Replies

So ... Vladimir Putin visits America, knocks up a teenage American girl, fathers a male child, indoctrinates the child into his world views during the child's formative years, and 35 years later buys the U.S. Presidency for the child through the U.S. main stream media. Is that an argument for you?

FRiend, not only is that an argument, but it is precisely the Pandora's Box the Framers worked to keep closed with the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. AND it draws a striking parallel to the events of this last election. This is the peak of slippery slope. Are you prepared to open the door to insurgence from within? The Framers were not.

The fact is, Obama is a natural born citizen.

Prove it ... You can't ... Any and all documents that could prove it have been locked away where you can't see them. The fact is, by Obama's own admission, he was also a British citizen at birth --- JUST LIKE THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WERE. Unless Obama also happened to be living at the time the Constitution was adopted, the exception the Framers made for themselves with regard to the "natural born" status does not extend to him. Being a British citizen at birth precludes a "natural born" status.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

This is not about overturning elections. This is about defending the Constitution. It's an unpopular position right now, but I'll stand with the Conservatives. I believe it's what Washington would have done.

So ... Vladimir Putin visits America, knocks up a teenage American girl, fathers a male child, indoctrinates the child into his world views during the child's formative years, and 35 years later buys the U.S. Presidency for the child through the U.S. main stream media. Is that an argument for you?

Well, no, since the scenario you describe wouldn't run afoul of the "natural born citizen" requirement, unless the child was born outside the US. As to proof, unless there's a massive conspiracy which includes hospital bureaucrats, local newspapers (in 1961!) and local and state government officials in Hawaii as well as numerous judges up to and including at least 4 Supreme Court Justices, the proof has been provided to the people who need to see it. I don't have to prove a thing, and I have examined the "proof" that's being circulated by the birth-truthers. It's not just lame; it's Andrew Sullivan lame. (Or do you think Sullivan has a right to Trig's birth certificate too?) Worse, to the extent it gains any traction (which thankfully it's not) it threatens conservatism by making us all look like tin-foil-hatters.

Being a British citizen at birth precludes a "natural born" status.

He was a British subject at birth according to a British law. Should British law affect his status as an American citizen? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and the fact that so many people on this forum have convinced themselves that this is somewhere in the Constitution is troubling.

He was also a US citizen at birth, and therefore "natural born." That's the end of it.