“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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They are now using the "nut and slut" argument.
For example the author states:
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
Those who are pressing the issue about Obama's natural birth status are "weird". (Substitute "nut" here.)
The birther phenomenon is predictable form of paranoia
Here those who defend the Constitution are not just a little weird. They are paranoid! ("Paranoid" means certifiably mentally ill!)
given the president's unusually exotic (for a president, anyway) background.
And... Here it is! The ubiquitous slander that those who support and defend the Constitution are racists. In the mind of a progressive Marxist that is even **worse** than being a slut.
You are so right! Drip! Drip! Drip! Obama is beginning to crack!
[[ Lest you forget, I don’t believe the Constitution bars the election of anchor babies, so that’s beside the point. The point I was trying to make is that the loyalty tests provided by “majority rule” is much “higher” (in your terminology) than the Constitutional test (aberrations like Obama—whose past the media, Democratic party leadership, etc. didn’t seem interested in uncovering—notwithstanding).
Also, I think it needs be mentioned that we are not a democracy, and the simple majority does not control who is elected president. We’re not very far removed from democracy (there never really was anything such as pure democracy anyway), but there is this thing called the electoral college, which stands in the way of 50.1% of the population deciding.
I’d also like to clarify that the natural born clause was useful in forestalling wealthy European princes from buying elections. Its use beyond that is unclear t6o me. What do we have to fear from your average anchor baby? He may be disloyal or have split alliegances. But so do regular Americans. The human soul is infinitely corruptable. What’s to prevent us from ferreting out flaws in anchor babies the same way you might have exposed Obama’s flaws (assuming, for the purposes of argument, that Obama’s father had gained citizenship and his mother had maintained proper citizenship). Without power behind them, as in the case of my hypothetical princes, I don’t see the danger. ]]
The poster claims to be a 'clever young fellow'.
Why not just throw out the Constitution and declare 0 president for life? Whoopeee! Would that not be just peachy, you moron, Mr. Keating?