Replies

"That was a great post, and #115 fit the narrative perfectly."

"As such, the Framers did NOT want the spawn of America's foreign enemies to occupy the one office in which they could do the greatest damage.

Any interpretation of NBC which does not act to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the person to be entrusted with wielding the presidential levers of power is contrary to the intent of the Framers who inserted that language which "at common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" into Article II, Section I, Clause V of our founding document.

Yes, it is discriminatory, and with very good reason: to prevent someone like "Obama" from getting in there and wreaking destruction upon the Republic from within. Outside enemies can be guarded against quite effectively. Treachery from within is a much more difficult thing to stop, and is exponentially more dangerous.

Good post. The only thing I'd change is the word ‘discriminatory’. Libs have so co-opted and loaded the term that it fails to accurately convey the Framers’ intention, imho. I would say it's “restrictive”. Now even the wildest-eyed libs can buy into that term. If they don't want it to be okay for, for instance, a ten-year-old to be POTUS, then they've got to sign on to an age restriction.

Well, if you can put certain restrictions on this, the highest office of the land, then restrictions can't innately be wrong/bad. Nor is it wrong to point out the vast difference between a baby raised by Americans vs. one raised by foreigners. One is raised as an *American*. Odds are, the other will be raised w divided loyalty At Best.

At worst, you've got Obama. He is not that singular, however. Many, many foreigners hate the US. And by hate I mean virulently and violently. The problem being, it's easier to cover this stuff up w a foreign or half-foreign entity. That is, it's easier to hide from voters the anti-Americanism of an individual who's been raised by non-Americans, or by an American on foreign soil.

For instance, take Bill Ayers. Liberals love to point to him and say his kids would be eligible to be POTUS. True, but we all know his history. The odds of a well-known domestic terrorist's kids being able to sneak past voters, Obama-style, are too remote to factor.

Yet we all see how it worked w Obama. A true hater of America—and a fervent lover of our enemies—made it in via the ignorance of the average voter. The difference being, liberals love having an anti-American in office, and therefore support the idea of foreigners spawning yet more future POTUSs, while conservatives look at Obama as the ultimate validation of the Framers’ restriction. He is, iow, the exact candidate they tried and intended to spare us. We brushed their restrictions aside, and now we get to watch Obama flush the country down the toilet.

But hey, at least we didn't ‘discriminate’.