Steyn went off on a hot-headed rant right out of “Rules for Radicals,” so I followed with this:
Mark, I cannot agree with giving up time-honored constitutional principles and turning our government over to people with divided loyalties.
WHY AE YOU MISLEADING THE LISTENERS, MARK? First of all, Obama furnished you guys in the press with a crude fake and you accept it as if it were a gift from God! Basic analysis under Adobe Illustrator shows it to be an overlay and full of alterations.
YOU ARE CONFUSING “NATURAL BORN SUBJECT” of a KING with a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of a NATION. Kindly read the analysis I sent you earlier.
YOU CANNOT DISCUSS NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP without discussing Emerich de Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” (1758).
Neither YOU, nor I, nor the legislature can interpret the Constitution-—only the Supreme Court can do that. Whether they are willing to take such a case or not is a function of BALLS and nothing else.
They know the history. Let them apply it.
Beyond that, the Immigration Law of 1952-—in effect in 1961-—shows that Mattress Annie (Stanley Ann) Dunham was TOO YOUNG to pass on citizenship to baby Barack no matter where he was born.
If you think the eligibility clause of the Constitution is “nuts,” what else do you find “nuts?” The Second Amendment, maybe? Gun ownership!! So out of step with 21st Century life! SCREW MODERN CULTURE AND FASHION! WE NEED VALUES, NOT POPULARITY, IN GOVERNING AMERICA!
Please note in the essay I sent that the 1790 Naturalization law was superceded by the 1795 Naturalization law which rejected common law and Blackstone.
Call me crazy-—at 63, I have been an excellent student, analyst and critical thinker my entire life and I refuse to shut up while some lying, cheating, phoney-baloney Chicago thug politician and his handlers to run roughshod over my country.
We are not England. We don’t have “blood and soil” loyalties here. We have loyalties based on our Constitution. We need to fight for every jot and tittle therein regardless of political fallout!
THE CONSTITUTION, STRICTLY CONSTRUCTED, YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND FOREVER!
AJ, Florida
PS:If you REALLY want to know more about this, look into Leo D’Onofrio’s http://www.naturalborncitizen.com/
D’Onofrio is brilliant.
I think this is the key point or a very important point. If you state that the Constitution is fuzzy on a meaning then you have to find what the original intent was or the prevailing influence of the certain thought was. This was de Vattel for this subject, not all subjects mind you, but this one. If you are going to ignore that this is the case then you are being intellectually dishonest. This leads to cowardice. It is a tough thing to admit that many were duped including ourselves.
Secondly, Mark's suggestion that since Obama's mother was American and she gave birth to Obama in Hawaii is good enough is to not only strip a man of his lineage but the argument is weak at best. Stalin, Castro or Osama could knock up an American girl in the US and then have him/her eligible for the POTUS? Insane!
Also, has he ever really thought why the Founders chose 14 years a resident as an accompanying requirement? It is to hopefully help create a sense of loyalty to America in accordance with the other requirements. They work together. What was so special about the age of 35 back then? Most men were actual men by the age or 16 when our Country was founded. Alexander Hamilton would be considered a mere boy in today's age but would have whipped the pants off anyone today with regards to being accomplished.
Basically, my argument boils down to this...The Founders wanted POTUS nominees by these three exclusive requirements, the most exclusive being the NBC, to ensure the least amount of foreign influence to be able to become the Commander-in-Chief of their newly founded nation. These three requirements ensure the most American blood as eligible of becoming the POTUS.