In fiction there is a saying: Coincidence, coincidence...what a coincidence.
It refers to weak, bad or novice writers whose plot turns on a weird, wild coincidence. Stupid readers accept the coincidence w’out comment, but all others reject it. If the writer's plot can't function w’out a certain unlikely coincidence just happening to happen at exactly the right time and place, then it is a pathetic plot that belongs on the dung heap of bad writing.
Yet to you, Obama’s hatred of the USA is sheer coincidence. It has nothing to do w having a foreign father who passionately hated the US, and to whom Obama dedicated his auto-biography. It's also sheer coincidence that Obama is the first POTUS to dedicate such a book to a man who so virulently hated the USA. Being born w divided loyalties has nothing—zero—to do w it, right Tuble?
What's more, you're dead sure the Framers were too stupid to foresee this obvious outcome. It never occurred to them that children w foreign parents (or a foreign parent) and divided loyalties might pose a danger to the Republic. They were just too clueless to draw that most basic and obvious of basic and obvious conclusions.
I asked you for a list of Obama’s actions in office to justify your bizarre belief that half-foreigners are just as loyal to the US as the offspring of citizen parents. Crickets.
You also had nothing to say about Obam’s predictable and entirely understandable perfidy. Since he has divided loyalties, and has made the entirely probable choice of opting for his foreign heritage over his American half, what could be more natural than that he would do what he could to sabotage the USA? He has aggressively alienated our allies, sucked up to our worst enemies, promised to betray us to Russia in his second term, humiliated us again and again on the world stage, crippled us economically, and in general done everything he could to destroy the country he so clearly hates.
Yet in your eyes it's all sheer coincidence. No connection whatsoever to the divided loyalties of Obama’s birth. The ***next*** half-foreign POTUS [i.e.: the one that exists only in your perfervid imagination] will be much better—you've assured us of that.
You're like a racehorse trainer who developes a new training technique. The horse you train via this method comes in dead last in every race. The owner says, ‘Looks like your technique doesn't work.’ You say, ‘It is sheer coincidence the horse is losing. The next one I train will probably win.’
Or you're like a doctor who says to his colleague, ‘I've developed a vaccine. I used standard medical protocol, and I even tested it. It's A-Okay.’
The colleague says, ‘The only patient you tested it on died.’
You say, ‘But the next patient will probably live.’
Obama is living proof of the Framers’ wisdom. That you say otherwise has a limited number of explanations. I'm going for the one that doesn't arise from stupidity. It's the only one that checks all the boxes.
I hadn't thought to look there before yesterday, but someone who reads that entire chapter that I excerpted from cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to the centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.
The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. Having reread it yesterday, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen.
I'm going to assemble all my posts from this thread and simply post Paine's contemporary writings to the eligibility threads from now on.
-PJ