Facts Are Stubborn Things


The fact that he’s from Kenya, and the fact that when he was elected  there were expectations on the African continent that he would do great things for them.”

Oh reeeeeeeally!

So, here we have a MSNBC reporter going full birther, and no one even blinks at it. ( BTW, someone better archive that clip.)  And she makes a critical statement when she tells us that there were expectations on the “African continent that he would do great things for them. “

Why would they expect an AMERICAN president to help them specifically? 

BECAUSE he is “from Africa”.

Because, whether born in America or in Kenya, obama was born a dual-citizen. Throughout his life, in his actions and in his writings,  he has indicated that he has divided loyalties.  Having divided loyalties, logically he can be expected to give preferential treatment to a country he is not elected to serve, and he cannot be relied upon to behave strictly in the best interest of America.  The whole entire Continent of Africa has expectations – think about that carefully. 

It is a fact that all American presidents do good things for countries and people other than strictly their own United States.  The potential for “great expectations” based on birth favoritism should not play any role in the career of an American president.  There should not even be the hint of such a thing.  This is why our Founders limited the office to those who were natural-born Citizens.

That is all I have to say about that.

Oh, and that reporter is clearly racist.





~ by ladysforest on August 6, 2014.

6 Responses to “Facts Are Stubborn Things”

  1. To Albert1814; I have your comments sitting in moderation. They are sitting there while I contemplate my response to you. You cannot play both ends against the middle, not here.

    • Still excited to read that response to my comments. I guess I’m just to “Stubborn” to give up!

      • Actually, you post very similar comments to two different threads, and you do not support your opinion in any way, rather you “split” your conclusions. Classic example of trolling, which I do not allow on this blog. It is disruptive to genuine conversation, debate and the exchange of opinion.

        Example: “Article 2 makes the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, in order to include those born in Europe themselves who adopted the USA as their homeland.”NBC,
        Then you go here, “The problem is the Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen” and leaves it up to Congress to define citizenship law. The USC makes clear that Obama can be president, because his mother was a US citizen and met the in-country residence requirements. It doesn’t matter where he was born for that purpose. It doesn’t matter what historical writings and the opinions of a bunch of dead guys are outside the Constitution. They disagreed on everything. “NBC
        and you also state, as fact,
        “Unless Obama’s mother was not really a US citizen, Obama meets the definition of a citizen under the law that is required to be president. He meets it as much as the first 10 presidents, 9 of whom were not born in this country.”FAST.

        You are throwing things against the wall to get a reaction, to provoke, so that you can do your, “Congress says anyone born as a citizen qualifies.” Congress does not define natural born Citizen, any more than the Constitution does. Congress sets citizenship laws for those that are NOT citizens, or for those whose citizenship may be in question. They deal with NATURALIZATION.

        It isn’t “left up” to Congress, it is a power specifically given to Congress. It is a power that did NOT ever impact who was a natural born Citizen, because clearly that class of citizenship was in existence at the time of the signing, hence it’s “undefined” inclusion in the Constitution. How can the Congress define, or pass legitimate law to MAKE someone into a natural born Citizen, if when at the exact same moment in history the Constitution gave them power to write immigration/NATURALIZATION law, the class of “natural born Citizen” was already well established, existed and indeed INCLUDED in that same Constitution and has never been enumerated as a form of citizenship that would be subject to naturalization laws?

        Sadly for us, the intent to destroy the final remaining protection against foreign usurpation of the most powerful position in this great country has progressed slowly, relentlessly, and with undeniable success over the past century. The importance and understanding of which has been reduced to the profound incomprehensible presumption of those who truly believe …

        ” It doesn’t matter what historical writings and the opinions of a bunch of dead guys are outside the Constitution. They disagreed on everything.”

        • Maybe the problem is you don’t like people who don’t agree with you.

          What specific evidence are you demanding? I’m referencing the Constitution and the law as the evidence. I mean, do you want me to prove the Constitution exists? That the US Code of Law exists? There is no evidence for people who REFUSE to listen and investigate matters for themselves. Why don’t YOU prove your case – start by showing me where the Constitution defines a natural born citizen and show me where Congress does NOT have the authority to make citizenship law.

          I’m not trying to provoke anything. Congress has defined many times in history what a citizen is by birth, and what a naturalized citizen is. Congress has this authority under the Constitution. And Congress has made no distinction between a “natural born” citizen and any other person who is a citizen at birth as defined in USC 8 Section 1401. Read it yourself.

          It’s silly. You want to go back to the ORIGINAL definition of a citizen? I bet you don’t.

          Under this code, Obama IS a citizen of the USA, UNLESS someone can prove his mother is not a citizen, or she did not fulfill the residency requirements.

  2. And it really does NOT matter what a bunch of dead guys who disagreed on everything thought. I think you’re the one with a mixed up perspective. The founding fathers didn’t write a Constitution that made THEM the perpetual arbiters of all things American. They created a representational republic governed by and for the people, and created for them a Constitutional framework that allowed for change and broad exercise of state and local power.

    • You just proved my point.
      You are a troll.
      An uneducated asshole.
      Do not post on my blog again because you will be deleted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: