This is beyond stupid.
Now, for this particular poster, he resembles the ridiculous religiosity of the Christian dad in Ken Park going over the Bible verses with a magnifying glass. Birthers are straddling the fence between moonbat idiots and "You got a point" greenery. Birthers (and truthers) are the bottom barrel of politics.
* If we read the eligibility in a modern lens then that basically disqualifies probably the most intelligent person on the GOP side to run for president in the past decade. As I read about this issue online, another poster noted that at the time of the writing the position of the POTUS needed a person to have undying loyalty to the country - so no loyalty to Britain or to France or to Mexico etc. At that time American citizenship was the stamp of a non-traitorous candidate.
Now, in the case of Obama it's rather clear his version of a strong America is a traitorous version. He is a 'natural born' US citizen according to statutes. I don't believe he's a Muslim, but I do think he's protecting the religion and the extreme aspects of it for whatever reason. I can see why the writers wanted a person to have America in his best interest, so their emphasis on country loyalty only to America stands. But I don't see why Obama's rise to presidency and his actions would put Cruz in the hot seat in terms of country loyalty. Obama wasn't reciting the constitution and the Bill of Rights around Hawaii as Cruz was in Texas during his high school days.
Take me for instance. I was born in the US to two immigrants who dropped their homeland citizenship for American citizenship years before I was born. Here's the thing: I have an affinity towards my parents homeland but if I ran for president, reached as far as any of the GOP candidates have so far, my loyalty and citizenship would receive little to no vetting. (Well, according to poster who I quoted I would questioned since Jindal was listed, even though Jindal was born the US and has been in the US since his birth.) If I supported amnesty that would be rather traitorous, but "All American" Jeb Bush does and he passed the 'natural born' criteria with flying colors. His wife is Latino, now will the birthers say that everyone must have a spouse that is American born - naturally - and must be of second generation if they're non-white?
I see this whole birther thing the same way I see people saying "Not conservative enough" (and a good number are Trump fans -- maybe these groups overlap?): ridiculous and is a fine example of idiocy.
If I had it my way, I'd clarify on citizenship for eligibility for POTUS on two grounds:
(1) *naturally born and raised in the US or
(2) naturalized citizen
* By at least one US citizen or by legally immigrated residents
I'd eliminate citizenship for babies born to an American parent on a military base and apply (2) to them.This would go against the Nationality Act of 1940.
It's that simple.
The whole 'natural born' is outdated since The Founding Fathers feared that someone would have dual loyalty to another country (as I previously mentioned, England). Given the circumstances they were under it makes sense since the US was a newly formed country. They needed players who'd only play for their team - Team USA.
But let's go back to Obama. Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His mother is an American and his father is clearly from Africa without any loyalty to the US or to his wife (sorry, Mama Obama, your heart and loins created a traitor, and should've kept your legs closed). He's cleared to become POTUS. He's nominated and carries out his presidency in the way that is now known. It's still a lose lose situation.
This is why "country loyalty" when backed by "natural citizen" is rather shaky. It does not guarantee anything. This is where the eyes, the ears and minds of the American people should be the vetting machine; the constituents should be ones who decide on whether or not the candidate has the country's interest in mind. Of course, a morally sound and self-educated populace is the ideal.
In short, this is my views of the 'natural born' criteria:
It's an outdated concept, though the meaning behind it still is important. Loyalty to America should be seen through actions and words -- not whether if ones parents are citizens of the US at the time of birth with you being born in the US. We have American who perfectly fits the 'natural born' criteria who hates what the country stands for and would love to move to France, Brazil or Sweden. If Cruz, Rubio and Jindal were disqualified then 2016 would be a Trump GOP nomination with G_d knows who as VP. Are you serious?
Is the 2nd Amendment outdated? Nope. Does the 14th Amendment, under the "equal protection" clause support same-sex "marriage"? Nope. At worst it's agnostic. At best the Found Fathers would laugh at the "evolution" of marriage.
In this rare moment, I will deem The Constitution as outdated.
Here's my problem with Cruz, Rubio and Jindal: They are all Naturalized Citizen of the US, at best; maybe, they are not *Natural Born Citizens of the US. Their birth citizenship follows their father’s, not the mother’s in the case of Cruz. Cruz, born in Canada, his father's citizenship was Cuban, his mother's citizenship is US; in the case of Rubio, born his father's citizenship was Cuban as was his mother’s, and in the case of Jindal, born his father's citizenship was Indian as was his mother’s; the Law of Nations explains this very well and it’s in the 1st volume of Vattel's Law of Nations... So why do they feel they are eligible for POTUS when they clearly know they are not?
Because Obama refused to show is birth certificate and got elected does our Constitution become irrelevant for all future elections?
Are they simply self-serving their ego? Are they misleading the people who support them? Are they really Progressives trying to hide in Conservative clothes?
The key to this issue, in my opinion, is in the first sentence of Amendment XIV: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; jurisdiction can only apply if one has legal standing to be in our nation. Illegal aliens have no standing and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction since they are here illegally. Therefore, any off springs born of them is also illegal when born here. This reason that foreign diplomat’s, who are posted here, children born to them here are not US citizens by birth since these diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction.
Senator Jason M Howard (1866) the author of the 14th Amendment explained this is his published writing and state:
Amendment XIV
Section I.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any per son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.
Senator Jacob M Howard (MI) 1866 author of the 14th Amendment wrote:
I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by the virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Our Founding Father used the Law of Nation as a reference source when forming our nation and drafting our Constitution and therefore the Law of Nations more definitively describes the requirement referred to in Article II of our Constitution, read this from Volume One:
§212. Citizens and natives.
"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."With Obama, birthers had more grounds to question his validity as a US citizen. When he refused to show his birth certificate, that brought up red flags. But his he was actually born in Hawaii by an American mother, so the birthers lost. Then when people could barely remember Obama at both Harvard and Columbia, the birthers were sorta saved from the whole "wacky-right" label. But still, his mother was an American citizen who gave birth to Obama on American soil.
Now, for this particular poster, he resembles the ridiculous religiosity of the Christian dad in Ken Park going over the Bible verses with a magnifying glass. Birthers are straddling the fence between moonbat idiots and "You got a point" greenery. Birthers (and truthers) are the bottom barrel of politics.
* If we read the eligibility in a modern lens then that basically disqualifies probably the most intelligent person on the GOP side to run for president in the past decade. As I read about this issue online, another poster noted that at the time of the writing the position of the POTUS needed a person to have undying loyalty to the country - so no loyalty to Britain or to France or to Mexico etc. At that time American citizenship was the stamp of a non-traitorous candidate.
Now, in the case of Obama it's rather clear his version of a strong America is a traitorous version. He is a 'natural born' US citizen according to statutes. I don't believe he's a Muslim, but I do think he's protecting the religion and the extreme aspects of it for whatever reason. I can see why the writers wanted a person to have America in his best interest, so their emphasis on country loyalty only to America stands. But I don't see why Obama's rise to presidency and his actions would put Cruz in the hot seat in terms of country loyalty. Obama wasn't reciting the constitution and the Bill of Rights around Hawaii as Cruz was in Texas during his high school days.
Take me for instance. I was born in the US to two immigrants who dropped their homeland citizenship for American citizenship years before I was born. Here's the thing: I have an affinity towards my parents homeland but if I ran for president, reached as far as any of the GOP candidates have so far, my loyalty and citizenship would receive little to no vetting. (Well, according to poster who I quoted I would questioned since Jindal was listed, even though Jindal was born the US and has been in the US since his birth.) If I supported amnesty that would be rather traitorous, but "All American" Jeb Bush does and he passed the 'natural born' criteria with flying colors. His wife is Latino, now will the birthers say that everyone must have a spouse that is American born - naturally - and must be of second generation if they're non-white?
I see this whole birther thing the same way I see people saying "Not conservative enough" (and a good number are Trump fans -- maybe these groups overlap?): ridiculous and is a fine example of idiocy.
If I had it my way, I'd clarify on citizenship for eligibility for POTUS on two grounds:
(1) *naturally born and raised in the US or
(2) naturalized citizen
* By at least one US citizen or by legally immigrated residents
I'd eliminate citizenship for babies born to an American parent on a military base and apply (2) to them.This would go against the Nationality Act of 1940.
It's that simple.
The whole 'natural born' is outdated since The Founding Fathers feared that someone would have dual loyalty to another country (as I previously mentioned, England). Given the circumstances they were under it makes sense since the US was a newly formed country. They needed players who'd only play for their team - Team USA.
But let's go back to Obama. Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His mother is an American and his father is clearly from Africa without any loyalty to the US or to his wife (sorry, Mama Obama, your heart and loins created a traitor, and should've kept your legs closed). He's cleared to become POTUS. He's nominated and carries out his presidency in the way that is now known. It's still a lose lose situation.
This is why "country loyalty" when backed by "natural citizen" is rather shaky. It does not guarantee anything. This is where the eyes, the ears and minds of the American people should be the vetting machine; the constituents should be ones who decide on whether or not the candidate has the country's interest in mind. Of course, a morally sound and self-educated populace is the ideal.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
- President John Adams, 1798And let's not forget journalism - this is were MSM should also do its job and vet each candidate's policies and their character.
In short, this is my views of the 'natural born' criteria:
It's an outdated concept, though the meaning behind it still is important. Loyalty to America should be seen through actions and words -- not whether if ones parents are citizens of the US at the time of birth with you being born in the US. We have American who perfectly fits the 'natural born' criteria who hates what the country stands for and would love to move to France, Brazil or Sweden. If Cruz, Rubio and Jindal were disqualified then 2016 would be a Trump GOP nomination with G_d knows who as VP. Are you serious?
Is the 2nd Amendment outdated? Nope. Does the 14th Amendment, under the "equal protection" clause support same-sex "marriage"? Nope. At worst it's agnostic. At best the Found Fathers would laugh at the "evolution" of marriage.
In this rare moment, I will deem The Constitution as outdated.
No comments :
Post a Comment