[rxsid]

"However what is much more disturbing is that under such a ruling the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA during their father’s long tenure here are eligible for POTUSA. I believe this is the very point of the Founding Fathers expressed concern and wording concerning eligibility. Of course I do not want a Sharia law advocate for POTUSA.

Citizen parents weren't required

=======================================================================

That's simply not true.

For example, see the case of James McClure. He was born in the U.S. in 1785 and wasn't even considered a "citizen" (let alone a "natural born Citizen") until after his British citizen father naturalized a U.S. citizen.

[Jeff Winston]

This is going to be my last response to the string of fallacies you've started posting, and will undoubtedly continue with. I make it simply to illustrate (once again) that birther arguments ARE made up of fallacies and nonsense.

For example, see the case of James McClure. He was born in the U.S. in 1785 and wasn't even considered a "citizen" (let alone a "natural born Citizen") until after his British citizen father naturalized a U.S. citizen.

Simply not true. The United States government sent a letter on McClure's behalf, declaring that he was a United States citizen. I've seen what they wrote. In that letter, they didn't say jack about his father's nationality, good or bad. Their basis for declaring that he was a US citizen was simply that McClure had been BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. Period.

It's been fun, but at this point it gets tedious. If others want to debunk the rest of your spew of fallacies, they're welcome to it. I have better things to do.