I just don’t see how anybody gets around the ‘divided loyalty’ part. Obama is the living, breathing personification/epitome of divided loyalties. He’s everything the Founders tried to preclude. How anyone can argue otherwise is becoming increasingly suspect. What would Obama do differently, if his stated goal was to harm the US to the benefit of our nation’s enemies?
Absolutely nothing.
“I just don’t see how anybody gets around the ‘divided loyalty’ part. Obama is the living, breathing personification/epitome of divided loyalties.”
That’s what is so maddening about all of this bs obfuscation and the red herring birthplace arguments. If “Obama”’s father is really who he says (and I have serious doubts about that, as with everything about this dude), then he’s obviously disqualified from office. No divided loyalties. It’s really simple. The founders wanted to provide a “strong check” against foreign influence by deeming in the Constitution that only citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or the progeny of said citizens would be qualified to hold the highest office in the land. That’s why the standard is higher than for any other office in the government.
Some argue that the founders put that into the Constitution because they were worried about the vulnerability of the newly-born country and that such doesn’t matter now. Baloney. It matters as much as ever, as evidenced by the destructive, America-hating usurper posing as pResident this very moment. On that note, while I enjoy venting on forums as much as the next person, patriots who want to actually get involved, real-time in getting the word out to our fellow citizenry on the “Obama” fraud should check out http://obamafake.blogspot.com/
If not you, who? If not now, when?