Posted on 07/16/2009 8:01:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The weirdly persistant belief held by many Americans that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States has been back in the news lately thanks to Major Stefan Cook, the "birther" soldier who was granted has requested conscientious objector status because he refused to fight for a president he believes is illegitimate. There's also a bill gathering some support in the House that would change election law to require candidates to prove their citizenship.
The birther phenomenon is predictable form of paranoia given the president's unusually exotic (for a president, anyway) background. But isn't the larger scandal that the anachronistic natural-born citizenship requirement in Article II of the constitution still even exists?
Let's imagine that Barack Obama had been born in Indonesia or Kenya or anywhere else for that matter, and hadn't become a citizen until moving to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Is there one good reason why that would make him less fit to be president?
Put another way, is there one good reason why foreign-born governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't legally run for president but Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin can?
Naturalized citizens like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeline Albright have been allowed into the highest positions in the U.S. national security establishment without anyone questioning their loyalty. Why shouldn't voters be allowed to decide whether a foreign-born candidate is American enough to be president?
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
Is there one good reason why that would make him less fit to be president?
Divided loyalties.
Yup! That’s exactly why it matters. America doesn’t need a Marxist dictator who wants to turn this country into a banana republic with EVERYONE except ‘RAT politicians living in poverty.
From: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
"An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he as sumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution."
We spent a generation fighting the Cold War against communists. What if our President is proven to be a communist?
Sooo, Now What?
Well, I can think of several pretty good reasons why this should disqualify him for POTUS.
1. It violates the Constitution of the US, which the POTUS solemnly swears to uphold and follow.
2. It means that he is a liar, a forger, and an all-around crook.
3. It’s not true that he later became an American citizen. There is no record of his ever applying for citizenship.
4. We don’t really need a corrupt, criminal, American-hating Communist-Muslim foreigner as President of the United States.
Didn’t the author read the Constitution???
I’ll tell you in three words, RULE OF LAW.
1. He spent the formative years of his childhood embedded in an anti-West, anti-USA culture.
The comments at the article site seem to focus on the notion that a native-born citizen is inherently more loyal than one born in another country, even if he moved here as an infant.
This seems a rather silly argument, as we have massive evidence that very large numbers of indisputably natural-born Americans are aggressively anti-American.
Nor was Stalin a Russian.
“NOW it’s that the Constitutional requirement is outdated.”
Well if he think this he can try to have an amendment passed.
Good luck!
It is now paranoia to want the truth to be revealed.
I was thinking Napoleon Bonaparte. Remember the first rule of French warfare.
They have the power to decide that today. It's called "amending the Constitution of the United States."
and..this “article” also got in a sort-of slam on Sarah Palin..equating her with sanford..at least he didn’t say, “Bush’s fault!”..
“Ah yes. Here it comes. The drip-drip-drip method of information is progressing very well. Now they’re up to the part where they say, well, does it really matter anyway? BamBam is so woooonderful, so good for us, so uniting, so brilliant, so representative, so fulfilling of the dream.... does it really matter if he doesn’t, you know, technically meet the requirements?”
Exactly! BTTT!
We can expect to see many more of these types of ‘stories’ in the coming weeks as this thing heats up. Rahm and Obama have obviously sent the word out to their brownshirts in the media.
Just more trash from another America-hating lib idiot.
Let's see, not only would that make him ineligible to be POTUS, it also means he is guilty of fraud, forgery......IDIOT!
Gee, that's funny, I remember their loyalty being questioned many times.
How many indeed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.