I don’t believe he is a conservative. I did originally but I have altered my view.
Being a conservative is partly about how you think & reason. Conservatives use common sense, in addition to other types of analysis. From a common sense perspective, I once asked myself, ‘What advantage would the Framers have seen in inviting persons w foreign allegiances/divided loyalties to seek the highest office of the land?”
Put another way, I wondered what advantage to the Republic the Framers would have envisioned if a person w natural foreign allegiance to a country other than the USA was not only free to seek the highest office, but actually won the election. How would that have worked out for the Republic?
Obviously it would work out exactly the way it IS working out. Obama set out to destroy this country, and he has succeeded to an irreparable degree. Of course the Framers envisioned nothing less, and sought to debar such individuals from gaining the power to destroy the union (from w’in) in the first place.
Jeff Winston cannot provide a simple, concise answer to the question, ‘What advantage did the Framers envision from opening the WH to persons w foreign allegiances by birth?’ He will go to any length to avoid giving a short, coherent answer to that question. In fact, he responds to that question exactly as a liberal would.
Yes, there are Republicans who think those w foreign allegiances by birth should have access to the WH. But not everyone who thinks this way is a Republican by a long shot.
Conservatives value adherence to the Constitution, and traditional values. I value adherence to the Constitution, fidelity to the Founding Fathers, and the TRUTH.
Not what you wish the truth were. And not what I wish it was, either. What it actually is.
Jeff Winston cannot provide a simple, concise answer to the question, ‘What advantage did the Framers envision from opening the WH to persons w foreign allegiances by birth?’ He will go to any length to avoid giving a short, coherent answer to that question. In fact, he responds to that question exactly as a liberal would.
As someone else has said, I don't think they thought about it very much. There were FAR bigger fish to fry: The question of slavery, for one. The balance of power between small States and large States.
If you don't understand what an enormous problem the issue of slavery was to those trying to put a real country together out of 13 largely-autonomous States, you haven't done much reading.
Secondly, I don't think it ever OCCURRED to them that someone born whose parents were immigrants who had not naturalized might have any lack of allegiance. People didn't travel internationally in those days anywhere near as much as we do, and even to get news from Europe took literally months.
Third, this particular kind of "foreign influence" wasn't their only concern. As one of the Framers pointed out in the discussions regarding our legislators, the real problem wasn't so much people of foreign birth - or even further away from that, people whose PARENTS had foreign birth - it was native-born Americans being BRIBED by foreign powers.
Like the Clintons getting campaign contributions from the Chinese.
Beyond that, what "advantage" did they contemplate? If there was one, it was only the same "advantage" by which James Madison, Father of the Constitution, said that citizenship requirements for our legislators ought properly to be kept OUT of the Constitution itself. Madison felt (in that case, at least) that it lent a "tincture of illiberality" to our Founding document.
And beyond that, what advantage? None at all. Just because they didn't forbid a thing doesn't mean they thought it was ideal. They didn't expressly forbid swindlers from being President, either. That doesn't mean they condoned them.
Now I know that's not a "simple, concise" answer. I suppose I could try to dumb it down for you. But that's THE answer, whether you like its simplicity and conciseness or not.