In 2004? The man is either a prophet or he knew what was going on.
Barney Franks? It was a deliberate in-your-face remark. And, those too dumb to notice were primarily voters for his own Democrat party.
This Constitutional eligibility issue has clearly been discussed at length, from at least 2004 right up until Barack Obama was nominated, which reveals the media embargo, stonewalling and mockery of the past year and a half for exactly what it is, propaganda.
I’d say the latter -— “he knew what was going on.”
after the Obama Convention Speech
Congressman Barney Frank [D-MA] speaks as a witness to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his belief that the people of the United States should be able to elect a president of their choosing, even if that candidate is not a natural-born citizen. (1:00)
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004
http://talkradionews.com/page/7/?s=barney+frank
A prophet .... maybe .. or someone
who knew the evil doings that were
afoot.
I think I’ll go with the latter .. ;)
McDonald: The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable (despite the War Powers Act and similar efforts) is the president's power as commander in chief. Can that power be safely entrusted to a foreign-born citizen? John Jay didn't think so; nor do I; nor I suspect do the vast majority of Americans. Let us consider a few scenarios. Start with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of a number of countries, doubtless including the United States, have sometimes employed what in the spy novel is called an agent under deep cover. A young person is thoroughly trained and indoctrinated before being sent to an enemy country, where he or she becomes a citizen and an exemplar of respectable behavior. This goes on for years, even decades, until the parent agency determines that it is time to activate the agent. It is not difficult to imagine such a person obtaining an office of great trust. But a Senator is one of 100, and a Representative is one of 435. What check is there on the president who is one of one, except for the constitutional restriction? Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Should that seem too remote a possibility, consider a more likely case. A person comes to America from country ''X'' as a young man, takes out citizenship, become thoroughly Americanized, and is as loyal to his adopted country as can be. Nonetheless, in dealing with his original country he is bound to be influenced by his nativity, whether in the form of hostility or favoritism. Even should he prove able to rise above his prejudices and deal with the old country objectively, he would still be widely regarded as prejudiced, and the media would fan such suspicions. As commander in chief, it is not enough to be above reproach, one must be above the suspicion of reproach.
Frank: The problem I have with that Manchurian Candidate scenario of yours is that precisely the Manchurian Candidate was an American. The fact was that if we have this really omniscient foreign power—and I think I should say that in our entire history we have apparently had no examples of an elected official being planted from overseas, we have had no examples of a foreign country doing that, because as you have said, we have the House and the Senate, we have the Supreme Court, and there are other important positions. And I am not aware that anybody has ever succeeded in planting that mole here and have him or her grow into prominence and then be an elected official. But if you were going to do that, there would be no need to do it with one of your own nationals. As a matter of fact, it would be far cleverer to pick an American. There are Americans of a wide range of loyalties and ideologies. In fact, many of the most prominent spies have been native-born Americans.