One of the favorite terms that is thrown around by conservatives to describe Barack Obama is the word “Dictator.”
Is this just more hyperbole or is there a good case of truth in naming here?
Obama is scrapping our Constitution, moving towards a type of government our forefathers not only loathed but also warned us against. This is a government with a strong, central chief executive.
Obama’s blatant disregard of the law made another appearance this week as Obama decided he did not like the Welfare Reforms that were signed into law in the 1990’s.
These reforms were very successful in getting people off of the welfare rolls and getting them back to work.
Obama did not like this so what does he do? He did what he always does. He ignores the law.
Prior to the 1990s, welfare was easy and expansive. People could live endlessly on welfare and make no attempt to get off of it. The Welfare reforms on the 1990’s required that welfare recipients work.
Now, the Department of Health and Human Services has notified the states that if they want a waiver from the work requirement, all they have to do is ask.
Wham! Just like that a law enacted by Congress and signed by another President is set aside. Yes, it remains on the books, but it is effectively gone.
In dictatorships, Dictators make decisions and rule by decree. In a Republic, the legislature makes laws and the executive simply carries them out.
Not in the world of Obamaland. Now, in the People’s Republic of Obama, the Constitution no longer matters. If Obama does not want his top people to be confirmed by the Senate, he simply declares them Czars and puts them into positions without bothering to send them to the Senate for confirmation. He does not like the Defense of Marriage Act, he declares it unconstitutional and says he will not defend it from legal challenges.
Obama’s favorite mantra when he speaks to his adoring faithful is, “we can’t wait.” That’s his excuse. The legislative branch has the good sense to stop his stupid ideas. He does not like it so instead of compromising, he simply imposes by fiat.
Anyone remember when the Republicans went to the White House in 2009 and complained about Obama’s agenda? He simply announced, “I won.”
That is Obama. I won therefore I can do what I want.
In the last 70 years, almost all Presidents have tried to expand the power of the Presidency. Obama is not simply trying to expand the powers of the Presidency. He is trying to make it, not one of three coequal branches of government, but the dominant branch of government to which all must bow down before.
Barack Obama is the most dangerous man ever to have stepped into the Oval Office. If the GOP goes ahead and nominates Romney we will have a Republican candidate who will probably not expand the powers that Obama assumed but also will do nothing to roll them back to their Constitutional limits either.
For those of us who are baby boomers, we grew up in the greatest, freest nation this world has ever known. Now it is our freedom that may soon be on the endangered species list.
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on I had not even thought of that. By the way, has anyone seen the marriage certificate of his mother? I can't remember, I have concentrated so much on "natual born", per se.
PS That is great news. So Frank Marshall Davis does not matter one whit !!!! I was concerned that they might switch stories when "push comes to shove".
Permalink Reply by SFWhite on Nope. I used to think just like you at first, but the Naturalization Act doesn't apply in Obama's (or Biden's) case. Moreover, Obama is uniquely aware of that. The Constitution is very specific, ONLY the POTUS and VPOTUS are required to be Natural Born Citizens. The designation of "Natural Born" is imparted by Nature, it's "natural", like gravity, and can't be altered by Man, anymore than Man can pass laws that affect gravity in any way. I did a long research of this whole question and posted it on my blog.
My Evolution Through The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy
Permalink Reply by Barbara Jean Puszert on If I read that right you are basically saying that just by the nature of "Natural childbirth' MAKES THAT pos ELIGIBLE? sHUT THE door!!!!!
Permalink Reply by SFWhite on Dad is an American citizen, Mom is an American citizen, both living on American soil, baby is born... VIOLA! A "Natural Born Citizen". citizen+citizen+soil=Natural
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on I do not understand what your remarks meant. After reading your Evolution, your definition of "natural born" agrees totally with mine. What I was referring to in my PS was that many people think Frank Marshall Davis is actually Obama's father. If so, then Obama would be "natural born", since FMD was a citizen. If that is the case, then I thought he would have to be impeached.
Deb, where did you get your info that the name on the birth certificate is the father? I'm sure there is probably no DNA from either FMD or Obama, Sr. to prove this, but everything I have ever heard (not researched), is that DNA determines parentage if there is a controversy, regardless of who married who.
Permalink Reply by SFWhite on Sorry about the slow reply, completely lost this article and post. You're right, I didn't read far enough back in your posts. My mother's in ICU in critical condition and my brain's scrambled. Guess I shouldn't be posting any replies right now. Please accept my apology.
By the way, I really LOVE all your deep research on the Natural Born subject (archived a copy of of your post)! Don't know how I missed it previously.
Permalink Reply by Kate Bowe on Debrajoe,
Little spoiled wonder boy is being too nice.
You know he is far more than a little spoiled wonder boy. I don't know what percentage, but I know he has a whooping dose of evil in his being.
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on PS Where, by the way, is an absolute requirement !!! The formal definition of "natual born" is that the person be born of parents who are citizen's at the time of the person's birth, and that the person be born on "American soil". (In modern times, American soil includes our Embassies and Military Bases aroung the world).
Most people do not know that McCain is not "natural born" either, which Donofrio got very early (before the election, thus his attempt to take him off the NJ ballot also). Although his parents were stationed at the Naval Base in the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth (American Soil, literally, under treaty, at the time - until stupid Carter, of course)., his mother, for some reason chose to bear him in a hospital in Colon, Panama, which was not American soil, thus making him a dual citizen of Panama and the U.S., therefore not "natural born". Check Donofrio at the bottom of my list for all of that.
Permalink Reply by Dave3200 on @Richard Harper:
I'd REALLY like to know where you've gotten the impression that the person must be born on "American Soil". I'm pretty knowledgeable on the subject, but I know of no such stipulation. Many people believe it to be true, but I definitely do not.
(I'd like a legal reference, not a blog post.)
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on When you go to Puzzzo's web site, in the right hand column are links to extensive written articles on every signle aspect of this subject that you can imagine. There is no doubt the concept came from de Vattel, a Swiss legal philosopher in the 1700's, and the world's authoriy on the subject. On another of the sites listed in my post is reference after reference of the Founder's quoting de Vattel. (John Jay quoted it often in decisions when he was Chief Justice, also. There is also an atual note in the handwriting of John Jay on one of the sites listed to Washington during the Contintental Convention, saying to the effect, that he thought it would be unwise for any other than a natural born citizen be commander of our armies.) The term The Law of Nations is used in the Declaration and the Constitution (scholars of the period have pointed out, that when capitalized, as they were in these documents, then it was referring to a work, not just an idle capitalzation of words they were fond of).
In the right column list on Puzao's site mentioned, this one seems most on the point, also giving a graph (seen on many other sites), visually confirming, also, the definition I just gave go here: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-m...
Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on I pushed the wrong button here. There is not addition. Oncd you push it, it makes you say something. No way out. Sorry.
Permalink Reply by Dave3200 on I concur with your reference to Natural Law and de Vattels essay on Natural Law. I agree that Vattels was a routine reference for the founding fathers and our Constitution relies heavily on it.
However, I know of no reference that says the birth must occur on our soil for the person to be natural born. Can you point me to the section of Vattels Law of Nations that says the birth must occur on our soil?
Thank you.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
