the state and federal levels, and bring an entirely new slate of Congressmen and Senators to Washington.

95% of American wealth is owned and controlled by 5% of the American people, who then tell Congress and the President what to do. We must act together to turn the pyramid on our dollar bill upside down, so that the majority of Americans again have the final say in deciding at the local level what we do as a nation.

This may require constitutional amendments to bring to justice the crooks in Washington including those on the bench. They cannot get off the hook just by saying they were following the law. This principle was decided at Nuremberg after WWII.

While it is important to bring to justice fugitives like Polanski who have harmed innocent people, of far more importance is it to begin the process of rebuilding America by focusing our attention on punishing those in government who are destroying America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where the Rubber Hits the Road

Posted by Mike on Sunday, September 13, 2009 5:30:13 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The Values March in Washington DC this weekend marks the beginning of a new era. Ostensibly a disparate group of Americans each having their own issues, in actuality this was the first time in which the premises of Liberalism were seriously challenged. It reminds me of the small breaches that first arose in the flawed St. Francis Dam (pictured above) above the San Fernando Valley before the dam finally broke sending water crashing all the way out to the Pacific Ocean.

Liberals in both major political parties apparently just don't get that their time in government is coming to an end. Just last week, a California Assemblyman who supported family values was forced to resign for talking trash in front of an open microphone in the legislative chamber. This faux pas was a relatively minor infraction of decorum. In contrast, Congressman Joe Wilson is widely acclaimed for shouting out during the President's speech to a joint session of Congress. Both actions were inappropriate, yet the electorate can understand and appreciate the Congressman's frustration at the President's duplicity and obfuscations on health care.

What we are seeing is the beginning of a spiritual revival in which the social conservatives who have always opposed abortion are beginning to persuade the majority of citizens toward their way of thinking, because the alternative just doesn't work. As the majority shifts to oppose abortion, the tide is turning against liberalism. Americans will no longer tolerate egotism in government.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race, Ethnicity, Gender Should Never Be a Factor

Posted by Mike on Friday, June 05, 2009 11:11:10 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
A republic is founded upon the idea of equality among individual citizens. Each citizen should have an equal chance to get ahead in the world. This precludes preferences based upon other criteria such as race, ethnicity and gender.

The President has every right to appoint whomsoever he wants within his administration based upon whatever criteria. We must be vigilant to make sure that his appointees do not become themselves little despots and impose improper standards which take away our liberty and freedom. It is our duty as citizens to oppose foolhardy judicial appointments.

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