Thursday, December 1, 2011

About that erroneous CRS report.

I just want somebody to explain why if Mr. Maskell is supposedly right, the Founding Fathers felt the need to change the original language in the Constitution from "born a  citizen", to requiring a "Natural born citizen" instead?

How does a person who is only born here of foreign citizen parents, have allegiance to only this country alone, as opposed to the country of which his parents are citizens of?
In reality, how could they not have dual allegiances, and what side would they back if a problem occurred between the country in which they were born, versus the country of their parents?

I will never believe that the Founding Fathers intended for those who were born here of foreign parents to be eligible to be the President of this country, since they do not have complete and sole allegiance to this country alone, due to not being the child of citizen parents of this country.
If they had meant for the requirement to mean only that the President be born here, they would not have changed the language from "born a citizen", to instead requiring that the President be a "Natural born citizen".
There is a distinct difference of sole allegiance.

We have given the codes and the keys to this Nation to someone that we really don't even know.
I am also sure that the Founding Fathers would not of have approved of that either.