Miscellaneous Items

The British may have the right idea with their monarchy. The Queen-in this case-represents the country or state. The Prime Minister represents the government. In this system, then, it is possible to oppose the government but remain loyal to the country. The Prime Minister, or in our case the President, is not the country and one can oppose him or her without showing disloyalty to the country. The Queen has no real governmental power so is not a threat to legislative rule or democracy, and I sick and tired of being told because I oppose Bush or Obama I am a disloyal American.

In the US today there are folks who call themselves "Oath Keepers" and pledge to disobey laws they consider to be unconstitutional. In Germany prior to the rise of Hitler there was the "Freykorps" who also held themselves out to be loyal Germans. They both consist of members of the military or police. Can there be other similiarities and is history repeating itself?

Update on 7/18/10. I was sent recently a quote from the late Ronald Reagan that read: "the most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Pardon me, but what unmitagated bullshit. How about "you have cancer" or "you're fired". The anti government movement in this country can be traced back to RR and he should get no credit for that.

Requirement for President

The US Constitution states in Article II, Section 1 paragraph 6 that "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"... I understand what the phrase has come to mean, and I agree, but if you were a "strict constructionist" like some neo-cons say they are, wouldn't this mean that any citizen of the US who was born "natually" be eligible for the office of President? The Constitution says nothing about being a "native born" citizen. If this be so, then the issue of where Barack Obama-and even Arnold Shwart....oh you know, the "governator"-was born would not be a consideration for service as president. But then again, neo-cons are only strict constructionists when it suits their political agenda.

On another related note; since Barry Goldwater and John McCain were born in territories of the US and were eligible to run, wouldn't someone born in Puerto Rico, Guam, The Virgin Islands and other US territories also be eligible to run?

Birth of Barack Obama

I don't see the issue here. Even if Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii-which the state says he was-he "acquires" citizenship by the fact that his mother was a US citizen all her life and had never lived out of the country prior to his birth. "Acquisition Citizenship" law requires that a US citizen to have resided in the US for a period of 10 years prior to the birth of a child and that 5 of those years be after the citizen's 14th birthday. Ann Dunham-Barack's mother-was 19 years and 2 months old at the time of Barack's birth. She had lived in Kansas and Hawaii for all those 19 plus years. My information comes from google searches of citizenship requirements. I would really like for someone to explain to me the argument that Barack Obama is not a citizen. As for me, I don't see the issue.