Replies

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’.

"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."

Agreed, although it's unfortunate that it has been so co-opted, because it's a perfectly serviceable and suitable word to describe how the relevant clause is intended to operate. It discriminates, as in makes a distinction, and also discriminates negatively against office seekers not having the highest level of presumed loyalty to the nation.

"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’."

Just so.