Or, to put it into five very simple words:
They just weren’t that afraid.
They were unafraid to turn the Republic over to an enemy agent who intended to destroy the country from w’in?
If you don’t like the term enemy agent, then explain this. Why has the first and only POTUS [since the original generation of grandfathered citizens died off] w foreign allegiances by birth acted purposefully to destroy the country. I.e.: acted as an enemy agent.
It’s not a coincidence; what Obama has done he has done precisely because he pledged loyalty to his non-American half. & you’re telling me the Framers had no fear of such an agent destroying the USA from w’in, exactly as Obama has done?
[Oh, & the idea that conservatives fear Obama is a mainstream liberal talking point. One of their most obnoxious. I don’t fear him. I regard him as what he is: a self-professed foreigner who hates the USA. You do the math.]
They just weren’t that afraid.
Or in even simpler terms, you're wrong.
Now I wonder whose idea it was to prohibit foreign influence in the Executive branch? Don't tell me.... I'm sure the name will come to me eventually...
Anyways, here's a few quotes.
George Washington:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Alexander Hamilton:
Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.
Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793
John Adams:
Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us, more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations. Nothing but our inflexible neutrality can preserve us.
-John Adams(Letter in the Boston Patriot,1809)
John Jay, Federalist Number 3:
At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes.
No, they weren't worried about Foreign influence in our Government at all.
“Or, to put it into five very simple words:
They just weren’t that afraid [of people w foreign allegiances getting into the WH & purposefully destroying the country].”
Thank you, thank you, thank you JW. You finally made my point in such clear, irrefutable terms that even low information people can grasp it. Thank you!
You have said, in so many words, there was ZERO benefit to the Republic in allowing persons w foreign allegiance into the WH. ZERO.
Over against no advantage WHATSOEVER, we see the incalculable risk of allowing someone, such as BHO, to occupy the highest office in the land. W his self-stated primary allegiance to his non/anti-American foreign affiliation [which he came by via birth], he is ruling as an enemy agent, doing everything in his power to destroy the country he admits to hating. [He hates it as a direct result of his foreign allegiance. According to him, white man’s greed is the reason places like Kenya suffer. Had we not taken advantage of their people as slaves, we wouldn’t have wealth today. So of course we need to be divested of all our wealth & power, so it can be given back to Obama’s self-stated “true homeland”.]
Just in case you missed what you did, allow me to offer an analogy.
A leading medical research dr. is asked about a certain vaccine. It is cheap, risk-free, readily available, and 100 percent effective against a deadly disease. Yet the dr. refuses to receive the vaccination. He is asked, ‘What medical, health or other type of benefit is there to foregoing this vaccination?’
He says, ‘No benefit whatsoever. It’s just that I am not afraid’.
A short time later he contracts the disease & dies. So his one great ‘benefit’ (for eschewing the vaccination) was actually a fatal liability. His lack of fear directly brought about his death.
Yet you claim the Framers were wise & insightful enough to weigh the risk of an Obama-like traitor [i.e.: one who is an enemy agent precisely BECAUSE he has foreign allegiances via birth] & opted not to safeguard the Republic because “they just weren’t that afraid”.
Iow, they considered the potential destruction of the Republic no big deal.
The assertion is lunatic on its face.
But it does make my point w flying colors.
I.e.: there were only huge, major upsides to keeping those w divided loyalties out of the WH, and ZERO benefit to be gained by letting them in. [Unless of course you, like Obama, desire the destruction of the USA. Then it would look like a major plus, at least to you. Otherwise, face it: the Framers were just not that reckless or stupid.]
Thanks again for a job well done.